It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USN-40% of Seventh Fleet ships operating with expired certifications

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   
A US Navy investigation into a series of accidents involving ships forward deployed to Seventh Fleet, based in Japan, has found that almost half of the ships belonging to the fleet are operating with expired certifications. Under the risk management assessment program, ships are allowed to operate without being qualified in areas such as damage control, or flight deck operations.

In Japan, certifications are performed every 24 months. If a ship can't complete their certifications, the squadron commander works with the captain of the ship to complete them, under the supervision of the Seventh Fleet commander, and commander surface warfare. It appears that sometime around 2015 fleet requirements went up, and waivers were used to keep ships at sea to meet them.

www.defensenews.com...




posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So, more money...


2015 report that showed that the Navy was shorting its readiness and training in 7th Fleet in exchange for increased presence in the region.


Or a paper tiger.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Sounds like the Navy is stretched pretty thin and is operationally worn out. Sad.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Is it just 7th fleet or is it all of the USN? Wouldn't it make sense to pull ships from elsewhere so the most active ships can get proper maintenance and training? Or does that not work that way.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Seventh sees more time at sea, and more missions than the rest of the fleet. I'm sure it's Navy wide to an extent, but not as bad as it is there.

They should bring ships in from other squadrons, but they never seem to.
edit on 9/7/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Do they rotate ships from fleet to fleet, say from the 3rd in the East Pacific? I understand the needs placed on the 7th but we have resources worldwide we can bring in to relieve.

Just saw above response.
edit on 7-9-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
People can bitch all they want about our military budget but it's still not enough to do the mission load they are given to preform.

It's either more money or fewer missions.

I'm fine with fewer missions.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
This has been a longstanding problem in the NAV and one of the reasons I left.

We would constantly have to decide between resources and readiness. Deployments are what the ships are designed for, but when deployed, it's hard to get the proper training and certs needed. Essentially, development stops while operations go forward.

We would constantly look for ways to integrate training/certs into operational duties. For instance, we would log navigational training during recon flights over southern Iraq. That wasn't the purpose of the flight, we were tasked with taking pictures of the military assets that were being relocated inside our Sat targeting cycle, but we justified it by saying "Well, we did have to follow some GPS points in order to get the pictures."

But a ship deployed has trouble continuing to train and certify its systems. And since there aren't enough ships/airplanes, then those certs get waived until they can get back to home port and do them. Of course, when they get back, they have to install all the upgrades that band-aid fix their old systems, so training and certs get pushed back.

Don't see a good fix except hoping that Peace breaks out all over the world.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   



Don't see a good fix except hoping that Peace breaks out all over the world.


Well it's been going on for 10,000+ years, so we're due, right. Sometimes I wonder how messed up the world would be if the USN pulled back from being the policeman of the Oceans.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil
If they did pull back pirates would control the seas and act how many project the USN acts. Leaving many upset/sad in the end who didn't want USN...



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

With proper application of air power you could eliminate piracy. They don't stray too far from shore. I think that's an overstated rationale. Eventually shippers would form their own defenses and do convoys and such. Put a couple Apaches with a convoy and you don't have a piracy issue.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
The LCS were supposed to help take the load off but they have proven to be a bit of a disaster and we cannot churn out enough Burkes to cover operational needs let alone maintain the fleet we have.

Much of this IMHO is a ripple effect of the budget sequester and there more of this to come I'm afraid



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
People can bitch all they want about our military budget but it's still not enough to do the mission load they are given to preform.

It's either more money or fewer missions.

I'm fine with fewer missions.


That is what happens when you stretch your empire to thin. Its Rome all over again. I agree, fewer missions doesn't sound too bad, although, it will never happen.




top topics



 
4

log in

join