|
Post by quincannon on Jun 9, 2017 16:45:41 GMT
What we need today is forward thinking by all of our services. How to get the same job done, better with less in terms of hardware and personnel.
The best bang for the buck we presently have is the Special Forces Group. We get the most out of a highly educated and superbly trained few.
In the case of the carriers, Ian pointed out that it is not only the carriers but the battle group that enables them. When you put all of your seaborne aviation eggs in relatively few, very expensive baskets, there is a tendency to either not use them for fear of loss, or recklessly use them in places where they will be lost, and where other means, that better fulfill your requirements are available to you.
On the other hand if you take those other means and utilize them to their fullest capacity, you can at the same time build a larger fleet of less expensive big decks maximized for the deep water mission where they are the only aviation game in town.
You do this on a twofold basis. First design the platform for multi-mission employment. Then redesign your air wings into smaller mission focused packages. One might be a two squadron F35 wing for strikes in low intensity combat areas, where air strike is the main focus but air superiority is the overarching requirement. Another might be an anti submarine, anti-surface sea control mission, having a small complement of F35's, plus weaponized and sensorized MV22's, and sonar dippers like the Seahawk. Still another might be a power projection wing, very similar to those now serving aboard the Wasp's and America's as part of Marine MEU's. There are probably a few more configurations I could come up with as well, but what I have listed is enough to give you the idea.
The theme in all of this is something your daddy's all told you - Work smart son, so you won't have to work so damned hard.
The Brits and Japanese are far ahead of us in their thinking here Dave with their Queen Elizabeth's , Hyuga's and Izumo's, but then again their naval thinking no longer dwells on Jutland or Midway, while ours still does.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 9, 2017 22:24:49 GMT
The question of which naval platforms best serve the nation needs to be addressed quickly in the world of unrest we are experiencing. Carriers, escort ships, Littoral combat ships and support vessels must be able to protect themselves and complete their missions. I do not advocate taking just any vessel out of mothballs but if they are serviceable and can support the navy's mission, why not? I get the reference to gussying up ole granny for one more run and I freely admit to not knowing what we need to do. These issues should be addressed by congress once it gets itself around to running the nation's business once again. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 0:11:54 GMT
Dave: The Navy took the Perry's out of service in the first place because they are not compatible platforms with the other ships of the current fleet anymore than a Burke and a coal barge can operate together. They do not have the electronics and the sensor packages. Can I make it any clearer than that.
Carriers, destroyers, frigates, the LCS, and fleet support vessels do not have the capability to protect themselves as individuals. Dismiss that from your mind completely. That is dreamland no reality. The protection for all comes from the interconnectivity of all, and interconnectivity with outside and space systems
There are either twelve or fourteen Perry's still in existence. They are kept for either SINKEX targets or transfer to smaller countries. As far as the United States Navy is concerned they have no naval value. The biggest thing they have is a 76mm single gun, and two Mark 32 trip tubes. They are obsolete and have been since 1990. Bringing them out today is a potential death sentence for anyone that sails in them. Do you understand this basic fact.
That article is political positioning. The Navy will present something like that to the senile Senator for Arizona, and it is meant to elicit a positive response, so that he will place exactly what the Navy does want in the Senate version of the defense appropriations bill, which will go to conference with the House, and in the end the Navy will get half its wish list, and you will see another article just like this one appearing in some defense Journal this time next year, where the same senile Senator will do the same damned thing and the process will repeat itself. That is the way the game is played and it is a game, which you so called "fly over" folks do not seem to understand. It has been played by the very same rules since 1789. I reference Ian Toll's "Six Frigates".
