Tuesday, March 31, 2015

THE AMERICAN CLUB OFFERS UNIQUE SERVICES AND A FREE COMPLIANCE GUIDE


 Photo: NOAA


The American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, Inc. (the American Club) was established in New York in 1917. According to its'website ,It is the only mutual Protection and Indemnity Club domiciled in the United States – indeed, in the entire Americas. And in fact, we have no information to the contrary.  If you are a marine transportation company doing business in the United States, membership in this "club" can be most beneficial. Here is a link to their web site: http://www.american-club.com/page/about-the-club 

 We mention the club at this time because we have become aware of what appears to be a unique and useful free download on the above web site.To do transportation business in the United States is to deal with regulations from multiple agencies. Compliance is a constant issue and bribery is severely punished, highly resisted, there are no fast tracks to compliance when doing business in America. So the following notice caught our eye and we herewith pass it on. 


Welcome to the USA! -- A Shipowner's Guide to Regulatory Compliance
Produced last November, this publication was well received by members and has now been updated to include the latest developments in certain key areas of regulatory compliance - essential information for shipowners trading to and from the United States and US territories. The new text can be accessed on the club's website at :-

Sunday, March 29, 2015

PARA SAILING SAFETY


 A Marine Safety Information Bulletin Alerting The Boating And Aviation Communities To Specific Hazards Relating To Parasailing Operations Has Been Issued By The U.S. Coast Guard.  

 PD

 The hazards of concern involve flight issues when aircraft operate in the vicinity of parasail operations and operating limitations for the vessel operators towing parasailors. Additionally the Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) addresses banner towing by aircraft, this type of aerial advertising is frequently seen over public beaches.  Pilots, flight crews, vessel operators and crews should be especially alert when operating in the vicinity of parasailing and aerial banner towing operations. Moreover parasail operators and banner towing operations should be especially aware of each other as frequently they are operating at altitudes where contact is possible. 

 The Coast Guard Marine Safety Information Bulletin noted: 

   " Last summer, there were two incidents where aircraft towing banners (banner tows) collided with parasail rigs aloft that were being towed by small passenger vessels. Fortunately, there were no passenger injuries, only property damage, but these incidents could have resulted in serious injury or a fatality. "

  The MSIB  we are alerting our readers to outlines the applicable FAA and USCG regulations and provides additional guidance to promote safety of parasailing while operating with passengers aloft in the vicinity of banner tow or other aircraft operations. The FAA regulates both the aviation operations involved in both para sailing and banner towing and other forms of aerial advertising, and the USCH regulates the vessel operations. The FAA sets altitude limits for both operations but in this MSIB the Coast Guard reminds both parasail operators and banner tow aviators that frequently towed banners are flying as much as 100 to 150 feet below the aircraft, which according to its altimeter, is flying at the regulation minimum altitude. Additionally the aircraft pilot has blind spots immediately ahead and below him and may not see the parasailor if banner and parasailor are at the same altitude and in close proximity. It is at such times that danger of aerial collision exists. 

 Here is an especially good piece of advice from the MSIB:

  "The FAA concluded that parasails and parasail operations are subject to regulations applicable to kites under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 101, and, therefore, has prescribed certain operating (flight) limitations and notice and marking requirements. Parasail operators who need to deviate from these limitations and requirements must request and receive approved waivers for parasail flight from the nearest FAA Service Center (see enclosure 1). Commonly requested and waived regulations include 14 CFR 101.13 (a)(4), 14 CFR 101.15, and 14 CFR 101.17. Additionally, when requesting waivers, parasail operators should maintain a copy of their waiver request as evidence of submission. This may be used for compliance purposes until the waiver arrives. To promote maritime and aviation safety, parasail and banner tow operators, who fly within common geographic areas, are encouraged to be proactive in meeting with each other through regular safety meetings, especially before the start of each operating season"

 The American Admiralty Information Services Organization has never been big fans of Coast Guard regulations but we do laud one aspect of the Coast Guard regulatory culture. The Coast Guard institutionally follows the process Lyndon Johnson called "Jaw Boning" in that they use their Marine Safety Information Bulletins , Notice to Mariners System, and Industry Advisory Committees to avoid ineffective or counterproductive regulations (with distressing inconsistent results) and to correct safety and environment hazards without regulation. The banner towing and parasailing business communities are being encouraged through "jaw boning" to take up some effective "jaw boning" of operating altitudes between and among themselves. This usually is a signal to do something or be subjected to additional regulation, possibly with some ham handed business killing provisions. 

