Monday, May 7, 2018

Fw: TheList 4715

The List 4715

To All
I hope that you are all having a great weekend. .
This Day In Naval History – May 4, 2018
May 4
. Thanks to Al
Today is Cinco de Mayo! (That's the fifth day of May for any of you gringos who don't speak Spanish.)  Cinco de Mayo is a celebration of the 1862 Battle of Puebla, when courageous and valiant Mexican fighters defeated their swarthy French opponents. What thinking person can't celebrate the defeat of the French, especially when the revelry involves burritos and tequila?  Viva!
An oldie but goodie thanks to Wigs
Hellmann's Mayonnaise
         Most people don't know that back in   1912, Hellmann's Mayonnaise was  Manufactured in England.  In fact,   the Titanic was carrying 12,000   jars of the condiment scheduled   for delivery in Vera Cruz, Mexico,   which was to be the next port of call   for the great ship after its stop in   New York.  This would have been   the largest single shipment of mayonnaise ever delivered to Mexico.  ...  But as we know, the great ship   did not make it to New York.  The   ship hit an iceberg and sank.  The   People of Mexico, who were crazy   about mayonnaise, and were eagerly awaiting its delivery, were disconsolate   at the loss.  Their anguish was so   Great, that they declared a National   Day of Mourning.
The National Day of Mourning occurs   Each year on May 5 and is known,   Of course, as - Sinko De Mayo.    WHAT?  You expected something educational from me?  You need a shot of Tequila.OLE!
                I haven't verified this....I'm just passing it along. I'm pretty sure it's factual.
Today in History May 5
Christopher Columbus lands on the island of Jamaica, which he names Santa Gloria.
British attack the American forces at Ft. Ontario, Oswego, New York.
Napoleon Bonaparte dies in exile on the island of St. Helena.
The first mainland railway line opens in Belgium.
Union and Confederate forces clash at the Battle of Williamsburg, part of the Peninsular Campaign.
Mexican forces loyal to Benito Juarez defeat troops sent by Napoleon III in the Battle of Puebla.
A bomb explodes on the fourth day of a workers' strike in Chicago.
Soviet Communist Party newspaper Pravda begins publishing.
Eugene Jacques Bullard becomes the first African-American aviator when he earns a flying certificate with the French Air Service.
Anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti are arrested for murder.
American Jesse Owens sets the long jump record.
General Joseph Stilwell learns that the Japanese have cut his railway out of China and is forced to lead his troops into India.
Holland and Denmark are liberated from Nazi control.
Alan Shepard becomes the first American in space.
173rd Airborne Brigade arrives in Bien Hoa-Vung, Vietnam, the first regular U.S. Army unit deployed to that country.
U.S. Air Force planes hit Nhi Ha, South Vietnam in support of attacking infantrymen.
Pulitzer Prize awarded to Norman Mailer for his 'nonfiction novel' Armies of the Night, an account of the 1967 anti-Vietnam War march on the Pentagon.
Congress opens Iran-Contra hearings.
The Sun, Earth, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn align - Earth's moon is also almost in this alignment - leading to Doomsday predictions of massive natural disasters, although such a 'grand confluence' occurs about once in every century.
Thanks to Chuck
Aircraft Carriers series on TV
I was passed some interesting information regarding a special TV series coming up in May 2018. Looks like a "must see"!!
Check your local cable guide for channel information

The  Red Rock Films' production of Carriers at War, four episodes will air on the Smithsonian Channel at 8:00 p.m.
and 23:00 EDT on the following dates:

May 20, 2018 - Strike Force Arabian Gulf
May 27, 2018 - Ready to Launch
June 3, 2018 - Air Wing
June 10, 2018 - The USS Ford
From the archives but still humorous
North Korean officers
These turkeys haven't fought a war  in over 60 years ! ........What in hell are all the medals for
A TAKE ON DONALD TRUMP ...~ Dr. Charles Krauthammer
All, a good friend of mine, Tony Cooper, has set me straight on the true author of this e-mail as Mychal Massie in Jan 2016, and NOT recently from Krauthammer.  Therefore, I am obligated to send this out in the name and purpose of maintaining the  truth, and giving credit where credit is due. The basic concepts are the same. Thank you, Tony!