Don't ask where I got the senile comment from. It was not meant as derogatory, but rather a statement of fact made by people who work with him. His day has passed, and the "in fact" in, in fact, is that it is a well known fact, that he can be had by every defense pimp in the business. I happen to know one who is presently peddling one to him. It has made it into the current Senate version of the defense bill, at the Arizona senators insistence. It will never see the light of day, for one reason alone - It is bad for the Army.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 10, 2017 0:14:04 GMT
QC Good post! Clear and understandable which I appreciate. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 10, 2017 0:40:07 GMT
The question of which naval platforms best serve the nation needs to be addressed quickly in the world of unrest we are experiencing. Carriers, escort ships, Littoral combat ships and support vessels must be able to protect themselves and complete their missions. I do not advocate taking just any vessel out of mothballs but if they are serviceable and can support the navy's mission, why not? I get the reference to gussying up ole granny for one more run and I freely admit to not knowing what we need to do. These issues should be addressed by congress once it gets itself around to running the nation's business once again. Regards Dave There is a bigger problem facing the military beyond equipment and I am afraid it will be the driving force. It doesn't matter if you have billion dollar ships and planes when there is no one to fly or man them. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/22/trumps-hopes-to-rebuild-military-threatened-by-man/There are of course dozens of other links if anyone considers the Washington Times fake news.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 1:04:00 GMT
Very true Beth. Trump is another that feels bigger is better and more powerful. This is one area where I do not point fingers at him because he is just like 95 percent of the rest of America - DEAD FRIGGING WRONG.
Today's force requires bright,well educated, physically fit people at the entry level to work long hours, separated from family, with no appreciable personal life, for low wages, an uncertain job future, crappy food, a substandard retirement system, zipity doo da in veterans benefits if they do not make it to retirement, all for love of country alone. Naïve thinking at best. Idiotic assumption at worst.
That universe is fast drying up, with no change on the horizon.
The Commandant remarked recently with regard to Trumps proposed plus up in the Corps. He said it in other words of course, but the expression on his face was "What the F**k is this idiot thinking". He went on to say - I can't man what I have now and instead of the cyber expertise and assets I need he want to give me another division I have no equipment for (I did paraphrase - but I do speak that language fluently).
Now if you want to consider this Fake News then the only one who is getting Faked out is the people who do not believe it. You can repeat that same story for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and the frigging Girl Scouts.
So you people just go on believing what you wish to, but when the services that protect you are big and bold on the outside and hollow and rotten within, you dig my ass up and tell my rotting corpse that I didn't believe you when you said it, but you were right, but I have got to go so I cannot re-bury you. The commissar may catch me and throw me into gulag Alabama.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 10, 2017 2:41:19 GMT
Beth I agree with both you and QC about the need for the personnel to man the vessels, planes and units of the armed forces. I grew up in a military family and am well versed with the sacrifices the service men and women make to serve this nation. I really don't know what the best actions are for the military but we have always had men and women serve this nation and I expect we will have many more. Regards Dave I trust the Washington Times as much as I do the NY Times as to the fake news aspect of each publication.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 10, 2017 3:07:16 GMT
Dave, my point is that you will find similar articles not only in Fox news and several military news source. Unfortunately people tend to be selective about their news sources. Personally when I see a story that agrees across a broad spectrum of news sources, I tend to give it a whole lot of credit.
I think there is a part of the military that is still the same as it was in 1876--when the economy is bad, it is a better career choice for many over unemployment. Its not to say that every single serviceman and woman doesn't make huge sacrifices, it's just that the number of people who are willing to make that sacrifice varies with the economy.
Unfortunately I suspect that the military structure is a pyramid with the bottom, being kids enlisting straight from High school with little skills and it isn't very cost effective to train them to the type of high tech jobs that are needed in the military--especially if they don't re-enlist.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 3:44:12 GMT
Dave your family experience was in a different age, one that is largely irrelevant today. That is not a put down, only a reflection of reality. It is however the opinion shared by that 95 percent I spoke about, and it is the wrong opinion.
You are thinking of a rush to defend the colors era, Remember the Maine - To Hell With Spain. Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition, Rally Round The Flag, Rally Once Again. That era is over, and our country, now and for the foreseeable future is in a constant state of low intensity, high technology war, where as Larteguy remarked - Impossible things are demanded of a few dedicated men in camouflaged battle dress (paraphrase). It's not you father's Navy, nor my Army any more, but we still must demand those impossible things from a very few among us.
