For a few years informed individuals have suggested buying ships from multiple allied partners. On a visit to the Baltic a few years ago I saw four brand new Finnish built icebreakers in Helsinki. These ships had been built for Russia who could not pay for them. Why did we not buy them at fire sale prices? Others suggested that the confiscated yachts of Drug Lords be provided to the Coast Guard. High speed, great range and state of the art vessels needing minimal modifications. Still others point out that we decommission ships because we lack the manpower and expertise to renovate and modernize. Others pointed to the glut of commercial ships ideal for MPS duties that were for sale. We purchased none.
The US ship building/repair and modernize industry is moribund, in large part due to US contracting anarchy. Yet, we need ships. Buy them until we can rejuvenate the broken shipping building industry.
We cannot plan to be ready for war in 2035. We must be ready tomorrow.
That's the rub. Are we at our Canberra / QE2 moment (UK Falklands TF) where risk of not being able to execute a mission outweighs the risk of using repurposed commercial shipping? Do we need to seriously consider converted liners, repurposed cargo ships, leased RO/RO ferries, and more MV Ocean Traders(built as MEU Ops support vessels vice Special Operations)? In the short term, since we have to prioritize Surface Warfare Vessels and Submarines, the answer, however undesirable, is clear. To keep the MAGTF globally viable and rebuild amphib capability in the short term (6mo / 2yr), we need to supplement the Amphib Fleet with repurposed commercial shipping. [reposted from March with edits]
cfrog, I think so, it has been rolling through the thought process, that ships can be repurposed, they is a enormous commercial fleet out there that handle all cargos, maybe there is way optimize what is out there until the domestic capacity can be revitalized. Douglas Rape’ mentioned Finland and Helsinki, having spent a great deal of time working for the Finn’s in the Forest Products industry their ship building capability it superb. They as example have been the primary shipbuilders for Carnival Cruise Lines. It seems there is a lot of potential synergy out there we just need to starts matching up needs and assets even they aren’t perfectly suited to Title X. At least we can the ball rolling again.
I really think the 'tonight +2 years' solution lies in finding and leasing hulls that are ready to go (maybe with some refinement), much as SOCOM did with the MV Ocean Trader, and the Brits did with TF Falklands. Military Sealift Command is sucking right now, and probably as maxed as the surface fleet (USS Bobo was a canary in the coalmine). Contracting new build at shipyards (foreign and domestic is mid to long term solution. In other words; what if we need to put another TF Tarawa in the water in 60 days, much less 30?
I know nothing about ship maintenance, but can the amphibs be SLEPed? Can these ships carry on for five more years or so? This would give additional time for more ships to be built. Definitely something seriously needs to be done.
SLEP is what is happening right now with the LHD's in current inventory. Each is going in for a MASSIVE 2 year (or longer ie BOXER/IWO) extended drydocking that is upgrading all major systems on the ships. These are highly complex avails and with the current shortage of skilled shipyard workers, very hard to keep "on the rails".
In the meantime, as the work is ongoing on the ships in the ship yards, the ships that have gone through this, although out of the yards, are still being worked on pierside at their respective bases for an additional 6 months or longer (again BOXER / IWO).
There is nothing easy about working on a ship. These are highly complex vessels and the Navy regional maintenance centers, as well as the NAVSEA and JFMM (Joint Forces Maintenance Manual) make even simple repairs damned difficult and expensive.
After seeing how the Navy conducts ship repair, it is no surprise to me how poorly they fair on ship design and building.
