JHSV - FCA Pot Stirring

[Kirkhill]

The following article describes how the US Army is intending to do the same thing with the JHSV as the FCA (Spartan).  It seems that having made the case for both platforms so that the "Natural" owners of said platforms have been backed into purchasing the Army's preference the Army is now handing the platforms over to said "Natural" owners.  The article notes in passing that the Air Force will be mounting army radios (for a change).

Which raises the question in my mind about the possibility of more of the same happening.  How about Army budget used to buy Army preferred platform, operational budget to come from the operating department (in the case of the US Navy it appears the crew are a mix of Navy and Civil Mariners on the JHSV while the USAF is using the National Guard to fly the C27s) and the Army to appoint the vessel/aircraft commander.

Before somebody yells heresy consider the concept of "pilots" and "Masters".  In the past the guy that drove the boat often wasn't the Commander.  Often the Commander had no ship handling skills at all.  He told the Pilot or Master where to go and by when and left the driving up to him.  Of course it would be reasonable to listen to the driver if he tells you you are too deep in the water to get over that submerged island over there... but that is another thought.

Do logistics vessels have to be commanded by blue suits?

U.S. Army, Navy Near JHSV Deal
By KATE BRANNEN
Published: 23 Mar 2011 16:36      The U.S. Army is nearing a deal to transfer its Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs) to the U.S. Navy to operate and maintain.

"I think Adm. [Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations] and I are in the final throes here of working out the transfer of the Joint High Speed Vessel, and I think we'll get that done before I leave," Gen. George Casey, chief of staff of the Army, said March 22. He is scheduled to retire in April, when he will be replaced by Gen. Martin Dempsey.

Related Topics
Americas
Land Warfare
The JHSV is a shallow draft vessel designed for rapid intratheater transport of troops, equipment and military vehicles. Both services are buying the ships, which are under construction in Alabama. The Army had planned to buy 12 JHSVs, while the Navy may buy even more.

"One of the things that we have to do in the Army, especially in a period of declining resources, is we have to put our money against the things that give us the most value," Casey said. "Driving ships is not our core competency; it's the Navy's."

At Casey's direction, the Army has been in talks with the Navy for some months over which of the Army's watercraft could be transferred to the Navy to take over manning and maintenance. The services have not reached a decision on the rest of the Army's watercraft, Casey said. "We'll continue to work on that."

In it 2012 budget request, the Pentagon asked for $416 million to buy two JHSV ships, one each for the Army and Navy, at a cost of roughly $204.5 million each. According to the Pentagon's 2012 budget documents, the first ship, which was supposed to be an Army ship, is scheduled for delivery in the first quarter of FY 2013.

Under the new plan, that Army ship will be manned and operated by the Navy.

Similar thinking was behind the decision to transfer the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) and its supporting mission to the Air Force, a move introduced in April 2009 with the unveiling of the 2010 defense budget.

"We need the support, we don't necessarily have to fly the planes ourselves," Casey said. "Same thing with the JHSV and that's what we'll work out."

There are those within the Army, particularly in the logistics and aviation community, who have privately questioned Casey's logic and doubted the Air Force's commitment to the direct cargo support mission.

With the JCA decision, advocates for the National Guard went public with their concerns as it was Guard units who were scheduled to get the aircraft to replace their aging fleet of C-23 Sherpa aircraft.

However, with budget pressures growing, Casey said the Army cannot afford to throw money at everything.

"We have to put our money in places that give the ground forces the most value," he said.

When asked if there were other assets or missions the Army should shed, Casey said that none immediately came to mind.

However, the Army is talking to the Air Force about putting Army radios on Air Force platforms to help form the aerial layer of the network, the four-star said.

But, "there are no big functions like the Joint Cargo Aircraft or the Joint High Speed Vessel that are out there that I can put my finger on right now," he said.

Ducking  :warstory:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Funny enough, the answer to your question is no.

Anyone, regardless of trade, who is willing to study and pass all the reqs to get, first, harbour watch keeper qualified, then bridge qualified and challenge the BWK board, then put in the time to pass all command exams, serve under a captain until recommended, challenge and pass the command board is welcome to command a logistics vessel. I just don't see where an army or air force logistics officer would find the time to do that in her career (I assume you had a logistics officer in mind when you framed your question).

In practice, the distinction of old (very, very, very old) between commander and master has ceased to exist a long time ago and now, ALL ships commander must also be the master mariner. The distinction you talk about - with unqualified commanders - goes back to pre-Napoleonic navies of Europe, where often Noblemen were appointed in command of warships while a sailing master actually put their decision to execution. Such practice was abandoned very early on by the Royal Navy, which as the rampart of England had to rely on skilful seaman in all positions. Thus, it required all of its officers and commanders to be fully competent and tested seaman. Though the RN ships carried various masters, including sailing masters, they were there not because the officers were not competent seaman but rather to be the ones concentrating on the sail handling in battle, leaving the commander and the officers free to concentrate on the fight.

This said, are you trying to solve a non-existent problem? Why would logistics officer want to command a ship when they are already free from all the "naval" stuff and can concentrate on their work in logistics? Has any  Canadian logistics vessel ever been hampered in its logistics task by the fact that a naval officer was in command?