That probable is solvable every two years if we bother to do our homework and show up. I never put it on a politician without putting it on the voter first. We own it.
Reflecting back on the Obama Era approach to national security and national defense: What would you have done differently if you were trying to uplift our enemies (especially Iran, thanks so much, Ms. Valerie Jarrett) and destroy our ACTUAL capability to wage and SUSTAIN conflict? All of the three Obama administration terms (including Biden's admin, check the names) were degrading, not enhancing capability. OBTW, this includes the foreign policy approach AND DoD...and especially the active-duty senior SES and flag officers of all services. IMO, YMMV
The CAPS always give it away. Perhaps they are cognitive signposts to assist remaining on task during a sentence of blame assessment.
The actual discussion at hand concerns pulling two fast combat supply ships out of reserve for logistics and also arming them to add to fleet support twice over. Give it a go.
Heh. "The CAPS always give it away". The CAPS? I haven't experienced THIS level of MIND READING in...quite some time. Now ask me if I think the POPE is CATHOLIC. I have an ENVELOPE...
My first thought as I started reading was, "Well, it's all well and good to bring these ships back, but where are we going to get the crews? The MSC has a problem with recruitment and retention."
And then I saw USS not USNS and had some hope for a minute.
Still, I'm not sure that makes that much difference. Seems like the USN is short sailors too.
But that's not a reason to not put ships into commission. The answer is to do better at recruiting and retention. That's going to be as big an issue as hulls.
In my work with High School athletes, I have encouraged kids to enlist, and I have kept up with some of them over the years. Nobody re-enlists. Every kid has said they are glad they went, but, they have no interest in re-upping.
They don't get to see they world in the way I did. There is no liberty, no port calls, no UNITAS cruises where the Polar and Caipirinhas flow like water, no Christmases in Hong Kong. They are underway; every day. We have not created an environment where kids want to re-enlist.
And it's essentially a death spiral. Until they can man the ships they have and build enough new ships to cover commitments and dwell time it's not going to get better no matter what else may be going on economically or politically.
Here's an easy solution. Open Charleston Naval Shipyard and build government warships in government yards. Reverse privatization. Give sailors two solid years of 40 hour work weeks, and quality base housing, and you would see kids stay. A shipyard is the perfect place for Navy sailors to do meaningful, comfortable, shore duty.
The cry from the right was "socialism," that the collective should not control the means of producing warships; so we shut down our shipyards. Now, the mult-nationals have a monopoly on building our warships, under a cost-plus arrangement that does not pressure the monopolist to produce.
Are we supposed to build two atomic subs a year? Do we?
Is there anything of the Charleston yard left to reposs?
We still have a shortage of skilled workers to many any shipyard, much less a new government yard.
That said, the winds have changed and there seems to be more acceptance of the tough, but well paying, manual labor jobs that have been eschewed by our so called education establishment for so long. And if the yard isn't Charleston, there's potential elsewhere.
I want to give you my Waste Managment analogy. For decades in Florida, cities and counties handled their own garbage. It gets expensive. Labor costs are high. Folks grumble about paying a lazy government worker 75k for manual labor. (Never mind he’s been their three decades, honestly working.) Waste Management comes to the city council and says, “Contract with us, and we will do better, cheaper!” So, the city signs off on a contract, the trucks are sold, the employees retired, and the garage knocked down for pickleball courts.
For the first five years, things are great. Faster, better, cheaper. Meanwhile, Waste Management has gone to every other city, and the county, and sold them the same contract your city bought. Now, they have monopoly power. Now the rates go up, and up, and up. There are bills for every service that was once included. Throw out a TV, electronics disposal fee. A tree-trunk, bulk waste fee.
Worse, there’s no going back without spending far more than WM’s monopolistic fees. You have no equipment, no management, no labor; your garbage is a pickleball court.
This is analogous to the situation our nation is in with the Navy. But, the stakes are far higher than my paying Wayne Huizenga a few hundred extra dollars a year; our literal liberty (what little we have left) is at stake. The duolopolists, General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls cannot deliver. Private industry has failed, it is time for the sovereign to resume making weapons of self defense.
And here where I live in Florida, Waste Management got so expensive that Republic now handles our garbage. At least with private companies, competition is possible. The problem with such in ship building is that the capital equipment costs to start a shipyard are huge. Plus, at the federal level, you have to pay for union workers (there's a law that essentially requires that), and unions always prevent automation that reduces costs.
Agreed. A punishing, never ending "peace time" op tempo, combined with a continued reduction in meaningful shore duty opportunities is murder on retention.
Several have commented on the issue of manning. Both Active duty and CIVMAR ( civilian mariners/ MSC) have their challenges.
As to MSC, formerly MSTS, crewing has always been a challenge and COVID policies were the straw that broke the camels back.
The modern merchant marine to include most foreign shipping companies, certainly at the licensed officers level, is day for day: one day aboard ship, one day of leave. MSC has never been there hence their persistent crewing issues.
