DOCSLIB.ORG

GAO-21-168, NAVY READINESS: Actions Needed to Evaluate And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees June 2021 NAVY READINESS Actions Needed to Evaluate and Improve Surface Warfare Officer Career Path GAO-21-168 June 2021 NAVY READINESS Actions Needed to Evaluate and Improve Surface Warfare Officer Career Path Highlights of GAO-21-168, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found SWOs are U.S. Navy officers whose U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officers (SWOs) separate from the SWO community primary duties focus on the safe earlier and at higher rates compared with officers in similar U.S. Navy operation of surface ships at sea. In communities, and female SWOs separate at higher rates than male SWOs. 2017, the Navy had two collisions at sea that resulted in the death of 17 Retention Rates for U.S. Navy Officers and Surface Warfare Officers by Gender sailors and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to Navy ships. Following the collisions, the Navy identified deficiencies in the SWO career path and staffing policies, and took action to improve these areas. The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 contained a provision that GAO assess issues related to the Note: GAO compared the U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer community separation rates with those U.S. Navy SWO career path. Among of the other unrestricted line officer communities in the U.S. Navy: Naval Aviation, Submarine, and other things, this report (1) assesses Explosive Ordinance Disposal and Special Warfare. trends in separation rates of SWOs GAO found that after 10 years of service, around the first major career milestone: with those of similar U.S. Navy officer • 33 percent of SWOs remain in their community, compared with 45 percent of communities, and trends in SWO separation rates by gender; (2) officers from similar U.S. Navy officer communities, and describes how the career path of U.S. • 12 percent of female SWOs remain in their community, compared with 39 Navy SWOs compares to those of percent of male SWOs. selected foreign navies and other By using existing information to develop a plan to improve SWO retention, the U.S. Navy and U.S. maritime Navy will be better positioned to retain a diverse and combat-ready community. communities; and (3) assesses the extent to which the U.S. Navy has The career path for U.S. Navy SWOs differs from those in similar positions in used or evaluated alternative career selected foreign navies and other U.S. Navy and U.S. maritime communities. paths. GAO analyzed U.S. Navy officer personnel data; selected Career Path for U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officers Compared with Others foreign navies and U.S. maritime officer communities for comparison; and surveyed a generalizable sample of Navy SWOs. What GAO Recommends GAO is making 7 recommendations to the Navy, including developing a plan to improve SWO retention; regularly evaluating its current approaches, including alternative career paths; and using these to improve SWO career options and The U.S. Navy made incremental career path changes for SWOs following the proficiency. The Navy concurred with 2017 collisions, but has not regularly evaluated or fundamentally changed its GAO's recommendations. SWO career path for over a century. GAO found that by a factor of four to one, SWOs believe specialized career paths would better prepare them for their duties than the current generalist career path. Without periodic evaluations of current View GAO-21-168. For more information, approaches, including alternative career paths, and the use of those evaluations, contact Cary Russell at (202) 512-5431 or [email protected]. the U.S. Navy may miss an opportunity to develop and retain proficient SWOs. United States Government Accountability Office Contents Letter 1 Background 6 SWOs Separate Earlier and at Higher Rates Compared with Officers in Similar U.S. Navy Communities, and Female SWOs Separate at Higher Rates than Males 10 The U.S. Navy’s Commissioning Practices Limit Surface Warfare Officer Training Opportunities aboard Ships 19 The Career Path for U.S. Navy SWOs Differs from Officers in Selected Foreign Navies and Other U.S. Navy and U.S. Maritime Communities 28 The U.S. Navy Has Recently Made Incremental Career Path Changes for SWOs, but Has Not Regularly Evaluated Alternative Career Path and Proficiency Models 37 Conclusions 48 Recommendations for Executive Action 49 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 51 Appendix I Data Sources and Methods Used for Retention Analyses 54 Appendix II Nominal Cost of the U.S. Navy Surface Warfare, Aviation, and Submarine Officer Career Paths 73 Appendix III Foreign Navy and U.S. Maritime Organization Profiles 78 Appendix IV Surface Warfare Officer Survey Questionnaire, Demographic Information, and Weighted Responses 113 Appendix V Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 138 Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Navy 151 Page i GAO-21-168 Navy Readiness Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 170 Tables Table 1: Summary of the Career Path Models for the U.S. Navy, Selected