 Our analysis is that the party with the most room to compromise is the parasailors. The banner towing community already has a difficult time getting the banners down to a level where they can be read by beach goers. This keeps the aircraft flying at minimum regulatory compliance levels.  That often results in the banner itself intruding into kite operations air space, the realm of the parasailor, parasailing surfboarder , and beach kite flyers. We remind banner towing aviators that "minimum regulatory compliance" is not the court test of safe operation in the event of liability lawsuits.  A "standard of care" that a court will impose on any sort of marine or aviation, and especially on blended operations is likely to be quite a bit higher than "minimum regulatory compliance" or a "reasonable man test". The USCG and the FAA must write national regulations that may or may not work for both or either of these two types of business very well on a local level. The Coast Guard reminds the two business communities that there are procedures for variances and exceptions built into both the USCG and FAA regulations.  Its time to get together and review you local situation before the season really gets started. Time is short. Locally agreed upon "standard operating procedures" that do not exceed any regulatory requirement often need no Federal endorsement and if observed tend to improve the posture of any such business involved in a post accident liability claim. Operators who refuse to operate within such "jaw boned" parameters hazard their liability positions and insurance.

 We again note that in our opinion the parasail operators have the most room to compromise. Generally any height above treetop level provides a thrill ride. It is conceivable that extra height gives the boat a bit more surface vessel collision avoidance maneuverability. But such operations can probably be well performed pretty far below maximum kite air space. The towed banner business community has no business if their banners can not be read and suffers the constant temptation to operate at "minimal regulatory compliance" altitudes which often drops the banner itself into kite air space. A local compromise on an air space safety margin could be solution. Another alternative is surface operations lanes. This would involve parasailing take off and landing and flight operations at a designated distance off the beach and banner towing operations parallel to and usually inshore ( for better readability" of the advertising banner. Such a solution may well require application for Coast Guard and / or FAA variances, but the concerned business communities should be confident of approval if their local proposal actually improves on the base federal regulations. 

 To recap; the parasailors need above tree top level plus altitudes that are within the kite regulations for both the effect of a thrill ride and for a sufficient tow line cantentary to give the towing vessel surface navigation collision avoidance maneuverability.  The banner towing business need sufficiently low altitudes and close in horizontal transit lanes for banner readability. THE COAST GUARD IN THIS MSIB IS ALERTING THE TWO BUSINESS COMMUNITIES THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO ACHIEVE THIS IS LOCAL AGREEMENTS, SOME OF WHICH MAY REQUIRE THE FEDERAL REGULATORY VARIANCE PROCEDURES. The Coast Guard is issuing this helpful notice in the wake of a couple of near misses. If there is a fatal accident this season it may be too late to avoid additional federal regulation, which often because it must address an issue nationally ends up killing certain local businesses. Get the job done locally starting this pre season. Meanwhile we suggest if at all possible given your local situation that both business communities observe common sense this season and avoid operations any where near the edge of your allotted air space. 

 Now there is another issue, the limitations on surface maneuverability on the towing water craft once parasailors are launched. It is imperative that such vessels with their aerial tow advertise their restricted maneuverability to other surface vessels. Most recreational boaters and personal watercraft operators have little knowledge of the inland or international rules to avoid collision. Parasail water craft operators are supposed to have at a minimum a U.S. Coast Guard motor boat operator license and have had to pass formal written examination on these regulations. There can be no excuse for such vessels not using the related whistle signals, especially the danger signal if another surface vessel invades your required maneuver space, or displaying the required or suggested lights or day shapes indicating your restricted maneuverability status. But a "prudent operator" will go beyond that given the wide spread general knowledge that you are operating within a recreational boating space dominated by vessel operators of typically limited skills. This is a job for management. It is important to ADVERTISE at boat launch sites, marinas, and other venues where recreational boaters congregate  that they should stay well clear of parasail operation due to the limited maneuverability of the towing vessel.  

