(04-07-2020 10:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  While I can understand the Captain's concerns for his crew the fact that he cc:'d people not involved in advancing to the next step in the chain of command is an unforgivable offense. Because he did so it got out in the media which compromised the safety of his ship and in turn compromised the national security of the country he was sworn to protect. Relieving him was the correct thing to do.

Bashing him on the way out was a dickish move and the acting SECNAV rightfully resigned over it. As a former naval officer himself he knew better.

Exactly right.

I’m honestly curious what prompted Modly to go off like that, in such a politically sensitive case. Somebody said to me today, “maybe he just doesn’t care about the politics of it.” If that’s true, all the more reason to get him out of that position.

(04-07-2020 10:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  While I can understand the Captain's concerns for his crew the fact that he cc:'d people not involved in advancing to the next step in the chain of command is an unforgivable offense. Because he did so it got out in the media which compromised the safety of his ship and in turn compromised the national security of the country he was sworn to protect. Relieving him was the correct thing to do.
Bashing him on the way out was a dickish move and the acting SECNAV rightfully resigned over it. As a former naval officer himself he knew better.

As a retired naval officer, I can say that the leadership of the Navy simply hasn't impressed me positively in some time. Modly is just the latest in a bunch of incompetent clowns in positions of naval leadership--both civilian and military. Probably the last decent SecNav was John Lehman, and that was over 30 years ago. I don't know who the last really good CNO was.

The last 10-12 years of "leadership" have given us:
- The $15B Ford aircraft carrier, plus 3 more building, when we could have had perfectly capable Nimitzes for $9B a pop. "But the Ford is so much more capable," except that the catapults don't work, and the arresting gear doesn't work, and the weapons lifts don't work. But at least the toilets work--oh, wait, they don't either.
- Three $3B apiece Zumwalt destroyers, which have these fancy 155mm guns, but nobody makes ammo for them, and they can't use stockpiled Army 155mm ammo.
- Thirty $800MM apiece littoral control ships (LCS). They are really fast, but their only gun is a 57mm popgun, and they can't do anti-submarine warfare (ASW) because they engines are too loud and drown out the sonar. They could do mine countermeasures (MCM) if their MCM modules worked--but they don't. They could operate helicopters, but the helo deck is aluminum--just like the rest of the ship, to save weight--and can't operate anything but the navy's smallest helos.

That's $93B they've thrown away on things that don't work. Plus we had the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions. There hasn't been a lot of leadership running around in the last 10-12 years or so.

(04-07-2020 10:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't know who the last really good CNO was.

For a long time I’ve meant to ask you, and I’d always forget. But reading that comment prompted me. What is your opinion of Elmo Zumwalt? How do you assess his legacy

Owl, I know for a fact that many senior officers left all branches of the service when BO was in office. Kinda forced out. I wonder how much of an effect that had on Naval leadership?

(04-07-2020 10:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-07-2020 10:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't know who the last really good CNO was.

For a long time I’ve meant to ask you, and I’d always forget. But reading that comment prompted me. What is your opinion of Elmo Zumwalt? How do you assess his legacy

I was on active duty when Zumwalt was CNO. He did a lot of good things and a lot of bad. The enlisted uniform fiasco was absolutely nuts.

The one thing that I give him credit for was he recognized the fiscal limitations and came up with a "high/low" procurement strategy where we built a few ships with all the bells and whistles, and then built up the needed numbers with cheaper and less fancy stuff. I thought the Knox (which actually preceded Zumwalt) and Perry classes of frigates were too slow and lightly armed, but they turned out to be really good ASW platforms, and as such were probably a big factor in winning the Cold War. He also proposed a "sea control ship" as basically a STOVL carrier. We didn't build any, but they became models for a number of foreign navies, including Spain and UK. And of course, Rickover got whatever he wanted for submarines.

All in all, I'd give him mixed reviews. The "high/low" mix was probably the most significant thing he did, and that served us in very good stead.

What do you think accounts for his obsessive opposition/hostility (not an exaggeration, IMHO) to Kissinger?

(04-07-2020 10:38 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Owl, I know for a fact that many senior officers left all branches of the service when BO was in office. Kinda forced out. I wonder how much of an effect that had on Naval leadership?

That has actually been discussed a fair amount in the professional literature, enough that I think it is a very real problem. There were a lot of comments after the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions that their sailors' PQS (personal qualification standards) were way below par, but their sensitivity training was first class.

