Excellent. I was once in a meeting with my Director and said "I'm a networker. I can do anything." He was not especially happy with me, but he knew what I meant. It was Internet networking :) But the same mindset.
B iden will just move the goalposts. Like how they lied about the “new definition” of Recession or that the border is “secure”. Just change the wording and claim you’re “winning”. 35% is now the end zone…. And we are in!!!! GOOOOOOAL!!!!!
THe US seems to be neglecting warship replacement (lack of shipyards) and neglecting seaborne military logistics even more. Madness. The unglamorous stuff is really important. I imagine accountants thought it was a really good idea. Thr thing is, when you build this stuff at home to provide work for your own people and keep shipbuilding skills alive.
true, but they're looking at having ships built by South Korea so it might be time to start hiring noncitizens in the states. If they're vetted and not allowed in critical areas, then it's possible. I know of Navy personnel that are not actually US citizens. BTW the ship designers that came up with the Nimitz class carrier design were Italians. One of the problems with the Ford class is that the designers relied too much on computers to design rather than people who actually know how ships should be built. The fixes that put the Ford to work were from people who knew the Nimitz class ships and not the Italians necessarily because they're probably all dead by now, but people who actually worked on the ships at some point and understood basic naval architecture.
@@coachwendy5618 the idea that Naval Architects can't use computer aided design is a little bit far-fetched? No one is going back to sitting at little drafting tables.
Our appropriations largely hinge on getting multiple Senators to support it, which is why you’ll find things like the M1 being built in several states. Problem is naval ship yards kinda have to be on the coast. And not just anywhere on the coast, in or near areas with significant manufacturing logistics support and ideally out of the most common hurricane impact areas. The suitable coast is overwhelmingly higher population density and bigger cities. What Republican Senator is going to vote to build major new ship yards in blue states? The kind of projects you’re talking about are huge, literally big enough to redefine the economy of an area the same way Colorado became defined by aerospace while Wyoming remains so empty even its capital is just a regional airport of Denver’s rather than a hub in its own right. We need major investments in ship building capacity. The largest wealth holders around shipping, however, desperately do not want us to have it, because the current status quo of cheap foreign built cargo ships with crews from nations with the least regulations maximize profits. If we had serious ship building capacity again, that status quo would be severely upset. The kinds of investments needed to bring our army, navy, and all other ship replacement needs up to scratch would transform a few of our biggest coastal cities back into the shipping titans they were from ~1935-1975. That wouldn’t just mean military ships, it would also mean civilian shipping.
@@piedpiper1172 Our merchant navy went the same way. Built abroad and flagged out. Good point about ships needing to be built in the coast. Sounds blindingly obvious,but so many military programmes are spread to multi states to get political support.
A crazy memory I have from my service in the Marines was seeing U.S. Army personnel getting onto U.S. Army ships docked at Morehead City NC. We were sitting/sleeping under/in our hummvees a day early waiting to board our amphib for a 6 month pump into/around the Med. Seeing the Army there blew my mind. Go Navy beat Army; Semper Fi!
Had a friend back in 68 that joined the Army insted of Navy because he could walk farther than he could swim ehded up driving mike boats up and down the coast of Vietnam.
@@allangibson8494hyping himself up in the media was what he was best at. They kept him doing that for almost the entirety of WW2! Problem was the failure to keep him doing that in Korea
I just left Houston under a Navy Blue Angels demonstration. .. Get feeling better soon! Plenty of water is my only tip. Thanks for delivering the news under imperfect circumstances.
B-12 Energy Shot from the Dollar store, on top of that water. If that doesn't pick you up, take 800 mg Motrin to relieve the discomfort. But, for most people, it's a chronic deficiency of Vitamin D, manganese, and iodine at root.
Getting outside more in the fresh air, I don't live in a polluted city, and get some real vitamin D not the stuff in the plastic jars. I'm fighting pancreatic cancer and it works wonders for me.
Son of a Navy WW2/CHN/KOR+ColdWar Vet attending School at a Naval Base, an Army Recruiter showed up asking to interview Seniors planning to Sign Up in Officer or Enlistment Programs. I was planning on Navy or Air Force; but the Recruiter badgered the HS Career Counselor so much that the Counselor asked me to see him. Lasted 5 minutes. I told him I was planning to be a Flight Systems / Weapons Officer. He asked me if I knew that the Army had more Aircraft than Other Services - turned out to be Helicopters. I told him I'm thinking of F-14, B-1, FB-111, A-6; and considering Navy, Army Air Corps, Marines... "...then?" He asked. I answered: "Then the Coast Guard and after that, the Peace Corps..." My Eyesight became worse through RingKnocker School making me NPQ/Ineligible to be a NFO, so I ended up somehow on a Cruiser sailing straight into a War Zone in the Gulf while my Flyboi Classmates were tanning it up in P-Cola...
I nominate Sal Mercogliano for some, ANY, Maritime position in our soon to be new administration. Doctor, your knowledge and common sense is needed by your country right now. Please consider it.
We should be in charge. Right now no one is. We allow these demons to continue to sell us out as a country and by doing so they sell out all the countries we claim to support. TRUMP2024
You’ve never admitted that you didn’t feel well. You’re a very positive hardworking person! Get better. I get so sad and disappointed when I hear about the lack of ships and planning in the military.
PHILIPPINES 1898 : As you know from your studies, we borrowed Navy ships, bought many, and rented some to transport Army troops to the Philippines, then when we arrived we captured, bought, and borrowed all manner of smaller ships and boats for all manner of local missions. It worked for them, but it was the largest sea-borne mission the Army ever had with lessons used in WW2. Asia has a LOT of rivers and islands. I shake my head when I view this video because rivers are roads in many of those areas, and islands are usually more easily negotiated with ships than aircraft, especially the smaller islands. The Philippines has 7,000+ islands, small and large that may take on strategic value for radar, artillery, logistics, etc. Rivers everywhere (on every continent) usually flow from the interior heartland and can often support water craft better than destroyed rails and roads and can offload munitions and supplies onto a convenient bank nearest the forward lines. We are so used to land-based technologies and air that we short-change ourselves. Its similar to all the Navy's logistics vessels we need but don't make, like ice-breakers. However, I understand the need to offload older vessels at a point when we can still gain some value from their sale. We certainly offloaded perhaps a hundred or more ships and boats between 1898 to 1902 when we declared victory in the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico. I would have thought we would have learned our lesson about waging island / riverine / littoral warfare and would have maintained our Army boats. . . . BTW . . . The "BEAT NAVY" on the sinking ship was funny, even if I am an ARMY vet.
I think you got your dates and events mixed wrong. The Army learned a lot from amphibious landings due to the siege of the dictator Santa Anas 2nd Mexican empire. A lot of those who served that theater survived all through the Civil War and then the landings at Cuba, Puerto Rico, then the Philippines. World War 2 was after all these events which the Army would be the bulk of who landed in European beach heads as well as in the Pacific. Aside from Hollywood there was way more Army than Marines landing.
