Things are tough in the Navy.
USS Kitty Hawk: Funding, training, age of carrier pose challenge to leadership
By Rick Chernitzer, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Sunday, September 8, 2002
The stories are eerily similar.
An aircraft carrier's commanding officer is relieved after a little more than a year on the job. Poor material condition of his ship is cited as the major reason. Many crewmembers are dismayed and feel their skipper was railroaded.
The parallels between Tuesday?s ouster of Capt. Thomas Hejl from the USS Kitty Hawk and the December firing of Capt. Maurice Joyce from the USS John F. Kennedy are many. In one year, two commanding officers with distinguished careers were put out because superiors "lost confidence" in their leadership abilities.
But many believe the problems lie deeper.
Some say big, aging ships such as the Kitty Hawk and Kennedy are being asked to fight today?s wars using yesterday?s technology, and without the proper funding or training needed to keep them operational.
"Our ships, planes, and ground equipment performed well in the battle over Afghanistan," Adm. Dennis Blair, then commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, said in statements to the House Armed Services Committee in March.
"And that was a tribute" to the investments in readiness which have been made in recent years. But we require continued sustained funding for operation and maintenance for select forces which have been rowed hard and put away wet during this campaign.?
But at least one defense expert said throwing money at the problem is not going to fix it.
"I think Navy maintenance budgets are not the problem," Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, told Stars and Stripes this week.
?They are at unprecedently high levels, given the size of the fleet. That doesn?t mean that there?s lots of fat in the system, but I don?t buy the argument that money is the problem. Also, if it were, why would certain officers be able to keep their ships ready and others fail??
Both the Kitty Hawk and the Kennedy participated in Operation Enduring Freedom. The Kitty Hawk served as a platform for special operations forces, while the Kennedy recently wrapped up a six-month deployment to the Persian Gulf.
But it was a deployment that almost didn?t happen for the Kennedy; a routine readiness inspection uncovered many failures and degraded performance in vital equipment, including the ship?s aircraft elevators and catapults.
As a result, Rear Adm. Mike Malone, then the commander of Naval Air Forces Atlantic, fired Joyce, and the ship underwent a $15 million marathon repair.
Malone later conceded funding issues were part of the problem.
?We are seeing some of the problems in John F. Kennedy that have been created by our under funding of requirements throughout the 1990s,? Malone said in a January interview.
For its part, the Kitty Hawk recently failed a ?light off? assessment, Navy officials said. That test is an inspection of the ship?s main propulsion plant, and one that must be passed before the ship is allowed to leave port.
It was the latest example of the ship?s declining material condition and personnel readiness, Navy officials said. But there are significant differences in the way the Kitty Hawk is funded, they said.
Because it is based in Japan, the Kitty Hawk benefits from host-nation labor. All of those workers ? and the bulk of the extensive Yokosuka Ship Repair Facility ? are paid for by the Japanese government.
?The organization is in place to support the ship. The resources are in place to support the ship,? 7th Fleet spokesman Cmdr. Matt Brown said.
Still, some congressional leaders are asking questions.
Chris Paul, military legislative assistant to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the senator has brought the question to the Navy.
?Sen. McCain is concerned and inquiring of the Navy for the circumstances surrounding these recent incidents with the two steam-powered aircraft carriers,? he said.
Paul, a commander in the Naval reserves, added that funding is only one aspect to consider. He pointed to training.
When trained sailors leave, he said, ?who are they getting to replace them? They can?t keep someone on an aircraft carrier for the rest of their lives.?
?It?s probably a combination of things ? that may be maintenance, may be training, but we don?t know,? Paul said. ?Are these older steam aircraft carriers receiving adequate maintenance funds? Are they deferring maintenance? Are they receiving trained recruits and engineers to continue to do maintenance on the engineering plants? These are questions that need to be addressed.?
Larry Fordyce, a retired engineering chief warrant officer, spent 18 of his 20-year Naval career in Japan. He said he thought the problem started when the Navy did away with the operational propulsion plant examination in the late 1990s.
?That?s what really kept ships in check,? he said. ?They could take away the keys ? they were gods, the propulsion plant examination board ? when they came aboard, they came under no one?s agenda but their own, and everybody knew that.?
Since then, these inspections have been replaced by ones conducted usually by the carrier group or destroyer squadron, he said.
?You got your own people looking ? when the inspection team is gone, who?s to say it would get fixed??
Training isn?t an issue, Fordyce said, because the afloat training group at Yokosuka is always available to help.
When he was stationed there a couple years ago, ?They have teams available. We never declined going on ships and doing training,? he said. ?Engineering departments have no reason to not be in good shape.?
Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee in February, Navy Secretary Gordon England said the Navy and Marine Corps ?had the tools they needed? when the war on terrorism began.
?We have worked hard to redress the shortfalls in training, maintenance, spare parts, ordnance, and fuel that have burdened our operating forces in the recent past,? he said. ?The FY 2002 budget was the best readiness budget in a decade. The FY 2003 Budget will continue to ensure that readiness meets mission requirements.?
?However, some ships, particularly older aircraft carriers and our amphibious force ships, are reaching the end of their service lives, often requiring unprogrammed repairs, necessitating unplanned funds for urgent maintenance.?
O?Hanlon of Brookings agreed.
?I sympathize with those losing their jobs because I am sure it?s hard to maintain combat proficiency and general readiness under the strains of high operational tempo and the multitude of demands, some strategic and some close to home, placed on commanders,? he said. ?But then again, the Navy needs to insist on high standards even if it?s hard to achieve them.?
Paul said whatever the root causes for the problems on the two carriers, the Navy has a time-tested rule that no one can get around.
?The thing to remember is the CO bears ultimate responsibility and, something that?s often lost, accountability. Specifically in the Naval service, accountability and responsibility ultimately lies with the CO. Everyone knows that going into the game.?
estripes.com |
