Posted on 09/25/2024 7:01:21 AM PDT by george76
If there ever was a need for a poster child for the neglect and indifference that characterizes the Biden-HARRIS administration's attitude towards governance, someone now could easily slap up a picture of the USNS Big Horn.
The ship's sad story has all the elements that are now bedeviling the Americans it serves thanks to the malevolent, arrogant, indifferent clowns who currently rule over us.
Almost a year ago, I wrote something I headlined, "US Maritime Woes: God Forbid We Go to War." I was trying to shine a light on the utterly shameful, almost downright criminal neglect with which the Biden-HARRIS administration had treated our US Merchant Marine Fleet. It operates under the auspices of the US Maritime Administration (MARAD), which belongs to the Department of Transportation (aka Mayor Pete) - perhaps you're already beginning to sense part of the problem if you don't remember or haven't read the column.
The administration has an "admiral" named as head of MARAD, one RADM Ann Phillips, who has performed exactly as damn near any other Biden cabinet secretary, particularly Mayor Pete - they haven't seen her.
...Maritime matters were a priority during the GHW Bush years, but really got revved up during Trump’s term.
…During President Trump’s administration, Maritime Administrator Commandant Mark Buzby instigated a tidal wave of change. He allocated hundreds of millions of dollars for training ships, activated the entire ready reserve fleet in significant naval Turbo Activations, personally handled media inquiries, engaged with sailors nationwide, and attended major events as a headline speaker.
Biden’s current administrator, in contrast, has been so little engaged, she’s earned her own call-sign, and it’s not a compliment – “…who some call the Ghost Admiral.”
She's still in the post.
A crisis was afoot because there were not enough American merchant mariners to crew our US-flagged maritime fleet, and a plan had been floated to allow foreigners to provide a second deep-water US merchant marine fleet in time of war. While that was being argued - the US merchant union firmly against the proposal - a bombshell came from Maersk shipping.
...Against all this roiling in the background – with a completely disinterested, incompetent administrator (and administration) at the helm – word came at the end of September that Maersk, the largest shipping firm in the world, and the “principle transportation partner for the US military” was backing away from it’s DoD contracts. And picking up business from China.
…According to Hanley, Maersk executive interviewed by gCaptain today, the company plans to maintain its support and investment in container services and the US Maritime Security Program. However, it has already divested its critical tanker fleet and contracts to manage military grey hull ships. Maersk also was clear the recent divestiture of sale of assets received the approval of key military stakeholders including the US Maritime Administration (MARAD), Military Sealift Command (MSC) and the US Transportation Command (TRANSCOM).
How critical are those assets to the US Military? Very.
“The Department of Defense is projected to need on the order of one hundred tankers of various sizes in the event of a serious conflict in the Pacific,” said former Maersk executive Steve Carmel in a gCaptain editorial. “Not only does the U.S. lack the tonnage required to support a major conflict in the Pacific, it has no identifiable roadmap to obtain it.”
Oh, WELL DONE, GUYS. Go ahead, sell it – who needs tankers anyway? Not us.
I asked that rhetorically last year, and the Biden-HARRIS administration's "Ghost Admiral," Secretary Buttigieg, and neither the president nor his second in command seem to make it a priority.
We didn't have to wait for China to start something. Shifting assets to the Middle East that should be in the Pacific has brought the problem home much sooner.
The USNS Big Horn, the Navy oiler for the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group, ran aground yesterday off the coast of Oman and sprung a pretty decent leak.
Oh, wait - did I give you the impression it was one of the oilers for the carrier group?
Sorry about that.
IT'S THE ONLY OILER FOR THE ENTIRE CARRIER GROUP
...
Incredible…
“US Navy oiler USNS Big Horn ran aground yesterday, leaving the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Group without it’s primary fuel source. The Navy doesn’t have a spare oiler to deploy and is now scrambling to find a commercial tanker.”
...
Gosh darn, smack in the middle of Houthi shooties, and now the Navy has to go try to find a commercial gas truck?
Well, yeah - that's basically the problem here.
Way to go, Grampa and the Cackler.
They're not your kids floating out there - what do you care?
And how hard is this going to be? According to my maritime guru friend, Capt John Konrad, it's gonna be a major pain in the asterisk.
US Navy Oiler Runs Aground, Forcing Carrier Strike Group to Scramble for Fuel
...Compounding the problem is the fact that the Big Horn is the only oiler the Navy has in the Middle East. One shipowner told gCaptain that the Navy is scrambling to find a commercial oil tanker to take its place and deliver jet fuel to the USS Abraham Lincoln.
If the Navy resorts to using a commercial oil tanker as a temporary replacement, it would need to install a Consolidated Cargo Handling and Fueling (CONSOL) system for underway replenishment operations. This system includes specialized refueling rigs, tensioned fueling hoses, and high-capacity fuel pumps—all essential for safely transferring fuel to warships at sea. The tanker would also require robust communication and control systems to ensure precise coordination during refueling maneuvers.
