• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

I’m thinking the answer with regards to the MEU was a question of no kidding lift capability and time/distance much more than being super parochial with assets (although I don’t doubt that played some factor).

@ChuckMK23, AFAIK the MEU SOC designation went away sometime in the late 2000s
 
hscs said:
IMHO, if USMC wants to pick a fight over number of L class, they have completely missed the point. USN can’t maintain what it has, so what makes you think that having more ships is the answer?
Click to expand...

I can name about 5 locations off the top of my head that would make you think very hard about having more ships. Do you want the Army doing high risk Entebbe style raids every time something goes down? The Navy does not provide enough funding for amphibious capabilities and doesn’t prioritize L-class ships. It’s pretty simple.

ChuckMK23 said:
Is 'MEU-SOC' no longer a thing?
Click to expand...

Nope. That tag line was intended to advertise and provide options back in the 80s and 90s that previously didn’t exist. Those capabilities are now all inherent METs on standard MEUs. The MEU also typically has a SOF LNO (SOCOM 0-5) onboard and a forward deployed Marine LNO at the respective SOCOM component staff in theater.

The conflicts in the SW Asia are drawing down and SOCOM is now trying to find better relevance again. There are conversations about SOCOM/Marine increasing integration and the complementary capabilities available for CR and GPC. The SOF community is having just as much of an identity crisis as other services with the strategic shift. A Recent MEU went out with an NSW team onboard.
 
Hotdogs said:
I can name about 5 locations off the top of my head that would make you think very hard about having more ships. Do you want the Army doing high risk Entebbe style raids every time something goes down? The Navy does not provide enough funding for amphibious capabilities and doesn’t prioritize L-class ships. It’s pretty simple.



Nope. That tag line was intended to advertise and provide options back in the 80s and 90s that previously didn’t exist. Those capabilities are now all inherent METs on standard MEUs. The MEU also typically has a SOF LNO (SOCOM 0-5) onboard and a forward deployed Marine LNO at the respective SOCOM component staff in theater.

The conflicts in the SW Asia are drawing down and SOCOM is now trying to find better relevance again. There are conversations about SOCOM/Marine increasing integration and the complementary capabilities available for CR and GPC. The SOF community is having just as much of an identity crisis as other services with the strategic shift. A Recent MEU went out with an NSW team onboard.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. Even if the Navy buys more L class hulls, what good are they if they are constantly in maintenance? Improve the readiness of what you have first before you buy more.
 
hscs said:
I think you missed my point. Even if the Navy buys more L class hulls, what good are they if they are constantly in maintenance? Improve the readiness of what you have first before you buy more.
Click to expand...
Hotdogs said:
The Navy does not provide enough funding for amphibious capabilities and doesn’t prioritize L-class ships. It’s pretty simple.
Click to expand...

No I fully understood what you meant. Some of the current hulls haven’t been maintained due to a lack of maintenance and are very old. They’re moored up and unable to get underway because the Navy has other priorities both from a facilities and funding stand point. The Navy can routinely pump out numerous CRUDES, SSNs, and CVNs on schedule, but somehow can’t maintain fleet logistics ships and L-Class hulls. It’s basic phase tree maintenance planning that is getting messed up. Color me skeptical.
 
Hotdogs said:
No I fully understood what you meant. Some of the current hulls haven’t been maintained due to a lack of maintenance and are very old. They’re moored up and unable to get underway because the Navy has other priorities both from a facilities and funding stand point. The Navy can routinely pump out numerous CRUDES, SSNs, and CVNs on schedule, but somehow can’t maintain fleet logistics ships and L-Class hulls. It’s basic phase tree maintenance planning that is getting messed up. Color me skeptical.
Click to expand...
It isn’t greener on the other side - DDGs are about the only thing coming close to ‘On time’
 
Hotdogs said:
No I fully understood what you meant. Some of the current hulls haven’t been maintained due to a lack of maintenance and are very old. They’re moored up and unable to get underway because the Navy has other priorities both from a facilities and funding stand point. The Navy can routinely pump out numerous CRUDES, SSNs, and CVNs on schedule, but somehow can’t maintain fleet logistics ships and L-Class hulls. It’s basic phase tree maintenance planning that is getting messed up. Color me skeptical.
Click to expand...
First of all, no they can’t. Most of those ships aren’t on time coming out of the yard, either, and many don’t make it INTO the yard on time, compounding the problem.

Second of all, the reason CRUDES and CVNs tend to be more available (I don’t know about SSNs) is because those dollars and resources are taken from maintenance of other ships- essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It’s just like a squadron where the one up jet gets ridden hard and put away wet, until it breaks, and then the NEXT jet gets ridden hard, because budgets and depot delays. And CAG wonders why T&R isn’t all green… it’s because there aren’t sufficient resources to fix everything.

The Navy won’t be able to really solve this problem without buy-in from the top, and the COCOMs, who push the demand signal through the roof with no regard for material force readiness.
 
Last edited:
sevenhelmet said:
First of all, no they can’t. Most of those ships aren’t on time coming out of the yard, either, and many don’t make it INTO the yard on time, compounding the problem.

Second of all, the reason CRUDES and CVNs tend to be more available (I don’t know about SSNs) is because those dollars and resources are taken from maintenance of other ships- essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see a BMD or CVN gap that couldn’t support 5th or 7th fleets. Your argument doesn’t hold any water when a nice photoex occurs with 3 giant carriers are sailing next to each other, and then blasted all over social media. It is easy to blame the COCOMs and that’s been the excuse for the last decade, but every single one of those entities has a service component staff to advise GFM decisions based on service input. Don’t act like there isn’t a feedback loop.

The solution cannibalizes other ships and funding to ensure those ships get underway, but when it comes to L-Class we’ll throw the Marines under the bus. How come people aren’t discussing emplacing shore based BMD for the 94th AAMDC or 5th Air Force assets in theater but when the Marines have a lack of surface mobility - screw it well just send in some one else?

A major NEO, HADR event, embassy reinforcement, or TRAP event is a much likelier event than most missions that CRUDES and CVNs provide outside of deterrence and assured access (which are both very important). As a taxpayer why do we even have a service that can’t fulfill its title 10 responsibility?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top