149 Comments

“Reimagine COCOMs.”

This. This must happen before the ending of jointness or as I like to call it “jointmess”.

For the love of God why can’t we build a simple vessel with the space to build out future capabilities but stick to the damn plan!!?

- 5 inch

- Bow mounted best available sonar/insutu ASW

- flight deck for 2 MH-60R

- multi use VLS (12 tubes still better than none)

- SPY / AESA radar suite

- fleet NWC common digital communications

- towed array

Then stop. Let the tech come to the fleet for future block builds. This ain’t hard.

Expand full comment

And to replace the Ticos why not something like the Baseline cruiser study? Essentially a Burke with a longer hull, two 64 cell VLS, space for air defense commander, etc.

Expand full comment

Because that’s not “revolutionary” enough!

Expand full comment

I hope to Zeus that it isn't!! 'Revolutionary' is one of the reason we got into this mess.

Expand full comment

Zeus for Zumwalt might be the path ahead actually.

Expand full comment

Exactly! All improvement requires change; however, not all change leads to improvement.

Expand full comment

Zumwalt Flt II would probably get you there faster with a better result far down the road.

Expand full comment

Its not a bad idea in that its a big hull with plenty of room for growth, the integrated power system and other features. Put a more conventual but also more stealthy deckhouse in it and a bunk of VLS and go. Also make sure it can be updated as new tech comes alone. Like you could replace the deskhouse with a new design...when it actually works.

Expand full comment

Because everyone (I.e., defense lobbyists, Congress) wants their input so as to move money to the centers of gravity that best allow them to gain/retain power and influence.

Expand full comment

It wasn't Congress that rewrote the frigate design.

Expand full comment

They did mandate SM-6 and Tomahawk which is really a dumb way of avoiding asking "Hey, did you actually put strike length cellls on this thing?"

Expand full comment

No, but I'd be willing to bet there was some influence from various representatives and senators to encourage changes that would put money and jobs in their districts.

Expand full comment

Actually, I'd bet the reverse -- that the Navy wanted to make changes and did it in a way that farmed the work out to various districts, to get Congressional support.

Expand full comment

The CDR said we'd need "an existential crisis, or superior leadership" to get things done. But can TPTB even recognize an existential crisis when it bows up, snarls and chest bumps them? Can they formulate a plan to win? Can the cream of superior leadership even promote up in a mine-strewn career path? Not going to hold my breath waiting for a "Yes". We need some real Change to get heads out of Fundaments.

Expand full comment

Well one thing is for sure, we are possessed of a strand of seed that is producing a bad crop. What happens when that is realized in a farmers field? Does he burn the crop or harvest it?

Expand full comment

The farmer first drenches the field with some Dow Chemical Company Ethyl-methylbadshit herbicide, and then he burns it, Mr. T. It's a two-step process, root & branch.

Expand full comment

Burn it for sure.

Expand full comment
Sep 3Liked by CDR Salamander

I wanna disagree, but I don't.

Expand full comment

I am sympathetic to the proposal. The relative distribution of the DoD budget has remained pretty constant over the years, so that's a tough one. I only found Cdr website a couple of years ago. Can he, (or someone) direct me to a post or a series or an article that explains his aversion to the current concept of "jointness?" I want to understand the argument. Same thing for COCOMs. "Reimagine" is an open ended term reflective of the saying, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there."

The Army's industrial base situation is similar to the Navy's. One tank plant left. Only one or two plants capable of building tracked combat vehicles (GDLS and BAE). Scalability in production of armor, electronics, ammunition, etc., rotary wing aviation, has disappeared. I'd argue that the Services are all probably competing for the same skilled welders (who might make more in an oil- or fracking-field than working for a government contractor)

Expand full comment

I think one of the COCOMs issue is that the chain of command links them directly to SecDef and then the POTUS. The Joint Chiefs are more of an 'advisory committee'. In theory they still run each branch but if a SOCOM demands something and SecDef agrees they have to provide it.

Say that the only carrier on the East Coast is one that just got back from a 7 month deployment. All the others are in refit, assigned, etc. CenCom gets a bug up their behind and screams that 'I NEED A CARRIER NOW!' and SecDef tells the CNO to give him one. CNO might tell him that there aren't any on the shelf to which SecDef says 'I don't care, give him one!'. Means the one that just got back and needs a refit while the crew needs a rest goes right back out for another 6 months. Odds are the CNO wouldn't try and say no. It would be 'Yes sir! Yes sir! Three bags full sir!'