Foreign Navies, and the U.S. Coast Guard 29 Table 2: Characteristics of Commissioning Programs and Ship- Driving Training for Surface Warfare Officer Equivalents among the U.S. Navy, Selected Foreign Navies, and Other U.S. Navy and U.S. Maritime Communities 35 Table 3: Characteristics of Retention Practices for Surface Warfare Officer Equivalents among U.S. Navy, Selected Foreign Navies, and Other U.S. Navy and U.S. Maritime Communities 36 Table 4: Population Count of the U.S. Navy Unrestricted Line Officer Communities from July 2003 through March 2020 55 Table 5: Demographic Composition of the U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) Community Compared with Other U.S. Navy Unrestricted Line (URL) Officer Communities 57 Table 6: Average Years of Service from Commissioning to Separation by U.S Navy Officer Community and Accession Source 58 Table 7: Number and Percent of Male and Female U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officers (SWOs) during Calendar Years 2003 through 2020 58 Table 8: U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) Community 10-year Retention Rate Compared with other U.S. Navy Unrestricted Line (URL) Officer Communities 60 Table 9: U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer Retention Rates Using the Life Table Method 61 Table 10: U.S. Navy Submarine Officer Retention Rates Using the Life Table Method 62 Table 11: U.S. Navy Aviation Officer Retention Rates Using the Life Table Method 63 Table 12: U.S. Navy Explosive Ordinance Disposal and Special Warfare Retention Rates Using the Life Table Method 64 Table 13: Male U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer Retention Rates Using the Life Table Method 65 Table 14: Female U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer Retention Rates Using the Life Table Method 66 Table 15: Bivariate Regression Results from Cox Proportional Hazard Model 68 Page ii GAO-21-168 Navy Readiness Table 16: Multivariate Regression Results from Cox Proportional Hazard Model 71 Table 17: Nominal Per-Officer Costs of the U.S. Navy Surface Warfare, Aviation, and Submarine Officer Career Paths through 23 Years of Commissioned Service 73 Table 18: Survey-Based Estimates of U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officers Demographic Information 119 Table 19: Survey-Based Estimates Regarding the Number of Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) Commanding Officers U.S. Navy SWOs Have Worked For (n=343) 120 Table 20: Survey-Based Estimates Regarding the Effectiveness of Generalist Career Path in Developing U.S. Navy Commanding Officers 121 Table 21: Survey-Based Estimates Regarding Opportunities to Develop the Skills Needed to Perform Proficiently as a Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) (n=340) 122 Table 22: Survey-Based Estimates Regarding What Career Path Surface Warfare Officers (SWOs) Believe Would Best Prepare SWOs For Their Service in the United States Navy 124 Table 23: Survey-Based Estimates Regarding Surface Warfare Officers (SWO) Personal Preference of a Career Path Option 127 Table 24: Survey Responses from Junior Surface Warfare Officers: How Likely Would You be to Continue your Career After You Have Satisfied Your Current Service Requirement? 131 Table 25: Survey-Based Estimates from U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officers Who Have Not Served as Commanding Officers on their Desire to Become a Commanding Officer 132 Table 26: Sample Design and Number of Responses 146 Figures Figure 1: Overview of Significant Mishaps at Sea for U.S. Navy Surface Ships, January–August 2017 7 Figure 2: Type and Number of U.S. Navy Surface Ships, as of April 2021 8 Figure 3: Career Progression and Key Duties U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officers (SWOs) Perform Aboard Ships 9 Page iii GAO-21-168 Navy Readiness Figure 4: Retention Rates for Officers in Select U.S. Navy Communities, by Years of Service, Fiscal Year 2004 through March 2020 11 Figure 5: Nominal Personnel, Training, Retention, and Moving Costs of the U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer Career Path through 23 Years of Commissioned Service 14 Figure 6: Retention Rates for U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officers, by Gender and Years of Service, Fiscal Years 2004 through March 2020 16 Figure 7: Female Representation in U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer Community, Calendar Years 2004 through 2020 18 Figure 8: U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) Requirements for Ensigns aboard Ships and Ensign Over Execution, Fiscal Years 2017 through 2021 20 Figure 9: Average Years of Experience on Surface Ships for Nuclear-Trained and Non-Nuclear Trained Surface Warfare Officers 26 Figure 10: Selected Foreign Navies and U.S. Maritime Communities That Specialize Officer Career Paths by Ship Department Duties 31 Figure 11: Selected Foreign Navy and U.S. Maritime Community That Specialize Officer Career Paths by Ship Type 32 Figure 12: Survey-Based Estimates on What Career Path Would Best Prepare U.S.
Recommended publications
  • “Bicentennial Speeches (2)” of the Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R

