Navy Response to Sandy

Posted on by

We all know the CG got out in front of this, much like they did prior to Katrina.

Apparently the Navy is ready to help, but no one (but the Corp of Engineers) is asking. Seems like all those landing craft and boats could be useful.

36 thoughts on “Navy Response to Sandy”

  1. Too bad DoD won’t even lace up their boots without a funding stream. 14USC sure does give the COMDT a lot of flexibility. That is one nice thing about about being the red-headed step child. We may get ignored 99% of the time, but when it hits the fan we are the only one that shows up ready to go. Its sad that we need tragedy to get any attention.

    Reply ↓

    • Actually it is not a nice thing at all…the funding steam issue is what helps DOD. If we did the same thing, we would not have the budget problems we do.

      If you recall FEMA had a great increase in its budget after Katrina…the CG nothing as a result of its actions.

      So long as the we as a service insist on taking on unfunded missions and tasking out of hide, we will continue to be a day late and a dollar short.

      Reply ↓

      • ConchCoastie is absolutely correct about the funding stream helping DoD, and how the CG eagerness to take response costs out of hide eventually hurts the CG.

        DOD support to civil authorities is also a complicated matter, thanks to the laws in place governing such support. Take a look at DoD Instruction 3025.18 for more information.

      • FEMA was found to be functionally broken after it was split up, so good on them for being reinstated, even if still not returned to being a separate executive agency.

        The budget aspect is uninformed, as soon as there is a Stafford Act declaration, all spending over normal levels is subject to reimbursement, if it is related to a FEMA request for support. Unfortunately, most of what we do in an emergency management function is all part of our statute missions. We also saw increased funding to cover what was done under FEMA and to cover repairs to CG facilities.

        The problem with DOD is that they have to wait for DHS to request assistance, then it goes to SECDEF, then he makes a decision how to support and whether they are supposed to do it with/without additional funding. At that point the COCOM, in this case NORTHCOM, is tasked to coordinate and the individual components are tasked to provide forces to the COCOM. Per HSPD-5, even when the package is activated, it still retains its chain of command through NORTHCOM. As compared to the USCG, its doesn’t integrate and unity of effort is never achieved. During Katrina there were huge issues coordinating the response with the DOD task force.

        The point of the original post was simply that there are times that 14USC is better than 10. Sec 93 gives the COMDT complete autonomy to deploy forces and carry out his missions, even to work directly with local government as long as he deems it in the best interest of the service. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that waiting to act until ordered is some magic bullet to better funding, its a path to irrelevance.

      • Anon and Conch are spot-on. Our continual saying “yes” all the time with no funding stream each and everytime is what is actually making us irrelevant.

        The Constitution mandates that there will be a standing Army and a Navy, so DOD is in no danger of being sidelined anytime in the near or far future. There is no such safeguard for the CG. In reality though, we could go away as we know it and be divided up amongst the various other alphabet soup agencies of the federal government tomorrow and there would be hardly a squeek from the general public.

      • Piero – you are correct – 14 is indeed more flexible than Title 10. It does indeed make the CG look good by comparison to DOD when it comes to the immediate response to a disaster or other national-level incident. But it doesn’t come with funding, so every time the CG responds with out of hide funding, some other mission suffers unless the Department or Congress give the CG supplemental funding. Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn’t.

        Look at how DOD is fighting the WOT. Their supplemental funding requests flow fast and easy, and the Coast Guard? It can’t even get its own Department Secretary to support full funding of the NSCs.

      • Aside from the legal differences, and I think there are ways the DOD units could act if they chose to, there are cultural differences in that the Coast Guard allow greater initiative and push decision making down to lower level. Really that is all to the good.

        Despite the rather discouraging picture some times, the Coast Guard is highly respected in many quarters. The Coast Guard is at least as large as it was 50 years ago. The Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force are all much smaller.

      • @ Anonymouse, re: ” the Coast Guard? It can’t even get its own Department Secretary to support full funding of the NSCs.”

        The Coast Guard has simply not made a good case for why they need eight when the OPC is supposed to have very similar capabilities and cost much less.

      • @ PacArea Staff Weenie, re: “The Constitution mandates that there will be a standing Army and a Navy, so DOD is in no danger of being sidelined anytime in the near or far future.”