Expand full comment

But doesn't the opposite problem bury the operational commander behind a wall of Washington bureaucrats and slows response time down range to emerging threats? The COCOM structure was created for a reason.

Expand full comment

Perhaps but with the sheer lack of forces the word 'No' has to be uttered. One thing to do would be to put the JCS back into the chain of command. That way you have someone looking at the overall picture.

Expand full comment

It's not merely that there's only one tank plant left; oh, hell, no. Rather, the idiot Army would close that if congress let them.

Expand full comment

“We’ll save $100 million a year!”, and spend $3 billion and take 5 years to restart production.

Expand full comment

Pre-fucking-ZACTLY. (sic)

Expand full comment

Thank you for making the point for new readers. Not sure how long ago the original post went up but it's in need of a refresher. These talking points don't really key a broader audience into the basics of the argument.

Expand full comment

I disagree because taking the Army budget rewards Navy. If Navy suffers no consequences, it will be a repeat of how the Air Force builds golf courses first then claims no money for operations. If the Navy problem was a lack of money, maybe. The Navy problem, as you stated, is the Navy. The industrial ship building base status speaks to the US lack of strategic leadership over the last 30-40 years. Amy can do almost anything but it can't do that.

Expand full comment

Why not give the Navy more money? Answer: Because the service isn't a good steward of taxpayer dollars. Examples: LCS, DDG 1000, CVNs (When's the last time one was delivered on schedule on and within budget, whether new construction or major maintenance avail?), SSBN 826, CONSTELLATION-class FFGs, F-35, etc.

Expand full comment

Exactly. The Navy must prove itself before it gets allocated any more money. "The Navy redesigned 85% of the ship..." Has the Navy identified specifically who requested/approved those changes? No Find out who those individuals are and fire them. Until Navy returns to accountability and transparency they will not get support.

Expand full comment

Watch that go out the window when the first missile impacts Taipei. My question to you is, why wait for the first missile strike when it will be too late?

Expand full comment

But the Navy is using the money to repair ships, of which they have very few. I've seen the Navy's facilities across the globe. Trust me, they are not spending the money on them.

Expand full comment

I always thought the FREMM Frigate looked nice. Therefore, scrap most of it and make it different. And don't forget the Men's High Capacity Tampon Dispensers.

Expand full comment
Sep 3·edited Sep 3

"In Portsmouth, Candide witnesses the execution of an officer by firing squad and is told that "in this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others" (Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres)."

Expand full comment

Must we be limited to only one?

Expand full comment

Start with Mark Milley.

Expand full comment

As the saying goes, the longest journey begins with a single step.

Expand full comment

Goldwater Nichols has good intentions! I do not see a problem with the CJCS (COCOMs). Per DAU; big A acquisition is three sided: CJCS (COCOM) requirements, funds (include congress here and multi thousands of pages DoD instructions) and program management (many tens of thousand of pages of suggestions). If all 3 sides would have done G-N!

Rewriting contract specs (program offices implement requirements) in my experience is done because enforcing the original spec would bankrupt the contractor! We cannot bankrupt inept companies?

So all three services (shepherding USMC and USSF) have weapons built to not to exceed cost, with the sorry performance they get.

Expand full comment

Can't bankrupt the inept/criminal contractors because that would affect the economy of congressional districts with the attendant loss of votes for the incumbent.

Expand full comment

Worker shortage is due to suppressed Worker Wages - Simple Supply/Demand Curves.

Redesign and change management failures aside, MBAs continue to get paid $$$ to solve the cost/schedule overruns with creative ideas, while suppressing wages 'to save costs'. Suppressed wages reduces the quality and quantity of the work force resulting in schedule overruns....which equals cost overruns. The initial cost/schedule plan always looks good even though everyone knows it is 'success based'.

And when the cost/schedule overrun occurs?...."it is because of worker shortage". Self-licking Ice Cream Cone!

And how does one 'suppress wages'? When the initial plan requires less workers than those available (low demand, high supply) the required wages to hire them drops. Only those who 'need' those wages apply, and the more capable go look for better paying wages elsewhere. Then when there is a sudden need for more workers because of schedule overruns, there are no extra workers to be found - they left for better paying and more dependable work elsewhere. They aren't coming back for a short employment. So now the program has to pay overtime for workers on hand. Did I mention the best workers, on average, left for better paying work?