    “Bicentennial Speeches (2)” of the Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R

    The original documents are located in Box 2, folder “Bicentennial Speeches (2)” of the Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Ron Nessen donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 2 of The Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON June 28, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR ROBERT ORBEN VIA: GWEN ANDERSON FROM: CHARLES MC CALL SUBJECT: PRE-ADVANCE REPORT ON THE PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES Attached is some background information regarding the speech the President will make on July 2, 1976 at the National Archives. ***************************************************************** TAB A The Event and the Site TAB B Statement by President Truman dedicating the Shrine for the Delcaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, December 15, 1952. r' / ' ' ' • THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON June 28, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR BOB ORBEN VIA: GWEN ANDERSON FROM: CHARLES MC CALL SUBJECT: NATIONAL ARCHIVES ADDENDUM Since the pre-advance visit to the National Archives, the arrangements have been changed so that the principal speakers will make their addresses inside the building .
  • 2014 Ships and Submarines of the United States Navy

    2014 Ships and Submarines of the United States Navy

    AIRCRAFT CARRIER DDG 1000 AMPHIBIOUS Multi-Purpose Aircraft Carrier (Nuclear-Propulsion) THE U.S. NAvy’s next-GENERATION MULTI-MISSION DESTROYER Amphibious Assault Ship Gerald R. Ford Class CVN Tarawa Class LHA Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 USS Peleliu LHA-5 John F. Kennedy CVN-79 Enterprise CVN-80 Nimitz Class CVN Wasp Class LHD USS Wasp LHD-1 USS Bataan LHD-5 USS Nimitz CVN-68 USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72 USS Harry S. Truman CVN-75 USS Essex LHD-2 USS Bonhomme Richard LHD-6 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69 USS George Washington CVN-73 USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76 USS Kearsarge LHD-3 USS Iwo Jima LHD-7 USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 USS John C. Stennis CVN-74 USS George H.W. Bush CVN-77 USS Boxer LHD-4 USS Makin Island LHD-8 USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 SUBMARINE Submarine (Nuclear-Powered) America Class LHA America LHA-6 SURFACE COMBATANT Los Angeles Class SSN Tripoli LHA-7 USS Bremerton SSN-698 USS Pittsburgh SSN-720 USS Albany SSN-753 USS Santa Fe SSN-763 Guided Missile Cruiser USS Jacksonville SSN-699 USS Chicago SSN-721 USS Topeka SSN-754 USS Boise SSN-764 USS Dallas SSN-700 USS Key West SSN-722 USS Scranton SSN-756 USS Montpelier SSN-765 USS La Jolla SSN-701 USS Oklahoma City SSN-723 USS Alexandria SSN-757 USS Charlotte SSN-766 Ticonderoga Class CG USS City of Corpus Christi SSN-705 USS Louisville SSN-724 USS Asheville SSN-758 USS Hampton SSN-767 USS Albuquerque SSN-706 USS Helena SSN-725 USS Jefferson City SSN-759 USS Hartford SSN-768 USS Bunker Hill CG-52 USS Princeton CG-59 USS Gettysburg CG-64 USS Lake Erie CG-70 USS San Francisco SSN-711 USS Newport News SSN-750 USS Annapolis SSN-760 USS Toledo SSN-769 USS Mobile Bay CG-53 USS Normandy CG-60 USS Chosin CG-65 USS Cape St.
  • Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses

    Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses

    WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy.
  • Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress

    Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress

    Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs December 9, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41526 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense Summary Department of Defense (DOD) development work on high-energy military lasers, which has been underway for decades, has reached the point where lasers capable of countering certain surface and air targets at ranges of about a mile could be made ready for installation on Navy surface ships over the next few years. More powerful shipboard lasers, which could become ready for installation in subsequent years, could provide Navy surface ships with an ability to counter a wider range of surface and air targets at ranges of up to about 10 miles. These more powerful lasers might, among other things, provide Navy surface ships with a terminal-defense capability against certain ballistic missiles, including the anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that China is believed to be developing. The Navy and DOD are developing three principal types of lasers for potential use on Navy surface ships—fiber solid state lasers (SSLs), slab SSLs, and free electron lasers (FELs). The Navy’s fiber SSL prototype demonstrator is called the Laser Weapon System (LaWS). Among DOD’s multiple efforts to develop slab SSLs for military use is the Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD), a prototype laser weapon developed as a rapid demonstration project. The Navy has developed a lower-power FEL prototype and is now developing a prototype with scaled-up power.
  • To the Maine Maritime Academy's 2011 Training Cruise Cruise Facts

