Naval Combat Battalion?

[eddie]

July 08, 2005

Navy to establish expeditionary and riverine forces

By Andrew Scutro
Times staff writer


The Navy is sailing flank speed into the war on terror. And more sailors will be heading ashore to help fight it.
In a July 6 memorandum from the office of out-going Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark, a copy of which has been obtained by Navy Times, officials spell out a series of actions to “expand the Navy’s capabilities to prosecute” the so-called Global War on Terror.

Key directives call for establishing expeditionary and riverine warfare units with the Navy.

Specifically, Clark has ordered creation of:

• An active component riverine warfare force by 2006 and two reserve component riverine units by 2007.

• A Navy Expeditionary Combat Battalion by 2007. How such a unit would differ from U.S. Marines is unclear.

• A provisional civil affairs battalion attached to Seabees in 2006 and a reserve civil affairs battalion by 2007.

• An active/reserve integrated structure for two Helo Combat Support Special Squadrons, HCS 4 (Red Wolves) and HCS 5 (Firehawks).

• A unit that will be able to “data-mine” information culled from the National Maritime Intelligence Center, which tracks information on global ship traffic.

• A team to exploit intelligence gathered from maritime interdictions.

• A community of Foreign Area Officers who are experts in specific regions of the world, similar to Army and Marine Corps FAOs.

According to the memo, Navy endstrength “should not grow” as a result of the new initiatives may. It also notes, but not specify, possible budget requirements.

Navy officials were unavailable for comment.

Tom Donnelly, a defense analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, DC said the ideas have long been on Clark’s agenda.

“Just as a principle, I applaud the CNO trying to be relevant for the needs of the country,” he said. “Certainly it’s a different attitude than some people in other services who have been waiting for this war to go away.”

Donnelly noted the manpower and budgetary implications.

“It’s not like the Navy has a lot of excess money running around. [These initiatives] are probably not that expensive but they’ll run up against resistance from entrenched communities in the Navy.”

One Navy industry analyst who has seen the memo and requested anonymity, however, strongly criticized the move. He asked why the Navy would take on missions already handled by the Coast Guard and Marine Corps.

Creating an entirely new command and structure, he said, makes little sense.

“In general you are more effective building up things that exist rather than building new organizations,” the analyst said. “The Navy has enough trouble managing today’s Navy without adding new structures.”

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-961657.php
View the CNO’s memorandum. PDF

Any thoughts?

 

[ChuckMK23]

Personally speaking, I think this is a very sound concept for the Navy. It recaptures our littoral and riverine heritage, and put more Naval units up front and exposed to direct action - and opportunities to directly kill and destroy the enemy.

If you do that and do it well, you will get more funding, even better toys, etc.

So I give the CNO a pat on the back for this one!

 

[nittany03]

I thought the article brought up a good point with the issue of duplicating forces. Civil Affairs with Seabees sounds like an outstanding idea; this military sorely needs to develop a good set of "soft skills" for peacekeeping and stabilization. Either that or it's just not getting good media play when it's used.

As for what essentially is Naval Infantry, there's not much detail but I have to wonder why. Isn't that what Marines are for, to differentiate them from the Army? Granted, Sailors have fought as infantry in the past alongside Marines, but as I understand it that was more a response to an undermanned Marine Corps than a permanent part of the Navy.

 

[Fly Navy]

I thought the article brought up a good point with the issue of duplicating forces. Civil Affairs with Seabees sounds like an outstanding idea; this military sorely needs to develop a good set of "soft skills" for peacekeeping and stabilization. Either that or it's just not getting good media play when it's used.

I've always been of the opinion to create a whole other branch or sub-branch dedicated solely to peace keeping. This was probably more relevant in the Clinton days when the military was deployed in more peace keeping actions in his 8 years then in its entire history. But, the fact of the matter is, peace keeping and war fighting are two different skills. I've read lots of material on how the military suffers in training and the ROE are dangerous to them when they're deployed as peace keepers.

As for what essentially is Naval Infantry, there's not much detail but I have to wonder why. Isn't that what Marines are for, to differentiate them from the Army? Granted, Sailors have fought as infantry in the past alongside Marines, but as I understand it that was more a response to an undermanned Marine Corps than a permanent part of the Navy.

The Navy used to have Naval Infantry... but I can't remember if that was the precursor to the Marines, or if they served side-by-side.

 

[A4sForever]

The Navy used to have Naval Infantry... but I can't remember if that was the precursor to the Marines, or if they served side-by-side.

Side-by-side ... concurrent .... sometimes in place of Marines. They used to "supplement" the Marines as there was usually many more sailors than Marines afloat .... small wars and gunboat diplomacy at its finest.

And the Japanese .... they did a pretty credible job in WW2 with "naval infantry" ... a.k.a Japanese marines (Marines with a little "m").

 

[A4sForever]

It sounds like the Navy is thinking about recreating the "Brown Water" navy of the Vietnam years --- or at least something similar. Riverine forces, HAL-3 Seawolves, VAL-4 .... good, tough flying for anyone interested. I think I would be if I was young again .....

The greatest "resistance" these outfits will face will not be from any future enemy buy rather it will be from vested interests in the "Blue Water" Navy .... it's always been this way.

 

[illinijoe05]

It sounds like the Navy is thinking about recreating the "Brown Water" navy of the Vietnam years --- or at least something similar. Riverine forces, HAL-3 Seawolves, VAL-4 .... good, tough flying for anyone interested. I think I would be if I was young again .....

Sign me up...stash time is getting really boring...oh well back to doing nothing

 

[eddie]

I imagined either an MEU with NAVY stenciled on it instead of MARINES, or small boats+amphibious infantry+helos.

Illinijoe05 has the right idea.