---

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1999

By Jon E. Dougherty

Why is the Navy home?

If there is one thing the U.S. military can use to project power to the farthest reaches of the globe, the U.S. Navy fits the bill. In fact, whether you're talking about conventional or nuclear weapons, the Navy -- with its 316 ships, 4,108 aircraft and 369,228 active duty personnel -- is a force to be reckoned with.

For decades the U.S. government has utilized the Navy as its premier force projection apparatus. Complemented with Marines and landing assault ships, the Navy has provided presidents and Congress the ability to attack enemies threatening our national interests or to deter those attacks.

So how come -- of all a sudden -- nearly 85 percent of the U.S. Navy is no longer "forward deployed"? How come only 82 ships (including just two older aircraft carriers) -- just 26 percent of our total naval force -- are taking up space in ports around the globe?

As of Dec. 20, the Navy's own status report reveals that most of our naval force is no longer out at sea. What is more odd are the deployment figures for the submarine force: Only 12 percent of our submarines (11 vessels) are forward deployed among the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Fleets. That's odd because our hard-to-find, nuclear-armed submarines are supposed to comprise the so-called "third leg" of our nuclear deterrent triangle.

One source in the Norfolk area reported an unprecedented thing last week -- some five nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are in port, something that doesn't happen often.

Just a coincidence, right? Maybe, but according to the Navy's own strategy policy, "On any given day, approximately one-third of our forces are deployed overseas, with another 20% or so underway from home ports. Naval expeditionary forces are 'on-scene,' operating day in and day out, in each of the major deployment regions -- the Mediterranean Sea, Arabian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Western Pacific, and Caribbean -- more than 50,000 American men and women embarked in some 120 ships."

But not today. Today, only some 28 percent of our ships are deployed at sea or in transit. That's out of the ordinary -- so much so that it contradicts the Navy's own policy -- which makes it noteworthy, at least. Maybe the Pentagon doesn't think it's necessary at this time to have the lion's share of our most potent warships forward deployed because there isn't any pressing national security problem "out there."

Yet that assessment doesn't make any sense, considering some other actions the federal government has taken in the past weeks and months to tighten security.

Last week, you may recall, a couple of people with links to Osama bin Laden's terrorist network were caught trying to smuggle themselves and some explosives into this country. Then there was the hijack of an India Air jet, along with an explosion of a Korean 747 that was supposedly carrying NATO supplies to Italy. There have even been firebombings on some Japanese commuter trains.

And it's no secret that the government has warned Americans abroad of the very real possibility of terrorist attacks. But the threat emphasis seems to be shifting from "abroad" to right here at home. For example, the government is now reportedly worried that some attacks may occur at our nuclear power plants. Where did that assessment come from -- and why are we only hearing about it now, just a few days before the turn of the millennium (if that's what these attacks are supposed to mimic -- Y2K-related incidents)?

Besides bringing home most of our Navy, the government has even recalled over 800 diplomats from abroad, according to WorldNetDaily reporter David Bresnahan. And some 19,000 NYC cops are going to be deployed over New Year's Eve -- just a fraction of the law enforcement personnel planning to be deployed nationwide.

And, as WND has reported for several months, our own National Guard is going to be on heightened alert as well.

Yet, if the "threat" to American interests is abroad, why is our most potent mobile combat force -- the Navy -- largely anchored in home waters?

If the "powers that be" have determined that our naval forces should be closer to home for some reason other than "routine maintenance" or some similarly lame excuse, that's fine. But somebody ought to let we the people in on what's going down -- or what's about to go down.

We live here too. Besides, maybe -- just maybe -- we can help each other out. Security in this country is everyone's concern.

Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.

URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty_com/19991228_xcjod_why_navy_h.shtml

---

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 28, 1999

Answers

Nato would use an Air Korea plane to transport supplies? Sounds strange to me...

-- Phil (lurker_phil@hotmail.com), December 28, 1999.

I can think of two reasons to keep the ships at port:

#1: Relieve tension with China and Russia during the roll-over.

#2: Maybe ships have (or are feared to have) Y2K problems.

I seem to remember a Aegis (spelling?) class destroyer being crippled at sea when NT crashed, and couldn't be re-booted. The ship had to be towed back to port! That was back in my pro-Linux days, and I got quite a "kick" out of that story.