I think the Navy has basically lost the bubble on their mission. And the problem may be even worse for the Marine Corps. The Navy began to consolidate its amphibious force ships from a squadron of five or so smaller ships (LPH, LPD, LSD, LST, LPA/LKA) to one large LHA/LHD plus an LPD. I was in Gator Navy at the time, and we all thought it was absurd to put so many eggs into one sinkable basket, but I think it has tuned out even worse. The LHAs and LHDs are such high value units that they can't be risked close in, so they will conduct amphibious assaults from 25-50 miles offshore (at least, that is the doctrine). Problem is that we don't have the connectors to make an assault from 25-50 miles ashore--helos/V-22s can't carry tanks or heavy equipment, boats are too slow, LCACs (air cushion vehicles) are not sufficiently reliable, and attrition would make a hash of the whole thing within about 24 hours. Interestingly, we don't conduct training on amphibious assaults from that far out, apparently because everybody involved realizes what a disaster it would be. So the Marines, whose primary mission in WWII was amphibious assault, are no longer able to do that, and are really searching for a mission to justify their continued existence.

(04-07-2020 10:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  What do you think accounts for his obsessive opposition/hostility (not an exaggeration, IMHO) to Kissinger?

Envy.

(04-07-2020 11:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the Navy has basically lost the bubble on their mission. And the problem may be even worse for the Marine Corps.

There are, of course, many moving parts here. No one single factor is to blame and no one single factor can repair the damage. But 8 years of Clinton + 8 years of Obama = a lot of good people getting out (some voluntarily and some “voluntarily”) and a lot of not-good people getting ahead.

(04-07-2020 11:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2020 10:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  What do you think accounts for his obsessive opposition/hostility (not an exaggeration, IMHO) to Kissinger?

Envy.

Zumwalt wanted to be Secretary of State, or National Security Advisor? or both?

(04-07-2020 11:12 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-07-2020 11:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2020 10:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  What do you think accounts for his obsessive opposition/hostility (not an exaggeration, IMHO) to Kissinger?

Envy.

Zumwalt wanted to be Secretary of State, or National Security Advisor? or both?

Sorry, I misread your question and thought you were referring to the general dislike for Kissinger in some quarters.

As far as Zumwalt's specific dislike, I don't really know. It could very well have been some sort of personal squabble. I am fairly certain that somebody in the national security team kept us from having a nuclear war in 1973, and at that point in the Watergate proceedings, I doubt it could have been Nixon. My guess is that it was Kissinger, and to make it happen he probably had to step on Zumwalt's toes a bit, since the Navy had to do some very explicit things to make it happen.

They were both wrong. The SEC. complains that the CO of the TR bypassed the chain of command and he did. Especially wrong was the fact that the media got wind of it. Like the Sec. said the media is just licking their chop trying to find fault in Trumps leadership and the CO did just that. What the heck was he thinking? The fact that he was mad about not having immediate attention to the problem is no excuse to bypass the chain of command...ever. The Sec shouldn't have tried to appease the crew of the TR by belittling the CO regardless of the CO deserving it. He in fact also went overboard in trying to ease the anger of the crew. Who cares what the crew thinks, the mission is what's important in a war machine. We're trained to do our DUTY and that's what's important, not to play politics.

(04-07-2020 11:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2020 11:12 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-07-2020 11:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2020 10:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  What do you think accounts for his obsessive opposition/hostility (not an exaggeration, IMHO) to Kissinger?

Envy.

Zumwalt wanted to be Secretary of State, or National Security Advisor? or both?

Sorry, I misread your question and thought you were referring to the general dislike for Kissinger in some quarters.

As far as Zumwalt's specific dislike, I don't really know. It could very well have been some sort of personal squabble. I am fairly certain that somebody in the national security team kept us from having a nuclear war in 1973, and at that point in the Watergate proceedings, I doubt it could have been Nixon. My guess is that it was Kissinger, and to make it happen he probably had to step on Zumwalt's toes a bit, since the Navy had to do some very explicit things to make it happen.

Thank you. I’ll probably follow up on this another time, because I’m fascinated with that era.

Nixon was in sad shape by October 1973, no doubt. And yet, many observers (including some who were not exactly “pro-Nixon”) have said that the challenge of the Yom Kippur War, and the Soviet alert that accompanied it, actually brought out the best in him, because he was able to focus on issues that mattered to him, and to ignore (for a few days, at least) the Watergate nightmare that was destroying him.

