WASHINGTON
Amid reports that Navy inspectors found six ships unfit for their missions last year, some members of Congress are pressing the service to reconsider a decision to shroud its most detailed inspection reports.
U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat and former Navy secretary, said last week that he wants the Senate Armed Services Committee to take a close look at a new policy that essentially blocks public release of reports by the service's Bureau of Inspection and Survey, known as InSurv.
Webb said he may seek "additional reporting requirements... when ships are inspected and found to have major readiness deficiencies or other significant material problems."
Webb got important, if indirect, backing from the Armed Services chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D- Mich. During a confirmation hearing this week for Navy Secretary-designate Ray Mabus and undersecretary nominee Robert Work, Levin cautioned both men to make sure critical reports are not withheld "to shield the Navy from some unflattering press articles."
Across the Capitol, a small but growing chorus of military-minded lawmakers, including two retired naval officers, are voicing reservations about the Navy's move.
In a letter being drafted for mailing to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Rep. Randy Forbes, a Chesapeake Republican, and other members of Congress argue that publicity about ship maintenance and operational problems is key to solving those problems.
The Navy faces a $417 million shortfall in funds for its ship repair depots this year, the letter notes. If InSurv reports are classified, "we are unable to communicate these needs to the public," they wrote.
"I am deeply concerned that a decision to classify these reports across the board would inhibit the Congress' ability to provide necessary and constitutionally mandated oversight," said Rep. Rob Wittman, a Republican from Westmoreland County, in a statement released in March.
"This is not the time to take that step," agreed Rep. Joe Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat and retired three-star admiral.
Scathing and well-publicized InSurv reviews last spring found the Norfolk-based destroyer Stout and the cruiser Chosin "unfit for sustained combat operations." Leaders of the surface fleet responded by ordering an "operational pause," for commanders to re-examine the condition of ships and equipment.
Last week, Navy Times reported that Navy briefing slides summarizing InSurv reports on 51 ships during 2008 indicated six had received failing grades. The briefing reported that more than two dozen ships had problems with critical firefighting systems and that ships in seven of nine classes had problems with high-frequency radios that sailors did not know how to maintain, the newspaper said.
Such InSurv results were routinely released to reporters until late last year, when the Norfolk-based Fleet Forces Command decided results should be classified. Navy spokesmen say the service acted out of concern that the reports could reveal vulnerabilities that terrorists or hostile navies might use against American ships and sailors.
There is no indication of that ever happen ing during the decades when the reports were readily available, acknowledged Cmdr. Phil Rosi, a spokesman for Fleet Forces.
Rosi said the reports will continue to be circulated internally and used to help Navy leaders spot and repair weaknesses in ship readiness. They'll remain available to members of Congress and to staffers with security clearances.
But the secret label puts the reports off limits for open discussion and broader dissemination. Journalists and others interested in reviewing them can seek copies through the federal Freedom of Information Act, but Rosi said the Navy will withhold portions judged sensitive.
"I can't think of any good reason " for the Navy's move, said Jan van Tol, a retired Navy captain who tracks Navy programs at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank.
"If it wasn't a sufficient concern in the cold war days, when we arguably had a more formidable foe, why is it now?" he asked.
Van Tol said he can't help but wonder if the Navy's move was at least partially driven by embarrassment over publicity about the Stout, Chosin and other ships.
Sestak said he doubts that. Adm. Jonathan Greenert, who as head of Fleet Forces Command is ultimately responsible for the decision, "is a straight shooter," he said.
But Sestak added that "the nation is crying out for accountability, crying out for transparency," and the Navy should be listening. If the service is having difficulty maintaining ships so that they can pass their inspections, it needs to make sure Congress and the public know of the problems, he said.
"Even with the most dismal of these reports," the overall picture of the fleet is that of a ready-to-go navy, Sestak said. And having been both an officer on ships that were inspected and a reader of inspection reports, he said, "I cannot think of a time when even the cumulative data might be something that might begin to harm national security."
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Thank you for confirming how poorly the submarine force...
...is managed. With those extra crews available to rotate to man one boat, hotel barracks for the crew when in port, highest quality of chow available in the fleet, etc. you'd think the whining would be at least a few decibels lower. If submariners think their requisition process is bad they should try ordering something through the surface force system and see what they get (compare quality of the equipment while you're at it). Since no submarine is mentioned in this article, that indicates they're given better treatment. As far as the covert nature of submarine missions, that's understood and it's essential. Deployments--some boats do only 3 months at sea followed by 3 months ashore (at least)--a lot kinder, gentler rotation than the surface force. So, if things aren't going well in the submarine force, it appears there may be some leadership problems--at all levels.
One more thing
The reason that "you" don't hear about what submarines do is because they are designed for STEALTH and CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS. To ask for open proof of what a submarine has provided to this country is a dumb question. Subs go where surface ships can't, shoot missiles when surface ships can't, put SEALS on beaches that surface ships can't, and, since they don't have to pull in every 4 days to refuel, stay on station for MONTHS at a time, doing a REAL deployment. What they don't do are make daily phone calls, get mail drops, chat back and forth via email every day, or see the sun and breathe "fresh" air every day. And they fulfill their missions all while facing the EXACT same budget shortfalls as the rest of the fleet.