Fake News: There is no such thing as fake news. News is news. The automobile accident at first and Main is news period. It is not fake, It is real. The reportage in that piece is not fake it is real. A politician says something, that is not fake it is real. You can look at the transcripts, you can look at the video. These things are real.
You are equating opinion with news, and opinion is slanted any way the opinion writer/maker wants it to be slanted. The op-ed page of your morning paper is opinion, not news. The op-ed writer is there to shape your opinion one way or the other.
So the term fake news is itself fake. It is the opinion writer that is saying to you believe what I tell you, not your lying eyes. You are an educated man, a far better educated man than I, act like it. You do not serve anyone well with this fake news drivel. News is not fake it is news. Opinion is opinion, and you're letting opinion writers form the opinion of an intelligent man, like it was play dough,
It is news that James Comey testified under oath before Congress yesterday. You could see and hear everything he had to say. That is news. If you watched it you are perfectly capable of deciding if what you think he said was true or not. If you are in doubt about a certain item you can go back and see it again and again until you make up your own mind. That is news There is nothing fake about it. From then on you are also able to decide if the opinion commentators saw the same things and reached the same conclusions you did. It is pretty damned simple, but good citizenship demands it.
You may apply this one example to anything you wish. If you want to get stuff from the horse's mouth, do what I do, watch CSPAN. Where do you think I get most of the basis for my military commentary from. I watch the generals, admirals, and secretaries testify before Congress. I also watch the politicians receiving that testimony, and listen very carefully to how they phrase their questions, especially when it has to do with appropriation of money for weapons systems and structural changes.
So what you are telling me, and maybe others by this fake news business is that you do not feel intelligent and informed enough to decide for yourself, when you can easily see the primary source evidence that is available to you. You are then letting others tell you how to think. Is that the way you approach LBH and the other things we discuss here. If it is I feel sorry for you. You are wasting your time. I have however seen that in regards to LBH and the other historical issues discussed that is not the case. I ask you only to apply the same standards to current events that you apply to those things past. There have been few summaries of Benteen's activities, that you posted ever thought out , constructed, and presented better than yours today . I ask you to apply that standard in these other matters.
Consider what your opinion was when you first joined the brown board. You were there to learn. The raw material of that learning is the same there that it is here. What turned you off there was fake opinion, distortions of truth, made up lies, obfuscations, agenda driven commentary. That is why you left. Over here the raw news of that battle is no different than there. Exactly the same. So the fake over there was not the news, it was how the news was interpreted by those who wanted to wash you brain of the real, and make their real yours. Think about it, and then think why you are here.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 10, 2017 19:58:27 GMT
Beth My point was that both sides of the spectrum left (NY Times) and right (Wash Times) spin news according to their lights. Many stories are poorly researched with sketchy facts secured by many unnamed sources by both sides. I have always read a large selection of papers and publications from the NY Times to the Drudge Report to insure I receive news from different sides. But like most people I like news sources that support my religious, political and personal belief ideas, don't you?
QC My reference about knowing the sacrifice made by military families covered long absences by loved ones on cruises and deployments, moving from school to school is tough on children, especially teenagers, as well as the low income from military pay. I seriously doubt that these basic issues and concerns have changed since the 19th century for military families.
I believe that America will continue to have men and women who will lead this nation through the multiple crises facing us today and in the future. I never mentioned or implied we needed a "Remember the Maine" rush to fill the ranks but we need to provide the training young men and women can receive in the service that might lead to vocational skills for the future or attending higher education through the GI Bill. Beth mentioned young veterans leaving the service without training or skills yet their are many avenues for self-improvement that could be utilized. I play golf with a retired aircraft controller who learned his trade in the air force and know several retired law enforcement officers who were MPs, Shore Patrol and Air Police. There are many other opportunities in computer science and other technology career paths. Remember not everyone should attend higher education as it is not fro some and those who would be better in a vocational school. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 21:04:58 GMT
I understood your point from the outset Dave. Understand this though:
The military is not a job training program community college. That is a side benefit but not a purpose.