Up until the 90’s, standard rotation was 6 months on and 1 month off.
They then went to 4 months on, one month off. They just now are endeavoring to go to four months on, two months off.
For USN sailors, please understand the Merchant Marine is different. There is no shore duty and we don’t think in terms of deployment and home ports as the ships are “deployed “ far more frequently so as to be cost effective. Quality of life and crew development do not exist as CIVMARs are bought and paid for.
MSC is a way of life, not a profession nor conducive to having a family. Spending nine months a year aboard ship , overseas,every year is the job, the norm.
It appeals to a certain type of person, myself included. All I wanted was to run grey hulls and once I got Command, that’s where I stayed vice a SWO career where you are lucky to get one 18 month Command-at-Sea tour?
40 percent my crews were prior military, several were retirees; I had Senior enlisted and Warrants working as unlicensed crewmen which was one of MSC strengths. Imagine a 30 year retired Boatswain Mate warrant sailing as an Able Seaman.
The problem was retaining junior officers out of the Academies.
These young people could sail with Crowley or work on a drill ship half the year vice 9-10 months and still make more money.
Obviously it all comes down to cost but if MSC sincerely wants to compete with the commercial side, they need to get to day for day.
One additional item, I personally think should be looked at and goes back to when we took CORONADO out as the first hybrid. I think the Royal Fleet Auxiliary model, where the mariners can be activated, should be looked at. Several CIVMARs are reservists and provide an untapped resource.
Food for thought and much more to discuss on the subject.
That’s true and legally civilians provide pros and cons.
That said, and I will assume everyone on this thread served either on active duty or as a civil servant, hence possess the dedication and sense of purpose that supersedes the private sector.
I am fiercely proud of MSC and those I served with. While legally civilians , during a time of war, their dedication and sacrifice was unwavering. They endured every hardship and did so with full commitment. We were there, everyday, with the Fleet, making mission.
The American taxpayers absolutely got their money’s worth.
I attribute this because most of us served and although our legal status may change, our dedication to Country and mission never stops.
The shortfalls MSC has been experiencing stems from the absolute neglect the Fleet has endured because they are viewed as a purchased commodity. The COVID policies being the prime example.
I should add, I did 11 quote, unquote deployments in 12 years, nine of them in CENTCOM in support of OEF, OIF, Southern Watch. No shore duty, No hazard pay, no tax free. Understanding that MSC performed the exact same primar as ships that were USS up until recently. My point being, we exceeded Naval standards and absolutely delivered. I challenge anyone to say otherwise.
Additionally, MSC operates the AOE with a crew of 180 vice USS which had a complement of 600. MSC delivers.
The COVID shenanigans damaged a lot of organizations and people for, ultimately, no useful purpose. Hopefully something was learned by that.
While the business school folks tend to treat just about every profession as a commodity, that's far, far, from logical. As a minimum, there's time and effort to finding and onboarding new people. If the job is pretty cookie cutter maybe that's the end of it. But anything resembling skilled work has some learning curve and that always takes some time from the people who are tasked with the training. The devil is in the details.
Not knowing what merchant mariners make, I'd bet that compared to the $30 that dopey 16 year olds get paid to ask "Do you want fries with that?" it's a pittance. Fixing that, both of them, would be a good step forward.
Merchant Mariners make a healthy living given the necessity of being away from home for prolonged periods. Most commercial vessels operate on a day for day rotation. Some union vessels will only require a four month hitch in a twelve month period ( or at least used to). A lot of union hall mariners would collect unemployment benefits under that model to my understanding.
CIVMARs earn less ( day for day) than commercial counterparts but more than active duty when speaking in terms of straight salary. That said, when looking at the issue from a 50,000 foot level, you have to factor in the cost of benefits which requires someone far smarter than I.
The issues at hand are economic and by default lack of resources. Individuals far more intelligent than I are undoubtedly looking at these issues daily. I’m certain there are budgetary types and a plethora of SWOs constantly looking at the ever changing needs.
It’s a complex problem of lack of resources and requires multi-faceted solutions.
As a layman, understanding that the Merchant Marine in general as well as MSC, are starving for manpower.
One piece of low hanging fruit that comes to mind is the maritime academies pipeline.
As most of you are undoubtedly aware, we currently have five federal service academies. If one is accomplished enough to obtain a congressional appointment and acceptance, one receives a tier one college education compliments of the US taxpayer. Now the service branch academies have an active duty requirement upon graduation. The US Merchant Marine Academy does not. A graduate of kingspoint, must maintain a USCG license for five years, work in a maritime related field for six, and participate in the reserves for 8. Assuming the need is there, ( and this where my peers from KP begin throwing daggers at me), why not require them to actively sail for a period of time akin to active duty if not actual active duty. They could help fill shortfalls not only in MSC but the commercial fleet. Additionally, as far as MSC and the need for more USS CLF platforms, they could assist in manning those without the issue of legal status. Additionally, several State maritime academy graduates take a ROTC scholarship to assist with the cost and participate in the SSO program with no active duty requirements. Make them actively sail as part of the program.