-- Anonymous999 (Anonymous999@Anonymous999.xxx), December 28, 1999.

NATO would use any transport which fit the bill. I've seen entire squadrons of military people tranported on commercial airliners when there were military transports available. Commercial aircraft also are less conspicuous when flying into "sensitive" areas.

-- Powder (Powder@keg.com), December 28, 1999.

Here is the status of the US Navy as of 12/27/99 Whats interesting about this is the fact that the carrier Kittyhawk is now in it's homeport of Yokasuna Japan, leaving the JFK as the only forward deployed carrier out to sea. Also what becomes readily apparent is the fact that no ships are deployed in the Atlantic Ocean. For obious reasons the deployment of the SSBN nuke subs is classified, but of the 18 active SSBN's only 10 are based in the Atlantic. While the other 8 are based in the Pacific

Forces in the 5th Fleet Area of Operations

For specifics on each type of ship or aircraft, please check the Navy Fact File <../factfile/ffiletop.html>

U.S. Naval Forces in Arabian Gulf as of 27 December 1999: 14 Ships ~ 95 Aircraft ~ 7,869 Sailors and Marines

Aircraft Carriers

USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) - Homeport: Mayport, FL, Ship's company : abt. 5,347

Carrier Air Wing 1 (CCG-6/CVW-1): 20 F-14 Tomcats, 24 F/A-18 Hornets, 4 EA-6B Prowlers, 4 E-2C Hawkeyes, 8 S-3A/B Vikings, 6 SH/HH-60 Seahawks

Guided Missile Frigates USS Ford (FFG 54) - Homeport: Everett, WA.; ship's company: abt. 198 USS Taylor (FFG 50) - Homeport: Norfolk, VA: Ship's company: abt. 215

Guided Missile Cruisers USS Monterey (CG 61) - Homeport: Norfolk, VA.; ship's company: abt. 425

Destroyers

USS John Hancock (DD 981) - Homeport: Mayport, FL.; ship's company: abt. 220 USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) - Homeport: San Diego, CA; ship's company: abt. 316 USS John Young (DD 973) - Homeport: San Diego, CA; ship's company: abt. 324

Attack Submarines USS Scranton (SSN 756) - Homeport: Norfolk, VA.; ship's company : abt. 140

Mine Countermeasure Ships

USS Ardent (MCM 12) - Homeport: Ingleside, TX; Ship's company : abt. 95 USS Dextrous (MCM 13) - Homeport: Ingleside, TX; Ship's company : abt. 90 Fleet Oiler/Ammunition Ship USS Seattle (AOE 3) - Homeport: Earle, N.J.; Ship's company : abt. 447

Underway Replenishment Oilers

USNS Yukon (TAO 202) - No Homeport; Ship's company: abt. 23 Navy

Fleet Ocean Tugs

USNS Catawba (TATF 168) - No Homeport: ; Ship's company: abt. 4 Navy Patrol Coastal Boats USS Sirocco (PC 6) - Homeport: Little Creek, VA; Ship's company: abt. 25

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///

Forces in the 6th Fleet Area of Operations

For specifics on each type of ship or aircraft, please check the Navy Fact File <../factfile/ffiletop.html>

U.S. Naval Forces in Mediterranean Sea as of December 27, 1999:

16 Ships ~ 7,280 Sailors and Marines

Destroyers

USS Carney (DDG 64) - Homeport: Mayport, FL: Ship's company: abt. 320 USS McFaul (DDG 74) - Homeport: Norfolk, VA: Ship's company: abt. 320 USS Spruance (DD 963) - Homeport: Mayport, FL: Ship's company: abt. 220 USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) - Homeport: Mayport, FL: Ship's company: abt. 320

Guided Missile Frigates

USS Underwood (FFG 36) - Homeport: Mayport, FL: Ship's company: abt. 215

Attack Submarines

USS Jacksonville (SSN 699) - Homeport, Norfolk, VA; Ships company: abt. 140

Sixth Fleet Command Ships

USS La Salle (AGF 3) - Homeport, Gaeta, Italy; Ships company: abt. 498

Multi-purpose Amphibious Assault Ship

USS Bataan (LHD 5) - Homeport: Norfolk, VA ; Ship's company: abt. 1,030 CPR-6/22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit; Special Operations Capable, abt. 2,100 combat-ready Marines

