"Buy capability now" - yes, yes, and yes. Hulls wherever you can find them, damn the country of origin.
A couple of years ago, I made a joking suggestion about a "daiquiri Navy" where we just peel off a couple of billion and start buying 5-10 year old superyachts traded in by fickle owners. Maybe this is not such a crazy idea. Teach kids some marketable skills in diesel mechanics, and have the capability to put 30 or 50 surveillance and potentially defensive platforms in the Taiwan Strait or SCS as needs require. And plus, if the PLAN wants to go hot, will they really start going after things that look like yachts? They might sink a buddy of Xi's and will think twice.
And a great platform to grow future leaders commanding a small crew.
It takes 15 years to grow a barely competent CO for a frigate sized ship. It will take more than a few more shipyards to build and more on top of that to maintain the force built. Time and money. Both need the will of strong leaders in Congress administered by a competent administration. National will. Keep pressing. This is Policy War. 600 ship Navy was a simple goal in the ‘80s. Make it so again. God Speed on your work on the committee. Change is hard. Change takes time. Change takes WILL.
One element not discussed was the human resources needed to crew and operate the increased number of platforms and systems. The Navy must rapidly develop and implement new approaches and programs across the career life cycle. This will be especially important in a ~3% unemployment rate economy. The Navy cannot continue with the OPTEMPO of recent years and its detrimental impacts. It must become the service of choice for potential recruits and offer compelling reasons both financial and qualitative for service members to stay in and keep contributing.
Also, in the short-run at least, we need to get over the “not built here” mentality and get waivers to buy ships or other assets from allies that are producing good platforms now. This could fill critical gaps in our force structure and show support for our allies until we can get our industrial base to the level we need. Similar to the response to an invasion you discussed at the beginning, the allies need to come together to build and operate a fleet that will deter potential aggression.
ADM Burke’s guidance to his destroyers in WWII is still sage advice with a modification for a preparedness environment: If it demonstrates in rigorous OPEVAL that it is likely to kill the enemy, its a good idea. If not, it’s a bad idea.
What we’re finding out in the Navy is that even if we were funded to the letter of our requirements, we would be hard pressed to meet them. The industrial capacity and the human capital needed for such an effort are not available. There’s a two-pronged effort currently - to improve the industrial base to seed the fleet of the future, to the extent we forecast it will be funded, and to improve our current warfighting capability to sufficiently deter China. It’s a tough spot to be in this most dangerous decade, but there’s no amount of money that will correct the last three decades of ignorance and provide a fleet of sufficient capacity by 2030, or probably even 2040.
perhaps one way for the human capital way to end ona better note- the CBO estimated that over 300k of the active duty military was doing jobs best suited for civvies. If even it was 220k or such, if you broke that down by service % if it compared to sizes today- and admittedly it won't be that easy- and took out 200k of those jobs and made those true soldier/airman/sailor combat jobs, you'd have 74k army, 50k Navy, 49k air force and rest Marines. But you could man properly more vessels, you could stop putting mothballed ships into their final resting homes (or have a real reserve navy that takes the ship out here and there) and use them for a few more years, and what is not manning a ship will now have places in the shipyards, including some new public ones, that will take care of more ships. Think about it, you could man another carrier, say 4 more LA class subs not retired for a few extra years, maybe 2 tarawa class amphibs, a few extra other class gator navy, and put the rest in shipyards, while the size of the navy does not increase. How to do it? Cut out 4% of the federal government. 4 million people today and don't tell it's not fat. 4% is 200k, "hey, you lost your job BUT we are simply moving you over to this new group, you support the Navy or Army now as their HR/ACCOUNTANT/TRUCK DRIVER that you did here, just it's for them". This needs to be a federal government ecosystem issue, not a silo problem for just the military. Republicans should be able to support that, hopefully the left would also see the benefit of not cutting out the headcount but basically moving it around and helping the military ensure most of it's people are truly combat ready soldiers, not "never soldiers".