@Ralfi_PoELA , @deannelson3165 I believe you are correct about the 1847 Vera Cruz assault directly influencing the CW and indirectly 1898. VC was a Naval operation until the Army established themselves ashore, which likely influenced the Army in the CW to form the Quartermaster’s shore-based Army Transport Service. The CW ATS bought hundreds of ships which it used to good effect-sort of like a railroad line following the U.S. coast. The ATS was revived in 1898 and again used hundreds of vessels of all types and tonnages. The 1898 version, however, was an ocean-going operation that traveled as far as 6,100 nautical miles to the Philippines and required extensive support bases and vessels far beyond those needed in 1847 and the CW. It is this build-up and maintenance of a fleet of hundreds of ocean-going vessels and island facilities that I was referring to in my comments, not just beach assaults. It required us to claim islands and establish resupply bases throughout the Pacific Ocean from San Francisco to the Philippines-something not repeated until WW2. I also believe you may be correct about the possibility of 1847 veterans being in 1898. However, they would have been at least mid-sixties to seventy, well above statutory retirement age, which would make their presence possible but more likely improbable. I’ve researched this possibility among the 1898 Army general officers and found only two who served prior to the CW: MG Merritt entered the USMA in 1855, and MG Frank Wheaton was commissioned a 1LT, 1Cav in 1855-eight years after Vera Cruz. Statutory age limits would normally have retired older veterans unless they were called back for some special temporary service due to some expertise. Perhaps the Navy had some. I have not looked. Yes. The Army and Marines have had a good-natured rivalry since the Revolution. I think I’m correct in believing that the U.S. Army has participated in either riverine or shore assaults in every conflict it has participated in, due mainly to the need to cross rivers, but also to navigate the Great Lakes and the littoral areas of the eastern and southern coasts. The Army and Navy worked together at various times before the CW, but the coastal blockade and riverine warfare during the CW was quite extensive for both. The Spanish American War and WW2 probably surpassed the CW for beach assaults, but I think the CW surpassed even Vietnam for its river warfare throughout the Mississippi and its tributaries. There is much we can apply to future wars if we look at what we achieved in the past.
Even during the earliest days of Afghanistan I questioned just how ready our military in general was for combat operations but even then I never thought I would see readiness get this bad before then you have to add this on top of the Navy's lack of logistical support capacity. We have a bloated, non-aggressive, ineffective defense force at this point.
@@Richard-od7yd No, this is not something that we can just blame the same old boogeymen and walk away. This level of waste and incompetence is cultural within the military itself.
@@Hybris51129 Why do you think that's the case if not because of growing corruption? Also the lack of readiness affects offensive ability. Defensively we don't have any problems.
@@djinn666 A lack of readiness does affect defense. If you have understaffed posts, broken equipment, and a culture on non-aggression all we are left with is our geographic based defenses and the idea that if we were some how provoked enough that we might wholesale retool ourselves to a war footing. Corruption is only one part of the issue and frankly is the easiest thing to blame but the culture of the armed forces has changed as we have watch our military priorities change from focusing on combat operations to something more akin to PR management. We see this from the traditional disastrous "Hearts and Minds" Doctrine to the new policies and lower recruitment standards.
@@Hybris51129 Don't underestimate geography. The only reason anyone's concerned about the Chinese military is because we're talking about their front yard.
Nice report, green side navy . in the early 70's when I chose my branch, it was a requirement to be interviewed by all branches. The Army recruiter said the army had more ships than the Navy. Nice observation for historical reasons.
Just a side note on army boats: one of the missions of the army's combat engineers is water (river) crossings, and every combat organization from brigade up has small boats, amphibious vehicles and floating or fixed bridges as part of their TOE. A lot of this equipment is vintage world War II, some is as recent as mid 1980s. I'm wondering just what the state of readiness there is at the moment. Former Combat Engineer platoon leader here.
Another great episode Sal!! Thanks for an energetic, passionate presentation - - despite feeling crappy!! Thanks Sal! I sure wish the powers that be in the Navy (and other divisions) would LISTEN TO YOU! You make a lot of sense to me!
Not related to this particular video, but recently I saw a semi pulling out with a Hapaq-Lloyd chassis. It struck me how much I’ve learned about shipping over the past couple of years following this channel. I’ve probably seen trucks like this for decades and just didn’t have a clue. It was just a truck with a container. Now I understand the different shipping companies, ports, how ports operate, how freight moves around the world and across the country (trucks/trains), the challenges shipping faces in the US and around the world…the list goes on. My hat is off to you Sal. Thank you for being the world’s professor to shipping.
I have to agree. My nephew served in Iraq. And sure enough, all of his supplies were flown in. If there were more active ships they could have drove down to the docks and picked them up. Hopefully our wars remain regional and the need for large beach heads do not arise again soon.
Very interesting. I can see the vital importance of having plenty these Army Watercraft ready and soldiers trained at all times. There are so many "Trouble Spots" around the world.
Thank you ( Sal) for talking about Army water craft. My tie in service was 1975 to 1981 I was on a ( ST) AT THE TIME ( ST-2154) a (45 foot) BUDA -200 - HP tug. It had a 1950s build date on vessel. The unit was full of (LCM-8s) we even donated are older ( FMS) field maintenance ship to the Navy Reserve down the dock up the waterway. The Navy Reserve had practically no vessels or floating platforms. The National Guard unit was in is now Army Reserve unit, with those newer type ( ST)
I can see the profit of speed with LCAc but why doesnt the US marines also use regular landingcraft? The combination of an LCAC and regular landing craft seems to be usefull. Both UK, French and Dutch marine use regular landing craft out of LPD's... works great.
They usually have 2 LCUs in a MAGTF. Large, slow, and designed to carry 2 M-1 tanks the Marines no longer have. Same spec with the LCAC for 1 M-1. They could scale down an MSV(L), make it unmanned with control from the vehicles or Marines it is transporting. Move loads similar to a C-130 since most of the non-logistics gear will be that small and light. Cruise speed would be slightly under 20 knots laden. They could also make an enven smaller unmanned landing boat they could store in the vehicle areas and roll down to the well deck. it could be the modern Higgins boat. land a platoon or a squad riding a light squad vehicle. A Marine version of the Army Infantry Squad vehicle. Base it on a full size rather than mid size pickup so 13 Marines can hitch a ride. Should still be able to kit in a CH-53K too. Light, flexible, simple logistics, and way cheaper.
Thank the Republicans in Congress for that. They have been blocking both the Federal Budget and all military promotions above Colonel level for the last two years.
@@tomcook5813 That is an excellent suggestion Tom. Certainly stooges deserves attention! I am somehow reminded of a British friend of mine who would sometimes say "What do you think I am? A gearbox?"
Thanks for getting this out! Hopefully it gets to folks who can make a difference. My guess is an invitation to the Pentagon soon. Hope you feel better soon
Thanks!🎉 A very enlightening though a bit depressing presentation 😅 Logistics! Logistics! Logistics! Yet not many good news from sea-based transportation capacities 😢🤦🏻♂️ 🫡
Thank you for drawing attention to a real weakness in our ability to project influence across the globe. It can so easily be crippled by the weakness of one or another unsung logistics unit. As foreshadowing for my anxiety, consider what frustrated Puton when he first invaded Ukraine.
