With an eye on Russia, U.S. Navy re-establishing its Second Fleet

[rooster59]

With an eye on Russia, U.S. Navy re-establishing its Second Fleet

By Idrees Ali

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Navy Admiral John Richardson, the U.S. chief of naval operations, waits for Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe before their talks at Abe's official residence in Tokyo, Japan on October 15, 2015. REUTERS/Yoshikazu Tsuno/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States Navy is re-establishing its Second Fleet, responsible for the northern Atlantic Ocean, nearly seven years after it was disbanded as the Pentagon puts countering Russia at the heart of its military strategy.

 

"Our National Defense Strategy makes clear that we're back in an era of great power competition as the security environment continues to grow more challenging and complex," Chief of U.S. Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson said on Friday.

 

"Second Fleet will exercise operational and administrative authorities over assigned ships, aircraft and landing forces on the East Coast and northern Atlantic Ocean," Richardson said.

 

The command, which will be based in Norfolk, Virginia, will initially have 15 personnel and will eventually grow to over 200 people, officials said. A number of decisions, like who would command Second Fleet and what assets it would include, have not yet been made.

 

In 2011, the fleet was disbanded for cost-saving and organizational structure reasons.

 

Since then, however, Russia has become more assertive, flexing its military muscles in conflicts like those in Ukraine and Syria, and tensions between Moscow and Washington have increased.

 

Earlier this year, the U.S. military said in a new national defence strategy that countering Russia, along with China, would be a priority, the latest sign of shifting priorities after more than a decade and a half of focussing on the fight against Islamist militants.

 

In presenting the new strategy, which will set priorities for the Pentagon for years to come, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called China and Russia “revisionist powers” that “seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models.”

 

Russia has increased its naval patrols in the Baltic Sea, the North Atlantic and the Arctic, NATO officials say, although the size of its navy is smaller now than during the Cold War era.

 

Since taking office last year, President Donald Trump has tried to build stronger ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

But relations have instead soured over allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Russia’s alleged poisoning of a former double agent in Britain and Putin’s support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria.

 

The Pentagon also announced on Friday that it was offering to host a proposed NATO Joint Force Command at its naval facilities in Norfolk.

 

It was one of two proposed new NATO commands aimed at deterring Russia that the United States and Germany had offered to host.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-05

[billd766]

The problem is in 2 parts.

 

1   To recomission warships will be expensive and fairly lengthy depending on how many ships of different classes will need to be recommisioned. A single aircraft carrier will need cruisers, destroyers, submarines, aircraft, helicopters, man/womenpower etc, as well as support ships for fuel, food, ammunition etc. The fleet will be regular navy and reserves and the support ships will be merchant seamen.

 

2   IIRC a single carrier has a crew of about 5,000 men and women and to commission the Second Fleet may take up to 25,000 men and women on board let alone the land based back up. Where will they get the staff from?

 

Where will they find the aircraft, missles, ammunition, training, crews etc let alone the money to rebuild and re-equip a fleet from?

 

quote "The command, which will be based in Norfolk, Virginia, will initially have 15 personnel and will eventually grow to over 200 people, officials said. A number of decisions, like who would command Second Fleet and what assets it would include, have not yet been made." And that is without a single ship or even a rowing boat.

[car720]

11 hours ago, billd766 said:

The problem is in 2 parts.

 

1   To recomission warships will be expensive and fairly lengthy depending on how many ships of different classes will need to be recommisioned. A single aircraft carrier will need cruisers, destroyers, submarines, aircraft, helicopters, man/womenpower etc, as well as support ships for fuel, food, ammunition etc. The fleet will be regular navy and reserves and the support ships will be merchant seamen.

 

2   IIRC a single carrier has a crew of about 5,000 men and women and to commission the Second Fleet may take up to 25,000 men and women on board let alone the land based back up. Where will they get the staff from?

 

Where will they find the aircraft, missles, ammunition, training, crews etc let alone the money to rebuild and re-equip a fleet from?