To HM
I'm not sure where you're getting your data from, but as a senior enlisted submarine sailor I can assure you that you most certainly have your facts wrong. Our subs are robbing Peter to pay Paul when it comes to repair parts, grabbing what they need off of ships that are to remain in port for any period of time. The focus for manning goes to NEWCONs first rather than operational deployers where again, crew members are taken from other subs to ensure that a three-section watch-bill can be manned. Feel free to come for a ride where EVERYONE stands watch, not just report to an office. Feel free to TRY and explain to ANY submarine sailor just where all this money and manning is going and I'm sure they'll offer you a bridge or some ocean-front property in AZ.
Submarine force gets the money, surface force the shaft
Is the Navy still overfunding the submarine force to 105 percent while simultaneously denying funding for equipment and shore-based maintenance to the surface force? Is the Navy making ANY attempt to ensure surface force ships have the proper crews according to the required Navy Enlisted Classification (NEC) codes? The submarine force does, but the surface force traditionally abandons ships after their precommissioning commissioning crews rotate to other duty stations, with detailers sending them people who don't have the proper skills or qualifications--forcing them to "make do" with what they're sent. The issue of ships that aren't combat ready is a LOT DEEPER than just these reports. Besides colliding with vessels on the surface, what exactly has the American taxpayer seen from the submarine force within the last several years?
Leadership failure not material conditions
The real reason is probably more for hid an embarrassing situation and not of national security reasons. These are ships that are less than 10 years old that are failing Insurv, not due to material conditions but to leadership deficiencies. Yes, it is true that the ship material condition is poor, but that is the symptom of a bigger disease. The senior leadership would rather invest in new toys and novel concepts than take care of what they have and continue developing what has proven to work. There is a notional idea that we can save money by not teaching our sailors to maintain the equipment they operate but instead allow civilians to maintain it for us. The leadership feels that mission of the Navy would be better suited with well trained operators. That would be true, if the operators were getting adequate time operating the equipment, hence experience; which they are not, since the Navy can not pay for fuel to run the ships. Simulation, only gets you so far, the software is only as good as the programmer. If the programmer hasn't experienced the situation, they aren't going to simulate it. Additionally, one of the best ways to learn how a piece of equipment operates i
Senator Webb, as an ex secretary of the Navy you know
the problems the Navy is expierencing with maintaining our ships. How funding is not there, how we are pushing our ships and not maintaining our ships. We are abusing our ships and putting the requirement to "make the ship function" on the backs of our sailors. You have been in both sides now. Congress is responsible for maintaining our Navy, that means YOU are responsible for making sure our ships NEVER EVER fail an INSURV. From you, I do not want to hear about making reports available, I want to hear what YOU are doing about correcting the impacts these INSURV findings are showing. I was on the Josephus Daniels when we effectively failed INSURV late 90s. The ship was not brought into the yards for our engineering plant for over 36 quarters, PQS quarter 36. It got to the point where to light off the plant by the book, it would be one big fuel oil spill. So the snipes figured out a safe way to get the job done. Yea, we failed, but because congress only wants to point fingers, we took the hit, but "we got er done". Looks like Congress still relys on the sailors back, vice maintaining the Navy.
Fact Check
Dale,
Good writing, as usual, but you got one fact wrong. Joe Sestak is not a retired three star. He was never confirmed by congress when he was fired, and thus has the retired rank of Rear Admiral.
$417 M Shortfall ??
With the cost overruns on ships like the San Antonio which have amounted YTD over $1.4 B its no wonder there is a shortfall in the repair budget.(and this is just one ship) Get some of that money back from Northrop-Grumman and we would be able to fix a few more ships.Good Luck) Dale,I would take Congressman Forbes to task and provide a venue for him since he feels that "publicity is often the impetus for solving problems."
The Navy side.
An example is an E-5 ESWS not knowing what something in a repair locker is.
I asked said E-5 to take the oxygen analyzer to the scene "you gonna have to show me what it is" was the reply "you have to be kidding me you are an ESWS E-5" I responded. I was given a documented talking to about sensitivity and the so called E-5 continued on filling a billet and being of no use to her shipmates in the case of an emergency. I am glad the latter was just a drill.
This is why "WE" have to change this ridiculous state of failure our government has imposed on us.
ESWS: Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist. (not in this case)
Those insurv reports are internal documents of capabilities
and limitations on our ships. They are just as classified as ships movements. Webb should know that. Based on this stupidity to make that kind of information public by someone who know better, that move will hurt the Navy in both the short and long term.
The ONLY way I would say make that report available is after an INSURV is written, it goes to the Senate and House armed service committies with an assesstment of how much it will cost to fix these problems found. After Congress decides what repairs they will pay for, then the report is released. The report will show what is wrong, what the Navy is responsible to fix, what congress ponyed up to fix, and more important, what congress felt was not worthy of fixing. This way, the public also knows what is a priority from congress about our ships. Congress, you want transparency on internal documents, lets go all out transparency. Do you have the guts to do that Webb? Did not think so. Leave INSURV reports alone.
The soft underbelly of the Navy has always been bad press.
Nothing makes the Navy brass wince and cringe like bad press. They will have their PAO's try to spin, candy coat, and obfuscate to no end. It's ironic that while the White House talks of making public heretofore top secret documents, the Navy is going in the opposite direction. Let's see them spin this one.