One thought which comes to mind is the Table of Organization.this a semi wild idea, but even if at the moment we do not have rolling stock armor, why can’t we begin training the armor MOS’s? Can we get older Abrams from the Army, or National Guard units? Is there some sort of federal statue that would prevent the Corps from buying Leopard or Centurion tanks? Even if we just had one company of armor per division to start it seems better than none. Same applies especially to the Engineer MOS’s, get the Marines trained up, as the T/O is being upgraded. Every Marine a Rifleman, but engineers at the NEO at HKIA in August 2021 were pivotal on two levels, they assisted the infantry and they built many of the screening areas for the evacuees and those being turned back. It may be far fetched but if the MOS is there then we can just bolt on more and more capability. As General Van Riper mentioned we know some people have made a shambles of things, but what can be done positively about it? This post is full,of good ideas. Optimism pathological optimism prevails!
What about the Booker? “Army takes delivery of first M10 Booker Combat Vehicle
By Ashley JohnApril 18, 2024
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. — The U.S. Army christened its newest combat vehicle, the M10 Booker, on April 18, 2024, during a ceremony at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The M10 Booker represents a new, modernized capability for the Army, allowing light maneuver forces to overmatch …
Samuel, I don’t care if we get some John Deere tractors and up armor them and attach an 81mm mortar and M60 to it as long as the principals of maneuver and mass are being taught and reinstituted, The Booker could be a start.
-Amphib readiness and Marine Unit readiness appear significantly disconnected. Marine units (MEU) appear capable of generating a ready force on a 1:3 personnel/training/maintenance timeline. Amphib (ARG shipping) readiness appears a 1:5 personnel/training/maintenance timeline.
-To generate an ARG/ MEU persistent presence in the Pacific and either the Med or Arabian Gulf requires a minimum baseline of 15 appropriate sized amphibious on the east and west coast. Assumes the Okinawa ARG/MEU not counted as satisfying the Pacific requirement
-ARG/ MEU deployments need to be reviewed looking to reduce transit times to destinations. As an example Pacific ARG/MEU spends 50 percent of its deployed time in transit if deployed to CENTCOM. Appears inefficient.
Thoughts from one who never served at our service headquarters.
Exceptional recommendations re solving the seaborne lift challenge of the Marine Corps. Here is today’s X post “ “#
@USMC
#MarineCorps MQ-9A MUX/MALE with @1stMAW_Marines conducted the first Satellite Communications
Launch & Recovery (SLR) mission on @MCB_Hawail.
SLR eases logistics and supports the flexibility required for modern expeditionary operations.”…Although not related to the fact that one needs to have comms to order logistical support for “modern expeditionary operations”…..how does an airborne relay via drone accomplish this in a non permissive environment? IOW looks cool but first you need an expeditionary force, which means you need deployable, scaleable MAGTFs MEF, MEB, MEU, and ships lots of ships. PS the Iranians and their proxies have destroyed the reconnaissance version of this drone. DoD has contracted with Starlink to utilize its tens of thousands laser cross linked LEO satellites already serving world wide customers. How many millions for MQ-9A? Jamming or shooting down 1 drone must be easier then interrupting clandestine comms digitized and buried inside tens of thousands msgs sent to “modern expeditionary forces”by LEO satellites which are constantly being replenished.
BRAVO ZULU COMPASS POINTS! Besides the options mentioned for ships, could allies provide amphibious lift for a MEU in an emergency.
My 3rd WestPac tour as OIC of MWWU-1 was getting flight time in the C-117. One flight was to Taiwan to deliver a C-117 for its SCHEDULED depot level refurbishment. Taiwan had the contract. You can do the same with ships.
GeoPrepositioning has to be considered as an up front way to UNDIVEST equipment and supplies. Prepositioned equipment is War Reserve Stock. It is not additive to Marine Corps alllowances. It is not a substitute for Maritime Prepositioning. The Norway program has supported every war to include Afghanistan. Sites considered could be Australia, Guam, South Kores, Pbilippines, Israel, Jordan, Africa, Central Americs, etc.Tanks from Norway were in Iraq 30 days before tanks arrived from the U. S.
