Sequestration Is NOT the Problem
We’ve seen a public relations blitz of late by the Navy and the military in general attempting to blame all its readiness and maintenance problems on sequestration and the resulting lack of money. The reality is that the Navy’s problems are all self-inflicted and have nothing to do with sequestration. The Navy has mismanaged itself into a hollow force and is using sequestration as a scapegoat.
Oh come on, now. Sequestration has caused all kinds of problems, right? We all know this to be true. Ships have begun to fail INSURV inspections, manning has been reduced to sub-optimal levels, maintenance has suffered, ships have had to be retired early, we now have submarine and fighter aircraft shortages looming, we’re forced to use F-18’s as tankers, etc. This more than proves the evils visited on the fleet by sequestration, right? Well, yes, all those things have occurred and led to the current readiness and “hollowness” failures now plaguing the fleet. The only problem with that narrative is that all those things occurred before sequestration – a fact seemingly lost on Navy leadership as they talk to reporters and testify before Congress.
Don’t believe it? Let’s review the chronology. As you read through the chronology, note where sequestration begins. Hint: it began 1-Mar-2013 and is highlighted in red in the chronology listing. Obviously, any actions prior to that point could not possibly have been due to sequestration. Further, any actions in the subsequent year after sequestration began are likely unrelated to sequestration due to the simple fact that the effects hadn’t yet had time to manifest. Read and learn.
1992 – 2009 – Training
“Significant changes in training affected the surface force from 1992-2009. Some changes resulted in the misalignment of authority and accountability which negatively affected surface force readiness.” (2, p.4)
1995 – Readiness Squadrons eliminated
“Readiness Squadrons (READRONSs) were disestablished in 1995, eliminating a critical path for the professional development and training of the surface force. The elimination of the READRONS removed a clear line of accountability for the material readiness of the ships.” (2, p.13)
1995 – Planning and Engineering for Repairs and Alterations (PERA) organization eliminated
“The Planning and Engineering for Repairs and Alterations (PERA) organization that was responsible for executing and maintaining the class maintenance plan (CMP), the plan to ensure each class of ship is maintained to meet or exceed its designed service life, was disestablished in 1995.” (2, p.15)
1996 – All remaining destroyer tenders decommissioned
1998 – Tactical Training Commands Atlantic and Pacific disestablished
“Tactical Training Commands Atlantic and Pacific were disestablished in 1998, closing yet another ship-to-shore professional development path.” (2, p.14)
1999 – Inspections eliminated
“Further exacerbating surface force readiness was the decision in 1999 to eliminate external command inspections and the implementation of self-assessment policies.” (2, p.13)
2001 - Optimal manning cut over 4,000 sailors from surface ships.
“The Optimum Manning (OM ) initiative was introduced in 2001. Shipboard manning requirements were assessed primarily against shipboard watch standing/operational requirement. This approach did not consider other factors such as maintenance requirements. As a result, shipboard manning requirements were reduced to levels well below the requirements identified in ship design and, particularly, below the levels required to support material readiness requirements. (2, p.4))
2001 – Preventive maintenance requirements reduced
“Reduced manning prevented ships from performing the minimum required level of preventive maintenance. To compensate for this misalignment, the Material Maintenance and Management (3M) program was revamped in 2001 to reduce the Preventive Maintenance System (PMS) requirements on board ships to alleviate some of the workload and accommodate reduced crew sizes.” (2, p.15)
2001 – Optimal manning experiments conducted with George Washington battle group and USS Milius, DDG-69
2006 - Two Avenger class MCM unable to get underway for inspections
2006 – Navy POM-08 reduces Perry class manning from 215 to 187 (3)
2007 - A FFG, LPD, and MCM fail INSURV
2007 – Submarine and destroyer shortfalls recognized in testimony to Congress.
“In particular, relative to the goals for various components of the 313-ship fleet, the Navy would experience shortfalls in attack submarines (40 in 2028 and 2029 versus a stated requirement of 48), … and guided missile destroyers (60 in 2037 versus a stated requirement of 69).” (4)
2008 – Six ships, including USS Stout and USS Chosin fail INSURV
2008 – Navy classifies INSURV reports
2009 – Vadm. Balisle was directed to convene a Fleet Review Panel on 1-Sep
2009 – Average periodicity between INSURV inspections increased from 44 months in 1992 to over 60 months in 2009
2009 – Last S-3 Viking retired forcing tanker duties onto F-18
2009 – Navy reduces Burke manning 23% from 2002 (3)
2009 – Funding for ship maintenance availabilities suspended for FY2009 (6)
“…on February 3, 2009 , funding of the remainder of CNO availabilities (9 were scheduled in Hampton
2010 – Aegis cruiser and FFG fail INSURV
2010 - Balisle Report on Fleet Readiness
From the Feb-2010 Balisle Report:
“The panel concluded that Surface Force readiness has degraded over the last ten years. This degradation has not been due to a single decision or policy change, but the result of many independent actions. The panel produced a chronology that identified changes across the man, train, equip, and command and control domains since 1992, and identified the impacts of those changes on Surface Force readiness.” (2, p.4)
2011 - Budget Control Act passed
2011 – Aegis cruiser fails INSURV
2012 - USS McCain fails INSURV
“The John S. McCain is the first Aegis-equipped destroyer to flunk INSURV since 2008, when a spate of failures and degraded scores prompted an independent review that found the surface fleet on a downward slide.” (1)
2013 - Sequestration (automatic spending cuts) begins on 1-Mar-2013
2013 – USS Mobile Bay, an Aegis cruiser, fails INSURV in April 2013
This timeline clearly proves that the Navy’s readiness and maintenance issues all began long before sequestration took effect. The Navy’s problems are entirely self-inflicted as a result of institutional stupidity on a scale that defies belief. Virtually every major decision the Navy has made has been wrong and has exacerbated the problems.