 Finally, the beach going public can help. If you decide to go parasailing tell your operator that you would like to fly at the minimal safe altitude for avoiding aerial advertising air space and still providing him as vessel operator ample surface maneuverability. We promise you that such a height will still be a thrill ride. But no one needs the thrill of aerial collision or near miss. American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies   


 For further information, please go to: http://www.uscg.mil/msib/docs/003_15_3-17-2015.pdf

Saturday, March 28, 2015

JAPAN COMMISSIONS THEIR LARGEST WAR SHIP SINCE WWII

THE IZUMO IS THE LARGEST 

JAPANESE WAR SHIP SINCE WWII



JSDF HELICOPTER CARRIER IZUMO Photo : JSDF

 American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies     

 The IZUMO is a 19,500 ton helicopter carrier. It no doubt is also capable of handling a few Short take off/ vertical landing type fighter aircraft but technically is not an "aircraft carrier" in the conventional sense. The ship is intended to patrol Japanese waters vice project power over seas. The ship is toe dancing on the limits of the Japanese constitutional self limits on military organization and equipage to self defense. The Japanese Defense Ministry maintains that the big ship is meant to deter "Grey situations" frankly a thinly disguised reference to Chinese overt violations of Japan's sovereign waters in an attempt to force cession of Japan's southern most inhabited islands. While the ship clearly has capabilities or at least potentials beyond anti submarine warfare the primary reason for her construction was anti submarine warfare. In May of 2013 "Unidentified submarines (probably Chinese) were identified beneath waters near Okinawa within the watery territory of Kagoshima prefecture. The Japanese constitution poses limitations on Japan's Maritime Self defense Force when responding to such intrusions where no shots are fired. THE IZUMO is 814 feet in length and officially designated a helicopter carrier. It can carry 470 personnel, a maximum of nine helicopters, and is capable of carrying the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft.

 The IZUMO is the largest war ship Japan has commissioned since World War II. Their constitution has been reinterpreted recently to allow Japan to aid nations in defense under limited circumstances and Japan is presently lending assistance to the Philippines which is also being subjected to aggressive Chinese naval behavior. The Dragon (China) observing the IZUMO and growing Japanese / Philippine cooperation is not a happy camper. 
 Japanese Navy Band in Nanking, China 1937 (PD)

Thursday, March 26, 2015

RUSSIA NOW QUESTIONS BRITAIN'S CLAIM TO THE FALKLANDS

Update : 12/17/2015

RUSSIA COMPARES THE ARGENTINE 

CLAIM TO THE FALKLANDS TO THE 

RUSSIAN CLAIM TO THE CRIMEA


 PD


The Brits Reinforce Their Garrison. Obama Ignores Situation Oblivious To The Monroe Doctrine And The Distress of Our Alley Britain.   

 On March 24, 2015  Alexander Yakovenko ,the Russian Ambassador in London was publicly critical of Great Britain's claim on the Falklands, South Atlantic Islands settled by British subjects and licensees over two hundred years ago and continuously ruled by Britain ever since.  Yakovenko disparaged the publicite held in the Falklands in 2013 in which 99.8% of the inhabitants of the Falklands indicated that they wanted to remain British subjects. Who can blame them? They are all English speakers, with deep roots in the islands, and Argentina is a failed state incapable of governing itself ,now a vassal of Russia.  In the 1980s Argentina invaded  causing hundreds of British combat deaths and about four civilian deaths on the islands. Given the fact that most everybody on the islands knows everyone else those four civilian deaths were sorely felt. Resentment and fear of Argentina runs high on the Islands. Yet Yakovenko compared the Argentine claim to the Falklands to the Russian claim to the Crimea. 

