Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

A new manning plan

In the summer of 2001, then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark tasked his leaders with finding ways to cut the size of the crews needed to operate and maintain ships.

He understood then that in just a few years, the fleet would include a new family of minimally manned ships: the littoral combat ship, DD(X) and CG(X). Clark wanted sailors ready to drive existing ships with reduced crews so they’d be prepared when the new ships came.

Today, the skyrocketing cost of LCS threatens its long-term viability; the DD(X) program, now called DDG 1000, has been reduced to three ships; and the follow-on cruiser remains at least a decade away.

In the meantime, the centerpiece of the Navy’s warship arsenal remains the same: Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers. Both classes require lots of sailors to run safely and effectively, and will be sailing for years to come.

But the Navy has cut end strength by 60,000 sailors, acquired a new mission that requires deploying 10,000 to 14,000 sailors a year into the war zone on individual augmentee tours, and created the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, which requires thousands more sailors.

The result: a drastically undermanned and overworked fleet. Keeping the minimal manning model in force has worn out the crews consigned to proving the concept. That has led to slipshod maintenance, failed inspections and, in extreme cases, mishaps.

Adm. John Harvey, head of Fleet Forces Command, is doing the right thing by soliciting concerns from sailors and actively reapportioning seagoing and shore billets where they are most needed. Navy manpower planners now must take a hard look at true manning requirements, find inefficiencies ashore and properly man deploying units. If, by the end of all that, they don’t have enough sailors, they need to ask Congress for more.

DISCUSS: Manning