Bob- I appreciate your point. One note of clarity - USMC Tanks from the States were flowed with TF Tarawa. For the rest of USMC hogs in country, they primarily came from MPF offload. MPF Tank contingent was still robust in those days; I'm not sure how much supplemental came from the caves, but I don't recall that it was very much, if any at that point. I know 2d and 1st Tank were in Kuwait for a few days before they started flowing hogs to the LSAs in Kuwait from the port offload. This was all prior to kick off and any USMC armor crossing the border into Iraq.
Today HI Sutton Website “New Trend: Transatlantic Narco Submarines
Narco-submarines are transporting tons of cocaine across the Atlantic from South America to Europe. There have been indications of this going back ten years, but it was proven in 2019 when one showed up in Spain. That was followed by another in March 2023. But those could be argued to be unusual.
Now three more incidents, over a few months, hints at the scale and persistence of this unseen and under-discussed phenomenon. The three narco-submarines have distinct 'signature' elements strongly suggesting that they were designed and build separately by different organizations.
I don’t have the time to dedicate to the narco-submarine topic as I used to. Hopefully this short note will help useful.
Like almost all ‘narco submarines’ the vessels used are not true submarines. They cannot submerge, instead relying on running extremely low in the water to avoid detection. The approach works; most get through.
3 Incidents
1. On March 21, 2024 the U.S. Coast Guard, assisted by the U.S. Navy Ticonderoga Class guided missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55) interdicted one off Guyana. The vessel, carrying 2,370 kg (5,225lb) was approximately 150 miles off the Guyana coast. Given its location it is logical to assume that it was starting its journey across the Atlantic when it was stopped.
Narco submarine stopped……consider the Irony of the ships name.
PS…..How many millions for the comm drone, maintenance, personnel etc etc vs leasing hundreds or thousands of Starlink Terminals?…the Ukrainian’s built expendable surface and semisubmersible attack unmanned attack vessels that successfully struck Russian ships using Starlink Terminals as comms see H. I. Sutton -Covert Shores .
For a few years informed individuals have suggested buying ships from multiple allied partners. On a visit to the Baltic a few years ago I saw four brand new Finnish built icebreakers in Helsinki. These ships had been built for Russia who could not pay for them. Why did we not buy them at fire sale prices? Others suggested that the confiscated yachts of Drug Lords be provided to the Coast Guard. High speed, great range and state of the art vessels needing minimal modifications. Still others point out that we decommission ships because we lack the manpower and expertise to renovate and modernize. Others pointed to the glut of commercial ships ideal for MPS duties that were for sale. We purchased none.
The US ship building/repair and modernize industry is moribund, in large part due to US contracting anarchy. Yet, we need ships. Buy them until we can rejuvenate the broken shipping building industry.
We cannot plan to be ready for war in 2035. We must be ready tomorrow.
Doug
Absolutely spot on.
That's the rub. Are we at our Canberra / QE2 moment (UK Falklands TF) where risk of not being able to execute a mission outweighs the risk of using repurposed commercial shipping? Do we need to seriously consider converted liners, repurposed cargo ships, leased RO/RO ferries, and more MV Ocean Traders(built as MEU Ops support vessels vice Special Operations)? In the short term, since we have to prioritize Surface Warfare Vessels and Submarines, the answer, however undesirable, is clear. To keep the MAGTF globally viable and rebuild amphib capability in the short term (6mo / 2yr), we need to supplement the Amphib Fleet with repurposed commercial shipping. [reposted from March with edits]
cfrog, I think so, it has been rolling through the thought process, that ships can be repurposed, they is a enormous commercial fleet out there that handle all cargos, maybe there is way optimize what is out there until the domestic capacity can be revitalized. Douglas Rape’ mentioned Finland and Helsinki, having spent a great deal of time working for the Finn’s in the Forest Products industry their ship building capability it superb. They as example have been the primary shipbuilders for Carnival Cruise Lines. It seems there is a lot of potential synergy out there we just need to starts matching up needs and assets even they aren’t perfectly suited to Title X. At least we can the ball rolling again.