Amphibious Transport Dock

USS Shreveport (LPD 12) - Homeport: Norfolk, VA; Ship's company: abt. 350

Dock Landing Ships

USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - Homeport: Little Creek, VA; Ship's company: abt. 250

Submarine Tenders

USS Emory S. Land (AS 39) - Homeport: La Maddalena, Italy; Ship's company: abt. 1,349

Combat Store Ship

USNS Concord (TAFS 5) - No Homeport; Ship's company: abt. 48 Navy

Underway Replenishment Oilers

USNS John Lenthall (TAO 189) - No Homeport; Ship's company: abt. 25 Navy USNS Patuxent (TAO 201) - No Homeport; Ship's company: abt. 25 Navy Fleet Ocean Tugs USNS Apache (TATF 172) - No Homeport ; Ship's company: abt. 45 Navy

Patrol Coastal Boats

USS Typhoon (PC 5) - Homeport: Little Creek, VA; Ship's company: abt. 25

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///

Forces in the 7th Fleet Area of Operations

For specifics on each type of ship or aircraft, please check the Navy Fact File <../factfile/ffiletop.html>

U.S. Naval Forces in Pacific and Indian Oceans as of 27 December 1999:

35 Ships ~ 150 Aircraft ~ 10,843 Sailors and Marines

Aircraft Carriers USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - Forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan.; Ship's company: abt. 3,277 Aircraft : 10 F-14 Tomcats, 36 F/A-18 Hornets, 4 EA-6B Prowlers, 4 E- 2C Hawkeyes, 8 S-3A/B Vikings, 6 SH/HH-60 Seahawks; (The number of embarked aircraft is approximate. They are based on the average carrier airwing composition.)

Guided Missile Cruisers

USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) - Forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 424 USS Mobile Bay (CG 53) - Forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 424 USS Vincennes (CG 49) - Forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 424 Destroyers/Guided Missile Destroyers USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54) - Forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 315 USS Cushing (DD 985) - Forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 324 USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) - Forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 316 USS O'Brien (DD 975) - Forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 367

Guided Missile Frigates

USS Gary (FFG 51) - Forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 200 USS Vandegrift (FFG 48) - Forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 198

Attack Submarines

USS Bremerton (SSN 698) - Homeported in San Diego, Calif.; Ship's company: abt. 140 USS Charlotte (SSN 776) - Homeported in Pearl Harbor, HI; Ship's company: abt. 140 USS Topeka (SSN 754) - Homeported in Pearl Harbor, HI; Ship's company: abt. 140

Multi-purpose Amphibious Assault Ship

USS Belleau Wood (LHA 3) - Forward deployed to Sasebo, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 1,151 Aviation Combat Element (embarked aircraft #s approximate) Combat Assault/Cargo Helicopter Squadron (26 CH-46E); Combat Assault/Cargo Helicopter Squadron (19 CH-53D)

Amphibious Transport Dock

USS Juneau (LPD 10) - Forwarded deployed to Sasebo, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 350

Dock Landing Ships

USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) - Forward deployed to Sasebo, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 315 USS Germantown (LSD 42) - Forward deployed to Sasebo, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 330

Seventh Fleet Command Ship

USS Blue Ridge (LCC 19) - Forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 806; embarked COMSEVENTHFLT staff: abt. 200

Mine Countermeasure Ships

USS Guardian (MCM 5) - Forward deployed to Sasebo, Japan; Ship's company : abt. 90 USS Patriot (MCM 7) - Forward deployed to Sasebo, Japan; Ship's company : abt. 90

Submarine Tenders

USS Frank Cable (AS 40) - Homeported in Guam; Ship's company : abt. 670

Rescue and Salvage Ship

USS Safeguard (ARS 50) - Forwarded deployed to Sasebo, Japan; Ship's company: abt. 50