I don’t know the current numbers, but less than 10 percent of maritime academy graduates go to sea after graduation despite having a license. Maritime academy programs are already subsidized by the government.
There’s a ready resource to be had and by virtue of spending four years studying shipboard operations could easily be trained up in SWO related areas.
Additionally, several unlicensed ( enlisted for lack of better word) vocational programs are sprouting up both at the high school and Community College levels. Starting an incentive based program not unlike ROTC could help offset the unlicensed ranks.
I suspect some of this is already being done if not looked at but seems to be a ready solution as to some of the manning issue.
Put simply, we demand a Service Academy graduate and ROTC graduates to fulfill an active duty commitment as compensation for their education, why not demand more of our Merchant Marines which we already pay for?
Kingspoint alone, is graduating 200 USCG licensed mariners annually which respectfully speaking is far more qualified in shipboard operations than any ROTC liberal arts major. They are bought and paid for, why aren’t we making better use of them?
One of my first USN department heads was a merchant academy grad (don't remember if was KP or a state academy though), so I'm shocked that Kings Point grads don't have an obligation. That doesn't seem to be good use of government money. I agree that loophole should be filled.
I do suspect that should the requirements change there may be fewer good applicants to the programs. Hopefully the pool of applicants is deep enough that good personnel can still be found to fill the openings.
Also agree that a trade school to train for maritime jobs makes sense. I think the country is starting to veer away from the "everybody must go to college" nonsense that's filled our education system for the last half century or more.
Looking at (what I humbly believe) is a fiscal pipedream of a 50% increase in 2027 Defense with included shipbuilding increases, I think both Sal's are spot on about getting the fast oilers out of reserve lay-up and potentially out of the USNS, and back into USN as armed and defendable ships. I love the USNS, but the facts are the money goes to USN ships first. It will be a crewing issue, but maybe some innovation/law changes there as well. The Sals have it right
"History does not reward procrastination. Math does not like to be ignored." And neither the laws of physics nor the enemy gives a rat's @$$ about either your feelings or your budget priorities.
When we start building freighters for re-equipping MSC, make them reefers. Then swallow our pride, license StanFlex, and in the event of war, don't load the outer ring with containers. Mount some Phalanx for self-defense and other systems that fit.
In all seriousness, for anyone with a young person who might be interested. The maritime route is a virtual guaranteed pathway with regards to viability. Job placement for maritime graduates is very high comparatively speaking and only 10 percent of Academy graduates go to sea. There are numerous job opportunities ashore. All seven academies are well respected institutions and you can get a number of degrees in addition to straight Deck and Engineering to include marine biology, oceanography, fisheries, etc. additionally maritime academies are federally subsidized so you can get in state tuition practically by participating in the license option degree plan. Also, you graduate not only with a bachelor of science from established universities like Texas A&M , SUNY, UC, but you have a third officer or third engineer license from USCG. Again, only 10 percent of graduates go to sea after graduating so lots of job options.
Two of my students just gave me a gift basket for the letters I wrote for their applications to transfer into Texas A&M Galveston. They are looking forward to getting on board that brand new training ship down there.
That’s wonderful! All seven maritime academies are great institutions and each one offers unique opportunities. Texas is youngest and offers a myriad of programs by virtue of being a part of the larger A&M system. Galveston is a great, historic small town and being a satellite campus offers a small school feel with major university programs. They have a dedicated staff and are anxiously awaiting the new vessel. If your students require a local contact, please let me know. I am familiar with most of the staff and local gentry.
Thanks Cap'n. I believe I'm going to start pimping the A&M Sea Aggies program to my classes. Especially for those kids inclined towards an engineering degree.
Two points: (1) There is no better place for sailors to learn seamanship than on an auxiliary. What is unique about the sea service is that sailors are always engaged with in implacable enemy who is trying to kill them: the ocean. An T-AOE, like an AE, is a Boatswain’s billet. They provide opportunities for mariners to develop essential skills.
(2) We don’t have the sailors to staff a pair of T-AOE’s. We are abusing our sailors, the pace of operations is punishing; long before our Iranian excursion. You cannot expect kids to spend their entire lives at sea, on a ship with no beds or toilets, and then reenlist in a Navy with no meaningful shore duty.
First Premise: Navy does not have enough logistics ships to support action in the Pacific theater. The Navy Needs a Lot More Logistics, or a Different Strategy | Proceedings - May 2024 Vol. 150/5/1,455
Second Premise: The Navy leadership recognizes this and highlights it in top-down planning documents. CNO-NAVPLAN-2024-One-Pager_v33.pdf
Third premise: Navy leadership recognizes the shortage of shipbuilding capacity and has the resources and decision-making ability to push forward a re-activation of two AOEs at the Inactive Ships site in Bremerton, WA. A sweeping vision for the Navy is colliding with harsh shipbuilding realities | Federal News Network
Fourth premise: The Navy needs up to 40 T-AOs to conduct sustained operations in the Pacific: To Build the Golden Fleet | The Heritage Foundation Re-activating the AOEs helps fill in the gap
The third premise is the most difficult to envision yet in some ways the easiest path to getting a decision made.