 

quote "The command, which will be based in Norfolk, Virginia, will initially have 15 personnel and will eventually grow to over 200 people, officials said. A number of decisions, like who would command Second Fleet and what assets it would include, have not yet been made." And that is without a single ship or even a rowing boat.

Since when did sense have anything to do with these people??  

[lannarebirth]

11 hours ago, billd766 said:

The problem is in 2 parts.

 

1   To recomission warships will be expensive and fairly lengthy depending on how many ships of different classes will need to be recommisioned. A single aircraft carrier will need cruisers, destroyers, submarines, aircraft, helicopters, man/womenpower etc, as well as support ships for fuel, food, ammunition etc. The fleet will be regular navy and reserves and the support ships will be merchant seamen.

 

2   IIRC a single carrier has a crew of about 5,000 men and women and to commission the Second Fleet may take up to 25,000 men and women on board let alone the land based back up. Where will they get the staff from?

 

Where will they find the aircraft, missles, ammunition, training, crews etc let alone the money to rebuild and re-equip a fleet from?

 

quote "The command, which will be based in Norfolk, Virginia, will initially have 15 personnel and will eventually grow to over 200 people, officials said. A number of decisions, like who would command Second Fleet and what assets it would include, have not yet been made." And that is without a single ship or even a rowing boat.

 

I didn't read anything about recommissioning warships. I expect they will draw ships and personnel from existing fleets.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I didn't read anything about recommissioning warships. I expect they will draw ships and personnel from existing fleets.

 

A fleet is of no use without ships and if you draw down from the existing fleets they are then weaker to cover the same area.

 

I always understood that recommissioning a Fleet meant rebuilding it.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

A fleet is of no use without ships and if you draw down from the existing fleets they are then weaker to cover the same area.

 

I always understood that recommissioning a Fleet meant rebuilding it.

Maybe, but half the fleet is in port at any given time

 

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

A fleet is of no use without ships and if you draw down from the existing fleets they are then weaker to cover the same area.

 

I always understood that recommissioning a Fleet meant rebuilding it.

 The United States Navy is re-establishing (not recommissioning)  its Second Fleet, responsible for the northern Atlantic Ocean, nearly seven years after it was disbanded as the Pentagon puts countering Russia at the heart of its military strategy.

 

I doubt the ships of that fleet were decommissioned because it was disbanded 7 years ago. But what do I know. I was only in the USN a total of 4 weeks.

 

[Expatthailover]

13 hours ago, billd766 said:

The problem is in 2 parts.

 

1   To recomission warships will be expensive and fairly lengthy depending on how many ships of different classes will need to be recommisioned. A single aircraft carrier will need cruisers, destroyers, submarines, aircraft, helicopters, man/womenpower etc, as well as support ships for fuel, food, ammunition etc. The fleet will be regular navy and reserves and the support ships will be merchant seamen.

 

2   IIRC a single carrier has a crew of about 5,000 men and women and to commission the Second Fleet may take up to 25,000 men and women on board let alone the land based back up. Where will they get the staff from?

 

Where will they find the aircraft, missles, ammunition, training, crews etc let alone the money to rebuild and re-equip a fleet from?

 

quote "The command, which will be based in Norfolk, Virginia, will initially have 15 personnel and will eventually grow to over 200 people, officials said. A number of decisions, like who would command Second Fleet and what assets it would include, have not yet been made." And that is without a single ship or even a rowing boat.

An example of the russian fleet recently made a foray close to british sea lanes and the ships on display were found to  be in a very state of repair.

Russians and putin are too busy skimming money from the russian economy to spend on maintaining their defence infrastructure. 

The noises coming out of washington are just bluff and bluster designed to keep the usa masses convinced as to who is biggest swinging 'd!ck'.

Trump remains in awe of putin

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I didn't read anything about recommissioning warships. I expect they will draw ships and personnel from existing fleets.

That's what I read.

It was the Second fleet organization that was disestablished. That organization will now be reactivated and updated for the current mission. There is no mention of recommissioning warships.