    To the Maine Maritime Academy's 2011 Training Cruise Cruise Facts

    April 28, 2011 CASTINE PATRIOT, CASTINE, MAINE Page 3 Bon Voyage to the Maine Maritime Academy’s 2011 Training Cruise The 500-foot, 16,000-ton T/S State of Maine, the former USNS Tanner, originally served as a Navy oceanographic research vessel and was converted in 1997 to accommodate the training needs of the college. The fourth vessel to bear the name State of Maine, the ship is a modern, technologically advanced training vessel. It accommodates 302 people. When in port, State of Maine is open for public guided tours on a vary- ing schedule. For exact dates and times of tours, call 800-464-6565 (Maine) or 800-227-8465 (out of state). Photo courtesy of Maine Maritime Academy Cruise to visit Mediterranean ports this year CASTINE—Maine Maritime Academy addition to an interactive tracking chart of Great Britain, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Poland, the boats are made of molded fiberglass and students, officers, and crew will visit the cruise, the site provides links devoted to Russia, and Spain, as well as other European are capable of making long ocean passages. Mediterranean ports this spring as part of the teaching and educational materials for stu- and Caribbean countries. They are crafted to sail indefinitely down- college’s annual two-month training cruise dents of all ages. Once the ship is underway, wind and will transmit their location and to foreign and domestic ports-of-call. This the public is invited to join the voyage by Educational Passages research boat speed for up to one year. The boats rely year’s training cruise itinerary includes Nor- visiting www.mainemaritime.edu and fol- Complementing the educational focus of solely on wind and current power and need folk, Va., May 6-9; Valetta, Malta, May 25- lowing the Cruise 2011 link.
  • Security & Defence European

    Security & Defence European

    a 7.90 D European & Security ES & Defence 4/2016 International Security and Defence Journal Protected Logistic Vehicles ISSN 1617-7983 • www.euro-sd.com • Naval Propulsion South Africa‘s Defence Exports Navies and shipbuilders are shifting to hybrid The South African defence industry has a remarkable breadth of capa- and integrated electric concepts. bilities and an even more remarkable depth in certain technologies. August 2016 Jamie Shea: NATO‘s Warsaw Summit Politics · Armed Forces · Procurement · Technology The backbone of every strong troop. Mercedes-Benz Defence Vehicles. When your mission is clear. When there’s no road for miles around. And when you need to give all you’ve got, your equipment needs to be the best. At times like these, we’re right by your side. Mercedes-Benz Defence Vehicles: armoured, highly capable off-road and logistics vehicles with payloads ranging from 0.5 to 110 t. Mobilising safety and efficiency: www.mercedes-benz.com/defence-vehicles Editorial EU Put to the Test What had long been regarded as inconceiv- The second main argument of the Brexit able became a reality on the morning of 23 campaigners was less about a “democratic June 2016. The British voted to leave the sense of citizenship” than of material self- European Union. The majority that voted for interest. Despite all the exception rulings "Brexit", at just over 52 percent, was slim, granted, the United Kingdom is among and a great deal smaller than the 67 percent the net contribution payers in the EU. This who voted to stay in the then EEC in 1975, money, it was suggested, could be put to but ignoring the majority vote is impossible.
  • By Dead Reckoning by Bill Mciver