This retrofitting process is no small feat. It requires significant modifications to the commercial vessel, enabling it to withstand the unique stresses and operational demands of pumping fuel while sailing at full speed. Moreover, a U.S. Merchant Marine crew trained in CONSOL UNREP procedures—a complex and high-risk operation—would need to be flown to the Middle East to supervise the operation. This adds another layer of complexity to an already challenging situation.
Commercial tankers are significantly slower than Navy oilers, which could leave the USS Abraham Lincoln more vulnerable to attack during aviation fuel loading operations.
Oh, well done Biden-HARRIS types!
If you have never seen a carrier - or even just a ship-to-ship - refueling operation, it is a pretty spectacular, precison maneuver at speed. This is nothing the crew on a commercial ship could pull off easily.
Navy vessels are hauling when they refuel, whatever the weather.
the Big Horn sustained damage including a ruptured rudder post and is being towed to Dubai.
The scramble is on for a replacement commercial tanker. And the long wait for new Navy oilers continues...
...The Navy currently faces a severe shortage of oilers and crew to operate them. Earlier this month, the Navy announced it might lay up 17 replenishment and supply ships—including one oiler—due to difficulties recruiting U.S. Merchant Mariners. While the Navy has launched five new John Lewis Class oilers – including the USNS Lucy Stone (T-AO 209) this week – and awarded NASSCO a $6.7 billion contract for eight more, challenges persist.
Official Navy and Military Sealift Command sources have repeatedly assured gCaptain that the John Lewis program is on schedule. However, two marine inspectors who have examined the new oilers tell gCaptain they’re encountering numerous problems, delaying the vessels’ overseas deployment. Despite the lead ship, USNS John Lewis, being launched in January 2021, it’s currently sitting idle at a repair shipyard in Oregon. As of today, none of the new oilers have been cleared to leave the continental United States.
...not that there seems to be any rush on the part of the current administration, even though one of the "new" ships has been in the water for three years.
It just breaks down so often that it can't leave the United States and a nearby boat garage. That's helpful.
Someone should ask Harris about that "Ghost Admiral."
See if she even knows she's got one.
know a guy who does this. a good chap but fully woke.
sad.
Do we dare ask who was the Captain and Executive officer of that ship?
I might have missed it, but I did look and havent found anything about the ships Captain. Seems that might be relevant given all the DEI of this admin.
If we get into a war with France, I think we’d be OK.
But, in general, I don’t have confidence that the US could really win a war against anyone.
When I was in the US Navy (mid-late 1960’s) some skippers of aircraft carriers had held prior commands on fleet oilers. If that is still the progression protocol, there is no joy in the captain’s cabin of the USNS Big Horn.
Have read elsewhere that of America’s 11 carriers, only max. 3 can be put to sea at any one time.
WOW! Don’t we have a couple de-comd ships that could be brought back on line faster than a new build? Probably not. Anyway, back in the early 60’s my dad was the supply officer for CINCLANTFLT stationed in London. Guess this would have been on his desk.
CVNs spend year in the shipyard for every 5 years of service ( roughly )
You mean young men whom can pass the ASVAB and have a modicum of fitness aren’t fighting their way to the recruiting office, hoping for a chance to service, I mean serve aboard the USS Harvey Milk?
Fleet oilers are operated by civilians in the USNS and some active duty USN ( mostly for comms).
This old Army guy knows basically nothing about the Navy but one would think that the Captain of any Navy vessel that ran aground would...as Ricky Ricardo would say...”have some splainin’ to do”.
And what their pronouns are?
In a real emergency you’d certainly want to be able to put them *all* to sea. I wonder why that’s true.Lack of personnel? Lack of aircraft?
“...US Navy Oiler Runs Aground, Forcing Carrier Strike Group to Scramble for Fuel ...”
These US Navy “errors” are the fruit of a DEI administration and you will find many more “errors” throughout the government for the same reason.
DEI is a costly cancer in everything it touches.
When a US aircraft carrier puts to sea, it's protected by the latest anti-aircraft weaponry and a screen of escort ships and its own air cover to intercept incoming threats miles away.
Is any of this true for a lowly tanker? Not hardly --- and yet, the carrier and its strike aircraft won't work without the fuel the tanker provides.
So which target would you aim your antiship missile at? The hard target, with all its screening vessels with the latest defenses, or the slow, highly flammable soft target which is alone and virtually unarmed?
Can potential armed services recruits test positive for marijuana and still be accepted and serve?
Can active duty smoke it at will?
Want to cripple a carrier task force, at least temporarily? Incapacitate its one and only oiler. The carrier is nuke powered, but its aircraft and supporting vessels all require the fuel on board.
There are other oilers available, but they will take time get to Yemen. YouTube’s What’s Going On With Shipping did a comprehensive video on the underlying problem with our support system.
They are hotly competing to serve on the USS Harvey Milk and its twin ship the USS Big Horney.
Problem is, commercial tankers are not outfitted to refuel ships at sea. They are specifically outfitted with booms and hoses for seaborne operations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.