 

However, if existing sufficient commissioned warships cannot fill out the fleet, the Navy does maintain a Reserve Fleet that is sufficiently working as to be reactivated quickly in an emergency.

For example - Navy Considers Reactivating Mothballed Warships

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/navy-considers-reactivating-mothballed-warships#gs.tWzFWWU

 

 

[ChouDoufu]

how strange.

 

the us defense budget is 10x that of the russian defense budget.

in fact, just this year's annual increase is greater than russia's

entire defense budget.  and russia recently announced reductions

to their budget.

[geriatrickid]

I would expect with the addition and replacement of the fleet with state of the art ships, the USN will be able to deploy more vessels with the same personnel count.

For example the new Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier  offers greater firepower, can launch 25% more aircraft per day and requires 25% fewer crew members than the current Nimitz class. It's the same with other new vessels. More technological advances, and better systems allows the USN to do more with less and reduces maintenance costs.

 

It gets better because the Russians are still personnel heavy on their ships. For example, the Arleigh Burke Destroyers only needs 303 crew vs. their Russian counterpart Sovremenny-class destroyer at 350 crew.  It makes a difference, because a  smaller crew means you can stay out longer  without the need to resupply and can more easily manage the ship logistics because space is used for vessel requirements, not crew requirements. More living space means a better rested, more psychologically fit crew.

 

The US military may not be the sharpest tool in the shed at times, but they do get some things right and their planning in respect to  labour shortages and technology has been years ahead of everyone else on this issue.

 

[HannahD]

Putin recently claimed Russia has exceptionally lethal anti-ship weaponry.  Perhaps the US Navy hopes that in an engagement with Russia that Russia will run out of anti-ship weaponry before the US Navy runs out of ships.

[mrwebb8825]

On 5/5/2018 at 10:47 PM, billd766 said:

The problem is in 2 parts.

 

1   To recomission warships will be expensive and fairly lengthy depending on how many ships of different classes will need to be recommisioned. A single aircraft carrier will need cruisers, destroyers, submarines, aircraft, helicopters, man/womenpower etc, as well as support ships for fuel, food, ammunition etc. The fleet will be regular navy and reserves and the support ships will be merchant seamen.

 

2   IIRC a single carrier has a crew of about 5,000 men and women and to commission the Second Fleet may take up to 25,000 men and women on board let alone the land based back up. Where will they get the staff from?

 

Where will they find the aircraft, missles, ammunition, training, crews etc let alone the money to rebuild and re-equip a fleet from?

Let's put your mind at ease and eliminate your single, 2-fold problem. There is no recommissioning, refurbishing, refitting, etc.

"Washington disbanded the 2nd fleet, which at the time numbered over 100 ships, in 2011. Many of its assets and personnel were assigned to other sections of the US Navy."

http://www.dw.com/en/us-re-establishes-2nd-fleet-to-counter-competition/a-43662253

 

As mentioned above, the most difficult part will be putting the leadership structure back in place. Then it's simple reassignment of home port.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Let's put your mind at ease and eliminate your single, 2-fold problem. There is no recommissioning, refurbishing, refitting, etc.

"Washington disbanded the 2nd fleet, which at the time numbered over 100 ships, in 2011. Many of its assets and personnel were assigned to other sections of the US Navy."

http://www.dw.com/en/us-re-establishes-2nd-fleet-to-counter-competition/a-43662253

 

As mentioned above, the most difficult part will be putting the leadership structure back in place. Then it's simple reassignment of home port.

 

I have to disagree with you completely. There are many admirals and their lower ranks doing very little so "executive" manpower won't be a problem. Taking a hundred ships from the other fleets will weaken those fleets and they way that Trump is expanding the military means that the 2nd Fleet will need to get its ships from the Fleet Reserve or get new ones.

 

If you expand the Navy you either ask the guys to up their enlistment and recruit new Navy personel at the same time. That in turn will impact on shore and ship training establishments, more aircraft, ships etc and the lead time will get longer although in the short term ships can be reassigned. That will also impact on the downtime for maintainence.