    By Dead Reckoning by Bill Mciver

    index Abernathy, Susan McIver 23 , 45–47 36 , 42 Acheson, Dean Bao Dai 464 and Korea 248 , 249 Barrish, Paul 373 , 427 first to state domino theory 459 Bataan, Battling Bastards of 332 Acuff, Roy 181 Bataan Death March 333 Adams, M.D 444 Bataan Gang. See MacArthur, Douglas Adams, Will 31 Bataan Peninsula 329–333 Adkisson, Paul L. 436. See also USS Colahan bathythermograph 455 Alameda, California 268 , 312 , 315 , 317 , 320 , Battle of Coral Seas 296–297 335 , 336 , 338 , 339 , 345 , 346 , 349 , Battle off Samars 291 , 292 , 297–298 , 303 , 351 , 354 , 356 306–309 , 438 Alamogordo, New Mexico 63 , 64 Bedichek, Roy 220 Albano, Sam 371 , 372 , 373 , 414 , 425 , 426 , Bee County, Texas 12 , 17 , 19 427 Beeville, Texas 19 Albany, Texas 161 Belfast, Ireland 186 Albuquerque, New Mexico 228 , 229 Bengal, Oklahoma 94 Allred, Lue Jeff 32 , 44 , 200 Bidault, Georges 497 , 510 Alpine, Texas 67 Big Cypress Bayou, Texas 33 Amarillo, Texas 66 , 88 , 122 , 198 , 431 Big Spring, Texas 58 , 61 , 68 , 74 , 255 , 256 Ambrose, Stephen Bikini Atoll. See Operation Castle on Truman’s decision 466 , 467 Bilyeau, Paul 519 , 523 , 526 Anderson County, Texas 35 Blick, Robert 487 , 500 , 505 , 510 Anson County, North Carolina 21 Blytheville, Arkansas 112 Appling, Luke 224 Bockius, R.W. 272 , 273 , 288 , 289 , 290 Arapaho Reservation 50 commended by Halsey 273 Archer City, Texas 50 , 55 , 74 , 104 , 200 , 201 , during typhoon 288 , 289 , 290 259 on carrier work 272 Argyllshire, Scotland 45 Boerne, Texas 68 Arnold, Eddie 181 Bonamarte, Joseph 20 Arrington, Fred 164 Booth, Sarah 433 Ashworth, Barbara 110 , 219 , 220 , 433 , 434 Boudreau, Lou 175 Ashworth, Don 219 , 433 Bowers, Gary 361 , 375 , 386 , 427 Ashworth, Kenneth 219 , 220 Bowie, James 244 Ashworth, Mae 199 , 219 , 220 Bradley, Omar 252 Ashworth, R.B.
  • International Programs Key to Security Cooperation an Interview With

    International Programs Key to Security Cooperation an Interview With

    SURFACE SITREP Page 1 P PPPPPPPPP PPPPPPPPPPP PP PPP PPPPPPP PPPP PPPPPPPPPP Volume XXXII, Number 3 October 2016 International Programs Key to Security Cooperation An Interview with RADM Jim Shannon, USN, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for International Programs Conducted by CAPT Edward Lundquist, USN (Ret) Tell me about your mission, and what intellectual property of the technology you have — your team —in order to that we developed for our Navy execute that mission? programs – that includes the Marine It’s important to understand what your Corps. These are Department of Navy authorities are in any job you come Programs, for both the Navy and Marine into. You just can’t look at a title and Corps, across all domains – air, surface, determine what your job or authority subsurface, land, cyber, and space, is. In this case, there are Secretary everywhere, where the U.S. Navy or of the Navy (SECNAV) instructions; the Department of the Navy is the lead there’s law; and then there’s federal agent. As the person responsible for government regulations on how to this technology’s security, I obviously do our job. And they all imply certain have a role where I determine “who levels of authority to the military do we share that information with and departments – Army, Navy, and Air how do we disclose that information.” Force. And then the Office of the The way I exercise that is in accordance Secretary of Defense (OSD) has a with the laws, the Arms Export Control separate role, but altogether, we work Act.
  • Winter 2019 Full Issue the .SU

    Winter 2019 Full Issue the .SU

    Naval War College Review Volume 72 Article 1 Number 1 Winter 2019 2019 Winter 2019 Full Issue The .SU . Naval War College Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Naval War College, The .SU . (2019) "Winter 2019 Full Issue," Naval War College Review: Vol. 72 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol72/iss1/1 This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Naval War College: Winter 2019 Full Issue Winter 2019 Volume 72, Number 1 Winter 2019 Published by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2019 1 Naval War College Review, Vol. 72 [2019], No. 1, Art. 1 Cover Aerial view of an international container cargo ship. In “Ships of State?,” Christopher R. O’Dea describes how China COSCO Shipping Corporation Limited has come to control a rapidly expanding network of ports and terminals, ostensibly for commercial purposes, but has thereby gained the ability to project power through the increased physical presence of its naval vessels—turning the oceans that historically have protected the United States from foreign threats into a venue in which China can challenge U.S. interests. Credit: Getty Images https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol72/iss1/1 2 Naval War College: Winter 2019 Full Issue NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW Winter 2019 Volume 72, Number 1 NAVAL WAR COLLEGE PRESS 686 Cushing Road Newport, RI 02841-1207 Published by U.S.
  • Navy Irregular Warfare and Counterterrorism Operations: Background and Issues for Congress

