Compass Points - Fleet Tracker
Deter global bad actors
Compass Points - Fleet Tracker
Deter global bad actors
July 21, 2024
.
What does the US Navy fleet have to do with the Marine missile units on Pacific islands, the so-called Marine Stand-in-Forces (SIF)?
While it may no longer be the world's largest fleet, there is still a strong argument that the US Navy fleet patrolling the seas around the globe is the most powerful naval force the world has ever seen.
Back in 1907 President Teddy Roosevelt wanted to send a message to the world about the power and might of the United States. He decided the best way to send a message of United States strength was to send the US Navy fleet around the world. Many US foreign policy experts and many in Congress were vehemently opposed to Roosevelt's unprecedented and risky plan.
The opposition to sending the fleet around the world was so great Congress threatened to refuse funding for the voyage. Roosevelt is said to have replied that he had the funds to send the fleet out and once it was halfway around the world, if Congress did not want to pay to bring it back, that would be up to them. At that time, the Navy ships were not painted gray as they are today, the ships were painted white. The Navy's Great White Fleet set sail, just before Christmas 1907.
.
==========
.
The Great White Fleet, consisting of 14,000 sailors on 16 battleships and accompanying vessels, was sent around the world for fourteen months by President Roosevelt. The fleet's journey started on December 16, 1907, and concluded on February 22, 1909.
-- Theodore Roosevelt Center
.
==========
.
Teddy Roosevelt knew more than a hundred years ago that when US Navy ships appear off a foreign coast, it is a powerful signal of deterrence. The US Navy fleet around the globe is still a deterrence force today. The US broadcasts the location of Navy carrier strike groups and the ARG-MEUs, Amphibious Ready Group - Marine Expeditionary Units. For example, USNI News continually updates a map showing the location of the US fleet around the world.
.
==========
.
USNI News Fleet and Marine Tracker: July 15, 2024
These are the approximate positions of the U.S. Navy’s deployed carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups throughout the world as of July 15, 2024, based on Navy and public data.
-- USNI News
.
==========
.
When any nation or rogue force hostile to the United States considers any form of attack against the US, the mere presence of the Navy fleet is a powerful deterrent.
In the same way, from the beginning of the Marine Corps' controversial Force Design plan back in the summer of 2019, part of the justification for placing small missile units of Marines on isolated Pacific islands was the claim that Stand-in-Forces would also be a powerful deterrent.
.
==========
.
Despite the threats that come from operating inside an adversary’s weapons engagement zone (WEZ), forward-deployed Marines have outsized influence to shape the operational environment and cause our adversaries to think before committing to a course of action.
. . . we will maximize the potential of the Stand-In Forces and their contribution to the Joint Force, while remaining organically mobile, survivable, and sustainable within the littorals.
-- Frag Order 01-2024
.
==========
.
If Marine Stand-in-Force missile units on Pacific islands are actually a deterrence to China and others, then just as the US broadcasts the location of the Navy fleet, the US should broadcast the location of the Marine Stand-in-Force missile units.
If the Marine Stand-in-Force missile units really are the best way to deter and "cause our adversaries to think before committing to a course of action" then what is needed is a Marine Stand-in-Force Tracker. The USNI News should regularly publish a map of the Marine Stand-in-Force missile units scattered on Pacific islands. Then a few weeks later the updated map would display the new Stand-in-Force locations. Every few weeks the Stand-in-Force missile units would be in a new location because the unis are "mobile, survivable, and sustainable within the littorals." Or are they?
After 5 years of preparation, what will the new USNI News Marine Stand-in-Force Tracker map look like? How many Stand-in-Force missile units are now operational on how many foreign islands? Would the SIF Tracker map display 10 operational SIF units on 10 separate islands? Or perhaps only 5 operational SIF units on 5 separate islands?
The answer of course is despite reams of power point slides, and hours of confident speeches, after 5 years there are still zero SIF operational missile units deployed on zero islands. The new USNI News SIF Tracker map would be completely blank.
What does the US Navy fleet have to do with the Marine missile units on Pacific islands, the so-called Marine Stand-in-Forces (SIF)? Teddy Roosevelt understood, years ago, that the US fleet is an actual deterrent. What would Teddy Roosevelt think of the Marine SIF missile units.? Not much. Roosevelt would be able to see immediately that the Marine SIF missiles units are at best only a theoretical -- not genuine -- deterrence.
USNI News regularly publishes a tracker map of the US fleet in order to deter the enemies of the United States. It is said that the Marine SIF missile units deter China. Where is the SIF Tracker map? There is no map because there is no SIF deterrence.
Compass Points thanks USNI News for their Fleet Tracker Map and salutes the power and might of the US fleet, including the amazingly flexible Amphibious Ready Group - Marine Expeditionary Units. When a Marine MAGTF onboard Navy ships arrives off shore of a crisis, help has arrived and better days are ahead.
.
- - - - -
.
USNI News
Fleet Tracker - July 15, 2024
https://news.usni.org/category/fleet-tracker
.
- - - - -
.
Theodore Roosevelt Center
Great White Fleet
The Navy has about 300 ships. It has global responsibilities. About 30% are in maintenance and rehabilitation. Another 30% are in work up, sea trials etc. that leaves about 40-45% that are deployable. Let’s say 150 which means about 75 on each coast. Currently the plan is to increase to 345 by 2045, a mere 21 years from now. The Navy cannot build enough ships, maintain them or recruit and train the crews to man them. It is not getting better. It is getting worse.
Let’s stop fueling ourselves.
A sub set of Maritime readiness and power in the USMC that deploys MEUs that are no longer MAGTFs on six month deployments. Ideally one each in the Med, the IO and WestPac. A Corps of 160,000 cannot do it. We simply can’t seem to be able to deploy about 7000 Marines 365 days per year. Spare me the reasons. In the 1980’s I suggested nine month MEU deployments vice six months. The idea was dismissed as outrageous.
All discussion is wasted breath until the RDA efforts can produce and maintain ships, recruiting can find fully qualified individuals to train in a training establishment that shrinks by the day when training has demanded greater sophistication and skills. Every measurable trend is on a glide-path to impact.
The USMC refocus to harass the Chinese Navy is five plus years old and has yet to stand up a fully functional unit. We won WWII in the Pacific in 45 months. The Corps was able to divest in six months and unable to stand up in 60 months and counting. It currently could not sink a garbage barge.
Imagine a new college football coach who takes a power house program and promises to make it better and five years later still cannot field a team, present a playbook and has not purchased the necessary equipment.
I am done with debate, discussion or queries. It is long past due to remove the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy and the senior uniformed leadership of the Navy and Marine Corps. I can think of no endeavor - business, academia, sports, diplomacy,
Faith based institutions, charities, research, literature or entertainment - where they would not be summarily dismissed.
With all due respect. Our fleet hasn’t dissuaded a rag tag military like the Houthis from stopping their attacks on international shipping, firing on Israel proper, or on US Naval ships. How in the hell are they going to dissuade China from doing what they want to do in the pacific?