 

You can easily establish a fleet on paper but in teal terms it will take a lot of lead time and money.

 

Where does the money come from? The taxpayer or borrowing it of course.

[bristolboy]

On 5/6/2018 at 10:59 PM, geriatrickid said:

I would expect with the addition and replacement of the fleet with state of the art ships, the USN will be able to deploy more vessels with the same personnel count.

For example the new Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier  offers greater firepower, can launch 25% more aircraft per day and requires 25% fewer crew members than the current Nimitz class. It's the same with other new vessels. More technological advances, and better systems allows the USN to do more with less and reduces maintenance costs.

 

It gets better because the Russians are still personnel heavy on their ships. For example, the Arleigh Burke Destroyers only needs 303 crew vs. their Russian counterpart Sovremenny-class destroyer at 350 crew.  It makes a difference, because a  smaller crew means you can stay out longer  without the need to resupply and can more easily manage the ship logistics because space is used for vessel requirements, not crew requirements. More living space means a better rested, more psychologically fit crew.

 

The US military may not be the sharpest tool in the shed at times, but they do get some things right and their planning in respect to  labour shortages and technology has been years ahead of everyone else on this issue.

 

Of what use is a weapon, if a commander refuses to use it?

The NSA chief can't explain why Trump hasn't authorized the NSA to fight Russian cyber hacking.

 

[mrwebb8825]

53 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Of what use is a weapon, if a commander refuses to use it?

The NSA chief can't explain why Trump hasn't authorized the NSA to fight Russian cyber hacking.

 

Perhaps he thinks it's too big a task for an Obama retiree who did nothing during 2015 when it supposedly started?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-confirms-paul-nakasone-to-lead-the-nsa-us-cyber-command/2018/04/24/52c95ca4-47e8-11e8-9072-f6d4bc32f223_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cbb3a5c4d360

"He also said that a “series of offensive plans” have been developed to thwart Russian cyber aggression, but declined to detail them in public."

[bristolboy]

Just now, mrwebb8825 said:

Perhaps he thinks it's too big a task for an Obama retiree who did nothing during 2015 when it supposedly started?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-confirms-paul-nakasone-to-lead-the-nsa-us-cyber-command/2018/04/24/52c95ca4-47e8-11e8-9072-f6d4bc32f223_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cbb3a5c4d360

"He also said that a “series of offensive plans” have been developed to thwart Russian cyber aggression, but declined to detail them in public."

First of all, that "Obama retiree" could not take actions against the Russians without Obama's approval. So you can blame Obama. But back then it was a blip. But the extent of it has since been revealed  and after that revelation Trump still did nothing.

Yes, "offensive plans" have been created but it's up to Trump to implement them.

Given his bizarre reluctance to utter even one word of criticism of Putin, it seems unlikely that he'll be confronting the Russians anytime soon.

 

[mrwebb8825]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

I have to disagree with you completely. There are many admirals and their lower ranks doing very little so "executive" manpower won't be a problem. Taking a hundred ships from the other fleets will weaken those fleets and they way that Trump is expanding the military means that the 2nd Fleet will need to get its ships from the Fleet Reserve or get new ones.

I respect your right to disagree but when the 2nd fleet was deactivated those ships weren't sunk or abandoned or even mothballed. They are all still active with full compliments of sailors and simply need to be reassigned back to where they came from.

As for weakening the largest and most powerful navy in the world, I would remind you that they have only been deactivated and reassigned for 7 years.

Since it takes 4+ years to build 1 ship (depending on size and class) and the navy only buys 1 ship every 5 years, I hardly believe that building a new fleet would be the plan.

[mrwebb8825]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First of all, that "Obama retiree" could not take actions against the Russians without Obama's approval. So you can blame Obama. But back then it was a blip. But the extent of it has since been revealed  and after that revelation Trump still did nothing.

Yes, "offensive plans" have been created but it's up to Trump to implement them.