I really think the 'tonight +2 years' solution lies in finding and leasing hulls that are ready to go (maybe with some refinement), much as SOCOM did with the MV Ocean Trader, and the Brits did with TF Falklands. Military Sealift Command is sucking right now, and probably as maxed as the surface fleet (USS Bobo was a canary in the coalmine). Contracting new build at shipyards (foreign and domestic is mid to long term solution. In other words; what if we need to put another TF Tarawa in the water in 60 days, much less 30?
I know nothing about ship maintenance, but can the amphibs be SLEPed? Can these ships carry on for five more years or so? This would give additional time for more ships to be built. Definitely something seriously needs to be done.
SLEP is what is happening right now with the LHD's in current inventory. Each is going in for a MASSIVE 2 year (or longer ie BOXER/IWO) extended drydocking that is upgrading all major systems on the ships. These are highly complex avails and with the current shortage of skilled shipyard workers, very hard to keep "on the rails".
In the meantime, as the work is ongoing on the ships in the ship yards, the ships that have gone through this, although out of the yards, are still being worked on pierside at their respective bases for an additional 6 months or longer (again BOXER / IWO).
There is nothing easy about working on a ship. These are highly complex vessels and the Navy regional maintenance centers, as well as the NAVSEA and JFMM (Joint Forces Maintenance Manual) make even simple repairs damned difficult and expensive.
After seeing how the Navy conducts ship repair, it is no surprise to me how poorly they fair on ship design and building.
Thank you Sir, for your full explanation. We definitely need more ships.
One thought which comes to mind is the Table of Organization.this a semi wild idea, but even if at the moment we do not have rolling stock armor, why can’t we begin training the armor MOS’s? Can we get older Abrams from the Army, or National Guard units? Is there some sort of federal statue that would prevent the Corps from buying Leopard or Centurion tanks? Even if we just had one company of armor per division to start it seems better than none. Same applies especially to the Engineer MOS’s, get the Marines trained up, as the T/O is being upgraded. Every Marine a Rifleman, but engineers at the NEO at HKIA in August 2021 were pivotal on two levels, they assisted the infantry and they built many of the screening areas for the evacuees and those being turned back. It may be far fetched but if the MOS is there then we can just bolt on more and more capability. As General Van Riper mentioned we know some people have made a shambles of things, but what can be done positively about it? This post is full,of good ideas. Optimism pathological optimism prevails!
What about the Booker? “Army takes delivery of first M10 Booker Combat Vehicle
By Ashley JohnApril 18, 2024
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. — The U.S. Army christened its newest combat vehicle, the M10 Booker, on April 18, 2024, during a ceremony at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The M10 Booker represents a new, modernized capability for the Army, allowing light maneuver forces to overmatch …
Samuel, I don’t care if we get some John Deere tractors and up armor them and attach an 81mm mortar and M60 to it as long as the principals of maneuver and mass are being taught and reinstituted, The Booker could be a start.
Brilliant! That would certainly be a way to Adapt, Improvise, and Overcome!
3 points
-Amphib readiness and Marine Unit readiness appear significantly disconnected. Marine units (MEU) appear capable of generating a ready force on a 1:3 personnel/training/maintenance timeline. Amphib (ARG shipping) readiness appears a 1:5 personnel/training/maintenance timeline.
-To generate an ARG/ MEU persistent presence in the Pacific and either the Med or Arabian Gulf requires a minimum baseline of 15 appropriate sized amphibious on the east and west coast. Assumes the Okinawa ARG/MEU not counted as satisfying the Pacific requirement
-ARG/ MEU deployments need to be reviewed looking to reduce transit times to destinations. As an example Pacific ARG/MEU spends 50 percent of its deployed time in transit if deployed to CENTCOM. Appears inefficient.
Thoughts from one who never served at our service headquarters.