 The Crimea was gifted to the Ukraine by a Soviet Union prime minister born in Ukraine, back when the Ukraine was solidly in the Soviet system. At the time of the Russian seizure there were many Russian speakers living in the region with personal allegiances to Russia. None of which is an excuse for seizure of sovereign territory by force of arms. However, Argentina doesn't have anything like that relationship to the Falklands. Argentina didn't exist as a nation when a now defunct confederacy of which it was a part ended its contested claim to the then uninhabited islands.  Great Britain exerted a prior claim at that point and backed it up with a naval occupation followed by settlers.   The Brits did license some settlers from the South American mainland and their descendants account for the occasional Spanish surnames on the Island today. But everyone has been a British subject since day one . The English language and British law has been the regime of the islands for about two hundred years. The Brits have a perfect title to the islands based on effective settlement, established administration, and consent of the governed. The Argentines have no claim, but now they are backed by Russian military might while Britain's military has been shrinking for years and the U.S. is solidly in hands of a leftist, idiotic governing elite . 

 Britain's response to the Russian implied threat has been immediate. Michael Fallon, the British Defence Secretary , was quoted as saying the Islands will be ready to repel "any pertinent threat".  Fallon's statement followed not only Yakovenko 's statements but also reports that the Russians are going to lease 12 Su-24 long range bombers to Argentina in exchange for beef and wheat (argentine money being worthless).  Britain is now committed to spending over 180 million pounds over the next decade in upgrading the island's defenses. Two troop carrying Chinook helicopters and some surface to air defensive missile systems are on the way to the Falklands. Unfortunately these two "new helicopters" simply replace two that were withdrawn from the Islands in 2006. Britain will be severely challenged in providing a  real deterrent force if Russia is willing to pay for a real invasive force for the Argentines. Of course regular visits from U.S. Atlantic fleet units and a supporting posture from the United States would suffice along with an affordable build up from Britain to deter even a Russia backed Argentina. Unfortunately with no adult leadership in Washington and none in sight for at least 24 months, Britain is on its own.
                                                                   

                                                                American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies


                                                                        





Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The Giant Reds Are Back To Jumping Into Capt. Richie's Boat Again!




Richie Lott

Shared publicly5:58 PM


Product Details

FISHING CHARTERS FOR BULL REDFISH | GEORGIA SPORT FISHING CHARTERS 


http://www.richielott.com/

The time is upon us. Spring! The big Reds are beginning to show up in Southeast Georgia around Jekyll Island and St. Simons Island. This photo from last season makes an angler hot under the collar to get out and catch some just like this one!

These Coastal Georgia Communities are my native hometown and backyard fishing playground... Best of all, It just so happens these HUGE Bull Redfish roam this area for months on end in search of the maximum amount of food they can find and eat.

Huge schools of Menhaden are the primary focus of these bruiser size Redfish in Coastal Georgia and we spend a lot of time dialing in the larger size Reds up to 45-50 pounds on occasion.

If any of you are interested in catching the Redfish of a lifetime, please feel free to contact us anytime using our website found at http://www.georgiasportfishing.com

The big Reds will be in the Coastal Georgia area from now until November. A large influx of the Bulls start showing up after the new moon in March, which has just passed. GAME ON!

Thank you all for reading and looking at our photos and reports. We appreciate it very much!

Capt. Richie Lott
Georgia Sport Fishing Charters
Serving: St. Simons Island & Jekyll Island Georgia
www.richielott.com
www.georgiasportfishing.com
2 photos

Monday, March 23, 2015

MARAUDING BEAR ALERT: RUSSIA IS WILLING TO BE FIRST WITH A NUCLEAR STRIKE

RUSSIA HAS THREATENED DENMARK WITH A NUCLEAR STRIKE IF IT JOINS A EUROPEAN MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM

  MAP CIA WORLD FACT BOOK

 You haven't read about this is the national media because this wasn't an official government to government threat. The Bear is starting to follow the Dragon's example and use academic periodicals to deliver messages they definitely mean but aren't yet ready to officially articulate. Mikhail Vanin ,Russian ambassador to Denmark writing in the periodical Jyllands-Posten a Danish newspaper in an "opinion piece" literally threatened Denmark with a nuclear strike if it takes part in NATO's missile shield. Using somewhat diplomatic language he stated that Denmark had not fully understood the consequences of participating in the NATO missile defense program. Among the consequences he suggested;"If it happens, then Danish warships will be targets  for Russia's nuclear weapons. Denmark will be part of the threat to Russia".

