• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

MSEO, CSEO, LogO and IntO do not fight the ship. They are not warfare officers. Pilots on an aircraft carrier are. They not only "fight" the ship, they are the primary weapon. A carrier captain must have an intimate understanding of naval air warfare and an admiral fighting a carrier group must also have an intimate understanding of naval air warfare or be supported by someone who does.

When the Americans found themselves having to fight WWII in the Pacific with carriers instead of "big gun" ships, Admiral King insisted (nay! decreed) that any admiral in command of a carrier group that was not an aviator (such as Spruance) must have an aviator as his chief of staff and any who was an aviator (such as Mishner) must have a chief of staff from the surface warfare community. He was proven right again and again in this decision. And remember, the chiefs of staffs at issue here are admirals themselves.
Until we get carriers there is no need, and even than you can have a two "Captain" solution... One to command the air fight (AirO?), and one to handle navigation(CO). Realistically, the air fight is not happening anywhere near the physical ship, so what the skipper does with the boat doesn't matter too much to the air fight until it's time to land or take-off. It's just taking the surface ship concept that the CO fights outside the guard rails, and XO fights inside them, a bit farther outside the guardrails and changes the name of the job.
 
Until we get carriers there is no need, and even than you can have a two "Captain" solution... One to command the air fight (AirO?), and one to handle navigation(CO). Realistically, the air fight is not happening anywhere near the physical ship, so what the skipper does with the boat doesn't matter too much to the air fight until it's time to land or take-off. It's just taking the surface ship concept that the CO fights outside the guard rails, and XO fights inside them, a bit farther outside the guardrails and changes the name of the job.
Please stop with having more than one person in charge….. This is why our organization is incapable of holding people accountable….
 
Until we get carriers there is no need, and even than you can have a two "Captain" solution... One to command the air fight (AirO?), and one to handle navigation(CO). Realistically, the air fight is not happening anywhere near the physical ship, so what the skipper does with the boat doesn't matter too much to the air fight until it's time to land or take-off. It's just taking the surface ship concept that the CO fights outside the guard rails, and XO fights inside them, a bit farther outside the guardrails and changes the name of the job.
HMS Glorious enters the chat.
 
Except all those units have a vastly different purposes, and all fall under a single Wing Commander. Having two ship CO would go against unity of command.
Interesting theory.

I guess the USN, with it’s Carrier Air Wing/Ship CO co- equal structure have been doing it wrong for (checks watch) 8 decades….
 
They don't have two COs. They have 1 and a Chief of Staff whos in charge of all planning. The reason for having one pilot and one wet navy who work closely together in ops planning is to ensure that there is always an expert in the room of enough seniority that it forces the CO to acknowledge their expertise. Ignore that advise at their peril.

I think that RCN air ops are at a low ish point right now but slowly trending back up. The reason was the transition to Cyclone which gapped that air experience. It's being relearned I think, certainly with the new capabilities.

But this goes both ways. Airforce hides out in their bases and the navy never leaves the dockyard. Day to day face time.would create a better situation I think.

No one ever remembers to invite the MPA folks to meetings for example, including the MH guys!
 
They don't have two COs. They have 1 and a Chief of Staff whos in charge of all planning. The reason for having one pilot and one wet navy who work closely together in ops planning is to ensure that there is always an expert in the room of enough seniority that it forces the CO to acknowledge their expertise. Ignore that advise at their peril.

I think that RCN air ops are at a low ish point right now but slowly trending back up. The reason was the transition to Cyclone which gapped that air experience. It's being relearned I think, certainly with the new capabilities.

But this goes both ways. Airforce hides out in their bases and the navy never leaves the dockyard. Day to day face time.would create a better situation I think.

No one ever remembers to invite the MPA folks to meetings for example, including the MH guys!
They absolutely do have two commanding officers.

The Aircraft Carrier has a Commanding Officer. They are responsible for ship movement and all the ship stuff.

The Carrier Air Wing has a Commanding Officer. They are responsible for all air warfare/strike stuff. They do not work for the Ship’s CO.

