US Army Faces 'Wide-Ranging' Issues with Its Boats, Considers Replacing Them with Autonomous Vessels (cnn.com) 74
An anonymous readed shared this report from CNN:
[U.S. army boats] are poorly maintained and largely unprepared to meet the military's growing mission in the Pacific, a new government oversight report said this week. The Government Accountability Office released a report on Wednesday that concluded there are "wide-ranging" issues facing Army watercraft, which limit the Army's ability "to meet mission requirements in the Indo-Pacific theater where the need for Army watercraft is most pronounced."
Despite Army policy requiring the vessels to be at least at a 90% mission capable rate — meaning the vessels are ready to perform their mission — the boats currently have a less than 40% capable rate this year. Overall, the fleet of watercraft has dropped by nearly half since 2018, going from 134 vessels to 70 as of May this year, in part due to divestment of vessels in 2018 and 2019... "Army boats have not been ready, capable, or in a mindset they'll have to do something dangerous or in the real world ... for decades now," a retired warrant officer and former chief engineer on Army watercraft told CNN at the time...
[Army spokeswoman Cynthia Smith] said that the Army is "actively" working to address gaps in the watercraft's capability as a whole, and prioritizing improving the current fleet while also "investing in a modernized fleet to meet the needs of the 2040 force." Col. Dave Butler, a spokesman for Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, told CNN that the Army is also looking at possibly replacing the existing fleet of Army watercraft with autonomous vessels in the future. "What we see is the oil industry and other shipping industries are doing this already, we see that happening all around the world," Butler said. "There's no reason the Army shouldn't be thinking that way ... leaders from down at ship level all the way to the Pentagon are looking at this and determining the best way to deploy our forces...
"Maybe the future fleet is all autonomous, we just don't know," he said. "This is all stuff we're looking at in terms of trying to modernize the way we move people, weapons, and equipment."
CNN notes that the report "also said the Army is considering leasing civilian watercraft to bolster its existing fleet and moving all of its watercraft to the Pacific."
The report also included a response from Army Secretary Wormuth, who said the Army is "actively pursuing a holistic approach to mitigate the gaps in Army watercraft capability and capacity."
Despite Army policy requiring the vessels to be at least at a 90% mission capable rate — meaning the vessels are ready to perform their mission — the boats currently have a less than 40% capable rate this year. Overall, the fleet of watercraft has dropped by nearly half since 2018, going from 134 vessels to 70 as of May this year, in part due to divestment of vessels in 2018 and 2019... "Army boats have not been ready, capable, or in a mindset they'll have to do something dangerous or in the real world ... for decades now," a retired warrant officer and former chief engineer on Army watercraft told CNN at the time...
[Army spokeswoman Cynthia Smith] said that the Army is "actively" working to address gaps in the watercraft's capability as a whole, and prioritizing improving the current fleet while also "investing in a modernized fleet to meet the needs of the 2040 force." Col. Dave Butler, a spokesman for Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, told CNN that the Army is also looking at possibly replacing the existing fleet of Army watercraft with autonomous vessels in the future. "What we see is the oil industry and other shipping industries are doing this already, we see that happening all around the world," Butler said. "There's no reason the Army shouldn't be thinking that way ... leaders from down at ship level all the way to the Pentagon are looking at this and determining the best way to deploy our forces...
"Maybe the future fleet is all autonomous, we just don't know," he said. "This is all stuff we're looking at in terms of trying to modernize the way we move people, weapons, and equipment."
CNN notes that the report "also said the Army is considering leasing civilian watercraft to bolster its existing fleet and moving all of its watercraft to the Pacific."
The report also included a response from Army Secretary Wormuth, who said the Army is "actively pursuing a holistic approach to mitigate the gaps in Army watercraft capability and capacity."
Navy? (Score:1)
[U.S. army boats] are poorly maintained and largely unprepared to meet the military's growing mission in the Pacific
Why does the Army have boats in the Pacific? Isn't that why we have a Navy?
Re: Navy? (Score:2)
That is like asking why the navy has planes. Is that not what the Air Force is for?
Re: (Score:2)
The Army still has planes, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's nor forget the Top Gun pilots are all Naval Aviators.
If recollection is correct, the US Air Force's incipient operations were as the US Army Air Force.
Jee-zus... even our military services can't, mmmm, get along.
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's the Coast Guard (yes, they are a branch of the military - everyone forgets that). Which has planes and boats.
And don't forget the Navy has a little Army of its own, they're the Marines.
Re: (Score:3)
(yes, they are a branch of the military - everyone forgets that)
only during wartime do they become part of the Navy/DoD; during peacetime they're in DHS, along with Customs, INS, FEMA, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
did you forget the alien threat that the space force has to face? maybe some sort of Space Marines...
