E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Strained Navy experiments with smaller strike groups
Global Security from Chicago Tribune

By James Janega EFL

Here is an example of the type of initiative that Rumsfeld is alluding to in his memo.

Hoping to double the forces it can send to hot spots around the world, the Navy has begun experimenting with deployments of small strike groups of ships to reduce the Navy’s reliance on its heavily used aircraft carrier fleet.

The Navy also plans to dramatically overhaul the schedule for deploying military personnel on ships, reducing the time between deployments and creating a less predictable schedule. This will be a family buster.

Officials have characterized the plans as a means to be more responsive to unpredictable and more numerous threats in the post-Cold War era.

The Navy’s prototype Expeditionary Strike Groups pair 2,200 Marines and their equipment aboard amphibious assault ships with a mix of Navy destroyers, cruisers and submarines that provide defensive measures and the ability to launch cruise missiles at targets far inland. This is one good idea that makes sense for situations like Liberia and Somalia.

Snipped out a large chunck for brevity, but the whole article is worth reading as well.

Though six-month cruises will still occur, some ships likely will be sent for longer, while others could be dispatched to trouble spots for only a month or two. Returning ships would be kept on alert for a time, ready to head back out to sea on short notice. Following typical six-month maintenance schedules, they would be ready to go out after just four or five months of training--more than six months faster than earlier, a senior Navy official said.

Pentagon strategists who support the plan talk about its promise of doubling the "employability" of carriers by either speeding them out to sea or keeping them ready in the event of an emergency. Though carriers will be the first to employ the new timetables, other ships would follow.

Critics say the plan leaves unanswered many questions, including what impact more frequent cruises will have on an aging fleet.

"The people and the ships and the aircraft, and all of the subsystems, are all going to be worn out," Baker said. "It should be a temporary step in anticipation of a short-term need. But it’s being couched as a permanent change.

The Hose’s simple answer for solving this problem for ships other than carriers. Have a blue and gold crew assigned to two ships. Keep one ship in the US and deploy the other out of Naples, Bahrain or wherever. Rotate the crew’s back and forth using the stateside asset for training.

This will work because the Navy uses or (used?) a standardized Engineering Sequencing System to operate equipment and a standardized planned maintenace system. Most of the ships have been built cookie cutter style. Even the equipment has been standardized - one type of fire pump installed across the board.

The advantage: to get a ship to the Persian Gulf the transit is two weeks ... just to cross the damn Atlantic. Tack on another two weeks to get to the gulf. Month there and a month back chews up two months of a six month deployment.

Historically ballistic missile submarines have been assigned two crews to keep an expensive asset operating.
Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-25
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=20358