        Actually the constitution gives the authority to maintain a navy and raise an Army, but it does not require it. The assumption at the time was that there would be no standing army; we would call the malitia when we needed one. In spite of this there was always at least a regiment of standing army, but for the first 8 years under the Constitution there was no Navy. It took five years to authorize the first ships for the new US Navy while the Lighthouse Service and Revenue Cutter Service were both given higher priority.

      • @Chuck “The Coast Guard has simply not made a good case for why they need eight when the OPC is supposed to have very similar capabilities and cost much less.”

        You statement is unsubstantiated opinion at best, blatently untrue at worst. But given you have been out of the Coast Guard for a long time, I can understand how you might be unfamiliar with the Deepwater POR, the Fleet Mix Analysis and the Commandant’s strategic engagement push at all levels which clearly showed the need for 8 WMSLs. What happened was our own DHS Secretary cut us off at the knees instead of advocating for us on the hill. Kind of hard to make your case effectively when you are undermined isn’t it? You claim that it is our fault is just plain illogical.

      • @PACAREA Staff Weenie,

        Perhaps it is more that you think a convincing case was made because you are inside the Coast Guard (a case of the members of the organization talking among themselves) while I can see that the case was not made because I am looking in from the outside.

        When the Coast Guard said the OPCs would do ALPAT, there was no explanation as to why the Coast Guard needed NSCs beyond defense missions, and those never supported a requirement for more than five.

        For several years the Congress repeatedly asked for the “Fleet Mix Study.” The CG completed one in, I believe 2008, but recognized it was very limited in scope, that it did not present realistic alternatives, and did not answer Congress’ mandate so they did not release it until I believe 2011.

        Further the Coast Guard has not been aggressive in making its case in the media. Where were the articles in US Naval Institute “Proceedings” and the Navy League’s “Seapower” that imparted a sense of urgency in replacing the existing ships.

        The only time I saw anything like that was in the wake of the casualties following the Haitian earthquake.

        The case needed to be made before it went before Congress.

        Your statements about the Constitution were simply incorrect.

      • @ PACAREA Staff Weenie, please not that I did agree with this statement,”…for a service secretary to pull their support for full funding is either amateur hour or cowardice on the part of DHS – especially given the fact that House and Senate appropriators both included funding for long lead time materials for the seventh NSC in their versions of fiscal 2013 spending bills.”

      • Chuck, the reason that the Fleet Mix Analysis study was not released until 2011 was because of the change in administration in 2009. ADM Allen was prevented from having it released sooner by our favorite DHS Secretary and her cabal. Also note the FMA study showed we needed EVEN MORE CUTTERS than originally planned.

        You blaming us a service for the restraints this administration put on us is unfair. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are uninformed, vice intentionally distorting the truth. Maybe perhaps before you pluck away at the keyboard and accuse us of falling down on the job next time, you can try doing some research or maybe actually talk to someone in the Coast Guard?

      • PSW, The reason I say the Coast Guard has not made a convincing case for more than 6 NSCs is because they have not convinced me, and I should be an easy sell. I’m on the CG’s side. I think we need a lot more ships as I have said many times. I read almost everything that is written by the Coast Guard for public consumption regarding budgeting and shipbuilding. Actually I think I am better informed about CG budgeting now, than I was when I was on active duty. But if the OPCs can do ALPAT, why two more NSCs instead of four OPCs, which is the trade off.

        I know we are not going to be ready to build OPCs in FY 2014 and 2015, that is very unfortunate. If we had been ready earlier, we might nave been able to start the OPC funding in 2014 instead of 2016.

        So convince me (not why we need more ships, that is a given) but why we need NSC 7 and 8 instead of OPCs.

      • Chuck: I note with pride and am pleased to commend you for you statement about the Secretary undercutting our efforts for additional ships. Sorry I did not acknowledge that in my earlier reply.

        Your statement that we have not done more is what was inaccurate which is why I replied only to that portion.

    • Chuck – we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can understand OMB or GAO saying the CG hasn’t made a case for the remaining NSC’s, but for a service secretary to pull their support for full funding is either amateur hour or cowardice on the part of DHS – especially given the fact that House and Senate appropriators both included funding for long lead time materials for the seventh NSC in their versions of fiscal 2013 spending bills.

      Unless something changes, DHS is going to be the death of the US Coast Guard as we currently know it.

      Reply ↓

      • All true, and we are now going to be two years further behind on getting replacement cutters, but it also appears that the Coast Guard has been slow to make its case, failing to conduct the fleet mix study mandated by Congress.

