Quote:
Originally Posted by Galrahn
GFS is a CONOP, it is a beginning built on those things you are talking about, except you framed the enforcement operation in the general by lumping it into the buzzword GWOT. At the end of the day, nothing about the GWOT is new, and neither are any of the activities you mentioned that are focused in the Global Fleet Station.
|
Buzzworditis is indeed significant problem, especially the constant renaming of the same thing over and over again with a new acronym.
As a CNA study ("Small-Scale Contigencies and the Forces that Shape the Navy") pointed out back in 1998 MOST of what the Navy has done in its history is NOT major combat operations, so there really is not that much new in the proposed GFS CONOPS. Heck, USN and USMC officers have RUN entire countries before (Haiti in the early 20th Century) and humanitarian aid and disaster assistance has been a repeated USN mission for 150+ years.
There's an incredible grab-bag of what people have called this stuff over the years, from even the "Small-Scale Contingencies" mentioned above, to OOTW (Operations Other than War) to "Phase 0 Shaping and Stability Operations" and that's just a sampling.
It's not exclusive to the GWOT rubric but it's undeniable that the GWOT is the driver behind the USN interest and focus on the whole subject.
Quote:
|
In many ways, the Navy already engages in aspects of the GFS CONOP, just in piecemeal as opposed to a coherent solution. The 2005 operations of the Emory S. Land off the west coast of Africa, last years deployment of the Mercy to Southeast Asia, or the almost never discussed operations of the USNS Gunnery Sgt. Fred W. Stockham are all good examples of components of a GFS.
|
Yes, even in terms of GFS, there have ALREADY been ships basically functioning as a sort-of-a-GFS like the Land, the hospital ships, etc. Also the FFG Kaufmann off Africa.
The Stockham and its modifications are a somewhat mysterious subject I'm attempting to get smarter about - I noticed it appeared in some recent news stories helping to rescue a Taiwanese ship that ran aground bringing humanitarian aid to the Solomon Islands after the tsunami there (note the news articles incorrectly said it was the "Stockton" and was Navy rather than USNS) so it seems the Stockham is around there providing humanitarian aid as well.
Also the USCG has had a "GFS" - they used an old WWII Buoy Tender, the Gentian, as a "Carribean Support Tender" for several years, but have since decommed her.
Quote:
|
If your platform is a offshore service vessel, example, Ocean 6, or a container ship like USNS Gunnery Sgt. Fred W. Stockham, are you able to provide the mobility, flexibility, or capability to conduct operations if required? You may meet the requirements for training, humanitarian, or other non combat operations, but what about MSO, or an insertion or extraction mission that goes hot? Alternatively, if the GFS is focused on security, even if it is successful in improving security the entire GFS could be a failure if it doesn't meet demands that may occur from a humanitarian crisis. Flexibility, diversity in operation, and concurrency in support of those operations are critical to the strategy, no matter which roles are being required of the GFS. The enabler for meeting those aspects of the GFS concept is technology.
|
All of that is obviously extremely important. As in my previous post, I never said technology was irrelevant to the GFS conops, just that it was less important than personnel - I don't see where that's some sort of radical assertion.
The scenarios proposed by the CNO in the 2006 NOC implies modifiying an LPD 4 as a GFS station, but I'm dubious of the age and condition of these ships (again, something I'd like to get smarter on) and I question whether the goal of persistent, distributed GFS presence can be realistically met by pulling amphibious ships out of ARGs.
Quote:
|
I understand Ricks frustration though. Nobody appreciates a first time poster who automatically assumes he is the most informed person in the room
|
In the specific case of the GFS I actually, well, am because it's what my analytical job is at the moment - I actually thought it would be perceived as more arrogant to mention that in my initial post, which, in hindsight, seems to have been a poor idea :-)
In terms of the general Navy, I'm obviously not - I've never served in the military and what actual operators and ex-operators have to say is golden to me and I have the utmost respect for people in the service.
I do think a somewhat detached outside analytical perspective can be helpful.
I perceived there's a great danger in the automatic "Ok, we have a mission assigned - so what ship do we build/convert to accomplish this mission?" being the FIRST thought, rather than "How do we improve our training/recruiting/career paths/education to get the right sailor for the mission?" being the FIRST thought. The ship for the mission is highly important but should be the SECOND thought, for the Sea Shaping/GFS mission.
If I'm some perceived sort of flamethrowing radical for even thinking the above paragraph - well, that's an indication of the problem.