If entitlements are impacting the need to increase defense spending, is there something we can do to allow people to work longer? I know I'm not alone in being "shown the door" in my late 60s despite the theoretical laws against age discrimination. ( in my case there was a generous severance package ) Blue collar folks are another matter but I'd bet there are millions who would have kept working if possible. Even if that happened they'd retire eventually so that might just be a short term reprieve on the increased draw on Social Security and Medicare. On the other hand, if most die by 90, that reduces the number of years benefits are withdrawn, no?
A number of friends (who are not well versed in this area) forwarded me that article over the weekend and asked me what I thought. I found the article to be a decent distillation of the current anxiety in the Pentagon, but very sparse on the role of allies and partners. It’s a critical element that is routinely ignored by people who should know better.
We're going to be lucky to keep up with inflation as the Great Boomer Cashout continues to increase in intensity.
And maybe smaller platforms? An "equipped with" OPV, for those long Pacific patrols. Missile boats for patrolling around small island chains? Boost GROUND-BASED Naval Air- more P-8s, tankers, and F-15EX for maritime strike. Give the jarheads all the missiles they can play with?
"A ConOps is a user-oriented document that describes system characteristics for a proposed system from the users' viewpoint.
The ConOps document is used to communicate the overall quantitative and qualitative system characteristics to the user, buyer, developer and other organizational elements (e.g. training, facilities, staffing and maintenance).
It is used to describe the user organization(s), mission(s) and organizational objectives from an integrated systems point of view."
Effectively, get enough platforms out fast enough to make the Chinese less likely to do something. At the least, keep them from getting off their coast to block us from aiding Taiwan.
"Buy capability now" - yes, yes, and yes. Hulls wherever you can find them, damn the country of origin.
A couple of years ago, I made a joking suggestion about a "daiquiri Navy" where we just peel off a couple of billion and start buying 5-10 year old superyachts traded in by fickle owners. Maybe this is not such a crazy idea. Teach kids some marketable skills in diesel mechanics, and have the capability to put 30 or 50 surveillance and potentially defensive platforms in the Taiwan Strait or SCS as needs require. And plus, if the PLAN wants to go hot, will they really start going after things that look like yachts? They might sink a buddy of Xi's and will think twice.
And a great platform to grow future leaders commanding a small crew.
It takes 15 years to grow a barely competent CO for a frigate sized ship. It will take more than a few more shipyards to build and more on top of that to maintain the force built. Time and money. Both need the will of strong leaders in Congress administered by a competent administration. National will. Keep pressing. This is Policy War. 600 ship Navy was a simple goal in the ‘80s. Make it so again. God Speed on your work on the committee. Change is hard. Change takes time. Change takes WILL.
One element not discussed was the human resources needed to crew and operate the increased number of platforms and systems. The Navy must rapidly develop and implement new approaches and programs across the career life cycle. This will be especially important in a ~3% unemployment rate economy. The Navy cannot continue with the OPTEMPO of recent years and its detrimental impacts. It must become the service of choice for potential recruits and offer compelling reasons both financial and qualitative for service members to stay in and keep contributing.
Also, in the short-run at least, we need to get over the “not built here” mentality and get waivers to buy ships or other assets from allies that are producing good platforms now. This could fill critical gaps in our force structure and show support for our allies until we can get our industrial base to the level we need. Similar to the response to an invasion you discussed at the beginning, the allies need to come together to build and operate a fleet that will deter potential aggression.
ADM Burke’s guidance to his destroyers in WWII is still sage advice with a modification for a preparedness environment: If it demonstrates in rigorous OPEVAL that it is likely to kill the enemy, its a good idea. If not, it’s a bad idea.