Most of what you refer to above is in the supporting, not the shooting functions.
The only job a shooter need apply for on the outside is thug.
I don't want them to learn a skill for the outside though. I want them to be twenty or thirty year hard core professionals. Although it is very nice that little Johnny Jones can become a cop or computer whiz having gotten a start on the taxpayers dime, that is not the purpose of a military force. They are not the folks in the camouflaged battle dress of whom the impossible is demanded. Those are the ones who do it for the love of it and love of country alone, not expecting reward or recognition. They are the very few among the very many, who again in Larteguy's words are not concerned with the Colonel's piles or the General's bowel movements. They are Gideon's most worthy, who do not lap water like a dog.
Read "The Centurions" by Larteguy, and you will understand, but don't try until you do.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 21:42:30 GMT
For your benefit Dave:
"I'd like to have two Armies. One for display, with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, staffs, distinguished and doddering Generals, and dear little Regimental Officers who would be deeply concerned over their General's bowel movements, or their Colonel's piles: An Army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country.
"The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflage uniforms, who would not be put on display but from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught. That is the army in which I should like to fight"
Jean Larteguy
Larteguy, and a small core of the French Army came out of Indo China changed men, who saw deep into the future to the wars we are now fighting. They are the Centurions, and we here in the US have our own just like them. Those unseen, to whom all sorts of tricks are taught. Those are the ones whose supply diminishes. They are the ones who must be cultivated, for our very existence depends upon them.
I keep saying that the nature of war is changing, and no one seems to understand what I mean. You had better learn.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jun 10, 2017 22:55:46 GMT
Dave I must not have made my point clear. It is expensive and time consuming to train a someone to some tech jobs needed in today's military. By the time a recruit goes thought basic and then specialty training, there needs to be a suitable time served for the government recoups the cost. If not, the government is in a perceptual, recruit and train loop without gaining the value of their investment.
Each step, recruitment, basic and training have a cost associated with them, if the time left on the average enlistment isn't enough to recoup the training and recruitment cost, then the military is working itself into a hole.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 23:20:57 GMT
That is exactly why Beth, there should be only one enlistment for an undetermined period. When you apply for a job at Safeway you don't have to reapply every three years. You are there as long as you wish to be, or until you are vested for retirement/ The military should do the same thing.
The military should also have a contributory retirement system, just like civil service. Once you are vested, five years in, that money is yours, should you decide to leave. Money that could be used to start another phase of your life. If you decided to stay until retirement, nothing would change, it would be exactly like civil service. If you decided to leave before being vested, the money you put into the retirement is kept by the government in partial repayment for the training received.
There should be no up or out. There should be three categories of evaluation.
1. Unsatisfactory performance - out on your ear.
2. Satisfactory but no promotion potential - retained in grade and position or like position.
3. Satisfactory with promotion potential - retain and promote as the opportunity arises.
Raise the salary slightly to partially compensate for retirement fund withdrawals.
Give educational bonuses upon initial enlistment, particularly for language skills.
Emphasize education, and make college degrees easy to obtain on post and on duty time.
Eliminate non performers ruthlessly.
You made a magnificent case Beth for why the draft should never be adopted in peacetime again.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 17, 2017 14:49:57 GMT
As most of you have heard USS Fitzgerald DDG62 was involved in a collision with a container ship yesterday. It is very hard to fathom how such an incident occurred. There are two things to keep in mind here.
1) The Captain of Fitzgerald is responsible for the safety of his ship and crew under all circumstances. I say again under all circumstances.
2) An investigation of this incident will be conducted. It would be premature to draw any conclusions at this early date, and until that investigation is concluded.
|
|