    Navy Irregular Warfare and Counterterrorism Operations: Background and Issues for Congress

    Navy Irregular Warfare and Counterterrorism Operations: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs November 8, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS22373 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Navy Role in Irregular Warfare and Counterterrorism Summary The Navy for several years has carried out a variety of irregular warfare (IW) and counterterrorism (CT) activities. Among the most readily visible of the Navy’s recent IW operations have been those carried out by Navy sailors serving ashore in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of the Navy’s contributions to IW operations around the world are made by Navy individual augmentees (IAs)—individual Navy sailors assigned to various DOD operations. The May 1-2, 2011, U.S. military operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed Osama bin Laden reportedly was carried out by a team of 23 Navy special operations forces, known as SEALs (an acronym standing for Sea, Air, and Land). The SEALs reportedly belonged to an elite unit known unofficially as Seal Team 6 and officially as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU). The Navy established the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) informally in October 2005 and formally in January 2006. NECC consolidated and facilitated the expansion of a number of Navy organizations that have a role in IW operations. The Navy established the Navy Irregular Warfare Office in July 2008, published a vision statement for irregular warfare in January 2010, and established “a community of interest” to develop and advance ideas, collaboration, and advocacy related to IW in December 2010.
  • The Army Lawyer (ISSN 0364-1287)

    The Army Lawyer (ISSN 0364-1287)

    THE ARMY Headquarters, Department of the Army Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-50-222 June 1991 Table of Contents Address tolbe JAG Regimental Workrhop .................................................................................. 3 Major General John L Fugh Article The Persian Oulf War Crimes Trials.. ..................................................................................... 7 Captain R Peter Mastenon USALSA Report.. ........................................................................................................ 18 Unlted States Army bgal Services Agency The Advocate for Military Defense Counsel DAD Notes.. ...................................................................................................... 18 Follow All Leads: COMA Is Watching; What Is a "Breaking"?; The Ever-Widening Scope of Fraternization in the Military Contract Appeals Division Note.. ......................................................................................... 22 Narional Biosystenu and Corporate Jee: Jurisdiction "by Quantity" (Is Any Quantity Enough?) 'r Lkutenant Colonel Chrencc D. Long Clerk of court Note.. .................................................................................................. 25 t The Army Court of Military Review in 1990 TJAGSA Practice Nota ................................................................................................... 26 Instructors, The Judge Advocate General's School Criminal Law Noh.. ..................................................................................................
  • Record of Assessment Booklet of the OICNW Assessments

    Record of Assessment Booklet of the OICNW Assessments

    RECORD OF ASSESSMENT This record booklet can be used to document your completion of the proficiency assessments for Officer in Charge of the Navigational Watch (OICNW) in order to meet U.S. Coast Guard requirements for: Third Mate and OICNW Mate 1600 GRT and OICNW Mate 500 GRT and OICNW Quality Maritime Training 8601 4th Street N., Suite 209 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Phone: (727) 209-1811 Toll Free: 1-800-581-5509 www.qualitymaritime.info RECORD OF ASSESSMENT This booklet can be used to document the seventy-nine (79) “Control Sheets” from U.S. Coast Guard CG-543 Policy Letter 11-07, which went into effect on July 1, 2011. The Assessment Control Sheets must be completed to meet U.S. Coast Guard and STCW requirements for an endorsement as Officer in Charge of a Navigation Watch On Vessels of 500 GT or more, which means the following: • Third Mate, Any Gross Tons Near Coastal/Oceans or; • Mate, 1600 GRT Near Coastal/Oceans or; • Mate, 500 GRT Near Coastal/Oceans The assessments of competency may be conducted aboard a seagoing vessel by a mariner who is serving on the vessel upon which the assessments are completed. The assessor must: Hold an STCW endorsement at the management level (STCW Regulation II/2-master or chief mate) valid for service on seagoing vessels of at least 200 GRT/500GT; OR Hold an STCW endorsement as OICNW (2nd Mate, 3rd Mate, or 500/1600 GRT Mate) and have at least one year of experience as OICNW on seagoing vessels of a least 200 GRT/500GT; OR Be serving on a seagoing military vessel of a least 200 GRT/500 GT and is either the Commanding Officer or Executive Officer or is authorized to conduct similar assessments for the U.S.