**The AOEs were inactivated due to lack of crews – working for MSC isn’t the greatest situation. We will address that later in this framework.**
From an industry perspective, the lack of capacity is driven by lack of consistent demand which aggravates the shortage of skilled tradespeople and inhibits investment in business that may not become an opportunity. The MIB initiatives in the Navy are a recognition of a portion of that situation. Industry is left with a megaphone that is hopefully heard when it comes to demand signals.
The workload hole(s) create a need to steer work to the PACNW. The ships can be prepped for docking locally, and re-activation is faster than building a new one. It takes less capacity and work force to re-activate, and it brings very necessary ships into the fleet faster.
Two obstacles in particular are germane. First – getting a work package developed and funded. Rather than using the existing Navy infrastructure, suggest develop the spec-do the work proposal to reduce the time required to get a contract in place and executed. The NAVSEA contracts folks might have a cow, but the folks above them appear to have a desire to obliterate obstacles. Second – crewing a vessel. Proposing a USN crew with the installation of CIWS and anti-missile self-defense systems address the manning problem AND recognize the Navy’s Achilles heel – MSC ships can’t defend themselves.
WHO IS THE AUDIENCE?
Using the PSSRA Banner, begin with Navy Air Forces – these folks love the AOEs and their ability to keep up with the Battle Group (twin screw gas turbine plants). NAVAIR owns the Sea-Air-Integrated-Warfare crown, and pitching an integration strategy that protects the fuel source for the aviation folks carries some weight.
The operational fleet comes next – more logistics, faster, for the BG Commanders has some appeal.
My view of NAVSEA is that they seem unable to complete anything on time or under budget and avoiding them in an initial approach would, to me, be very wise. Your company’s view may very well be different than mine, I am far down the food chain.
I see there’s a navalized CROWS mount in the MK50 Gun Weapon System (GWS), quoted at under 400lbs for the mount, which is certainly a comparable weight to a Ma Deuce with ammo and two crew manning it on the rail mount. I’d prefer adding sea-target-oriented javelin to those at a bit more deck mass penalty to extend stabilized reach out to theoretically 3km, but even just with the .50 that should be a standard bolt-down add for everything floaty.
Anything is better than nothing, but a stabilized mount is better than the “legacy” mounts they use now. Do the Ma Deuce crews out on the rail even get NODs at night?
And that MK50 GWS should have reasonable anti-drone capability close in as well as the anti-small-boat tasking they brought the M2 back to address.
How fast can you get on station? Big Navy used to be able to deliver jaw dropping competence. Just look at Operation Sandblast. A new submarine (USS Triton) and a seasoned sub commander (Captain Beach) taking a new submarine (unique class) that was comissioned three months earlier (Nov 1959) and taking her on the worlrd's first submarine circumnavigation (24FEB60-25APR60). That was a shot across the bow to the Soviets. Now we avoid Yemeni goat herders.
Accountants are just the messenger. The problem is the politicians. Civilian and military.
That probable is solvable every two years if we bother to do our homework and show up. I never put it on a politician without putting it on the voter first. We own it.
probable = problem
I think I like probable more.
like the USAF and the A-10, the USN sacrifices capability for flashy new toys
Indeed! Accountants are serious people who tell you that you need to pick your priorities. Not their fault if the choice that was made was stupid.
Spot on Sal! LOGISTICS!!!
Reflecting back on the Obama Era approach to national security and national defense: What would you have done differently if you were trying to uplift our enemies (especially Iran, thanks so much, Ms. Valerie Jarrett) and destroy our ACTUAL capability to wage and SUSTAIN conflict? All of the three Obama administration terms (including Biden's admin, check the names) were degrading, not enhancing capability. OBTW, this includes the foreign policy approach AND DoD...and especially the active-duty senior SES and flag officers of all services. IMO, YMMV
That has been true of every post Reagan administration. May yet prove true of the current one.
With you on military readiness, especially logistics (as in this post). I'd say Iran has not been treated favorably by this administration thus far.
The CAPS always give it away. Perhaps they are cognitive signposts to assist remaining on task during a sentence of blame assessment.
The actual discussion at hand concerns pulling two fast combat supply ships out of reserve for logistics and also arming them to add to fleet support twice over. Give it a go.
Heh. "The CAPS always give it away". The CAPS? I haven't experienced THIS level of MIND READING in...quite some time. Now ask me if I think the POPE is CATHOLIC. I have an ENVELOPE...
LOL! Johnny Carson, the Great Carnac!!!