Fleet/Underway Replenishment Oiler

USNS Henry J. Kaiser (T-AO 187) - Ship's company: abt. 25 Navy USNS Rappahannock (T-AO 204) - Ship's company: abt. 25 Navy USNS Tippecanoe (T-AO 199) - Ship's company: abt. 19 Navy USNS Walter S. Diehl (T-AO 193) - Ship's company: abt. 25 Navy

Combat Stores Ship

USNS Niagara Falls (T-AFS 3) - Ship's company: abt. 48 Navy USNS San Jose (T-AFS 7) - Ship's company: abt. 48 Navy USNS Spica (T-AFS 9) - Ship's company: abt. 49 Navy

Ammunition Ship

USNS Flint (T-AE 32) - Ship's company: abt. 25 Navy USNS Kilauea (T-AE 26) - Ship's company: abt. 38 Navy

-- Red Dawn (reddawn@bunker.com), December 28, 1999.

fwiw fwiw,a friend of mine in jacksonville,FL,who manages an auto repair shop,called me early this morning.A captain in the navy had come in to get his dodge caravan worked on.while he was waiting for the repairs he and my friend were watching the today show's y2k segment.my friend being a GI asked the capt. what he thought of y2k.The capt. then relayed that the navy had taken money out of the banks yesterday.I dont know why the navy would have money in the local banks.I'm not sure if its some kind of petty cash,or if they keep some kind of operational budget in the bank.the capt.said it was the actual navy that took the money out,not individual navy personel.this could be a rumor but I know my friend wouldnt lie to me about the conversation......eric

-- eric micael (bizarr4@hotmail.com), December 28, 1999.

"I seem to remember a Aegis (spelling?) class destroyer being crippled at sea when NT crashed, and couldn't be re-booted. The ship had to be towed back to port! That was back in my pro-Linux days, and I got quite a "kick" out of that story.

-- Anonymous999 (Anonymous999@Anonymous999.xxx), December 28, 1999."

That is quite possibly one of the more stupid things I have ever heard in my entire life! Do you actually think a freaking Destroyer is running on Windows NT???

"Just double click the ENGINE icon, and we will be under way"

Typical penguin head fantasy story. The fact is, if ANY "public" based OS is running on a ship, it would be Unix/Linux, and that would COMPLETELY explain why the ship was crippled. :)

-- Can't Say (taking_no_chances@right_now.com), December 28, 1999.

If you do a little simple arithmatic using the deployments posted above you will find that six of the eleven subs deployed are Los Angeles Class attack subs, which do not carry nuclear missiles. That leaves a maximum of five Ohio class subs deployed out of the eleven the navy list.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), December 28, 1999.

Since we're playing "What if?"

Maybe the Reich Wing military fanatics are planning an overthrow of the U.S. Government once everything is thrown into chaos due to Y2K. Maybe they want the bulk of the military in the U.S. in order to more easily maintain the chain of command.

Who knows.

-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), December 28, 1999.

Try this...

The Navy always likes to have its sailors and ships home for the holidays. Yes, I grew up in a Navy town (near Norfolk, as a matter of fact), and remember that ships tended to come home around this time of year so that everyone could enjoy Christmas (and sometimes Thanksgiving) with their families. Morale, remember?

The only time this didn't happen is when there was a reason for them to be overseas - a war or 'police action', for instance. Right now, there isn't anything like that.

As far as there being five CVNs in port... the reason this is almost unprecedented is because one of them is new; the Truman.

-- Lurker Steve (gaimanfan@aol.com), December 28, 1999.

"That is quite possibly one of the more stupid things I have ever heard in my entire life! Do you actually think a freaking Destroyer is running on Windows NT??? "

Ouch! Good thing I've got my flame-proof undies today!!

Anyway, I'm just the messenger. The story was pretty wide-spread 1-2 years ago. Perhaps it was a hoax, but I seem to remember the original sources being in the mass-media. Back-then I didn't check as many "right-wing whacko" sites, unlikely I would have found it on anything too far off the beaten path.

According to the story, it was indeed Windoze NT, and the problem was a data-entry field on an application screen did not check sufficiently for invalid data. Somebody entered a bad number and crashed he ship. I don't understand why the standard Micro$oft solution (reboot) didn't work. Maybe the problem was really the devices the computer was controlling.