(04-07-2020 11:24 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  They were both wrong. The SEC. complains that the CO of the TR bypassed the chain of command and he did. Especially wrong was the fact that the media got wind of it. Like the Sec. said the media is just licking their chop trying to find fault in Trumps leadership and the CO did just that. What the heck was he thinking? The fact that he was mad about not having immediate attention to the problem is no excuse to bypass the chain of command...ever. The Sec shouldn't have tried to appease the crew of the TR by belittling the CO regardless of the CO deserving it. He in fact also went overboard in trying to ease the anger of the crew. Who cares what the crew thinks, the mission is what's important in a war machine. We're trained to do our DUTY and that's what's important, not to play politics.

More important IMO than even bypassing the chain of command is circulating information about a lack of readiness of a military unit in an unclassified document. I have come to realize from the Hillary server incident that people who have not served in the military do not understand the significance of that, but it is illegal (18 USC 793, inter alia) and a fairly serious violation.

#trumpamerica

(04-07-2020 11:10 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-07-2020 11:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the Navy has basically lost the bubble on their mission. And the problem may be even worse for the Marine Corps.

There are, of course, many moving parts here. No one single factor is to blame and no one single factor can repair the damage. But 8 years of Clinton + 8 years of Obama = a lot of good people getting out (some voluntarily and some “voluntarily”) and a lot of not-good people getting ahead.

Owl # is correct IMO. We have had a peace time Navy for nearly 40 years. With no near peer threat, asinine decisions like the LCS are approved because there is a perceived zero risk if they fail. Combined with promotions that favor CDRs, CAPTs and ADMs that excel at politicking and administrating over war fighting and you are left the situation Big Navy is facing today.

(04-07-2020 11:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2020 11:24 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  They were both wrong. The SEC. complains that the CO of the TR bypassed the chain of command and he did. Especially wrong was the fact that the media got wind of it. Like the Sec. said the media is just licking their chop trying to find fault in Trumps leadership and the CO did just that. What the heck was he thinking? The fact that he was mad about not having immediate attention to the problem is no excuse to bypass the chain of command...ever. The Sec shouldn't have tried to appease the crew of the TR by belittling the CO regardless of the CO deserving it. He in fact also went overboard in trying to ease the anger of the crew. Who cares what the crew thinks, the mission is what's important in a war machine. We're trained to do our DUTY and that's what's important, not to play politics.

More important IMO than even bypassing the chain of command is circulating information about a lack of readiness of a military unit in an unclassified document. I have come to realize from the Hillary server incident that people who have not served in the military do not understand the significance of that, but it is illegal (18 USC 793, inter alia) and a fairly serious violation.

Many of you vets probably know this, but back in WWII it was suspected that Japan was going to attack Midway Island, but Japan called it "AF". Needing confirmation that "AF" was Midway, we intentionally leaked over non-secure channels that Midway had an issue with their water. Then we waited, and sure enough, Japan sent notification through their encrypted communication, which the US had broken, that stated "AF" had water issues.

So yea, the enemy is always listening.

(04-08-2020 10:02 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  sure enough, Japan sent notification through their encrypted communication, which the US had broken, that stated "AF" had water issues.

America had begun work on Japanese codes many years before Pearl Harbor, and by January 1942, the problem was basically solved. After that, the bigger challenge was to make sure we didn’t use the intelligence in a too-obvious way, that would tip off Japan what we had done. The decision to kill Japan’s leading navy admiral (Yamamoto) was based precisely on that kind of intelligence and we debated whether killing him would, in effect, be an admission that we had solved their codes, forcing Japan to change them. It was decided that the advantage of killing Yamamoto outweighed the risk and we shot his plane down. But even then, Japan kept using the same basic formula.

Crozier needed to be fired. No matter how good his intentions, his actions were a major violation of operations security (OPSEC), military discipline, and law (18 USC 793, inter alia). He deserves a court-martial, and pending that should have been relieved of command.

SecNav was absolutely nuts make that address to the ship's crew. Good thing he resigned, because he was wrong too.

Both men were wrong, very, very wrong.

(04-08-2020 12:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Crozier needed to be fired. No matter how good his intentions, his actions were a major violation of operations security (OPSEC), military discipline, and law (18 USC 793, inter alia). He deserves a court-martial, and pending that should have been relieved of command.

Damn Owl, I haven’t headed anyone else suggest that.