"Classical reference". (-;
My first thought as I started reading was, "Well, it's all well and good to bring these ships back, but where are we going to get the crews? The MSC has a problem with recruitment and retention."
And then I saw USS not USNS and had some hope for a minute.
Still, I'm not sure that makes that much difference. Seems like the USN is short sailors too.
But that's not a reason to not put ships into commission. The answer is to do better at recruiting and retention. That's going to be as big an issue as hulls.
The USN is way short on crews....🔄
Recruiting is BIGLY improved in the last year...
Retention after long deployments and poorly designed new ships is very unhealthy...
Then why are they so antsy for a draft?
Who's "they"?
The Republican Congress at one would assume is the blessing of the administration.
In my work with High School athletes, I have encouraged kids to enlist, and I have kept up with some of them over the years. Nobody re-enlists. Every kid has said they are glad they went, but, they have no interest in re-upping.
They don't get to see they world in the way I did. There is no liberty, no port calls, no UNITAS cruises where the Polar and Caipirinhas flow like water, no Christmases in Hong Kong. They are underway; every day. We have not created an environment where kids want to re-enlist.
That's very unfortunate.
And it's essentially a death spiral. Until they can man the ships they have and build enough new ships to cover commitments and dwell time it's not going to get better no matter what else may be going on economically or politically.
Here's an easy solution. Open Charleston Naval Shipyard and build government warships in government yards. Reverse privatization. Give sailors two solid years of 40 hour work weeks, and quality base housing, and you would see kids stay. A shipyard is the perfect place for Navy sailors to do meaningful, comfortable, shore duty.
The cry from the right was "socialism," that the collective should not control the means of producing warships; so we shut down our shipyards. Now, the mult-nationals have a monopoly on building our warships, under a cost-plus arrangement that does not pressure the monopolist to produce.
Are we supposed to build two atomic subs a year? Do we?
That's an interesting idea, Tom.
The only issues I really see with it are:
Is there anything of the Charleston yard left to reposs?
We still have a shortage of skilled workers to many any shipyard, much less a new government yard.
That said, the winds have changed and there seems to be more acceptance of the tough, but well paying, manual labor jobs that have been eschewed by our so called education establishment for so long. And if the yard isn't Charleston, there's potential elsewhere.
I want to give you my Waste Managment analogy. For decades in Florida, cities and counties handled their own garbage. It gets expensive. Labor costs are high. Folks grumble about paying a lazy government worker 75k for manual labor. (Never mind he’s been their three decades, honestly working.) Waste Management comes to the city council and says, “Contract with us, and we will do better, cheaper!” So, the city signs off on a contract, the trucks are sold, the employees retired, and the garage knocked down for pickleball courts.
For the first five years, things are great. Faster, better, cheaper. Meanwhile, Waste Management has gone to every other city, and the county, and sold them the same contract your city bought. Now, they have monopoly power. Now the rates go up, and up, and up. There are bills for every service that was once included. Throw out a TV, electronics disposal fee. A tree-trunk, bulk waste fee.
Worse, there’s no going back without spending far more than WM’s monopolistic fees. You have no equipment, no management, no labor; your garbage is a pickleball court.
This is analogous to the situation our nation is in with the Navy. But, the stakes are far higher than my paying Wayne Huizenga a few hundred extra dollars a year; our literal liberty (what little we have left) is at stake. The duolopolists, General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls cannot deliver. Private industry has failed, it is time for the sovereign to resume making weapons of self defense.
And here where I live in Florida, Waste Management got so expensive that Republic now handles our garbage. At least with private companies, competition is possible. The problem with such in ship building is that the capital equipment costs to start a shipyard are huge. Plus, at the federal level, you have to pay for union workers (there's a law that essentially requires that), and unions always prevent automation that reduces costs.
We lost the Navy shipyards for the same reason we lost the tenders: Unions and crooked politicians. I don't see that changing, much as I'd like to.
Agreed. A punishing, never ending "peace time" op tempo, combined with a continued reduction in meaningful shore duty opportunities is murder on retention.
Mandatory organized fun, the buddy system, Cinderella liberty and other zero-defect force-protection liberty killers have also had an effect.
You can no longer have the three-day romance on a port visit.
Several have commented on the issue of manning. Both Active duty and CIVMAR ( civilian mariners/ MSC) have their challenges.
As to MSC, formerly MSTS, crewing has always been a challenge and COVID policies were the straw that broke the camels back.
The modern merchant marine to include most foreign shipping companies, certainly at the licensed officers level, is day for day: one day aboard ship, one day of leave. MSC has never been there hence their persistent crewing issues.
Up until the 90’s, standard rotation was 6 months on and 1 month off.
They then went to 4 months on, one month off. They just now are endeavoring to go to four months on, two months off.
For USN sailors, please understand the Merchant Marine is different. There is no shore duty and we don’t think in terms of deployment and home ports as the ships are “deployed “ far more frequently so as to be cost effective. Quality of life and crew development do not exist as CIVMARs are bought and paid for.