They are both O-6s and they both report to the CSG Commander, who is a Rear Admiral.

This is somewhat different than our context. The HELAIRDET on our ships is commanded by a Maj (sometimes Captain) and is under the Command of the Ship’s CO because they can be considered to be an organic resource of the ship, except that the RCAF retains residual authority for airworthiness and flight safety (for example) and except that in a task group construct, the helicopter will receive its taskings from the Helo Element Coordinator, not the ship.
 
Unless things have changed, I believe what you state is incorrect.

The CO of a US aircraft carrier is the only "CO" onboard, and he is a four ringer, and he is a naval aviator. While a Carrier Air Wing has a CO who is a four ringer, that four-ringer stays ashore at the Carrier Air Wing shore base , where more than what deploys with the ship goes on. The Carrier Air Wing Ops Officer, a three ringer, deploys with the Carrier as the Commander Air Group officer (CAG) and is the equal of the X.O., who is the most senior Surface Warfare officer onboard. They both report to the captain - not the Commander Strike Group, who may or may not be embarked.

For instance, when the carrier is in pre-deployment "workups" (whatever the US term is for it), no carrier strike group staff personnel is embarked or required.
 
Interesting theory.

I guess the USN, with it’s Carrier Air Wing/Ship CO co- equal structure have been doing it wrong for (checks watch) 8 decades….
Not quite. It’s like having a base commander and a lodger Wing on the base with a different commander. Two very different roles.
 
They absolutely do have two commanding officers.

The Aircraft Carrier has a Commanding Officer. They are responsible for ship movement and all the ship stuff.

The Carrier Air Wing has a Commanding Officer. They are responsible for all air warfare/strike stuff. They do not work for the Ship’s CO.

They are both O-6s and they both report to the CSG Commander, who is a Rear Admiral.

This is somewhat different than our context. The HELAIRDET on our ships is commanded by a Maj (sometimes Captain) and is under the Command of the Ship’s CO because they can be considered to be an organic resource of the ship, except that the RCAF retains residual authority for airworthiness and flight safety (for example) and except that in a task group construct, the helicopter will receive its taskings from the Helo Element Coordinator, not the ship.
I think there was some confusion. I was referring to the USN admirals and their staff. Probably should have not used CO as the term.
 
Unless things have changed, I believe what you state is incorrect.

The CO of a US aircraft carrier is the only "CO" onboard, and he is a four ringer, and he is a naval aviator. While a Carrier Air Wing has a CO who is a four ringer, that four-ringer stays ashore at the Carrier Air Wing shore base , where more than what deploys with the ship goes on. The Carrier Air Wing Ops Officer, a three ringer, deploys with the Carrier as the Commander Air Group officer (CAG) and is the equal of the X.O., who is the most senior Surface Warfare officer onboard. They both report to the captain - not the Commander Strike Group, who may or may not be embarked.

For instance, when the carrier is in pre-deployment "workups" (whatever the US term is for it), no carrier strike group staff personnel is embarked or required.
CAG embarked, in my experience, is an O6 and they are absolutely co-equal to the Ship’s CO and the absolutely both report to CSG.
 


China and Russia pushing the limits on Svalbard


Russo-Chinese Pyramiden is about 750 nautical miles from Alert

Further to....

Ottawa’s ability to rise to the occasion has been called into question by experts and officials alike. Canada’s own Minister of National Defense Bill Blair infamously remarked that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF)’s recruiting problems have sent the organization into a “death spiral.” Meanwhile, Former Vice Admiral Mark Norman described Canada’s military readiness as “borderline atrocious.”



From an American perspective, Canada’s military woes highlight a fundamental weakness of US national security strategy in the Arctic, which depends heavily on collaboration with able partners.