I’m surprised this video didn’t include any discussion about the capability (or lack of) of the Amphibious Construction battalions , Beach Masters, etc.
Actually the Gaza Pier was good for the US Army as it took a proven concept and highlighted some big issues. Better now than when you are under fire. The same holds true for the Red Sea Houthi crisis, the USN finally gets to test out its systems against hostile air and surface contacts for real instead of the numerous canned exercise firings. And, it seems the USN's missiles and radar systems work well.
both gaza and red sea are hugely embarrassing u.s. failures. the pier broke up and palestinians starved. the yemenis continue to successfully interdict merchant shipping to the extent that the israeli port of eilat is deserted & bankrupt, and suez canal revenues are down by 70% as of 10/24 per the imf. indeed one learns from failures, but the rest of the world sees failure alone, arising from our military & foreign policy incompetence.
@@flyingsword135 That is an irrelevant comparison made only by the ignorant or tools or trolls. The proper comparison is the value of the AD missile vs. the value of the target of the attacker. The real problem is that you have to deal with the archer, not the arrows.
One thing like you brilliantly pointed out. WHY the Army or Army Reserve units The Bases, dont do what the Navy did with the Trident and Attack sub vessal assist in docking. The Navy started contracting private special built tugs ( special fender systems) for Navy sub maneuvering close to docks. People complained that taking away the Navy tug assists was a bad idea, lots of debating on the deadlining of very old designed Navy tugs. Mostly large Tugs. This contracting out was a way for Navy to design and get back to dedicated ship assistant tugs ( lots of Navy bases use a modified small landing craft as a ship assists with fendering in port Navy Bases. The Navy has also built special (ST) for moving the water security fencing around the subs oe ships. YES the Army should contract especially the smaller vessels till the Army design there own type multiple purpose vessel 😊
so many details. thanks, Sal. I was running out of things that I am now responsible for thinking about. What was that thing about representative government? I was reading about Inchon. sigh. where would we have been if this was 1950. Something is changing, i'm not sure what, but it's changing.
Sal sounds like same issues in Australia. We are still using LCM8 that were laid down in the late 60s and early 70s. Yes they have recently had a upgrade. Signs of a new vessel design in the future. I remember being a engineer on one of these barges in the early 90s the vessel had a number of issues but it was in better condition that the vessels in storage. You are correct in saying army Watercraft are forgotten about and receive limited funds. Then bang we need you now, why can't you provide. It will be the same story in 30 years from now. Nothing really changes.
The Army's problem with watercraft is in part the career field progression of Transportation Branch officers who are not mariners - they treat the watercraft like they are trucks and can be stored without maintenance and then pulled out of the armory lot and put to work and that doesnt work for ships
Storing boats out of the water under cover is equivalent. Parking a truck in the water or even outside, like the Russians do, is equally a maintenance nightmare.
@@allangibson8494and we dont store motor vehicles outside? no pointless russia bashing please…i fear to god if we stupidly get into a war with russia. daily i drive by a combat support battalion of vehicles stored outdoors. i can see the weeds growing up, the rust streaks, cracked tires. can’t blame politicians for this c.f., responsibility lies with the unit’s command.
@@allangibson8494 certainly garages are better. my point was to address silly russia-bashing: before we criticize russia we need to look in our own backyard.
The root cause of this is the fact that these resources are not envisioned as important with any of the military leadership. As I see it, the situation will NOT change until Congress sees it as a problem that needs near term attention. I don't see much chance of that these days. Another bigger problem is the fact that all the military services have far more needs than what the budget can handle. We are definitely in a situation where we need much more military resources than we can afford.
Dr. Sal, is it time to turn Military Sealift Command into the "Military Sealift Force" and bring all of the waterborne logistics assets under a single force-structure, with its own budget and TO&E? It seems logical to do so, particularly in the category of platform procurement......
FYI, Notice announcement from the Conrad shipyard that they have delivered a new YRBM Yard, Repair, Berthing, Messing vessel to the Navy. The YRBM-57 is the first in its class and was delivered to the U.S. Navy in October 2024 12. It will be stationed at its initial homeport in Japan to support naval operations in the region. YRBM 57 measures 151 feet 4 inches by 49 feet 4 inches with a depth of 14 feet and a draft, when fully loaded, of 6 feet 8 inches. Air draft is just under 61 feet. The design service life for the vessel is 40 years.
Great show showing pitfalls. Hope the Army and even the Navy get their business together as a cold war exists and we are close to WWIII. Crazy what is going on.
The US has said they are switching emphasis to the Pacific ie to fight China. Australia seems to be building a fleet which will be on the water 10-15 years from now. What does the US need for this role and how long will it take to gear up for it? Do they need to build?
Don't apologize for your voice from being sick my friend. We'd all much rather listen to you cough a few times or have a rough voice than these lazy individuals pumping out videos with AI generated voices. Thanks for taking the time to actually speak to us about these subjects instead of taking the easy route out like most others do now.
FYI, Noticed a new announcement from Port of Charleston where a $3M grant was award to build a Marine Shipboard Firefighting Training Facility. Reported by WCSC Live 5 FYI.
You are so right that the LCM/LAW concept is "not a good idea." But, you must know what's "wrong" with your various suggestions; they make too much sense and are focused on improving our military's readiness while maintaining American Industry and employment. Those are not factors appealing to Congress. They just want to see increased spending in their districts (primarily in the Southeast US).
Being Canadian, our military is just "Canadian Armed Forces", so this is not really an issue, but the US military (big as it is, lots of service specialization) confuses me in this respect. I mean I get what was said in the video in terms of "how", but not so much the "why" part of it. Would it not be more logical that the US Army only have boats/ships/barges that go on inland waterways (the Mississippi, Columbia River, and whatnot); as soon as it is at sea (or even on a Great Lake), leave it to the Navy or Marines to deal with. Or if both Army and Marines need some capability or some watercraft that's basically the same, can they not design jointly of borrow the capability in instances where it is needed? It just seems weird to do it in another way, especially if the only reason seems to be different services being uncooperative or uncoordinated with each other on purpose.
I was in the merchant navy a seaman also served on RFA ships. The UK is building new ships to refuel and restock foods and other things. The world superpower is doing the term is bolt. Sorry sal rant.
RE: The USArmy and USMC doing sperate programs - It's probably empire building or pet rocks as Chris Wueve has said. The USMC doesn't want to give up that capability and neither does the USArmy, and developing a joint program would just highlight that we have two branches trying to do the same mission. Not that my opinion counts for much, but I think there's something to be said about looking at everything we want to be able to do, prioritizing what we absolutely need, like logistics, and grouping similar missions or missions that require similar capabilities in the same branch. Just my two cents on it, anyway.
The military forces do have joint logistics command centers that try to work together when they are able. I think the problem lies more in the budget shortfalls thanks to the congressional investigations that center around military spending. I'm not arguing with this, but part of Congress spends too much time defending the false border statements about it being under control and such rather than actually finding the money to do what the government should be doing. Protecting US citizens and honoring vets who served to protect freedom even when the government leaders have failed them.
@@coachwendy5618 No arguments here on most of that. The one thing I will quibble over is that this was less about just logistics and more about consolidating similar capabilities and mission sets. I think it's something that needs to happen when it comes to planning out force mixes as well. I think it's good to have capability overlap with specific systems, after all, redundancy is a wonderful thing in warfare, but I don't think the same holds true for the branches of the military. That said,, I'm also aware of where there will be gray areas and places where who's responsible gets murky. In those cases, I think having that capability be organic to the concerned branches may be beneficial in allowing for more flexible arrangements and cutting through bureaucratic nonsense. (Not saying all bureaucracy is bad, but there are times where it is truly nonsensical.)
Vulnerable to what, exactly? We have perfect natural geographic defense. To invade us anyone would need to cross a major ocean and then immediately find themselves hemmed in by major mountain ranges regardless of which coast they pick. Should our military expenditure be more efficient and maintenance be prioritized? Yes, absolutely. But what, exactly, are you thinking we’re vulnerable to? Who presents a threat we can’t meet even with our chaotic readiness? I don’t think Russia are gonna be doing much invading of us given they’re having to import North Korean troops to handle a tiny regional conflict. China is desperately trying to achieve deterrence for their own coast, with almost all of their new builds unable to cross the Pacific. Iran and friends aren’t exactly stunning naval powers. Didn’t they recently misplace a cruiser *in port* ?
We don't even have the on land capability of transporting goods anymore in the US Army not since I was in the Army in the 80s and they stopped all the army bases in Europe
I say the decline of support means of US Armed Forces is as much deliberate as is the failure to supply a besieged ghetto in the process of starvation (for the benefit of the Greatest Ally of All Times). If there were a will, there would be a way, e.g. modifying commercial freighters. It's the same in the Royal Navy - if it were expected to hold up in a naval operation, it's Cold War frigates were still in operation due to service life extension refitting - which sadly implies that the deployment of WMDs is a long forgone conclusion in this century as there is no such thing as diplomacy since 1991.
Uh, wait a minute. There are _some_ Army watercraft _directly assigned to TRADOC_ and yet the Army is overall _still_ failing at writing & updating manuals and documentation for their vessels? What??
I suggest the way to understand the division of labor, so to speak, between the Army and the Navy, in regard to amphibious operations, is to think about long haul trucks vs forklifts. The long haul trucking company (the Navy) is responsible for getting your “products” to your warehouse (shallow water offshore of the beach). The Army then users their forklifts (landing craft of various sizes) to get everything off the trucks (Navy ships) and into the warehouse (the beach). Remember, the Navy is a blue water force whose mission is (with few exceptions) to use really big COMBAT ships is to dominate the oceans. The Army uses NON-COMBAT, shallow water vessels that aren’t meant to dominate the oceans. Not a perfect analogy, but good enough for government work.
You should have some of the smaller vessels built in Scotland, you’ll save a lot of money. They’ll be obsolete before they’re finished. This will save you a fortune in crew and operating expenses.
Operational commanders know better than boards and committees how to fix this urgent requirement. Personnel, who know how to operate in these environments, training and readiness, have been neglected for decades or no longer in service. Funding and new construction of replacement equipment should have happened years ago. Relying on commercial or allied resources is thoroughly inadequate. Attriting and divestment of this watercraft fleet was irresponsible. Reconstituting, funding, scheduling and manning this program is not even on the calendar. Maybe our foes will wait for us to get our act together.
My sergeant said to me one time. "We've done so much with so little for so long, we are fully qualified to do absolutely everything with nothing
Excellent. I was once in a meeting with my Director and said "I'm a networker. I can do anything." He was not especially happy with me, but he knew what I meant. It was Internet networking :) But the same mindset.
I have that saying on my wall along with "those that dare win."
Ironically you do nothing with everything.
@@johnsmith1474
Unless building a level of international cooperation, trade and prosperity never seen before is nothing.
B iden will just move the goalposts. Like how they lied about the “new definition” of Recession or that the border is “secure”. Just change the wording and claim you’re “winning”. 35% is now the end zone…. And we are in!!!! GOOOOOOAL!!!!!
Reminder: the professional way to say "I told you so":
"This was identified early on as a likely outcome."
@@tejoe13 Touché..
Thanks, Sal, no need to apologize. You are not beholden to anyone. This is TH-cam Not a corporate desk job.
Easy to say with that handle 🙂🙂
What the ship ?
AMEN! He's not "new"
THe US seems to be neglecting warship replacement (lack of shipyards) and neglecting seaborne military logistics even more. Madness. The unglamorous stuff is really important. I imagine accountants thought it was a really good idea. Thr thing is, when you build this stuff at home to provide work for your own people and keep shipbuilding skills alive.
America's Visa card only goes so far.
true, but they're looking at having ships built by South Korea so it might be time to start hiring noncitizens in the states. If they're vetted and not allowed in critical areas, then it's possible. I know of Navy personnel that are not actually US citizens. BTW the ship designers that came up with the Nimitz class carrier design were Italians. One of the problems with the Ford class is that the designers relied too much on computers to design rather than people who actually know how ships should be built. The fixes that put the Ford to work were from people who knew the Nimitz class ships and not the Italians necessarily because they're probably all dead by now, but people who actually worked on the ships at some point and understood basic naval architecture.
@@coachwendy5618 the idea that Naval Architects can't use computer aided design is a little bit far-fetched? No one is going back to sitting at little drafting tables.
Our appropriations largely hinge on getting multiple Senators to support it, which is why you’ll find things like the M1 being built in several states.
Problem is naval ship yards kinda have to be on the coast. And not just anywhere on the coast, in or near areas with significant manufacturing logistics support and ideally out of the most common hurricane impact areas. The suitable coast is overwhelmingly higher population density and bigger cities.
What Republican Senator is going to vote to build major new ship yards in blue states?
The kind of projects you’re talking about are huge, literally big enough to redefine the economy of an area the same way Colorado became defined by aerospace while Wyoming remains so empty even its capital is just a regional airport of Denver’s rather than a hub in its own right.
We need major investments in ship building capacity. The largest wealth holders around shipping, however, desperately do not want us to have it, because the current status quo of cheap foreign built cargo ships with crews from nations with the least regulations maximize profits.
If we had serious ship building capacity again, that status quo would be severely upset. The kinds of investments needed to bring our army, navy, and all other ship replacement needs up to scratch would transform a few of our biggest coastal cities back into the shipping titans they were from ~1935-1975. That wouldn’t just mean military ships, it would also mean civilian shipping.
@@piedpiper1172 Our merchant navy went the same way. Built abroad and flagged out. Good point about ships needing to be built in the coast. Sounds blindingly obvious,but so many military programmes are spread to multi states to get political support.
A crazy memory I have from my service in the Marines was seeing U.S. Army personnel getting onto U.S. Army ships docked at Morehead City NC. We were sitting/sleeping under/in our hummvees a day early waiting to board our amphib for a 6 month pump into/around the Med. Seeing the Army there blew my mind. Go Navy beat Army; Semper Fi!
Semper Fi!
Y'all Marines and your gay mating call
@@elzach0 You are the one getting all warm fuzzy and yucky.
Had a friend back in 68 that joined the Army insted of Navy because he could walk farther than he could swim ehded up driving mike boats up and down the coast of Vietnam.
That’s the selection criteria isn’t it - find what someone is worst at and make it their specialty…
@@allangibson8494. No,
it's just the opposite. The United States Army is very good at placing men where they perform best.
@@senatorjosephmccarthy2720 Ask any of the Allies about Douglas MacArthur and you will get a different response…
@@allangibson8494hyping himself up in the media was what he was best at. They kept him doing that for almost the entirety of WW2!
Problem was the failure to keep him doing that in Korea
Who better to put in charge of a waterbourne vessel than the person who least wants to get wet. :)
I just left Houston under a Navy Blue Angels demonstration. .. Get feeling better soon! Plenty of water is my only tip. Thanks for delivering the news under imperfect circumstances.
B-12 Energy Shot from the Dollar store, on top of that water.
If that doesn't pick you up, take 800 mg Motrin to relieve the discomfort.
But, for most people, it's a chronic deficiency of Vitamin D, manganese, and iodine at root.
Getting outside more in the fresh air, I don't live in a polluted city, and get some real vitamin D not the stuff in the plastic jars. I'm fighting pancreatic cancer and it works wonders for me.
Son of a Navy WW2/CHN/KOR+ColdWar Vet attending School at a Naval Base, an Army Recruiter showed up asking to interview Seniors planning to Sign Up in Officer or Enlistment Programs.
I was planning on Navy or Air Force; but the Recruiter badgered the HS Career Counselor so much that the Counselor asked me to see him.
Lasted 5 minutes. I told him I was planning to be a Flight Systems / Weapons Officer. He asked me if I knew that the Army had more Aircraft than Other Services - turned out to be Helicopters.
I told him I'm thinking of F-14, B-1, FB-111, A-6; and considering Navy, Army Air Corps, Marines...
"...then?" He asked.
I answered: "Then the Coast Guard and after that, the Peace Corps..."
My Eyesight became worse through RingKnocker School making me NPQ/Ineligible to be a NFO, so I ended up somehow on a Cruiser sailing straight into a War Zone in the Gulf while my Flyboi Classmates were tanning it up in P-Cola...
Wow, so you never got to a point there either!
@bend3rbot Get a Life. Try to accomplish something for yourself, Failure...
I nominate Sal Mercogliano for some, ANY, Maritime position in our soon to be new administration.
Doctor, your knowledge and common sense is needed by your country right now. Please consider it.
The DOD needs to put Sal in charge of fixing this mess
I don't think he's certificated in Clusterf_ _K.
We should be in charge. Right now no one is. We allow these demons to continue to sell us out as a country and by doing so they sell out all the countries we claim to support. TRUMP2024
You’ve never admitted that you didn’t feel well. You’re a very positive hardworking person! Get better. I get so sad and disappointed when I hear about the lack of ships and planning in the military.
PHILIPPINES 1898 : As you know from your studies, we borrowed Navy ships, bought many, and rented some to transport Army troops to the Philippines, then when we arrived we captured, bought, and borrowed all manner of smaller ships and boats for all manner of local missions. It worked for them, but it was the largest sea-borne mission the Army ever had with lessons used in WW2. Asia has a LOT of rivers and islands. I shake my head when I view this video because rivers are roads in many of those areas, and islands are usually more easily negotiated with ships than aircraft, especially the smaller islands. The Philippines has 7,000+ islands, small and large that may take on strategic value for radar, artillery, logistics, etc. Rivers everywhere (on every continent) usually flow from the interior heartland and can often support water craft better than destroyed rails and roads and can offload munitions and supplies onto a convenient bank nearest the forward lines. We are so used to land-based technologies and air that we short-change ourselves. Its similar to all the Navy's logistics vessels we need but don't make, like ice-breakers. However, I understand the need to offload older vessels at a point when we can still gain some value from their sale. We certainly offloaded perhaps a hundred or more ships and boats between 1898 to 1902 when we declared victory in the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico. I would have thought we would have learned our lesson about waging island / riverine / littoral warfare and would have maintained our Army boats. . . . BTW . . . The "BEAT NAVY" on the sinking ship was funny, even if I am an ARMY vet.
Word salad
I think you got your dates and events mixed wrong. The Army learned a lot from amphibious landings due to the siege of the dictator Santa Anas 2nd Mexican empire.
A lot of those who served that theater survived all through the Civil War and then the landings at Cuba, Puerto Rico, then the Philippines.
World War 2 was after all these events which the Army would be the bulk of who landed in European beach heads as well as in the Pacific. Aside from Hollywood there was way more Army than Marines landing.
@Ralfi_PoELA , @deannelson3165
I believe you are correct about the 1847 Vera Cruz assault directly influencing the CW and indirectly 1898. VC was a Naval operation until the Army established themselves ashore, which likely influenced the Army in the CW to form the Quartermaster’s shore-based Army Transport Service. The CW ATS bought hundreds of ships which it used to good effect-sort of like a railroad line following the U.S. coast. The ATS was revived in 1898 and again used hundreds of vessels of all types and tonnages. The 1898 version, however, was an ocean-going operation that traveled as far as 6,100 nautical miles to the Philippines and required extensive support bases and vessels far beyond those needed in 1847 and the CW. It is this build-up and maintenance of a fleet of hundreds of ocean-going vessels and island facilities that I was referring to in my comments, not just beach assaults. It required us to claim islands and establish resupply bases throughout the Pacific Ocean from San Francisco to the Philippines-something not repeated until WW2.
I also believe you may be correct about the possibility of 1847 veterans being in 1898. However, they would have been at least mid-sixties to seventy, well above statutory retirement age, which would make their presence possible but more likely improbable. I’ve researched this possibility among the 1898 Army general officers and found only two who served prior to the CW: MG Merritt entered the USMA in 1855, and MG Frank Wheaton was commissioned a 1LT, 1Cav in 1855-eight years after Vera Cruz. Statutory age limits would normally have retired older veterans unless they were called back for some special temporary service due to some expertise. Perhaps the Navy had some. I have not looked.
Yes. The Army and Marines have had a good-natured rivalry since the Revolution. I think I’m correct in believing that the U.S. Army has participated in either riverine or shore assaults in every conflict it has participated in, due mainly to the need to cross rivers, but also to navigate the Great Lakes and the littoral areas of the eastern and southern coasts. The Army and Navy worked together at various times before the CW, but the coastal blockade and riverine warfare during the CW was quite extensive for both. The Spanish American War and WW2 probably surpassed the CW for beach assaults, but I think the CW surpassed even Vietnam for its river warfare throughout the Mississippi and its tributaries.
There is much we can apply to future wars if we look at what we achieved in the past.
Even during the earliest days of Afghanistan I questioned just how ready our military in general was for combat operations but even then I never thought I would see readiness get this bad before then you have to add this on top of the Navy's lack of logistical support capacity. We have a bloated, non-aggressive, ineffective defense force at this point.
No we have a bloated profit driven Defense Industry and Corrupted Politicians .
@@Richard-od7yd No, this is not something that we can just blame the same old boogeymen and walk away. This level of waste and incompetence is cultural within the military itself.
@@Hybris51129 Why do you think that's the case if not because of growing corruption?
Also the lack of readiness affects offensive ability. Defensively we don't have any problems.
@@djinn666 A lack of readiness does affect defense. If you have understaffed posts, broken equipment, and a culture on non-aggression all we are left with is our geographic based defenses and the idea that if we were some how provoked enough that we might wholesale retool ourselves to a war footing.
Corruption is only one part of the issue and frankly is the easiest thing to blame but the culture of the armed forces has changed as we have watch our military priorities change from focusing on combat operations to something more akin to PR management. We see this from the traditional disastrous "Hearts and Minds" Doctrine to the new policies and lower recruitment standards.
@@Hybris51129 Don't underestimate geography. The only reason anyone's concerned about the Chinese military is because we're talking about their front yard.
Nice report, green side navy . in the early 70's when I chose my branch, it was a requirement to be interviewed by all branches. The Army recruiter said the army had more ships than the Navy.
Nice observation for historical reasons.
Just a side note on army boats: one of the missions of the army's combat engineers is water (river) crossings, and every combat organization from brigade up has small boats, amphibious vehicles and floating or fixed bridges as part of their TOE. A lot of this equipment is vintage world War II, some is as recent as mid 1980s. I'm wondering just what the state of readiness there is at the moment. Former Combat Engineer platoon leader here.
This feels like one of those situations where having a bottle of rum in the office to help get rid of the cold is entirely appropriate Sal.
Yes 👍 Rum
Keep repeating "Bab El Mendab".
Another great episode Sal!! Thanks for an energetic, passionate presentation - - despite feeling crappy!! Thanks Sal!
I sure wish the powers that be in the Navy (and other divisions) would LISTEN TO YOU! You make a lot of sense to me!
Greetings from Tokyo Sal, thanks for sharing this important information. Please get well soon.
Feel better soon Sal.
Not related to this particular video, but recently I saw a semi pulling out with a Hapaq-Lloyd chassis. It struck me how much I’ve learned about shipping over the past couple of years following this channel. I’ve probably seen trucks like this for decades and just didn’t have a clue. It was just a truck with a container. Now I understand the different shipping companies, ports, how ports operate, how freight moves around the world and across the country (trucks/trains), the challenges shipping faces in the US and around the world…the list goes on. My hat is off to you Sal. Thank you for being the world’s professor to shipping.
I have to agree. My nephew served in Iraq. And sure enough, all of his supplies were flown in. If there were more active ships they could have drove down to the docks and picked them up. Hopefully our wars remain regional and the need for large beach heads do not arise again soon.
That generally means that large scale beach landings
Are going to be exactly what determines the course of the war.
Very interesting. I can see the vital importance of having plenty these Army Watercraft ready and soldiers trained at all times. There are so many "Trouble Spots" around the world.
Thank you ( Sal) for talking about Army water craft. My tie in service was 1975 to 1981
I was on a ( ST) AT THE TIME ( ST-2154) a (45 foot) BUDA -200 - HP tug. It had a 1950s build date on vessel. The unit was full of (LCM-8s) we even donated are older ( FMS)
field maintenance ship to the Navy Reserve down the dock up the waterway. The Navy Reserve had practically no vessels or floating platforms. The National Guard unit was in is now Army Reserve unit, with those newer type ( ST)
I can see the profit of speed with LCAc but why doesnt the US marines also use regular landingcraft? The combination of an LCAC and regular landing craft seems to be usefull. Both UK, French and Dutch marine use regular landing craft out of LPD's... works great.
They usually have 2 LCUs in a MAGTF. Large, slow, and designed to carry 2 M-1 tanks the Marines no longer have. Same spec with the LCAC for 1 M-1. They could scale down an MSV(L), make it unmanned with control from the vehicles or Marines it is transporting. Move loads similar to a C-130 since most of the non-logistics gear will be that small and light. Cruise speed would be slightly under 20 knots laden. They could also make an enven smaller unmanned landing boat they could store in the vehicle areas and roll down to the well deck. it could be the modern Higgins boat. land a platoon or a squad riding a light squad vehicle. A Marine version of the Army Infantry Squad vehicle. Base it on a full size rather than mid size pickup so 13 Marines can hitch a ride. Should still be able to kit in a CH-53K too. Light, flexible, simple logistics, and way cheaper.
This is a good topic, look forward to the follow-up
great show....wow....scary times if we need these now..
since 70% of the earth is water and the us military is mostly expeditionary in nature, i cannot understand why boats dont get more attention
The government is a bunch of baffons
Is that an intentional mis-spelling of buffoons? If it is, I'd like to know :) Sal is very clever so I am careful on his channel.
governments*
Love the word buffoon 😅, may I add stooges? 😂
Thank the Republicans in Congress for that. They have been blocking both the Federal Budget and all military promotions above Colonel level for the last two years.
@@tomcook5813 That is an excellent suggestion Tom. Certainly stooges deserves attention! I am somehow reminded of a British friend of mine who would sometimes say "What do you think I am? A gearbox?"
Thanks for getting this out! Hopefully it gets to folks who can make a difference. My guess is an invitation to the Pentagon soon. Hope you feel better soon
Thanks!🎉
A very enlightening though a bit depressing presentation 😅
Logistics! Logistics! Logistics! Yet not many good news from sea-based transportation capacities 😢🤦🏻♂️
🫡
The Army also rented boats. GE and Tecom sea-based aerostats. That was a fun year!
Thank you for drawing attention to a real weakness in our ability to project influence across the globe. It can so easily be crippled by the weakness of one or another unsung logistics unit. As foreshadowing for my anxiety, consider what frustrated Puton when he first invaded Ukraine.
Was a 61B back in the day aboard the MV General William Sutton. Best time of my life
Kevin was that the FS-790?...Was at FE....... 71-72
@@captaindoug8887The FS-790 was a smaller vessel. I sailed on the 790 as a HCDOC student in 82
Great info once again. Hope military leadership is taking notes of your candid remarks.
I was a 12B30 in enwetak Marshall Islands and our water support was us army. The army had good Sailors
Essaonys
Engineer
I’m surprised this video didn’t include any discussion about the capability (or lack of) of the Amphibious Construction battalions , Beach Masters, etc.
Actually the Gaza Pier was good for the US Army as it took a proven concept and highlighted some big issues. Better now than when you are under fire.
The same holds true for the Red Sea Houthi crisis, the USN finally gets to test out its systems against hostile air and surface contacts for real instead of the numerous canned exercise firings. And, it seems the USN's missiles and radar systems work well.
both gaza and red sea are hugely embarrassing u.s. failures. the pier broke up and palestinians starved. the yemenis continue to successfully interdict merchant shipping to the extent that the israeli port of eilat is deserted & bankrupt, and suez canal revenues are down by 70% as of 10/24 per the imf. indeed one learns from failures, but the rest of the world sees failure alone, arising from our military & foreign policy incompetence.
Wasting multi million dollar missiles (that we don't have enough of already) shooting down $1000 drones
@@flyingsword135 That is an irrelevant comparison made only by the ignorant or tools or trolls. The proper comparison is the value of the AD missile vs. the value of the target of the attacker.
The real problem is that you have to deal with the archer, not the arrows.
The US navy gave up againat the houthis lol
The Army has seriously lost their ship.
Thanks!
You're welcome!
Didn't mention the Army MSV Heavy program whose rqmts are very similar to Navy's LSM
Very informative, thank you. I'm sure that the military will get this solved; when it's too late. Bureaucracy is sometimes the worst enemy.
I was an Army 88K “Watercraft Operator aboard the LCU-2000’s from 2009-2014.
Sail Army!
One thing like you brilliantly pointed out. WHY the Army or Army Reserve units
The Bases, dont do what the Navy did with the Trident and Attack sub vessal assist in docking. The Navy started contracting private special built tugs ( special fender systems) for Navy sub maneuvering close to docks. People complained that taking away the Navy tug assists was a bad idea, lots of debating on the deadlining of very old designed Navy tugs. Mostly large Tugs. This contracting out was a way for Navy to design and get back to dedicated ship assistant tugs ( lots of Navy bases use a modified small landing craft as a ship assists with fendering in port Navy Bases.
The Navy has also built special (ST) for moving the water security fencing around the subs oe ships. YES the Army should contract especially the smaller vessels till the Army design there own type multiple purpose vessel 😊
so many details.
thanks, Sal. I was running out of things that I am now responsible for thinking about.
What was that thing about representative government? I was reading about Inchon. sigh. where would we have been if this was 1950.
Something is changing, i'm not sure what, but it's changing.
I am always amazed that others are amazed that armies have watercraft.
Sal sounds like same issues in Australia. We are still using LCM8 that were laid down in the late 60s and early 70s. Yes they have recently had a upgrade. Signs of a new vessel design in the future. I remember being a engineer on one of these barges in the early 90s the vessel had a number of issues but it was in better condition that the vessels in storage. You are correct in saying army Watercraft are forgotten about and receive limited funds. Then bang we need you now, why can't you provide. It will be the same story in 30 years from now. Nothing really changes.
Hope you feel better soon and great video
Thanks! I'm recovering.
Love these reports. Get well Sal. But nary a mention of Guam? I had a friend who was born there. Or so he claimed.
Thanks Rod!
The Army's problem with watercraft is in part the career field progression of Transportation Branch officers who are not mariners - they treat the watercraft like they are trucks and can be stored without maintenance and then pulled out of the armory lot and put to work and that doesnt work for ships
Storing boats out of the water under cover is equivalent. Parking a truck in the water or even outside, like the Russians do, is equally a maintenance nightmare.
@@allangibson8494and we dont store motor vehicles outside? no pointless russia bashing please…i fear to god if we stupidly get into a war with russia. daily i drive by a combat support battalion of vehicles stored outdoors. i can see the weeds growing up, the rust streaks, cracked tires. can’t blame politicians for this c.f., responsibility lies with the unit’s command.
@@jtns2845 For long term storage, garages are better.
The Vietnamese even store tanks in garages to prevent degradation in tropical conditions.
@@allangibson8494 certainly garages are better. my point was to address silly russia-bashing: before we criticize russia we need to look in our own backyard.
The root cause of this is the fact that these resources are not envisioned as important with any of the military leadership. As I see it, the situation will NOT change until Congress sees it as a problem that needs near term attention. I don't see much chance of that these days.
Another bigger problem is the fact that all the military services have far more needs than what the budget can handle. We are definitely in a situation where we need much more military resources than we can afford.
Great report, even when your sick
I vote putting Sal in charge!!!
Dr. Sal, is it time to turn Military Sealift Command into the "Military Sealift Force" and bring all of the waterborne logistics assets under a single force-structure, with its own budget and TO&E?
It seems logical to do so, particularly in the category of platform procurement......
Not really.... you are rearranging deck chairs.
great analysis. good work Sal
Excellent and thanks for sharing today
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very informative,thanks.
FYI, Notice announcement from the Conrad shipyard that they have delivered a new YRBM Yard, Repair, Berthing, Messing vessel to the Navy. The YRBM-57 is the first in its class and was delivered to the U.S. Navy in October 2024 12. It will be stationed at its initial homeport in Japan to support naval operations in the region. YRBM 57 measures 151 feet 4 inches by 49 feet 4 inches with a depth of 14 feet and a draft, when fully loaded, of 6 feet 8 inches. Air draft is just under 61 feet. The design service life for the vessel is 40 years.
Thank you, Sal. I learned something new. Chief
Sounds like "NO state of readiness", with no freaking maintenance!
Great show showing pitfalls. Hope the Army and even the Navy get their business together as a cold war exists and we are close to WWIII. Crazy what is going on.
The US has said they are switching emphasis to the Pacific ie to fight China. Australia seems to be building a fleet which will be on the water 10-15 years from now. What does the US need for this role and how long will it take to gear up for it? Do they need to build?
Don't apologize for your voice from being sick my friend. We'd all much rather listen to you cough a few times or have a rough voice than these lazy individuals pumping out videos with AI generated voices. Thanks for taking the time to actually speak to us about these subjects instead of taking the easy route out like most others do now.
FYI, Noticed a new announcement from Port of Charleston where a $3M grant was award to build a Marine Shipboard Firefighting Training Facility. Reported by WCSC Live 5 FYI.
That brass filled office never sees what's on the ground , but the office is nice ,!
The Army has PT boats. I mean they have to cross lakes or rivers and patrol them for consistent use.
Thanks for the update on the Army craft. Back in Feb my union repped some of those. Sorry to hear about the health though. Hey, never 100%.
My head. Got your DDE? Lmao 😅
You are so right that the LCM/LAW concept is "not a good idea." But, you must know what's "wrong" with your various suggestions; they make too much sense and are focused on improving our military's readiness while maintaining American Industry and employment. Those are not factors appealing to Congress. They just want to see increased spending in their districts (primarily in the Southeast US).
They did that in New Jersey back on Long Beach Island around 1960
Hope the cold/voice issue doesn't affect calling games for the college.
Was hoping you could talk about the Australian Tasmania car carrier ships being built without the ability to dock..
Hi Dr. Sal, I hope the powers that be are listening to you.
Being Canadian, our military is just "Canadian Armed Forces", so this is not really an issue, but the US military (big as it is, lots of service specialization) confuses me in this respect.
I mean I get what was said in the video in terms of "how", but not so much the "why" part of it.
Would it not be more logical that the US Army only have boats/ships/barges that go on inland waterways (the Mississippi, Columbia River, and whatnot); as soon as it is at sea (or even on a Great Lake), leave it to the Navy or Marines to deal with. Or if both Army and Marines need some capability or some watercraft that's basically the same, can they not design jointly of borrow the capability in instances where it is needed? It just seems weird to do it in another way, especially if the only reason seems to be different services being uncooperative or uncoordinated with each other on purpose.
Our government has been derelict of their duties. That is all.
Military just has had bad combination of poor resources and poor priorities and poor mission statement.
Doesn’t mean it couldn’t be better.
Did they put the vessels they got rid of in layup or sell
To the market as surplus or scrap them ?
I like the way you call it like it is. Not a good situation.
What is the status of the USNS Big Horn after the grounding?
Big Horn is getting scraped. 18 knots over a charted reef to make a shipyard time in Oman
@@kevinkavanagh5455 How is she getting back to the states? Tow or heavy lift and has it departed yet?
Great job! The world is not getting safer-we need to be prepared!
Why did the Navy fire the two officers in Japan this week?
The usual loss of command confidence.
Great video Sal.
I was in the merchant navy a seaman also served on RFA ships. The UK is building new ships to refuel and restock foods and other things. The world superpower is doing the term is bolt. Sorry sal rant.
RE: The USArmy and USMC doing sperate programs - It's probably empire building or pet rocks as Chris Wueve has said. The USMC doesn't want to give up that capability and neither does the USArmy, and developing a joint program would just highlight that we have two branches trying to do the same mission.
Not that my opinion counts for much, but I think there's something to be said about looking at everything we want to be able to do, prioritizing what we absolutely need, like logistics, and grouping similar missions or missions that require similar capabilities in the same branch. Just my two cents on it, anyway.
The military forces do have joint logistics command centers that try to work together when they are able. I think the problem lies more in the budget shortfalls thanks to the congressional investigations that center around military spending. I'm not arguing with this, but part of Congress spends too much time defending the false border statements about it being under control and such rather than actually finding the money to do what the government should be doing. Protecting US citizens and honoring vets who served to protect freedom even when the government leaders have failed them.
@@coachwendy5618 No arguments here on most of that. The one thing I will quibble over is that this was less about just logistics and more about consolidating similar capabilities and mission sets. I think it's something that needs to happen when it comes to planning out force mixes as well. I think it's good to have capability overlap with specific systems, after all, redundancy is a wonderful thing in warfare, but I don't think the same holds true for the branches of the military.
That said,, I'm also aware of where there will be gray areas and places where who's responsible gets murky. In those cases, I think having that capability be organic to the concerned branches may be beneficial in allowing for more flexible arrangements and cutting through bureaucratic nonsense. (Not saying all bureaucracy is bad, but there are times where it is truly nonsensical.)
You are being to practical and efficient, Sal.
To an average citizen the question that comes to mind is, "how vulnerable are we"?
FYI. we're f__ked😮
A lot of people don't see further than their wallet. To them, military is an unwelcome expense, like all government duties.
Kind of disturbing considering our belligerent foreign policy.
Vulnerable to what, exactly?
We have perfect natural geographic defense. To invade us anyone would need to cross a major ocean and then immediately find themselves hemmed in by major mountain ranges regardless of which coast they pick.
Should our military expenditure be more efficient and maintenance be prioritized? Yes, absolutely.
But what, exactly, are you thinking we’re vulnerable to? Who presents a threat we can’t meet even with our chaotic readiness?
I don’t think Russia are gonna be doing much invading of us given they’re having to import North Korean troops to handle a tiny regional conflict.
China is desperately trying to achieve deterrence for their own coast, with almost all of their new builds unable to cross the Pacific.
Iran and friends aren’t exactly stunning naval powers. Didn’t they recently misplace a cruiser *in port* ?
@@piedpiper1172 No one wants to invade us. Mostly they don't want anything to do with us much less rule over this freaked out subverted society.
We don't even have the on land capability of transporting goods anymore in the US Army not since I was in the Army in the 80s and they stopped all the army bases in Europe
Feeling miserable up here too Sal!! 🇨🇦 Get well soon. 🤧🥶💞
I say the decline of support means of US Armed Forces is as much deliberate as is the failure to supply a besieged ghetto in the process of starvation (for the benefit of the Greatest Ally of All Times).
If there were a will, there would be a way, e.g. modifying commercial freighters.
It's the same in the Royal Navy - if it were expected to hold up in a naval operation, it's Cold War frigates were still in operation due to service life extension refitting - which sadly implies that the deployment of WMDs is a long forgone conclusion in this century as there is no such thing as diplomacy since 1991.
Feel better soon.
So what you are saying is Space Force needs to get those extra Stargates available for rapid troop transport pronto...
/s
The two T-ESDs could be repurposed as watercraft lift ships
Great update Sal. Get well soon. Ice cream and or honey should help
Uh, wait a minute. There are _some_ Army watercraft _directly assigned to TRADOC_ and yet the Army is overall _still_ failing at writing & updating manuals and documentation for their vessels? What??
Sad my grandfather was a amphibious combat engineer, note dec 7 he was on a army troop ship, served WW2 and Korea as said
great info
Am I the only one that thinks of "The Wackiest Ship In The Army"?
It doesn't apply.
I suggest the way to understand the division of labor, so to speak, between the Army and the Navy, in regard to amphibious operations, is to think about long haul trucks vs forklifts. The long haul trucking company (the Navy) is responsible for getting your “products” to your warehouse (shallow water offshore of the beach). The Army then users their forklifts (landing craft of various sizes) to get everything off the trucks (Navy ships) and into the warehouse (the beach). Remember, the Navy is a blue water force whose mission is (with few exceptions) to use really big COMBAT ships is to dominate the oceans. The Army uses NON-COMBAT, shallow water vessels that aren’t meant to dominate the oceans.
Not a perfect analogy, but good enough for government work.
You should have some of the smaller vessels built in Scotland, you’ll save a lot of money. They’ll be obsolete before they’re finished. This will save you a fortune in crew and operating expenses.
The Army used to have many WRSA Watercraft Reserve Storage Activities
how about we beach a trimaran landing craft with light vehicles and some ATGM to secure the beach instead of slow vulnerable vessels?
MSV(L) is basically a trimaran.
The Congress has told the services to look at combining the Navy and Army landing ship management
Operational commanders know better than boards and committees how to fix this urgent requirement. Personnel, who know how to operate in these environments, training and readiness, have been neglected for decades or no longer in service. Funding and new construction of replacement equipment should have happened years ago. Relying on commercial or allied resources is thoroughly inadequate. Attriting and divestment of this watercraft fleet was irresponsible. Reconstituting, funding, scheduling and manning this program is not even on the calendar. Maybe our foes will wait for us to get our act together.