MSC is a way of life, not a profession nor conducive to having a family. Spending nine months a year aboard ship , overseas,every year is the job, the norm.
It appeals to a certain type of person, myself included. All I wanted was to run grey hulls and once I got Command, that’s where I stayed vice a SWO career where you are lucky to get one 18 month Command-at-Sea tour?
40 percent my crews were prior military, several were retirees; I had Senior enlisted and Warrants working as unlicensed crewmen which was one of MSC strengths. Imagine a 30 year retired Boatswain Mate warrant sailing as an Able Seaman.
The problem was retaining junior officers out of the Academies.
These young people could sail with Crowley or work on a drill ship half the year vice 9-10 months and still make more money.
Obviously it all comes down to cost but if MSC sincerely wants to compete with the commercial side, they need to get to day for day.
One additional item, I personally think should be looked at and goes back to when we took CORONADO out as the first hybrid. I think the Royal Fleet Auxiliary model, where the mariners can be activated, should be looked at. Several CIVMARs are reservists and provide an untapped resource.
Food for thought and much more to discuss on the subject.
I think the short story is: You get what you pay for. Most of the time. And relying on the exceptions is a losing proposition.
That’s true and legally civilians provide pros and cons.
That said, and I will assume everyone on this thread served either on active duty or as a civil servant, hence possess the dedication and sense of purpose that supersedes the private sector.
I am fiercely proud of MSC and those I served with. While legally civilians , during a time of war, their dedication and sacrifice was unwavering. They endured every hardship and did so with full commitment. We were there, everyday, with the Fleet, making mission.
The American taxpayers absolutely got their money’s worth.
I attribute this because most of us served and although our legal status may change, our dedication to Country and mission never stops.
The shortfalls MSC has been experiencing stems from the absolute neglect the Fleet has endured because they are viewed as a purchased commodity. The COVID policies being the prime example.
I should add, I did 11 quote, unquote deployments in 12 years, nine of them in CENTCOM in support of OEF, OIF, Southern Watch. No shore duty, No hazard pay, no tax free. Understanding that MSC performed the exact same primar as ships that were USS up until recently. My point being, we exceeded Naval standards and absolutely delivered. I challenge anyone to say otherwise.
Additionally, MSC operates the AOE with a crew of 180 vice USS which had a complement of 600. MSC delivers.
The COVID shenanigans damaged a lot of organizations and people for, ultimately, no useful purpose. Hopefully something was learned by that.
While the business school folks tend to treat just about every profession as a commodity, that's far, far, from logical. As a minimum, there's time and effort to finding and onboarding new people. If the job is pretty cookie cutter maybe that's the end of it. But anything resembling skilled work has some learning curve and that always takes some time from the people who are tasked with the training. The devil is in the details.
Not knowing what merchant mariners make, I'd bet that compared to the $30 that dopey 16 year olds get paid to ask "Do you want fries with that?" it's a pittance. Fixing that, both of them, would be a good step forward.
Merchant Mariners make a healthy living given the necessity of being away from home for prolonged periods. Most commercial vessels operate on a day for day rotation. Some union vessels will only require a four month hitch in a twelve month period ( or at least used to). A lot of union hall mariners would collect unemployment benefits under that model to my understanding.
CIVMARs earn less ( day for day) than commercial counterparts but more than active duty when speaking in terms of straight salary. That said, when looking at the issue from a 50,000 foot level, you have to factor in the cost of benefits which requires someone far smarter than I.
The issues at hand are economic and by default lack of resources. Individuals far more intelligent than I are undoubtedly looking at these issues daily. I’m certain there are budgetary types and a plethora of SWOs constantly looking at the ever changing needs.
It’s a complex problem of lack of resources and requires multi-faceted solutions.
As a layman, understanding that the Merchant Marine in general as well as MSC, are starving for manpower.
One piece of low hanging fruit that comes to mind is the maritime academies pipeline.
As most of you are undoubtedly aware, we currently have five federal service academies. If one is accomplished enough to obtain a congressional appointment and acceptance, one receives a tier one college education compliments of the US taxpayer. Now the service branch academies have an active duty requirement upon graduation. The US Merchant Marine Academy does not. A graduate of kingspoint, must maintain a USCG license for five years, work in a maritime related field for six, and participate in the reserves for 8. Assuming the need is there, ( and this where my peers from KP begin throwing daggers at me), why not require them to actively sail for a period of time akin to active duty if not actual active duty. They could help fill shortfalls not only in MSC but the commercial fleet. Additionally, as far as MSC and the need for more USS CLF platforms, they could assist in manning those without the issue of legal status. Additionally, several State maritime academy graduates take a ROTC scholarship to assist with the cost and participate in the SSO program with no active duty requirements. Make them actively sail as part of the program.
I don’t know the current numbers, but less than 10 percent of maritime academy graduates go to sea after graduation despite having a license. Maritime academy programs are already subsidized by the government.