 We found the comment quite interesting. First why threaten the war ships? Is that a tacit admission that the evolving European missile shield is viewed by the Bear as effective enough as to make a land attack ineffective? Second this sounds very much like a first strike threat. There was nothing in the ambassador's language that indicated the strike against the war ships would come after a nuclear attack by any member of the NATO alliance. When and why the Bear might attack Denmark's warships is not described. Some choice the Bear give Denmark; leave your cities vulnerable to our nuclear attacks or we nuke your fleet, whenever its convenient to us.  We suggest to Denmark that cities can't move ships can. Shield your cities and disperse your fleet. Learn networked warfare. Keep those ships far enough apart to require a nuke apiece to take them out, but communicating and able to speed together to mass force when needed.  Nuclear weapons can't be retargeted very quickly. Keep the fleet concealed and dispersed but communicating. Ignore the Bear. 

 This dramatic, unprecedented, but unofficial threat increases the pressure the Bear is putting on all nations in the Baltic region. Recently Russian military aircraft have violated the airspaces over Estonia, Finland, and Sweden. Russian military aircraft invading sovereign air space were involved in two near miss collision incidents with commercial passenger aircraft taking off from Copenhagen last year. Russian military exercises are on the increase for both size and frequency in the border regions. Russia has moved Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, a part of Russia  bordered by Lithuania and Poland.

 Denmark's reaction to the opinion piece in a News paper was official. Martin Lidegaard, Denmark's foreign minister replied to the article and called the comments "unacceptable". Mr. Lidgaard pointed out that the NATO system is defensive not offensive and in either case was not aimed specifically at Russia. He sounded concern that the article indicated a change in tone in the relations between the two nations. The foreign minister asserted that in August Denmark would equip two or more of its war ships with a type of radar that would allow them to contribute to the NATO missile shield. This we found interesting. Apparently the first act of participation in the shield is the equipping of ships with radar. Might the threat against war ships be a first strike threat, and why strike a defensive system, particularly ships with certain radars. No radar ever destroyed a target. This is a threat of an attack against a shield. There can only be one reason for attacking a shield, you intend harm to what's protected by the shield. Obviously any attack by Russia against NATO warships, especially those associated with missile defense is a prelude for  missile attack against cities. With this "opinion piece" Russia threatens the West with a first strike nuclear threat. We have enough nuclear weapons to turn Russia into a glow in the dark parking lot. Now is the time to beef up shields like never before. Its time for a new policy announcement too. We suggest that NATO adopt the posture that any attack, nuclear or conventional, on elements of a nuclear missile shield will be considered the same as a nuclear first strike. There is no other purpose in attacking a shield.

 The Chief of the Russian general staff threatened any country hosting the shield on its soil with a nuclear strike back in 2012, again an "unofficial threat', not a communication delivered formally through diplomatic channels. Denmark still plans to join the missile defense system by radar participation on several of its ships. Denmark has taken a more conciliatory tone than non NATO member neighbor Sweden. Sweden maintains that they are truly frightened of Russian intentions and asserts that one in three Russian personnel in Sweden are spies. Sweden maintains that they keep a sharp eye on Russia and can not interpret recent Russian moves as anything but "preparation for military operations against Sweden.”

 The Bear is on the move in the north while attention is focused on ISIS in the Middle East. The Dragon is still on the move in the China Seas and off of Japan. Islamofascists are on the move in Europe and America.  This is not the time for the WEST to be reducing defense budgets. This is not the time for Western civilians to be disarming themselves. Human freedom is under attack globally. The time frame in which we can avoid global conflagration by containing these threats is growing short. 

Sources: AAB Information services net work. 