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Navy? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because each branch doesn't want to have to call each others command and convince them to provide resources for every little operation. We have different military specializations to handle specific threats or objectives based on primary focus. The branches exist so that each division can assess and advocate for resources in specific areas.
Re: (Score:2)
The Secretary of Defense (not to mention the President) is the boss of all the services. One would assume the Army is not making deployment decisions on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to good explanations in other posts, many of the Army ships are troop and cargo vessels as well as amphibious/landing craft, which the Navy probably/generally doesn't have any need for.
Re: (Score:2)
" amphibious/landing craft, which the Navy probably/generally doesn't have any need for."
Those are probably full of Marines, rather than army personel. But the crew would be navy.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, I hadn't thought of that, thanks!
Though, to be fair, there are a lot more Soldiers than Marines.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, I hadn't thought of that, thanks!
Though, to be fair, there are a lot more Soldiers than Marines.
Yes, but the Navy has the capability to transport and land both, as was done in WW2. It's just that major amphibious assaults are a primary function of the Marines, and a secondary as needed function by the Army. One of the reasons the Marines are an independent service, and not just a specialty within the Army like Airborne, is that an amphibious assault capability that can sieze land for new Naval facilities is required. So we have two naval services, one with the boats and one with the troops.
Re: (Score:2)
With the absurd number of bases we have scattered around the world already there probably isn't much of a current need to "seize land for new Naval facilities".
Re: (Score:2)
With the absurd number of bases we have scattered around the world already there probably isn't much of a current need to "seize land for new Naval facilities".
These are not permanent sorts of bases. Look to the WW2 pacific campaign and note the many temporary and improvised bases create on captured islands. Also note these may be air bases.
Where one needs these bases depends entirely upon where the enemy is situated.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I just left off the /sarcasm tag.
Re: (Score:2)
" amphibious/landing craft, which the Navy probably/generally doesn't have any need for."
Those are probably full of Marines, rather than army personel. But the crew would be navy.
Amphibious Assault Ships.
"An amphibious assault ship is a type of warship employed to land and support ground forces on enemy territory during an armed conflict.[1] The design evolved from aircraft carriers converted for use as helicopter carriers (which, as a result, are often mistaken for conventional fixed-wing aircraft carriers). Modern designs support amphibious landing craft, with most designs including a well deck. Like the aircraft carriers they were developed from, some amphibious assault ships
Re: (Score:3)
While the Navy does play an important role in deploying large US Army units overseas through the Military Sealift Command (as does the Air Force through the Air Mobility Command), the US Army operates ships which are integral to sustaining operations overseas. These include landing craft, large transport ships, and even a small fleet of ocean going tugs.
Why does the Russian army suck at fighting? Many reasons, but one of the big ones is that it sucks at logistics. The *US* Army, on the other hand, I've he
Re: (Score:2)
The *US* Army, on the other hand, I've heard described as "a massive logistics organization that does a little fighting on the side."
I just finished reading Gen Gavin's 1947 book "Airborne Warfare". Gavin commanded the 82d Airborne Division during WW2.
He spends a surprising amount of time in the book on planning and logistics. He estimates about 30% of airborne troops inserted into enemy territory have to be dedicated to resupplying those actually fighting. Well, with the troublesome WW2 era aerial resupply methods that is. A top item on his post-war modernization list was improving resupply during combat operations.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does the Army have boats ...?
The Army has boats for the same reason it has aircraft, even fixed wing aircraft, not just helicopters. There are missions that that the Navy and Air Force do not perform for the Army. So it needs a few boats and a few airplanes.
"Section 3062, Title 10, U.S. Code, states that the Army includes "land combat and service forces and such aviation and water transport as may be organic therein."
Army water transport capabilities include operation of fixed port facilities, construction and emplacement of temp
This won't solve it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the USA is losing interest in policing (Score:2)
Translation: "Give us more money so we can pretend to play world police, poorly."
Prior to the 20th century, international shipping was dangerous due to piracy and hostile nations and thus trade routes were severely limited. Asia didn't trade with the west very much and even Euro-American trade was a fraction of what it was today or could have been given the technology of the day. After WW2, the US Navy did patrol the ocean and make shipping safe hence why we have a vibrant global economy. Maybe you're a cynic who thinks that's a bad thing since it's how we get shitty Temu garbage in
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to deny the US's past achievements, but when your own Military eats up so much of your country's budget and your citizens are told to do without so the Military can get more funds, the last thing your citizens want to hear is "the Military
Your response is vague and word use incorrect (Score:2)
If calling a country who's bankrolling a genocide and directly responsible for multiple wars that only seem to be filling the pockets of the military industrial complex triggers you so badly, then maybe the US should clean up the US Military's act a bit.
Which genocide are we bankrolling?...because if you're using that in a contemporary context, you either don't know what the word "genocide" means....or really have your facts wrong. Genocide has a very specific meaning...don't dilute it.