Look at Amazon, UPS, Tesla, SpaceX for examples of when you pay the workforce top dollar, you get top performance at less total cost.

Expand full comment

If only we could get Congress to incentivise outsourcing ship production to a competitive private sector the way the space vehicle innovation and production was effectively handed over to Space-X and its fellow innovators... oh, wait, I keep forgetting about all the kick-backs, boot-licking, and back-scratching from the current military-industrial-politician complex who continue to profit from the status quo...

Expand full comment

This. Ike warned us back in '61.

Expand full comment

Elon for SECDEF.

Expand full comment

Or Erik Prince. In both cases there would be much breakage and hurt feelings. It is needed.

Expand full comment

It is true...the Pacific War will be a Navy war, with some Air Force thrown in. The war in Europe, though, and probably Iran/ME at some point, will require land forces. But they are down the totem pole right now and what we have in stock for the Army can serve needs for that type of land war - we do have some capability gap there over second-tier nations (and near peers, for that matter). They can be back burner-ed for a bit.

The easiest way to go is to, yes, figure out the frigates...but go to a war footing and require shifting the work force to two aims: more Burke IIIs of current design, get to two or three frigates a year, and get the subs back on schedule. Concentrate there and backfill into the other shipbuilding programs with more personnel.

Go into high schools, recruit kids to work along with underemployed young men/women, give them OTJ training and reserve Navy status too (just in case), and provide a program for more vo-ed training or college after a certain amount of time in service.

You get what you pay for and what you support. Go get the people...they are out there. A lot of out of work mill workers that can weld and do millwright work in the Appalachian foothills from Western PA through Ohio down into WVa and KY.

Expand full comment

The Land Forced are called Marines.

Expand full comment

Not since they got rid of their organic heavy armor and reduced indirect fires (21

Cannon artillery batteries reduced to 5). Also:

Tank battalions: All Marine Corps tank battalions were eliminated.

Bridging companies: All bridging companies were eliminated.

Infantry battalions: The number of infantry battalions was reduced from 24 to 21.

Amphibious vehicle companies: The number of amphibious vehicle companies was reduced from 6 to 4.

F-35B and F-35C Lightning II fighter squadrons: The number of aircraft per unit was reduced from 16 to 10.

They did increase the number of rocket artillery systems by 300%.

Soooo...infantry, sure. But they aren't fighting land battles without the Army after the reorganization.

Expand full comment

"they aren't fighting land battles without the Army after the reorganization."

They weren't before it either. They needed extensive Army support in both Desert Storm/Shield and OIF. In OIF they couldn't even organically transport their own tank (and still couldn't when it was retired). They just drove the tracks off it to get them to the front because the Army didn't have enough assets and civilian trucking in the host country couldn't do it. Even funnier considering the M1 cant cross most of the bridges in the world, and in most places in the world trucks that can move an M1 hardly exist.

What good is a tank that you cant reliably move from port or landing to the front in most places in the world except by train when you are the "911 force"???

The chowder 2 crowd loves to point out the gaps in force structure FD2030 chose, but ignores the gaps they left while they whistled past the graveyard (and spent the Corps budget on an exquisite and logistically difficult air wing) If the USMC was going to keep tanks, it should have replaced the M1 a long time ago. They needed a sub 50 mt tank and they had a 62+mt tank.

Expand full comment

Logical fallacy - if the tank weight is all that matters, then the Army can't fight a land battle either. Yet they have...and probably will again. As did the Marines. The M-1s seemed to perform pretty dang well. In Air/Land battle with our air support and indirect fires (tubed, missile and aerial platforms), it is a lot different than Ukraine dealing with Russia and their drones etc.

The logistical support chain is the same for both - relying on transport by the Air Force and Navy (escorting Merchant Marine in Ro/Ros and such).

Right now, the Marines have become a Light Infantry force that can provide a sting with anti-tank missiles and MANPADS and missile batteries. But if they have to stand against a heavy armor force and the Javelins run low, they are hurting.

The one thing that may work to ameliorate this is the M-10 Booker Combat Vehicle to provide some direct fire. It isn't a tank, but it is better than nothing. It has the ability to be transported a little easier and maneuver per your comments on weight. It just has to run around a lot to keep from getting popped.