Exceptional recommendations re solving the seaborne lift challenge of the Marine Corps. Here is today’s X post “ “#
@USMC
#MarineCorps MQ-9A MUX/MALE with @1stMAW_Marines conducted the first Satellite Communications
Launch & Recovery (SLR) mission on @MCB_Hawail.
SLR eases logistics and supports the flexibility required for modern expeditionary operations.”…Although not related to the fact that one needs to have comms to order logistical support for “modern expeditionary operations”…..how does an airborne relay via drone accomplish this in a non permissive environment? IOW looks cool but first you need an expeditionary force, which means you need deployable, scaleable MAGTFs MEF, MEB, MEU, and ships lots of ships. PS the Iranians and their proxies have destroyed the reconnaissance version of this drone. DoD has contracted with Starlink to utilize its tens of thousands laser cross linked LEO satellites already serving world wide customers. How many millions for MQ-9A? Jamming or shooting down 1 drone must be easier then interrupting clandestine comms digitized and buried inside tens of thousands msgs sent to “modern expeditionary forces”by LEO satellites which are constantly being replenished.
BRAVO ZULU COMPASS POINTS! Besides the options mentioned for ships, could allies provide amphibious lift for a MEU in an emergency.
My 3rd WestPac tour as OIC of MWWU-1 was getting flight time in the C-117. One flight was to Taiwan to deliver a C-117 for its SCHEDULED depot level refurbishment. Taiwan had the contract. You can do the same with ships.
GeoPrepositioning has to be considered as an up front way to UNDIVEST equipment and supplies. Prepositioned equipment is War Reserve Stock. It is not additive to Marine Corps alllowances. It is not a substitute for Maritime Prepositioning. The Norway program has supported every war to include Afghanistan. Sites considered could be Australia, Guam, South Kores, Pbilippines, Israel, Jordan, Africa, Central Americs, etc.Tanks from Norway were in Iraq 30 days before tanks arrived from the U. S.
Bob- I appreciate your point. One note of clarity - USMC Tanks from the States were flowed with TF Tarawa. For the rest of USMC hogs in country, they primarily came from MPF offload. MPF Tank contingent was still robust in those days; I'm not sure how much supplemental came from the caves, but I don't recall that it was very much, if any at that point. I know 2d and 1st Tank were in Kuwait for a few days before they started flowing hogs to the LSAs in Kuwait from the port offload. This was all prior to kick off and any USMC armor crossing the border into Iraq.
Cfrog, I bow readily to your update. My info was from an article I read long ago. SF Bob
Today HI Sutton Website “New Trend: Transatlantic Narco Submarines
Narco-submarines are transporting tons of cocaine across the Atlantic from South America to Europe. There have been indications of this going back ten years, but it was proven in 2019 when one showed up in Spain. That was followed by another in March 2023. But those could be argued to be unusual.
Now three more incidents, over a few months, hints at the scale and persistence of this unseen and under-discussed phenomenon. The three narco-submarines have distinct 'signature' elements strongly suggesting that they were designed and build separately by different organizations.
I don’t have the time to dedicate to the narco-submarine topic as I used to. Hopefully this short note will help useful.
Like almost all ‘narco submarines’ the vessels used are not true submarines. They cannot submerge, instead relying on running extremely low in the water to avoid detection. The approach works; most get through.
3 Incidents
1. On March 21, 2024 the U.S. Coast Guard, assisted by the U.S. Navy Ticonderoga Class guided missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55) interdicted one off Guyana. The vessel, carrying 2,370 kg (5,225lb) was approximately 150 miles off the Guyana coast. Given its location it is logical to assume that it was starting its journey across the Atlantic when it was stopped.
Narco submarine stopped……consider the Irony of the ships name.
PS…..How many millions for the comm drone, maintenance, personnel etc etc vs leasing hundreds or thousands of Starlink Terminals?…the Ukrainian’s built expendable surface and semisubmersible attack unmanned attack vessels that successfully struck Russian ships using Starlink Terminals as comms see H. I. Sutton -Covert Shores .