Controlling nearly 25 percent of the global Arctic, Canada has a vested interest in Arctic security. Canada currently possesses four operational Arctic and offshore patrol ships (AOPS) with two more set to be delivered by the end of 2024. The CAF maintains 300 full-time military personnel based out of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. These forces conduct joint long-range patrols, provide logistical support, and practice under-ice diving activities. Annually, Operation NANOOK provides an opportunity for Canada to showcase its Arctic capabilities, emphasizing the ability of the CAF to monitor and protect the Arctic. NANOOK provides a crucial opportunity for Canada to work with its close allies and partners — notably the United States — to enhance both Canadian and US capabilities in a region where Canada has far more tactical experience and familiarity with the operational landscape.

But could Canada respond if needed? As of December 2023, the DND reported that only 58 percent of the CAF could respond if called to aid NATO allies. By some estimates, the Canadian air force, navy, and army operate at suboptimal capacities of 45 percent, 46 percent, and 54 percent respectively. Recruitment shortfalls, the mishandling of sex offenses, and resulting personnel shortages have exacerbated these suboptimal operational capacities. The CAF missed its recruitment goal by nearly 16,000 members in 2023 and can anticipate a similar outcome in 2024. Recently, more have left the ranks of the CAF than have joined.

Canada knows the situation is dire and has long sought to revitalize its armed forces, going back to 2017 when it announced plans to grow annual defense spending from $18.9 billion CAD ($14 billion USD) to $32.7 billion by 2026-2027. The DND has redoubled these efforts in recent years with much support from citizens. A March 2024 poll conducted by the Angus Reid Institute revealed that an astounding 53 percent of Canadians say the government should increase its military spending level to 2 percent of GDP or beyond.

The Canadian Government’s 2024 defense policy, Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence, highlights asserting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic as the most urgent task facing the CAF. Bold, ambitious, and engaged, this strategy sets lofty goals of achieving defense spending of 1.76 percent by 2029, additional funding of $8.1 billion over the next five years, and spending $73 billion on defense over the next 20 years.

These measures are a critical step in the right direction, but Canada is still fighting an uphill battle. The sprawling timetables of these reforms are at odds with the CAF’s recruitment and retention crises. Newly-procured equipment will be useless without sufficient personnel to operate and maintain it. Furthermore, 62 percent of the aforementioned defense expenditures are estimated to take place between 2027 and 2037. By the time the CAF — and the United States — develop modern Arctic capabilities to counter Russian dominance in the region, the operational landscape could look entirely different.

With Russia’s focus firmly on Ukraine for the foreseeable future, the United States and Canada have a unique opportunity to make up for lost time. In addition to modernizing NORAD, more must be done to combat potential Russian gray zone activity on the ground.

First, the allies should build new joint bases in the Arctic Circle. In a region where difficult environmental conditions ensure that “presence means influence,” these bases would allow Washington and Ottawa to collaboratively monitor and quickly respond to Russian gray zone activities. Units stationed at these bases could gain important experience training alongside each other in Arctic conditions. Once new icebreakers and other ice-capable vessels are delivered, these units could be widely deployed to neutralize Russian provocations across the region.

Second, Washington and Ottawa should increase funding for their respective coast guards. These organizations play a critical role in defending against gray zone activity and currently lack the resources to effectively respond to Russian provocations. For example, when a group of Russian and Chinese ships approached Alaskan shores last fall, they were shadowed by a single United States Coast Guard cutter. Better-equipped coast guards could give the allies more flexibility — and indeed, credibility — to respond to different types of Russian gray zone warfare in both the short and long term.

The United States is in desperate need of a reality check regarding its closest ally’s present capabilities: Right now, Canada cannot be the bulwark of Arctic security and certainly cannot be the linchpin of the US Arctic strategy. Until the capabilities of the CAF have been fortified by the delivery of the DND’s promises, the United States must seriously consider the possibility of going it alone in the Arctic.

Absent an armed Coast Guard and permanent Arctic Circle bases I suspect that these American authors are destined to be disappointed and the US will feel inclined to "go it alone in the Arctic".

Even if we do claim 25% of the global arctic.

....

Beware the gray zone.
 
Back
Top