What we’re finding out in the Navy is that even if we were funded to the letter of our requirements, we would be hard pressed to meet them. The industrial capacity and the human capital needed for such an effort are not available. There’s a two-pronged effort currently - to improve the industrial base to seed the fleet of the future, to the extent we forecast it will be funded, and to improve our current warfighting capability to sufficiently deter China. It’s a tough spot to be in this most dangerous decade, but there’s no amount of money that will correct the last three decades of ignorance and provide a fleet of sufficient capacity by 2030, or probably even 2040.
perhaps one way for the human capital way to end ona better note- the CBO estimated that over 300k of the active duty military was doing jobs best suited for civvies. If even it was 220k or such, if you broke that down by service % if it compared to sizes today- and admittedly it won't be that easy- and took out 200k of those jobs and made those true soldier/airman/sailor combat jobs, you'd have 74k army, 50k Navy, 49k air force and rest Marines. But you could man properly more vessels, you could stop putting mothballed ships into their final resting homes (or have a real reserve navy that takes the ship out here and there) and use them for a few more years, and what is not manning a ship will now have places in the shipyards, including some new public ones, that will take care of more ships. Think about it, you could man another carrier, say 4 more LA class subs not retired for a few extra years, maybe 2 tarawa class amphibs, a few extra other class gator navy, and put the rest in shipyards, while the size of the navy does not increase. How to do it? Cut out 4% of the federal government. 4 million people today and don't tell it's not fat. 4% is 200k, "hey, you lost your job BUT we are simply moving you over to this new group, you support the Navy or Army now as their HR/ACCOUNTANT/TRUCK DRIVER that you did here, just it's for them". This needs to be a federal government ecosystem issue, not a silo problem for just the military. Republicans should be able to support that, hopefully the left would also see the benefit of not cutting out the headcount but basically moving it around and helping the military ensure most of it's people are truly combat ready soldiers, not "never soldiers".
I'm sorry--but I think this is out of my policy depth.
If entitlements are impacting the need to increase defense spending, is there something we can do to allow people to work longer? I know I'm not alone in being "shown the door" in my late 60s despite the theoretical laws against age discrimination. ( in my case there was a generous severance package ) Blue collar folks are another matter but I'd bet there are millions who would have kept working if possible. Even if that happened they'd retire eventually so that might just be a short term reprieve on the increased draw on Social Security and Medicare. On the other hand, if most die by 90, that reduces the number of years benefits are withdrawn, no?
A number of friends (who are not well versed in this area) forwarded me that article over the weekend and asked me what I thought. I found the article to be a decent distillation of the current anxiety in the Pentagon, but very sparse on the role of allies and partners. It’s a critical element that is routinely ignored by people who should know better.
We're going to be lucky to keep up with inflation as the Great Boomer Cashout continues to increase in intensity.
And maybe smaller platforms? An "equipped with" OPV, for those long Pacific patrols. Missile boats for patrolling around small island chains? Boost GROUND-BASED Naval Air- more P-8s, tankers, and F-15EX for maritime strike. Give the jarheads all the missiles they can play with?
Solid.
CONOPS Concepts?
Definition:
.... an IEEE standard exists stating
"A ConOps is a user-oriented document that describes system characteristics for a proposed system from the users' viewpoint.
The ConOps document is used to communicate the overall quantitative and qualitative system characteristics to the user, buyer, developer and other organizational elements (e.g. training, facilities, staffing and maintenance).
It is used to describe the user organization(s), mission(s) and organizational objectives from an integrated systems point of view."
Effectively, get enough platforms out fast enough to make the Chinese less likely to do something. At the least, keep them from getting off their coast to block us from aiding Taiwan.
CONOPS Evolution?
AIM / Fire / adjust (Bracket & Half?)
Naval Gun-Fire Support (NGFS) Axiom
-OR-
Effective “Operations Research” Practices?
For example:
Concept Mapping for Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS via HICSS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_supported_brainstorming?wprov=sfti1
Where UHManoa-HICSS hosts interaction with NPS.edu “Information Warfare” concepts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_International_Conference_on_System_Sciences?wprov=sfti1