Ran across this, the implications are a bit unnerving. The speaker was a navy chief, sonar operator. Most of them aren't on YouTube, but he does some amazing history podcasts on various subs.

Thoughts?

Here's the rest of the story. INSURV has changed from scheduled inspections to minimum-notice inspections. It's yielding a far more accurate picture of the true day-to-day status of the fleet and the picture isn't good.

FLEET

I dont know if that makes me feel any better about it or not. Wouldn't it just point to the fleet having been at a lower operational status in general?

Pro Sandy said:

---

The Navy's readiness being not optimal would come as no surprise to anyone in the Fleet. When we see TR going back out after her deployment, the constant deferred maintenance to ships, and Sailor2025 not being what was promised, we shouldn't be surprised at the readiness levels.

---

Why i brought it up and asked here. Figured there would be far more informed opinions and experiences than the mud slinging that would be f16.

I guess the real question is, is there a solution beyond more ships, which will take time?

Ag_of_08 said:

---

I dont know if that makes me feel any better about it or not. Wouldn't it just point to the fleet having been at a lower operational status in general?

---

Not meant to reassure. Just pointing out why the INSURV reports are suddenly indicating a downward trend. But it's good that INSURV is now providing a more accurate measure of readiness, no matter how bitter that pill is.

Overall, Navy maintenance is coming from such a poor level that it has no where to go but up, and the problem extends beyond the fleet at sea.

SHIPYARDS, TOO

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

The Navy's readiness being not optimal would come as no surprise to anyone in the Fleet. When we see TR going back out after her deployment, the constant deferred maintenance to ships, and Sailor2025 not being what was promised, we shouldn't be surprised at the readiness levels.

---

Why i brought it up and asked here. Figured there would be far more informed opinions and experiences than the mud slinging that would be f16.

I guess the real question is, is there a solution beyond more ships, which will take time?

---

Not sure how more ships solves anything. We can't man, train, equip what we currently have. How are we going to do that with a 355 or 500 ship fleet?

Really we need CCDRs to reduce their requirements to what we truly need and need Fleet Commanders to say "no" to their CCDRs when their ships aren't ready. We seem time and time again in investigations that ships aren't ready, the CO says so, is forced into doing the mission anyway by his commander, and we have failure.

Let's draw back requirements, get readiness to where it needs to be, then consider expanding the fleet.

I share your skepticism that we are ready to both expand and maintain the fleet.

Here's Esper's plan to get to a 500-ship navy and it is dependent on fielding hundreds of unmanned vessels, which at least addresses the manning issue. BIGGER

As you say, the first order of business should be modernizing and expanding the supporting shipyards which are essential to keep a navy of any size ready to fight: YARDS

I would assume, which is usually disastrous, it would mean we could rotate vessels to and from maintenance and fitting cycles more often? If we're going to maintain that level of operational status, wouldn't having more hulls available to do so be better in the long run?

Here's a depressing early 2021 update: INSURV

Not sure how the Navy is going to increase readiness until it resolves this: SHIPYARDS

I think we need to consolidate down with what we have, but our operational commitments around the world and confronting emerging peer adversaries demands we expand.

The thing I always hate about inspections, is that they don't serve the purpose they're supposed to. It's inevitable that people always find out when they're going to happen and they prepare for it. Sometimes this is borrowing equipment from other ships that already had their inspections, other times it's playing catch up on procedures they ignored for the past 2 years. At the end, it looks like we've got a great operation going. All those random programs on the inspection list appear to have been followed perfectly, everything is in working order, and no need to fix anything. CO gets a FITREP bullet, everyone gets a 72, and the admirals think all is well under their leadership.

The reality is that we shouldn't be polishing up turds for inspections. Leadership needs to see how bad things are so they can fix it, give us the resources to fix it, or understand the limitations of what they have. Otherwise they're going to continue to push equipment, and people, until it all breaks.

Take a look at the article I linked in the second post up top. It addresses inspections.

Operational commitments? How about the socially progressive programs that are weighing down the Navy like a wet towel? Within days of a racial prank, the entire service was forced to sit through two hours of "extremism training" despite our service oath and commitment to core values. We obligate millions of man hours to teach Sailors how to play nice rather than do their jobs and win battles. And we wonder why we're technically incompetent and unfit to fight!

SEC Champs said:

---

Operational commitments? How about the socially progressive programs that are weighing down the Navy like a wet towel? Within days of a racial prank, the entire service was forced to sit through two hours of "extremism training" despite our service oath and commitment to core values. We obligate millions of man hours to teach Sailors how to play nice rather than do their jobs and win battles. And we wonder why we're technically incompetent and unfit to fight!

---

I feel like this is delving into forum 16 territory, and getting off topic, but...

Yes, operational commitments have led to a "just in time" mentality with everything. Kick things down the line until it's really needed, or until funding becomes available to do what the instruction says we're supposed to do. In my opinion, if you aren't going to fund a program, don't enforce it or don't get mad when people can't meet its objectives. We've been constantly doing more with less, and eventually it's all going to come crashing down when it can't be sustained.

Regarding the separate topic that you bring up, yes, it is annoying having to do all these safety stand downs, all these NKOs/JKOs, etc. And they can interfere with the optempo. But, at the same time, whether we like it our not, there are plenty of service members that feel marginalized for something about themselves. Whether that be their race/religion/gender/orientation, whatever. It if a little training every now and again helps ensure they feel like part of the team, and enhances their ability to trust and work with their team, that's a win-win.

The reality is that there are people out there who are willing to don't understand what our service oath really means. I don't know if extremism will do anything to change their perceptions, but there are lots of shady things out there and in people's minds.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

SEC Champs said:

---

Operational commitments? How about the socially progressive programs that are weighing down the Navy like a wet towel? Within days of a racial prank, the entire service was forced to sit through two hours of "extremism training" despite our service oath and commitment to core values. We obligate millions of man hours to teach Sailors how to play nice rather than do their jobs and win battles. And we wonder why we're technically incompetent and unfit to fight!

---

I feel like this is delving into forum 16 territory, and getting off topic, but...

Yes, operational commitments have led to a "just in time" mentality with everything. Kick things down the line until it's really needed, or until funding becomes available to do what the instruction says we're supposed to do. In my opinion, if you aren't going to fund a program, don't enforce it or don't get mad when people can't meet its objectives. We've been constantly doing more with less, and eventually it's all going to come crashing down when it can't be sustained.

Regarding the separate topic that you bring up, yes, it is annoying having to do all these safety stand downs, all these NKOs/JKOs, etc. And they can interfere with the optempo. But, at the same time, whether we like it our not, there are plenty of service members that feel marginalized for something about themselves. Whether that be their race/religion/gender/orientation, whatever. It if a little training every now and again helps ensure they feel like part of the team, and enhances their ability to trust and work with their team, that's a win-win.

The reality is that there are people out there who are willing to don't understand what our service oath really means. I don't know if extremism will do anything to change their perceptions, but there are lots of shady things out there and in people's minds.

---

Your first instinct was spot on.

"We've been constantly doing more with less, and eventually it's all going to come crashing down when it can't be sustained."

I would have thought the McCain and Fitzgerald incidents were the point when things were crashing down and unsustainable.

The results of an entitled, lazy and extremely soft mindset that the surface Navy has had for quite some time now. The amount of incompetence required to collide with a cargo ship is... impressive.