Although it would be highly inappropriate, the navy could easily retort, "Debating and passing legislation should be the principle purpose of a Senate."
What about "Operation Praying Mantis" in 1988. It was the largest US Naval battle since WW2 and involved a US Carrier Group destroying about half of the Iranian Navy, destroying several Iranian Oil platforms and shot down a passenger airliner.
> The last naval fleet engagement was the battle of Leyte Gulf in WWII.
AFAIK, the naval portion of the later Battle of Okinawa is a better candidate for the last fleet engagement of WWII.
You can (by, say, requiring a certain minimum number of ships of certain classes for a “fleet engagement”) probably make that also the last fleet engagement, but in doing so you will likely be using a more restrictive definition of “fleet” than intended by “Finding and sinking enemy fleets should be the principal purpose of a Navy”.
You're right about Okinawa (and the rest of your comment), but it was so lop-sided (if I recall correctly, even the captain of the Yamamoto understood it as a suicide mission) that I think it was hardly a test of the Navy's war-fighting capacity. I'd say the last true test of the "fighting culture" of the Navy came during the Samar phase of Leyte.
"Unless changes are made, the Navy risks losing the next major
conflict."
That's a pretty damning call for change, and a set of recommendations that seems fairly easy to implement, should those in command decided to actually do so.
The Navy has gotten used to the idea that nobody will dare attack them at sea. Not good.
> This review was conducted at the direction of Senator Tom Cotton and Congressmen Mike Gallagher, Jim Banks, and Dan Crenshaw as a strictly nonpartisan exercise in Congressional oversight.
Those are all politicians from a single party. Is “strictly non partisan exercise” a piece of military jargon that’s different from regular English like in legal documents, or is this sketchy from the first sentence
Seeing “Corrosive Over-Responsiveness to Media Culture”, as a complaint about our military which is nominally subjective to the civilians as a whole, put me on edge about this already
Edit: read through the rest of the report and saw that they called out journalism as a vital job for the country but the problem was with the navy not focusing on their own job.
>Is “strictly non partisan exercise” a piece of military jargon that’s different from regular English like in legal documents, or is this sketchy from the first sentence.
Having read the full linked document, I would suggest your implication that this report is a partisan-politically motivated document is far from on target. The concerns the report raises are significant, critical to national defense, and broadly seconded by most other recent writings on the health of the US Navy as an organization. If the Navy were to be called upon to defend the US or its allies in a peer level conflict today, several decades of training, maintenance, and leadership neglect make failure a likely outcome.
This report is important. As General Mattis says in the report, "the United States does not have a preordained right to victory on the battlefield." If one fails to acknowledge and address issues like these in peacetime, there will not be time to do so in wartime.
15 comments
[ 6.2 ms ] story [ 39.9 ms ] threadThe last naval fleet engagement was the battle of Leyte Gulf in WWII.
AFAIK, the naval portion of the later Battle of Okinawa is a better candidate for the last fleet engagement of WWII.
You can (by, say, requiring a certain minimum number of ships of certain classes for a “fleet engagement”) probably make that also the last fleet engagement, but in doing so you will likely be using a more restrictive definition of “fleet” than intended by “Finding and sinking enemy fleets should be the principal purpose of a Navy”.
That's a pretty damning call for change, and a set of recommendations that seems fairly easy to implement, should those in command decided to actually do so.
The Navy has gotten used to the idea that nobody will dare attack them at sea. Not good.
Those are all politicians from a single party. Is “strictly non partisan exercise” a piece of military jargon that’s different from regular English like in legal documents, or is this sketchy from the first sentence
Seeing “Corrosive Over-Responsiveness to Media Culture”, as a complaint about our military which is nominally subjective to the civilians as a whole, put me on edge about this already
Edit: read through the rest of the report and saw that they called out journalism as a vital job for the country but the problem was with the navy not focusing on their own job.
Having read the full linked document, I would suggest your implication that this report is a partisan-politically motivated document is far from on target. The concerns the report raises are significant, critical to national defense, and broadly seconded by most other recent writings on the health of the US Navy as an organization. If the Navy were to be called upon to defend the US or its allies in a peer level conflict today, several decades of training, maintenance, and leadership neglect make failure a likely outcome.
This report is important. As General Mattis says in the report, "the United States does not have a preordained right to victory on the battlefield." If one fails to acknowledge and address issues like these in peacetime, there will not be time to do so in wartime.