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Thursday, March 19, 2015

CHINESE COAST GUARD SHIPS VIOLATE JAPAN'S WATERS AGAIN

THREE CHINESE COAST GUARD 


VESSELS ENTER JAPANESE WATERS 


NEAR SENKAKUS 



File:Japan Coast Guard PL51 Hida 2.jpg PD



 We read about the latest Chinese intrusion into the Japanese held Senkaku Islands territorial waters in the March 16, 2015 edition of Jiji Press. Citing reports from the Japanese Coast Guard the news service indicated that three Chinese Coast Guard vessels entered Japanese Territorial waters surrounding the disputed but long internationally recognized as Japanese held islands. This latest outrage was the first in a regular series, the last prior intrusion was Feb.27, 2015. In the past 12 months Chinese Coast Guard vessels have violated Japanese sovereign waters 7 times. According to the Japanese 11th Regional Coast Guard headquarters in Naha, the Okinawa Prefecture Capitol Chines Coast Guard ships HAIJING 2306 and HAIJING 2350 deliberately entered Japanese territorial waters just south of the uninhabited Island of Minamikojima in the East China Sea roughly around 10:00 local time . The Chinese Coast Guard vessels was approached by  Japanese Coast Guard units and ordered to leave. The Chinese did not respond or comply but continued to move about in Japanese waters util sometime before noon when they left the scene.

 This is a dangerous game the Chinese have undertaken. Not only are Japan and the U.S. linked by a defense treaty but the treaty specifically recognizes the Senkaku as Japanese territory and defines the islands as territory of Japan that the U.S. is obligated to defend. Japan has had internationally recognized sovereignty over the islands since 1895. Prior to that time these uninhabited islands were "undiscovered", or at least not claimed by any other sovereign . 

CHINA

                                                          American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies


                                   

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Report Calls For New Emergency Response Approach In The High Arctic

American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies


http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/2S015/03/report-calls-for-new-emergency-response-approach-in-far-north.html

THE NORWEGIANS AND RUSSIANS ARE 

ACTUALLY DRILLING IN THE HIGH 

ARCTIC. THE U.S. CAN AVOID MISTAKES 

BY STUDYING THEIR EFFORTS. 




Handout/Young Keun Jin/Korean Polar Institute



"HOVIK, Norway – DNV GL has published a report on emergency preparedness solutions in the Norwegian sector of Arctic Ocean.
"The report “Emergency response for offshore operations in the Barents Seaexamines the impact of wind speed, wave height, and sea ice on potential evacuation and rescue resources in the area, and assesses the long-range rescue capability provided by search and rescue helicopters."
It identifies challenges for offshore installations that include: sea spray icing, darkness, lack of offshore infrastructure, long distances between installations and support sites, sea ice, low temperatures, and wind chill."
"A coordinated approach to exploration activities in remote areas would help ensure safe offshore operations in the Barents Sea. Operators could share emergency response resources and their associated costs to ensure sufficient response capacity.”

 Our view is that the High Arctic is a dangerous place and hypersensitive environment. The U.S. at the moment is swimming in shale oil and Gulf of Mexico production and should be exporting oil. We don't have to rush into the Arctic and our last two attempts met with disaster.  Fortunately the breakdown and lost tow happened before the mobile offshore drilling rigs even reached the High Arctic and there was no loss of life or environmental damage.  Noble Drilling and Shell Oil are gearing up for another attempt using one of the 30 year old drill ships that didn't get out of Southern Alaska on the last attempt. Clearly the High Arctic is not somewhere for drilling on the cheap. At a minimum High Arctic Drilling ought to be by drilling vessels designed and built in the U.S. with plans reviewed and approved by the American Bureau of Shipping and the U.S. Coast Guard; purpose built for rugged Arctic service. The vessels should be manned by an all American crew with no language barriers. America has no need to be first in the High Arctic, and indeed it is already too late for that. Its time to slow down, study the situation including the experiences of the exploration and production industries that are already operating above the Arctic Circle. We have time to do it right with properly developed standards for operations and equipment. The Arctic is not the bathwater warm Gulf of Mexico which has been much abused but survived mostly thanks to a warm climate and ocean replete with crude oil eating micro organisms. There will be no second chances in the High Arctic.