Expand full comment

Nice logical pretzel you baked there.

You have no logical point since I never said they (Army or USMC) couldn't fight a land war. They could fight a land war before FD2030 , with Army support, and they can now, with Army support.

Because: the Army is actually organically structured to deal with the logistical demands of a land war and the weight of its tanks and the USMC never was structured to deal with those demands without Army AND Navy support.

If you haven't noticed, the Army has mechanized units (Striker Brigades since 2003) entirely structured around the 40-50MT weight/mobility/logistical ceiling problem, and FSVs (M1128 before, M10 now) designed for it. The USMC didn't since it lost its M60s, as its FSV was a 62MT tank designed for tank on tank battles in Western Europe and without it the next organic direct fire was a 25mm gun, that wasn't even on its APCs (AAV7) that move with the tanks and the bulk of the infantry.

The weight of the tank is what matters , if its all you got, and unfortunately its all past USMC Commandants left the recent Commandants with as they over focused on exquisite expensive and often dysfunctional MV-22, F-35B, CH-53E, EFV/AAAV, EFSS, etc, and shorted attention on tanks, FSVs, APCs, IFVs, small arms, air defense, long range fires, uavs, the amphibious ships, the MPF ships, Navy sea lift, etc, etc etc,

To show how silly this all is, to this day the USMC is the only M-1 operator ever not to have an organic tank transporter to move that tank. Even Ukraine has them for its 3 dozen M1s. The Marines never had them. I guess Marines think they can do logistical magic (by calling the Army and begging).

Expand full comment

Yeah, and what happens to a Striker Brigade that comes up on an opposing armored brigade? The same thing that happens to a Booker - they get blown up or they fire and retreat.

The fact is that MEUs do not now have the organic capabilities to sustain a fight with unified combat arms. They were able to mobilize, however they got there and whatever the supply chain, with what they needed to fight a combined arms battle. Sure, you might not need it if you're a raiding party on an island. But if your company is attacked on that island by an OPFOR that can land armor from, oh, the big amphib ship they just built...you're gonna want something heavier to shoot back with than your service weapons.

Then you reveal yourself "exquisite (sic) and often dysfunctional" - then you name everything in our arsenal, basically. Really? Nothing works? F-35s? MV-22s aren't flying everyday - even though some have mechanical issues from time to time? I've got news for you...isn't a thing that rolls, flys, or floats that doesn't need maintenance and repairs or have breakdowns. It is a wonder that we've been able to prosecute any wars at all - and win, killing our enemies wholesale - if your estimation is correct.

The Marines didn't use transports because they plan to exit transport and fight - and those trucks also take fuel.

But you may want to read this: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/november/marine-armor-outclassed-china

Expand full comment

au contraire mes freres, there will be a major land component too many still tend to overlook - the cyber forces which will wage a massive invisible campaign that will make or break C4I and the ability to effectively manage the naval/air campaigns... at least until EMP devices are introduced...

Expand full comment

I don't think cyber warfare, waged from Beijing, Shanghai, or Ft. Meade, counts as "land warfare". Cyber war, sure. Again, an assumption that nobody has thought of this, we're asleep at the wheel, and the guys in charge of successfully fighting such battles don't care and are willing to lose because they're inept or incompetent or silly bastards.

I think that we would deploy the CHAMPS missiles developed and fielded back in 2019.

"The US Air Force has quietly deployed missiles that could destroy the electronics of Iran's nuclear facilities with high-power microwaves, rendering them useless, without causing any fatalities, DailyMail.com has learned exclusively.

Known as the Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP), the missiles were built by Boeing's Phantom Works for the US Air Force Research Laboratory and first tested successfully in 2012. They were deployed—meaning installed in various locations around the globe—and became operational in 2019."

The microwave weapons are fitted into an air-launched cruise missile and delivered from B-52 (or B-2 or B-21) bombers. With a range of 700 miles, they can fly into enemy airspace at low altitude and emit sharp pulses of high power microwave (HPM) energy that fry computer chips, disabling any electronic devices targeted by the missiles without causing any collateral damage.

The missile is equipped with an electromagnetic pulse cannon. This uses a super-powerful microwave oven to generate a concentrated beam of energy. The energy causes voltage surges in electronic equipment, rendering them useless before surge protectors have the chance to react.

The project has been advancing secretly ever since the Air Force successfully tested a missile equipped with HPM in 2012."