There’s a ready resource to be had and by virtue of spending four years studying shipboard operations could easily be trained up in SWO related areas.
Additionally, several unlicensed ( enlisted for lack of better word) vocational programs are sprouting up both at the high school and Community College levels. Starting an incentive based program not unlike ROTC could help offset the unlicensed ranks.
I suspect some of this is already being done if not looked at but seems to be a ready solution as to some of the manning issue.
Put simply, we demand a Service Academy graduate and ROTC graduates to fulfill an active duty commitment as compensation for their education, why not demand more of our Merchant Marines which we already pay for?
Kingspoint alone, is graduating 200 USCG licensed mariners annually which respectfully speaking is far more qualified in shipboard operations than any ROTC liberal arts major. They are bought and paid for, why aren’t we making better use of them?
One of my first USN department heads was a merchant academy grad (don't remember if was KP or a state academy though), so I'm shocked that Kings Point grads don't have an obligation. That doesn't seem to be good use of government money. I agree that loophole should be filled.
I do suspect that should the requirements change there may be fewer good applicants to the programs. Hopefully the pool of applicants is deep enough that good personnel can still be found to fill the openings.
Also agree that a trade school to train for maritime jobs makes sense. I think the country is starting to veer away from the "everybody must go to college" nonsense that's filled our education system for the last half century or more.
Looking at (what I humbly believe) is a fiscal pipedream of a 50% increase in 2027 Defense with included shipbuilding increases, I think both Sal's are spot on about getting the fast oilers out of reserve lay-up and potentially out of the USNS, and back into USN as armed and defendable ships. I love the USNS, but the facts are the money goes to USN ships first. It will be a crewing issue, but maybe some innovation/law changes there as well. The Sals have it right
"History does not reward procrastination. Math does not like to be ignored." And neither the laws of physics nor the enemy gives a rat's @$$ about either your feelings or your budget priorities.
"And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins,
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"
Outstanding Synch btwn the Two Sals! 🇺🇲🌊🚢🌐⛽
Semper Fortis! ⚓
Acta non Verba ⚙️
KPS - USMMA 🔔
When we start building freighters for re-equipping MSC, make them reefers. Then swallow our pride, license StanFlex, and in the event of war, don't load the outer ring with containers. Mount some Phalanx for self-defense and other systems that fit.
You know, we have quad VLS cells in containers. Maybe build in some power, data, and cooling ports in a few locations, and there’s a start.
Arm them to the teeth, like a WWII CIMARRON class AO.
The newer ships should be in the fleet. As far as adding more hulls, what about staffing with the MSC?
My one niece just got 35 on her ACT and 97 on ASVAB. Tell her to apply to the Merchant Marine Academy?
If she wants a career at sea, college and ROTC or College and OTS
There are also six State maritime academies to choose from. Good, profitable career path for those interested.
In all seriousness, for anyone with a young person who might be interested. The maritime route is a virtual guaranteed pathway with regards to viability. Job placement for maritime graduates is very high comparatively speaking and only 10 percent of Academy graduates go to sea. There are numerous job opportunities ashore. All seven academies are well respected institutions and you can get a number of degrees in addition to straight Deck and Engineering to include marine biology, oceanography, fisheries, etc. additionally maritime academies are federally subsidized so you can get in state tuition practically by participating in the license option degree plan. Also, you graduate not only with a bachelor of science from established universities like Texas A&M , SUNY, UC, but you have a third officer or third engineer license from USCG. Again, only 10 percent of graduates go to sea after graduating so lots of job options.
Two of my students just gave me a gift basket for the letters I wrote for their applications to transfer into Texas A&M Galveston. They are looking forward to getting on board that brand new training ship down there.
That’s wonderful! All seven maritime academies are great institutions and each one offers unique opportunities. Texas is youngest and offers a myriad of programs by virtue of being a part of the larger A&M system. Galveston is a great, historic small town and being a satellite campus offers a small school feel with major university programs. They have a dedicated staff and are anxiously awaiting the new vessel. If your students require a local contact, please let me know. I am familiar with most of the staff and local gentry.
Thanks Cap'n. I believe I'm going to start pimping the A&M Sea Aggies program to my classes. Especially for those kids inclined towards an engineering degree.
What would be a good use for that billion set for BBG funding. Because the replacement class will. Be well north of a billion each.
Two points: (1) There is no better place for sailors to learn seamanship than on an auxiliary. What is unique about the sea service is that sailors are always engaged with in implacable enemy who is trying to kill them: the ocean. An T-AOE, like an AE, is a Boatswain’s billet. They provide opportunities for mariners to develop essential skills.
(2) We don’t have the sailors to staff a pair of T-AOE’s. We are abusing our sailors, the pace of operations is punishing; long before our Iranian excursion. You cannot expect kids to spend their entire lives at sea, on a ship with no beds or toilets, and then reenlist in a Navy with no meaningful shore duty.
Eternal Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bid'st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep;
O hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea.