American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies

To read the entire article: http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/2S015/03/report-calls-for-new-emergency-response-approach-in-far-north.html

American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies

                                  

Friday, March 13, 2015

Navy Chief of Information Office Releases Revised Maritime Strategy

Story Number: NNS150313-14Release Date: 3/13/2015 12:05:00 PM
      
U.S.Carrier Task Force, Photo: US Navy


From the Navy Chief of Information Office
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The sea services released a new maritime strategy, March 13, a plan that describes how the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard will design, organize, and employ naval forces in support of national security interests and homeland security objectives.

The new strategy titled, A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower: Forward, Engaged, Ready, accounts for changes in the global security environment, new strategic guidance, and a changed fiscal environment.

The essential functions of the maritime strategy released in 2007 were adjusted to include a new function called "all domain access" which underscores the challenges forces face in accessing and operating in contested environments.

The new strategy emphasizes operating forward and engaging partners across the globe, especially in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

The strategy calls for increasing the Navy's forward presence to 120 ships by 2020, up from about 97 ships today. This includes forward-basing four ballistic-missile-defense destroyers in Spain and stationing another attack submarine in Guam by the end of 2015.

The Navy is scheduled to increase presence in Middle East from 30 ships today to 40 by 2020.

The strategy reinforces the continued need to strengthen partnerships and alliances by stressing the importance of operating in NATO maritime groups and participating in international training exercises.

Additionally, the strategy outlines plans to maintain readiness by implementing the Navy's Optimized Fleet Response Plan which improves readiness and leads to a predictable cycle for maintaining, training and deploying carrier strike groups and amphibious ships.

The document features four sections: Global Security Environment, Forward Presence and Partnership, Seapower in Support of National Security, and Force Design: Building the Future Force.
To view the full version of the new strategy document, visit        http://www.navy.mil/local/maritime/150227-CS21R-Final.pdf

SOURCE:


NAMAZU'S ASSESSMENT: 
Namazu, former Japanese demi god, now lead maritime analyst

 Form my perspective of 3,000 years of observing maritime history I applaud the following aspects of the new plan: 

"The Navy’s current budget submission will provide for more than 300 ships and a forward presence of about 120 ships by 2020, up from an average of 97 in 2014, to be “where it matters, when it matters.” This includes forward-based naval forces overseas in places like Guam, Japan, and Spain; forward-operating forces deploying from overseas locations such as Singapore; and rotationally deployed forces from the United States. To provide forward presence more efficiently and effectively, we will adopt the following force employment innovations:

 ■ Increase forward-basing of forces abroad to reduce costly rotations and deployments, while boosting in-theater presence.

 ■ Provide globally distributed and networked expeditionary forces in concert with our allies and partners to increase effective naval presence, strategic agility, and responsiveness. 

Employ modular designed platforms that allow mission modules and payloads to be swapped instead of entire ships, saving time and money. Littoral Combat Ships, which will be re-designated as Frigates (FF) in the future, are an example of this capability" 

Bold facing by the catfish

 In a very constrained budget atmosphere I applaud the above policies. These will definitely allow your naval services to do more with fewer ships. But consider that Chinese naval forces number over 900 war ships, plus a  Chinese Coast Guard of over 900 vessels that compare to your coastal patrol , medium, and high endurance cutters and then consider all of the other naval commitments that the U.S. must make around the world to defend your sea lines of communication and assure your allies; and the gross inadequacy of a 300 ship navy and a coast guard the size of the New York City police department becomes rather painfully obvious. I don't doubt that U.S. sailors are the best trained and disciplined naval team on earth. For their weight they pack a lot of punch. However "sometimes quantity has a quality all its own". The lesson of the BISMARK was that a bunch of cheap war ships can gang up and eventually overwhelm a super ship. Even the best warriors have only so many arrows in their quiver. If armed enemies are left standing when you run out of arrows, you are dead. Quality within both the Navy and Coast Guard are improving but quantity is grossly inadequate. Presently between the Navy and Coast Guard we need at least a 700 ship national fleet of vessels above the coastal patrol boat level. America can bite the naval budget bullet or eventually it will have to bite the lost independence bullet. Cut welfare if you have to, but don't cut war ships. 

merican Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies