Outrage On Capitol Hill As Navy Changes Ship-Counting Rules

[unhappycamper]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/03/outrage-on-capitol-hill-as-navy-changes-ship-counting-rules/



he US hospital ship Mercy gets resupplied at sea.

Outrage On Capitol Hill As Navy Changes Ship-Counting Rules
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on March 11, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Quantity has a quality all its own. The Navy announced this afternoon that it has changed the arcane rules by which it counts ships, adding 10 coastal patrol craft, two hospital ships, and a high-speed transport to what it calls the “battle force.” The new rules would also keep 11 cruisers the Navy plans to not-quite-mothball on the rolls.

Those debatable additions drew an immediate denunciation from the chairman of the House seapower subcommittee, Rep. Randy Forbes. Forbes, like many Republicans, is ever watchful for what they think is administration gimmickry to hide the full impact of the budget cuts known as sequestration. Another Hill source told me the new system was just too confusing because some ships might drop in and out of the count from year to year, making congressional oversight even more difficult.

So revising these arcane metrics may become a political hot button. (In fact, that already happened just last year). They also shed light on how the Navy is reimagining itself for the post-Afghan War world — and they expose the service’s open secret: the “battle force” isn’t actually a force for battle.

What is a warship, anyway? Aircraft carriers clearly count, with their on-board squadrons of attack planes. So do missile-laden submarines and destroyers. Whether the Navy’s smaller and more fragile Littoral Combat Ship is a “real” warship has been hotly debated. Hospital ships? Coastal patrol boats that aren’t seagoing ships at all? As strategically important as they are — hospital ships for disaster relief, the patrol craft for guarding the Gulf against Iran — designating them as “battle force ships” does muddy the waters, at least metaphorically.

[MADem]

1. IMO, that's bullshit.

Probably nothing to be done about it in these austere times, though...they got this right.

Perhaps the confusing part of how we count the “battle force” isn’t the counting part at all: It’s the word “battle.”

Unless we're going to start launching dirty hypodermics at the enemy, there's just no way a hospital ship should be considered part of the "battle force." Battle force assets are subject to enemy action; Red Cross/Red Crescent assets are usually (except when people ignore Geneva) exempt.

[Hamilton Felix]

2. Agreed. A coastal patrol boat certainly shouldn't be considered a war ship, for that matter.

[MADem]

3. +1--they're what come out of the back END of warships, in some scenarios! nt

[Hamilton Felix]

4. In 1945, the US Navy had 1,164 surface warships, counting only battleships, carriers, cruisers,

destroyers, frigates, and submarines. If patrol craft, landing craft, and auxiliary ships were included the total would go to 6,182...making the term "warship" virtually meaningless.

[MADem]

5. I remember when St Ronnie of Raygun was bandying about the concept of a 600 ship Navy...

It was more about scaring the shit out of the Russians than actually achieving the number; in later years the number dumped to a goal of 350; then 300....

With SmartShips technology far fewer racks need to be filled to get underway, unlike the old days--perhaps they need to work that angle a bit harder instead of trying to pretend a hospital ship or a frigging glorified gig is a "warship!"