The Navy even recognized the readiness problem prior to sequestration as evidenced by the 2010 (three years prior to sequestration!!!) Balisle report, “Fleet Panel Review of Surface Force Readiness” [emphasis added]. The report was initiated as a result of multiple failings of INSURV inspections and other readiness indicators. Three years prior to sequestration, the Navy knew they had a severe readiness problem and yet, now, they’re attempting to blame it all on sequestration. Why? Because if they didn’t they’d have to admit that they brought on, and were solely responsible for, the readiness problems.
That’s worth repeating.
Because if they didn’t they’d have to admit that they brought on, and were solely responsible for, the readiness problems.
It’s really worth repeating because it totally contradicts and disproves the Navy’s claims.
Because if they didn’t they’d have to admit that they brought on, and were solely responsible for, the readiness problems.
Here’s more evidence that the Navy recognized readiness and maintenance issues before sequestration kicked in. Following is a list of some Navy Maritime Improvement Initiative recommendations from Nov 2012 as presented by OpNav N43 (5) several months before sequestration began.
- Reverse Optimal Manning
- Re-establishment of Surface Maintenance Engineering Planning Program (SURMEPP)
- Reconstitute Surface Intermediate Maintenance
- Expanded Material Condition Inspections
Well, sure, we can see the problems now but that’s unfair. It’s all hindsight, right? Wrong. All of the decisions were blindingly, obviously, wrong when they were made. This is not a case of unfair criticism due to 20/20 hindsight.
- Could the Navy really not anticipate that reduced manning on ships would lead to reduced maintenance and poorer material condition? All the rest of us anticipated this incredibly obvious link between insufficient manpower and poor maintenance!
- Could the Navy really not anticipate that retiring the A-6 and S-3 tankers would lead to using up the only remaining aircraft, the front line F-18 Hornet, doing mundane tanking? Who/what did they think would wind up doing the tanking. There was only one candidate, the F-18!
- Could the Navy really not anticipate that failing to plan to build enough subs and destroyers would lead to critical shortfalls down the road? Every 30 year shipbuilding plan documented the looming shortfall and the Navy wrote the 30 year plans. They knew exactly what was coming and reported it!
- Could the Navy really not anticipate the reducing readiness inspections would not lead to reduced readiness?
- Could the Navy really not anticipate that eliminating training programs would not lead to reduced tactical proficiency? Did the Navy really think that not training for tactics would somehow, magically, not adversely affect tactical proficiency?
The evidence is overwhelming that the Navy’s readiness and maintenance problems were entirely self-inflicted due to a steady stream of idiotic decisions and all the problems were already well established prior to sequestration.
Any hint or suggestion by the Navy that sequestration is somehow responsible for readiness or maintenance problems is a flat out lie. Now you know…
Sequestration is notthe problem.
___________________________________
(1)Military Times website, “Destroyer McCain Fails INSURV Inspection”, 20-Mar-2013 ,
(2)“Fleet Panel Review of Surface Force Readiness”, VAdm. Balisle (Ret.), 26-Feb-2010
(3)CNA, “Impact of Manning and Infrastructure Initiatives on the Surface Navy”, David M. Rodney, Michael D. Bowes, Christopher M. Duquette, Sara M. Russell, Nov 2009, CRM D0021247.A2/Final
(4) CBO TESTIMONY, “Statement of J. Michael Gilmore Assistant Director for National Security and Eric J. Labs Senior Analyst The Navy’s 2008 Shipbuilding Plan and Key Ship Programs before the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Committee on Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives” July 24, 2007
(5)Depot Maintenance Requirements Determination slide presentation, Stu Paul OPNAV N43 13 November, 2012,
(6)Virginia Ship Repair Association, “White Paper Navy Ship Repair Shortfalls Virginia Impact”, 13-Feb-2009 ,
Belum ada Komentar untuk "Sequestration Is NOT the Problem"
Posting Komentar