Pop, was a Boatswain's Mate on CVE-25 on the convoys. AOE duty would have been a vacation...
⚓ Lord, stand beside the men who sail,
Our Merchant Ships thru storm & gale,
In peace and war, their watch they keep,
On every sea of Thy vast deep. 🕯️
Be with them Lord, both night and day,
For Merchant Mariners we pray....🌐🧭✨🌌☀️ 🌊🚢
(🔔 🎼 Eternal Father, strong to save.....)
First Premise: Navy does not have enough logistics ships to support action in the Pacific theater. The Navy Needs a Lot More Logistics, or a Different Strategy | Proceedings - May 2024 Vol. 150/5/1,455
Second Premise: The Navy leadership recognizes this and highlights it in top-down planning documents. CNO-NAVPLAN-2024-One-Pager_v33.pdf
Third premise: Navy leadership recognizes the shortage of shipbuilding capacity and has the resources and decision-making ability to push forward a re-activation of two AOEs at the Inactive Ships site in Bremerton, WA. A sweeping vision for the Navy is colliding with harsh shipbuilding realities | Federal News Network
Fourth premise: The Navy needs up to 40 T-AOs to conduct sustained operations in the Pacific: To Build the Golden Fleet | The Heritage Foundation Re-activating the AOEs helps fill in the gap
The third premise is the most difficult to envision yet in some ways the easiest path to getting a decision made.
**The AOEs were inactivated due to lack of crews – working for MSC isn’t the greatest situation. We will address that later in this framework.**
From an industry perspective, the lack of capacity is driven by lack of consistent demand which aggravates the shortage of skilled tradespeople and inhibits investment in business that may not become an opportunity. The MIB initiatives in the Navy are a recognition of a portion of that situation. Industry is left with a megaphone that is hopefully heard when it comes to demand signals.
The workload hole(s) create a need to steer work to the PACNW. The ships can be prepped for docking locally, and re-activation is faster than building a new one. It takes less capacity and work force to re-activate, and it brings very necessary ships into the fleet faster.
Two obstacles in particular are germane. First – getting a work package developed and funded. Rather than using the existing Navy infrastructure, suggest develop the spec-do the work proposal to reduce the time required to get a contract in place and executed. The NAVSEA contracts folks might have a cow, but the folks above them appear to have a desire to obliterate obstacles. Second – crewing a vessel. Proposing a USN crew with the installation of CIWS and anti-missile self-defense systems address the manning problem AND recognize the Navy’s Achilles heel – MSC ships can’t defend themselves.
WHO IS THE AUDIENCE?
Using the PSSRA Banner, begin with Navy Air Forces – these folks love the AOEs and their ability to keep up with the Battle Group (twin screw gas turbine plants). NAVAIR owns the Sea-Air-Integrated-Warfare crown, and pitching an integration strategy that protects the fuel source for the aviation folks carries some weight.
The operational fleet comes next – more logistics, faster, for the BG Commanders has some appeal.
My view of NAVSEA is that they seem unable to complete anything on time or under budget and avoiding them in an initial approach would, to me, be very wise. Your company’s view may very well be different than mine, I am far down the food chain.
This is my framework document that I have been sending around - tracks the SALs well!!
I see there’s a navalized CROWS mount in the MK50 Gun Weapon System (GWS), quoted at under 400lbs for the mount, which is certainly a comparable weight to a Ma Deuce with ammo and two crew manning it on the rail mount. I’d prefer adding sea-target-oriented javelin to those at a bit more deck mass penalty to extend stabilized reach out to theoretically 3km, but even just with the .50 that should be a standard bolt-down add for everything floaty.
I am looking for the Kongsberg RWS-6 mount the Marines use in MADIS. XM914 30x113mm with coax 7.62 and either 1 Javelin or 2 Stinger.
Anything is better than nothing, but a stabilized mount is better than the “legacy” mounts they use now. Do the Ma Deuce crews out on the rail even get NODs at night?
And that MK50 GWS should have reasonable anti-drone capability close in as well as the anti-small-boat tasking they brought the M2 back to address.
Last I saw they had taken the mk 50 RWS out of service. I suspect because CROWS II will cover it if need be. The mount on the ACVs.
This is all very depressing . . . . I liked Reagan's 600 ship Navy better.
We could have gotten there pre covid. Now, I have no idea.
Looking at the active navy ship count year over year, it's clear the GWOT had the most deleterious effect on the Navy.
318 in 2000.
271 in 2007
275 in 2016
The cost of operations for this Iran War won't help.
How fast can you get on station? Big Navy used to be able to deliver jaw dropping competence. Just look at Operation Sandblast. A new submarine (USS Triton) and a seasoned sub commander (Captain Beach) taking a new submarine (unique class) that was comissioned three months earlier (Nov 1959) and taking her on the worlrd's first submarine circumnavigation (24FEB60-25APR60). That was a shot across the bow to the Soviets. Now we avoid Yemeni goat herders.