Which wars are we "directly" responsible for? If you're using that in a present-day setting, I
Re: (Score:1)
If you can't keep a normal boat operational, good luck with one that is full of sensors, cameras, computers, etc.
If you can’t keep recruitment levels healthy, you may have no fucking choice.
Re: Sometimes I feel like the US is doomed (Score:4, Informative)
"We need to be ready" doesn't focus the mind in the way that "why weren't we ready?" does.
This is the story of military procurement and readiness of the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Franco Prussian War, both World Wars, the Korean War, and the beginning of the Cold War with the launch of Sputnik and the perceived bomber and missile gaps.
It's going to be the story of whatever happens with China in the next decade or two, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you should expand your horizon a bit.
Government always over spend, that's what they do, but it can be so much worse, corruption in many countries is way worse than you could imagine, though if Trump is elected, I guess you won't have to imagine much longer.
Second amendment ? Do you think other countries don't have guns ? Do you think guns stop modern armies ?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You do know that Vietnam had 3 separate armies in the fight and received direct assistance from others?
The North Vietnamese Army was a full time, fully armed, fully trained, massive army that was trained and supplied by the Soviet Union. It had the latest in air defense through both fighter aircraft and the world's greatest concentration of GBAD for the time.
The Main Force Viet Cong army was also a fully armed and trained army, recruited from the citizens of South Vietnam.
Regional Force Viet Cong was a gue
Re: (Score:1)
To quote Steve Hofstetter:
"If you think the 2nd Amendment is going to protect you from the gov't....you don't know how tanks work"
Re: (Score:1)
To quote Steve Hofstetter:
"If you think the 2nd Amendment is going to protect you from the gov't....you don't know how tanks work"
To quote John Wick, it takes a perpetual source of fuel to keep that tank from turning into a BIG fucking yard ornament. Which is why you stab the barely-armed fuel tank driver with a fucking pencil. To remember how tanks work.
Mass of doublespeak (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe we're all better off it they're incompetent and can't "invade the Indo-Pacific Region".
Hey, North Carolina could use some bridge layers right now but they sent them all to Ukraine.
These schmucks just burn a trillion a year and don't protect the country in when it's attacked.
Re: (Score:2)
The defense industry is worth less than facebook! (Score:2)
Maybe we're all better off it they're incompetent and can't "invade the Indo-Pacific Region".
Hey, North Carolina could use some bridge layers right now but they sent them all to Ukraine.
These schmucks just burn a trillion a year and don't protect the country in when it's attacked.
First of all, if you think they "burn" a trillion dollars, you have no understanding of how economies work. If you could magically shut down all defense spending, the economy would be in shambles. The military is a route many poor children used to get into the middle class. Everyone in the military would be out of a job and flood the market well beyond any shortages. Then nearly all defense spending is paying middle class engineers to make things. The market cap of EVERY defense contractor COMBINED is
Autonomous maintenance? (Score:3)
So then only 40% of boats they have (what do those boats do? does the Navy know about this?) are ready for service. That speaks of a maintenance issue. So the solution is autonomous boats. Is it the maintenance on these new boats that is automated? If not, without changes to maintenance practices, we'll end up seeing only 40% of the automated boats being ready for service at any given time.
Re: (Score:2)
does the Navy know about this?
Shhh. The Navy is busy flying more airplanes than the Air Force.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, 'fit for service' is probably a far lower bar if there are no lives directly at stake in it's operation.
This is also the real danger of an autonomous military - if you aren't risking your own troops, it's far easier to commit forces to battle.
Re: (Score:2)
So then only 40% of boats they have (what do those boats do? does the Navy know about this?) are ready for service.
It has been a while, but if I am recalling correctly, then, the Army has more boats than the Navy and the Navy has more aircraft than the Air Force. The Army uses a LOT of helicopters nowadays, so they may have the largest number of airplanes now.
FYI, the Navy has ships. The Navy uses some boats, but their main claim to fame is their ships.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. 40% is actually pretty good. Some context here: the Navy is in the business of driving ships around - that's what they do. They have 13 aircraft carriers, and thus up to 13 carrier task forces. But only 1/3rd are deployed. The rest of the time they are in for maintenance, and working up before being deployed. So they have 33% readiness.
The Army, in its wisdom, decreed 90% readiness. However, the Army is not in the business of driving ships around, so they don't have many. They look at how
Re: (Score:2)
So then only 40% of boats they have (what do those boats do? does the Navy know about this?) are ready for service. That speaks of a maintenance issue. So the solution is autonomous boats. Is it the maintenance on these new boats that is automated? If not, without changes to maintenance practices, we'll end up seeing only 40% of the automated boats being ready for service at any given time.