I agree that Windoze NT is pretty clumsy (I like VMS and MVS for reliability), but a lot of folks are using NT in "real-world" applications.

-- Anonymous999 (Anonymous999@Anonymous999.xxx), December 28, 1999.

-- eric micael,

When I was in the Navy we were paid in cash on payday...

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), December 28, 1999.

Home for the holidays?

Normal policy?

You be the judge.

Carrier Deployment History

-- Red Dawn (reddawn@bunker.com), December 28, 1999.

Cant Say: Yes, this really happened. (There's another thread about this somewhere down the list, I think.) The ship was the Yorktown. An Aegis missile cruiser, and the pilot case for the Navy's initiative for reducing manpower needed to run the ship. In an effort to cut down on the number of people required to run the ship, they installed a complex management system which would handle ship's propulsion, monitor the bridge, navigate the ship, and something else that escapes me at the moment. In order to save on development costs, they implemented the system using Windows NT. The problem happened when the ship was out on maneuvers, and the engine management system encountered bad data in a database. It was unable to reconcile the data, and the propulsion system crashed. This in turn crashed several other systems, effectively leaving the ship dead in the water. This, or other crashes like it happened several times to this ship and at least one other. In all cases, the ship had to be towed into port for repairs. The whole debacle was and still is extremely embarrasing to the Navy, andthey tried to go after gates for the problems. I am not sure if anything came of the lawsuit, but the data on the ship should be easy to find. It's laughable, and, unfortunately, all too true. I'll see if I can find the info somewhere.

Jes' Thinkin'...

-- Little Pig (littlepig@brickhouse.com), December 28, 1999.

Bigg,they dont pay them in cash now though its direct deposit as far as I know.they might have the cash incase they cant get direct deposit,but if they pay all of the navy in cash,well thats alot of cash.

-- eric micael (bizarr4@hotmail.com), December 28, 1999.

Can't say...... ummm... foot....mouth....yummie!

The Navy's Smart Ship technology may not be as smart as the service contends.

Although PCs have reduced workloads for sailors aboard the Aegis missile cruiser USS Yorktown, software glitches resulted in system failures and crippled ship operations, according to Navy officials.

Navy brass have called the Yorktown Smart Ship pilot a success in reducing manpower, maintenance and costs. The Navy began running shipboard applications under Microsoft Windows NT so that fewer sailors would be needed to control key ship functions.

But the Navy last fall learned a difficult lesson about automation: The very information technology on which the ships depend also makes them vulnerable. The Yorktown last September suffered a systems failure when bad data was fed into its computers during maneuvers off the coast of Cape Charles, Va.

The ship had to be towed into the Naval base at Norfolk, Va., because a database overflow caused its propulsion system to fail, according to Anthony DiGiorgio, a civilian engineer with the Atlantic Fleet Technical Support Center in Norfolk.

Link - GOVERNMENT COMPUTER NEWS, a division of the Washington Post company

-- _ (_@_._), December 28, 1999.

Can't say -

I am currently working for the Navy converting UNIX applications to NT. They are doing this despite suggestions from us technical folks that its a bad idea. NT is NOT a "better UNIX than UNIX".

But then again, did you actually expect the government to make a smart decision?

-- can't say either (#@#.#), December 28, 1999.

Sorry Anon....that wasn't meant as a flame at you :)

If the military is planning to put their systems in the hands of microsoft, we can kiss our asses goodbye!

-- Can't Say (taking_no_chances@right_now.com), December 28, 1999.

Isn't it obvious? De Furher Klintoon wants to make sure there is no way we can retaliate when Yeltsin gets drunk and "accidentally" launches 2000 topol missiles at us. He is paying Yeltsin with our tax money to obliterate the U.S. so that no one can print any history books saying he was impeached.

-- patriot (screw.the@liberal.nazis), December 28, 1999.

I'd have to agree with Patriot. In cases like this, I ask myself what the motivation would be for an action and then, what would I do if I wanted to accomplish a given goal? There's more going on here than appears on the surface and I don't mean just puckering up to kiss Yeltsin's behind in some sort of liberal political self-effacement. The first thing I thought of when I read this post? Pearl Harbor.

-- chairborne commando (what-me-worry@armageddon.com), December 28, 1999.