Given his bizarre reluctance to utter even one word of criticism of Putin, it seems unlikely that he'll be confronting the Russians anytime soon.

 

So you want to blame President Trump when it's bad things but still want to credit Obama when it's good things?

Unless you can provide a link to the specific authorities the director of the NSA can and can't undertake on his own then I guess what he should have done or could have done with and without presidential directives are a moot point as proven by your own video.

[bristolboy]

Just now, mrwebb8825 said:

So you want to blame President Trump when it's bad things but still want to credit Obama when it's good things?

Unless you can provide a link to the specific authorities the director of the NSA can and can't undertake on his own then I guess what he should have done or could have done with and without presidential directives are a moot point as proven by your own video.

If you listen to the testimony of the NSA director, he explicitly says he needs the approval of the president to take hostile actions. The White House didn't contradict him. And do you really think it's advisable for a subordinate to take such a drastic step without the express authorization of the commander-in-chief? You have a taste for anarchy?

[lannarebirth]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

First of all, that "Obama retiree" could not take actions against the Russians without Obama's approval. So you can blame Obama. But back then it was a blip. But the extent of it has since been revealed  and after that revelation Trump still did nothing.

Yes, "offensive plans" have been created but it's up to Trump to implement them.

Given his bizarre reluctance to utter even one word of criticism of Putin, it seems unlikely that he'll be confronting the Russians anytime soon.

 

 

I wonder why the Chinese never get a mention. They are at least as active as the Russians in cyber warfare.

[bristolboy]

16 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

So you want to blame President Trump when it's bad things but still want to credit Obama when it's good things?

Unless you can provide a link to the specific authorities the director of the NSA can and can't undertake on his own then I guess what he should have done or could have done with and without presidential directives are a moot point as proven by your own video.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

"First of all, that "Obama retiree" could not take actions against the Russians without Obama's approval. So you can blame Obama."

But it is true that no one realized the extent of Russian involvement back than. Some threats grow, some shrink, some stay  more or less the same. In the case of the Russians, it grew massively.

And I think you need to watch that video again. Not only does he say he didn't get approval from Trump to go ahead, but common sense dictates that no general is going to make such a grave move without Presidential approval. Which is a good thing. Do you actually believe it's a good idea for subordinates to take hostile action against foreign without approval from the commander-in-chief? That's just so obviously ridiculous.

[mrwebb8825]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Did you actually read what I wrote?

"First of all, that "Obama retiree" could not take actions against the Russians without Obama's approval. So you can blame Obama."

But it is true that no one realized the extent of Russian involvement back than. Some threats grow, some shrink, some stay  more or less the same. In the case of the Russians, it grew massively.

And I think you need to watch that video again. Not only does he say he didn't get approval from Trump to go ahead, but common sense dictates that no general is going to make such a grave move without Presidential approval. Which is a good thing. Do you actually believe it's a good idea for subordinates to take hostile action against foreign without approval from the commander-in-chief? That's just so obviously ridiculous.

1st off, Obama knew it was serious enough that he met with Putin and bragged at later press conferences at having told him to "Knock it off". He should have issued the orders then but, then again, he was on his last year butt kissing, apology tour.

Now, do YOU really think that the head of the most powerful intelligence and cyber community in the world is so restricted in his authority that all he can do is monitor cyber threats while they erode the fabric of America?

Doesn't say much about the "No Such Agency" mystic now does it?

Edited May 9, 2018 by mrwebb8825

[billd766]

20 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

I respect your right to disagree but when the 2nd fleet was deactivated those ships weren't sunk or abandoned or even mothballed. They are all still active with full compliments of sailors and simply need to be reassigned back to where they came from.

As for weakening the largest and most powerful navy in the world, I would remind you that they have only been deactivated and reassigned for 7 years.

Since it takes 4+ years to build 1 ship (depending on size and class) and the navy only buys 1 ship every 5 years, I hardly believe that building a new fleet would be the plan.