The point is to threw money at contractors for new boats. Maintenance hasn't entered the chat, as they haven't found a contractor willing to soak up money in the name of maintenance. Yet.
I smell another F35 in the works (Score:3)
It'll be the most technologically advanced pork project congress has ever authorized, complete with cost over-runs, massive delays in delivery and a somehow overlooked inability to work in salt water.
We are literally the only country (Score:4)
But this is how we do socialism in America. We spent fuck tons of money on the military and a few people get middle class jobs and then we hope they spend some of that money in their community to keep the country just barely functional.
Eisenhower explicitly warned us about this and we never listen. We just never freaking listen... The worst thing is is there's still plenty of money to do good things domestically but the liberals are so obsessed with cutting the military budget they don't bother even trying to do anything else lately. Which of course costs an election so it's not like they could do anything either.
I mean for fuck sakes there's a reason why there's an army base in every fucking town and why we spread our weapons manufacturing across every single state. It creates a block of voters you can't touch. Just let them have their jobs. At least until you're in a position to give them other jobs. Don't put that cart before that horse
Re: (Score:2)
With a viable Navy.
That's not true. British Navy still exists, and even has aircraft carriers. French Navy is reasonable, although not well-designed for force projection.
Re: (Score:2)
You were saying something?
Re:We are literally the only country (Score:4)
You're correct about the pork part, but not so much on some of the other points.
First, the military-industrial complex has nothing to do with socialism. It's just corruption of the worst kind, spending trillions of dollars to kill millions of disposable defenceless people around the world, in dubious wars without reason nor meaning. From Vietnam to Kissinger's Laos, from Afghanistan to Hillary's Libya... Small steps for the US, huge leaps backwards for humanity, with destroyed countries and failed states in the wake of anything it touches.
But also, no the Navy is not viable. It's chronically understaffed, it has ships colliding with each other on an annual basis, now this genius TFA... And I gather you have not heard that the Navy just lost a war against the Yemenis... The Air Force has been brought in to take over. They will not do better, have we not learned the 20-year $5T Middle-East lesson about using bombs to fight insurgents? Apparently not.
Because in the end, the job of the US Armed Forces is not to win wars. It's to spend government money. It has only won a single war since WWII - the Gulf War. I cannot begin to describe the level of incompetence this is, surely the elected officials would seek to fix this? But no, with trillions in the pockets of govt cronies, it's doing it's job just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
What does viable even mean here? If the US is 'the only viable' one, I guess 'viable' means able to fight a naval war against China without help from other countries? I mean, there is a whole bunch of countries with a navy that is well equipped and maintained for the role they are serving. Like on a per capita basis a lot of the richer European countries look pretty good even compared to the US.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your story (Score:2)
Eisenhower explicitly warned us about this and we never listen. We just never freaking listen... The worst thing is is there's still plenty of money to do good things domestically but the liberals are so obsessed with cutting the military budget they don't bother even trying to do anything else lately. Which of course costs an election so it's not like they could do anything either.
I mean for fuck sakes there's a reason why there's an army base in every fucking town and why we spread our weapons manufacturing across every single state. It creates a block of voters you can't touch. Just let them have their jobs. At least until you're in a position to give them other jobs. Don't put that cart before that horse
If you think the military industrial complex is a giant portion of our economy, you haven't done your research. The ENTIRE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX is worth less than Facebook presently, according to market cap. People heeded his message. They keep the military under control. The military wants to be under control. They want the tools and technology they need. They don't want tanks made in 50 states when they need drones.
I've never lived within 30 miles of an army base and I've lived in 6 citi
Who's getting fired? (Score:2)
Despite Army policy requiring the vessels to be at least at a 90% mission capable rate — meaning the vessels are ready to perform their mission — the boats currently have a less than 40% capable rate this year.
You'd think somebody would be fired for this?
Re: (Score:2)
"the kind of 'boat' that displaces 100,000 long tons, has a crew of 4,500 and hosts up to ten squadrons of combat aircraft?"
An aircraft carrier is a ship.
But the navy does have boats, the biggest of which are 560 feet long with a displacement of 18000 tons (when submerged)
Subs are boats, not ships (at least in the US navy, and British Royal navy)
I lived there⦠(Score:2)
Staffing issue? (Score:2)
I recall the Navy has some pretty dire staffing shortages. I wonder if the Army boats are in the same... boat? That would be a big reason they want to automate them.
The Actual Problem. (Score:2)
US Army Faces 'Wide-Ranging' Issues with Recruitment, Considers Replacing Them with Autonomous Vessels
If autonomous solutions is the answer, then prove that isn’t the actual problem.
Gaza Pier (Score:1)
I lost track of who owned what, but one ship broke down, another caught fire and returned, and they all sped across the Atlantic with the speed of a Spanish Gallion.