We've developed more stuff along these lines since.

Expand full comment

Land forces that should be provided mostly by rich European nations. Afterall, they are defending their own land.

Expand full comment

Sal,

Army guy here but not why I disagree. I disagree with your priorities.

1. Fix the Navy acquisition mindset first

2. take on DOD constraints

3. prove you can get more bang for the buck.

4. Then and only then do you deserve more money

giving you Army money now will just feed your addiction and reduce your need to reform.

Expand full comment

Air Force, ending in career system acquisition.

All services need to do better.

US is a maritime nation. USAAF had large role in Pacific theater, lots of B 17, B 25, and headline B-29.

I hope the Navy is modifying Nimitz-King strategy for a Pacific war, Formosa the key this time around.

Expand full comment

I sure the Chinese have learned from the Japanese who disdained to use subs to sink merchant ships.

Expand full comment

and mine harbors

Expand full comment

By the looks of their submarine force, they have not.

Expand full comment

Except there is no time. The money was needed a decade ago. Delay it further and we won't even have of the shelf options to choose from for crisis planning. Unless you think Chairman Xi will wait another decade for the DOD acquisition process to begin to uncorked itself...

Expand full comment

Why is an O3 PAO spouting some meaningless gibberish on behalf of the SecNav? “We continue to work with our partners…..”

There are serious questions that need to be answered by the SecNav or a senior member of his staff with intimate knowledge of the situation.

Expand full comment

Have to use that CYA buffer.

Expand full comment

Presumably the Parrot is only repeating what he (she?) is told. If the leadership could give a better answer they would.

Expand full comment

SECNAV is MIA

Expand full comment

SecNav is out there. Issuing PR crap on mental health. "I need every single one of you to be there for your shipmates in the truest sense, because losing even one of you to suicide is one too many. That means being ready and resilient mentally for the challenges we face every day. Always remember mental health is health." SecNav is not doing anything to solve the problem, but people are patting him on the back for his bold statement. Platitudes and Posters are all we get on suicide prevention.

Expand full comment

So, sorry if this is stupid question, but once the money was appropriately authorized and actually funded by Congress, if the relevant Pentagon Admiral ordered “Begin detailed design, but the cap is 15% changes from the base foreign design”, which under-admiral was hauled up on charges for disobeying that order when it hit 16%?

Or are orders more of suggestions now, at least as far as ship design goes?

Expand full comment

Laws are written by staffers who are in constant contact with their pentagon counterparts. Anyway no one actually disobeyed the order but things happen.

Expand full comment

There is a big section in U.S. Code that directs DoD acquisition system. Almost all the limits have clauses and waivers.

One huge example is F-35. Law says big cost overruns have to tell Congress who then can kill the beast. 98% cost overrun and yet unrecognized performance fails, and it keeps building airplanes.

Second huge F-35 fail. There should be no more than a couple hundred until they pass OT&E. No OT&E but they just delivered thousandth aircraft. All need new engines, and updates to pass OT&E.

F-35 is the norm. Too much profit to kill.

Expand full comment

"F-35 subcontractors are spread over 45 states and a total of 307 congressional districts"

The U.S. Code language doesn't matter. You will never get a majority vote to kill a program if the prime can spread its subcontracts across enough congressional districts. Period. Dot.

Expand full comment

Current and hoped for future rice bowls are being taken care of. Must plan for the post-retirement gig with the MIC.

Expand full comment

I suspect that many companies are taking advantage of the military’s propensity to change specs in order to line their pockets.

During WWII, the Army was doing the same thing at the Ford plant. Edsel Ford solved the problem by building the basic plane using his father’s assembly line methods and then putting the planes to the side and then adding on the bells and whistles. Edsel Ford has not gotten proper recognition due to an early death and being overshadowed by his father.

Expand full comment

I agree we need to reduce the Army's budget, though ir probably won't happen. Why? Because if we're using the Army, it means the Smart People ar State have f*ck*d up, and they don't want to admit that.

Expand full comment

As an ex-Army man, I’m forced to agree. Armored divisions in the U.S. won’t help if the Navy is getting whipped around Taiwan. We do need more of those Army air defense units, though.

Expand full comment

"We still have not identified the core cause of our problem."

Yes, we have. It's the Navy and Department of Defense leadership. Plus, someone needs to enforce a 'good idea' cutoff date.

Expand full comment