 

But if a fleet has only a few admin staff and great pile of paperwork it is only a paper fleet. If ships and crews are taken from other fleets it reduces their capacity but does nothing to add to the Navy except more paperwork. Transferring ships to other commands and Navy bases usually means the sailors families move also to different accommodation at government expense.

 

If you want to re-establish the 2nd Fleet then do it properly, and not simply a paper exercise.

 

[mrwebb8825]

4 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

But if a fleet has only a few admin staff and great pile of paperwork it is only a paper fleet. If ships and crews are taken from other fleets it reduces their capacity but does nothing to add to the Navy except more paperwork. Transferring ships to other commands and Navy bases usually means the sailors families move also to different accommodation at government expense.

 

If you want to re-establish the 2nd Fleet then do it properly, and not simply a paper exercise.

 

Nobody said it would be done next week. However, it could get started with unrep ships and clerical staff could share the workload. It could also be co-managed from the existing admin offices at Norfolk, VA. where it would be bases out of anyway during the whole process.

When they moved to Kitty Hawk from CA to FL and turned it into a training carrier there were 5,000 sailors that went with it. The air wings stayed behind at Miramar and were reassigned.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Nobody said it would be done next week. However, it could get started with unrep ships and clerical staff could share the workload. It could also be co-managed from the existing admin offices at Norfolk, VA. where it would be bases out of anyway during the whole process.

When they moved to Kitty Hawk from CA to FL and turned it into a training carrier there were 5,000 sailors that went with it. The air wings stayed behind at Miramar and were reassigned.

 

I do understand that it cannot be done quickly, but without the ships it is still only a paper fleet and not a usable asset. If you take ships from other fleets it reduces their ability and assets.

 

The Kitty hawk is a fairly useful asset as a training ship and could be re-assigned fairly quickly as a fighting ship, Then it would need ships and airwings of its own.

 

This is basically robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

To make a real 2nd Fleet it needs its ownm assets though "borrowing" ships, sailors, air wings etc works in the short term in the long term it doesn't

 

[mrwebb8825]

40 minutes ago, billd766 said:

To make a real 2nd Fleet it needs its ownm assets though "borrowing" ships, sailors, air wings etc works in the short term in the long term it doesn't

How is it borrowing when they were the 2nd fleet to begin with. They're currently "on loan" in a new assignment and would simply be recalled back to their original duty.

[Odysseus123]

Woo hoo. Money,money,money..

 

Gotta find war..praise Jesus and the rapture..and Revelations..we are the chosen people.

 

By the way-how is the investigation into the blasting off of zillion dollars of Tomahawk missiles into the Syrian desert going (on account of poison gas)..?

 

Nothing?

 

Please refer to the Reverend Crespo Dollar-the usual American success story..

 

"A fool and their money are soon parted"

 

No wonder that the world  refers to these post 1776 idiots as "septics"

Edited May 9, 2018 by Odysseus123

[VocalNeal]

On 5/5/2018 at 9:29 PM, rooster59 said:

conflicts like those in Ukraine and Syria,

Which of course are very close to the North Atlantic 

[mrwebb8825]

1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

Which of course are very close to the North Atlantic 

They are not doing it to monitor either the Ukraine or Syria.

"Russia has increased its naval patrols in the Baltic Sea, the North Atlantic and the Arctic, NATO officials say, although the size of its navy is smaller now than during the Cold War era."

which, of course, ARE close to the North Atlantic. 

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

1st off, Obama knew it was serious enough that he met with Putin and bragged at later press conferences at having told him to "Knock it off". He should have issued the orders then but, then again, he was on his last year butt kissing, apology tour.

Now, do YOU really think that the head of the most powerful intelligence and cyber community in the world is so restricted in his authority that all he can do is monitor cyber threats while they erode the fabric of America?

Doesn't say much about the "No Such Agency" mystic now does it?

No, it doesn't say much about the silly notions that the NSA is a rogue agency authorized to wage hostile acts against foreign nations without Presidential approval. It's clear you get your notion about how these agencies operate from Hollywood and/or conspiracy mongering websites.