      • “Unless something changes, DHS is going to be the death of the US Coast Guard as we currently know it.”

        +1

    • @Chuck Well please show us where exactly in the Constitution it provided for a Revenue Marine and a Lighthouse Service then (neither of which existed under the Articles of Confederation either and were not created intil 1790 and 1789 respectively). I am eager for you to show us all exactly where that gem is hidden.

      In reality, most of the public could care less if we went away in our current form. Our Gestapo LE tactics and emphasis on “security” at the expense of our traditional missions the past ten years with the shift to DHS have turned off many. Sorry it hurts your sensibilities, but it does not make it any less true.

      Reply ↓

      • “Our Gestapo LE tactics” That is completely out of line!!! Chuck you need to step in now. PACAREA Staff Weenie has gone off the deep end.

      • rlcullison – why should Chuck have to “step in?” PSW ought to be able to express his/her views without moderation as long as the site rules are followed.

    • The ship like the Wasp (LHD-1) could be a perfect ship for Disaster response and humanitarian assistance. The possibilities are endless such as temporary VTS, Air Traffic Control, small boat base, air station, barracks. Even used as a mobile trauma hospital and Command & control center for disaster response. I’m not surprise that FEMA, DMAT, USPHS, USAR teams, USCG and even the US Navy repurpose ships like the Wasp (LHD-1) to have an added mission of Disaster response and Humanitarian assistance. Ships like the Wasp (LHD-1) can be jointly manned with CIVMAR, US Navy, FEMA, DMAT, USPHS, USAR teams & USCG. It would be something ideal along the lines similar of the USS Ponce.

      Reply ↓

  3. “CIVMAR, US Navy, FEMA, DMAT, USPHS, USAR teams & USCG” can you imagine the turf wars that would be in one tin can? I was aboard the USS Kearsarge during the 1990s when it evacuated the Freetown, Sierra Leone.

    You will still have to have the crew compliment as if it were deployed. Where would you put all those people. I suppose the 1200 Marines could be left at home, but you’d loose the ground help. Leave the LCACs and landing craft boat unit at home too?

    The upside to using these ships, as one was in New Orleans, would be its water making and power generating. Of course, if the water, where anchored or moored, is polluted the first feature is moot.

    Reply ↓

    • Can you imagine the US using a ship similar to the Wasp (LHD-1) to have capability to do Disaster response and Humanitarian assistance. I would include the 1200 Marines as well on top of CIVMAR, US Navy, FEMA, DMAT, USPHS, USAR teams & USCG. Their would be room for LCAC and even small boats from the USCG such as the RB-S or Over the horizon boat.

      On the plus side you have a LHA, LHD with capabilities to do temporary VTS, Air Traffic Control, small boat base, air station, barracks. Even used as a mobile trauma hospital and Command & control center for disaster response. So having a ship like the Wasp (LHA-1) would be perfect for disaster response, humanitarian assistance and with room to spare with teams of CIVMAR, US Navy, USMC, FEMA, DMAT, USPHS, USAR teams & USCG.

      Here’s a picture of two MH-65 from AST Atlantic city using the USS Wasp as a temporary Air station.
      http://cgvi.uscg.mil/media/main.php?g2_itemId=1810081

      Reply ↓

    • @ Bill, ““CIVMAR, US Navy, FEMA, DMAT, USPHS, USAR teams & USCG” can you imagine the turf wars that would be in one tin can?”

      Would it really be better if these agencies are all in different locations where they could not speak face to face?

      Reply ↓

  5. We are also talking about replacing serves like VTS and Air Traffic Control. I doubt those are much our of service. Plus I doubt much traffic is inbound and many of the ferries are out of service. Air Traffic Control towers still work.

    Sector New York stayed operational through the storm. The VTS physically next door to the Command Center.

    Reply ↓

    • Would not of course attempt to replace anything that was actually still working. Just that they have some of the basic capabilities. Understand a 270 was used to control aircraft after the Haiti earthquake.

      Reply ↓

      • I understand your point. I just think more stuff is in tact then people realize. The best units now will be Army Corp/Construction units and things like that. The ships would be more helpful moving supplies. But the truth is our civil defense by respect to our tradition is to avoid military involvement in civil affairs because so much of emergency management is done and accomplished by the states. \

Leave a comment