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Re: A TAKE ON DONALD TRUMP ...~ Dr. Charles Krauthammer
Sun, 29 Apr 2018 09:19:59 -0400
Dennis Trepanier <>
Was not written by Krauthammer - parts were written by Mychal Massie in Jan  of 2016 and can be seen here - A TAKE ON DONALD TRUMP
I've edited in red changes made to the original piece of work.
Trump: A pragmatist, not a conservative
Exclusive: Mychal Massie on why American cannot abide another ideologue as president
A TAKE ON DONALD TRUMP ...~ Dr. Charles Krauthammer
A different take on Donald Trump: (a non-political agenda)
Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He's a "Pragmatist." (Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn't let emotion distract him or her.)
"We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation varied from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.
At one point, reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.
I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He then sets about fixing it. He doesn't see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.
Viewing problems from a Liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.
Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.
Immigration isn't a Republican problem, it isn't a Liberal problem, it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach, not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.
The impending collapse of the economy wasn't a liberal or conservative problem, it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things,and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.
their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect. Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work. They do not promise to accommodate.
Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.
Trump uniquely understands that China's manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it.  Here again, successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work you don't continue trying to make it work, hoping that at some point it will.
Here again, successful businessmen, like Trump, who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work, you don't continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.
As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone cellphone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl's Jr. Hamburgers.
I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problems and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.
You may not like Donald Trump. I suspect that the reason people do not like him is because: 1) he is antithetical to the "good old boy" method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians; 2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a candidate speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who own him vis-a-vis donations; 3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology; and 4) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and
political correctness to make America great again.
You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason some people do not like him is because:
(1) he is antithetical to the "good old boy" method of brokering back room deals that fatten the coffers of politicians;
(2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a president speak who is unencumbered
by the financial shackles of those who he owes vis-a-vis donations;
(3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology;
(4) he says what he is thinking, is unapologetic for his outspoken thoughts, speaks very straightforward using everyday language that can be understood by all (and is offensive to some who dislike him anyway) making him a great communicator, for the most part, does what he says he will do and;
(5) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.
Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to "out crazy" one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don't give tens of millions without expecting something in return.
We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues - and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?
I submit that a pragmatist might just be is just what America needs right now.  And as I said earlier, a pragmatist sees a problem and understands that  the solution to fix same is not about a party, but a willingness and boldness to get it done.
People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common amongst those who have never accomplished anything in their lives and who have always played it safe not willing to risk failure.
People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common among those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solved a problem, because it's better to still have an "issue(s) to be solved," so re-elect me to solve it, (which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success).
Donald Trump put his total financial empire at risk in running for president and certainly did not need or possibly even want the job; that says it all.
He wants success for the U.S. and her citizens because he loves his country.
God Bless America
~ Dr. Charles Krauthammer
On 04/29/2018 12:27 AM, Dennis Trepanier wrote:
A TAKE ON DONALD TRUMP ...~ Dr. Charles Krauthammer
From Jerry Norris.  A lot of food for thought.

Begin forwarded message:
From: "Jerry Norris" <>
Subject: Is Secretary of Defense Mattis planning radical changes to how the Navy deploys
Date: May 3, 2018 at 7:27:50 AM MST
To: <
Is Secretary of Defense Mattis planning radical changes to how the Navy deploys?
By: David B. Larter  
WASHINGTON — A typical carrier deployment from Norfolk goes like this: A tearful goodbye on the pier, a trip across the Atlantic, then one or maybe two port visits in Europe before heading through "The Ditch" and into U.S. Central Command territory. There you will stay for the bulk of the cruise before returning the way you came.
Those days might be coming to an end.
The Navy and Pentagon planners are already weighing whether to withhold the Truman Carrier Strike Group from deploying to U.S. Central Command, opting instead to hold the carrier in Europe as a check on Russia, breaking with more than 30 years of nearly continuous carrier presence in the Arabian Gulf. But even more fundamental changes could be in the works.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has made clear as the military's top civilian that he has a very different vision for how the military will be used in the future. And recent comments have hinted at big changes on the horizon for the Navy and how it deploys. 
In testimony last month, Mattis twice compared that kind of predictability to running a commercial shipping operation, and said the Navy needed to get away from being so easily anticipated.
"That's a great way to run a shipping line," Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee. "It's no way to run a Navy."
But as Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford drive towards new ways of employing the fleet, changing the way that fleet deploys will put pressure on its existing deployment model, forcing the Navy to rethink a structure that governs nearly everything it does — from manning and training to its maintenance cycles. 
In an era of great-power competition with China and Russia, Mattis describes the Navy showing up where it's not expected, making deployments less burdensome to the fleet and its families but more worrisome to a potential adversary. 
"The way you do this is [to] ensure that preparation for great power competition drives not simply a rotational schedule that allows me to tell you, three years from now, which aircraft carrier will be where in the world," he told House lawmakers. "When we send them out, it may be for a shorter deployment. There will be three carriers in the South China Sea today, and then, two weeks from now, there's only one there, and two of them are in the Indian Ocean.
"They'll be home at the end of a 90-day deployment. They will not have spent eight months at sea, and we are going to have a force more ready to surge and deal with the high-end warfare as a result, without breaking the families, the maintenance cycles — we'll actually enhance the training time."
OFRP under pressure
Experts contend that what Mattis is describing, a concept he's labeled as "Dynamic Force Employment," would necessarily create tension with the Navy's current deployment model known as the Optimized Fleet Response Plan, an iteration of similar plans that have been in place since the Cold War.
Under the plan, introduced in 2014 by then-Fleet Forces Commander Adm. Bill Gortney, ships operate in a 36-month cycle that carves out 16 months for training and maintenance, a seven-month deployment and 13 months where the carrier and its escorts are to maintain a high level of readiness in case it needs to deploy again. 
Around that model the Navy builds everything from when it brings in new recruits to boot camp to when an aircraft carrier needs to come out of its years-long reactor overhaul. It's also a system that builds in a significant dip in readiness where, during maintenance phases, ships lose sailors with critical skills to other commands and shore duty assignments. 
The dip in readiness is deliberate and informs both manning levels on the ship and the Navy's overall end strength. Simply put, there are not enough trained sailors in the Navy to fill every job on every ship, and that's all built into the plan.
The key to the whole plan working, however, is at least a degree of predictability. Shipyards need to know when they will have a ship and what the scope of the repair work will be so it can prepare in advance. School houses need to know when to convene classes. Commanding officers need to know that when they get ready for deployment, sailors with critical skills lost during a readiness dip will be replaced before the next cruise. 
Predictability, however, is precisely what Mattis is trying to have less of in the face of a rising threat from Russia and China, said Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer skipper and consultant with The FerryBridge Group. 
"[Optimized Fleet Response Plan] was designed to be predictable," McGrath said. "From the outset it was touted for bringing predictability to the shipyards and to sailors and their families. Secretary Mattis, in the face of great power competition, seems to value those things less and I could not agree with him more."
What Mattis seems to value is a system that would bank more readiness. Indeed, his National Defense Strategy says as much when it describes dynamic force employment.
"Dynamic Force Employment will prioritize maintaining the capacity and capabilities for major combat, while providing options for proactive and scalable employment of the Joint Force," the strategy reads. 
His suggestion of sending ships on more 90-day deployments would put less strain on ships' mechanical and electronic systems and would likely make shipyard availabilities shorter. 
But his example of putting three carriers in a place like the South China Sea, even for a couple of weeks, would eat an enormous amount of readiness under the current deployment model. Not only do you need to gather three fully manned and trained carriers with all their escort ships present, but three air wings full of tactical aircraft that have been struggling with their own readiness issues, as well.
"You can bank readiness by decreasing forward presence," he said. "That is, if you have fewer forces forward deployed for the hell of it, you have more to push forward when you want them.
"In other words, its punishment rather than deterrence — you surge after the enemy has made its move. Whereas if you want to deter them — to convince the enemy that the success of their planned attack is dubious, you have to be there, and be there powerfully, and that means a carrier strike group forward."
Another way to put three carriers forward in one place on a semi-regular basis is to use the sustainment period that is built into OFRP. But sending a carrier group back out during 13-month period after a deployment where the group is held at a high state of readiness undermines one of Mattis's stated goals of trying to put less wear on the ships and ease the burden of eight-month deployments on families.
Double-pump deployments for surge carriers is precisely the kind of unpredictability and strain that has caused a mountain of maintenance problems for the Navy through the 2010s — problems that then reduce operational availability of ships that are stuck in the yards for repairs. 
"The Navy has not done much with the sustainment phase in OFRP, but presumably that will be one of the go-to moves to create flexibility and unpredictability in the schedule," McGrath said. "There will, of course, be costs: fuel costs, less time with families, etc. 
"It remains to be seen the degree to which Mattis' plans are doable within the current readiness model. My sense is the readiness model is somewhat brittle and additional requirements will put pressure on that model. The current OFRP was designed to create predictable, sustainable levels of readiness. SECDEF wants to be unpredictable. There is going to be tension."
90-day deployments?
Another potential stumbling block for Mattis' vision for a retooled deployment model is his desire for shorter deployments, specifically his 90-day deployment idea. 
Clearly, shorter deployments would reduce the strain on the ships and its sailors and families. But at some point, basic geography would seem to get in the way of this idea, said Thomas Callender, a retired submarine officer and analyst at The Heritage Foundation.
"I think the Navy needs to look hard at the proposed 90-day carrier strike group deployments," Callender said. "It takes about six months to train and certify a CSG, including the aircraft carrier, its escorts and the Carrier Air Wing for potential combat operations. It also takes about a week (minimum) to transit from Norfolk to the Mediterranean. That means you would only have approximately 2 months of presence in the Med. To transit to the Arabian Gulf from East Coast takes almost three weeks more. 
"When you look at the West Coast CSGs transiting from San Diego or Washington, it takes close to a month to transit to the South China Sea. At first glance, I do not see how six months of training for a three month deployment is an efficient use of [the Navy's Operations and Maintenance Funding] resources, or its platforms and personnel —especially with the high Combatant Commander demand for global CSG presence."
Reining in the COCOMs
Addressing COCOM demand for Navy forces, which has been unrelenting over the past few years, would have to factor into any plan that Mattis and Dunford and trying to cobble together.
Under the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986, forces are assigned to the combatant commands by the secretary of defense, meaning if Mattis wants to change what COCOMs get and when they get it, he can do that. But COCOMs do have the authority to outline what they think they need based on the operational environment — to set the requirements. 
It's unlikely that COCOMs will be satisfied with a month of carrier presence here or three weeks there, if that's what Mattis wants to give them under his authorities. But that might just be what Mattis is going after in the firsts place with dynamic force employment, said Dan Gouré, an analyst with the Arlington, Va.-based think tank The Lexington Institute.
"I think this is bigger than just the Navy and how it deploys, I think this is about clawing back power from the combatant commanders," Gouré said. "We have been living in a COCOM-centric world. Because they generate the force requirements, they are the ones setting the terms."
In order to adjust to global great power competition, Mattis sees a need to assert more control over who goes where and when, especially with a smaller force than the U.S. had during the Cold War, Gouré said.
"With great power competition and a limited force pool, the decision seems to be to have an operational capability that can be deployed when a crisis emerges," he said. "The COCOMs are going to have to take their lumps on this one.
"It also raises the questions of what exactly are the real COCOM requirements? COCOMs are a black hole of requirements to the point where you run out the readiness string trying to fulfill them. But the assumption shouldn't be that all requirements are equal. What's critical?"

No comments:

Post a Comment