CommunityEditor
03-08-2009, 03:54 PM
The Navy has classified its regular reports about the material condition of its ships, an about-face from when they were available as public documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
The reports, filed by the Board of Inspection and Survey, or InSurv, contain the findings of meticulous, days-long inspections that cover every detail of the workings of surface ships, aircraft carriers and submarines.
Adm. Jonathan Greenert, head of Fleet Forces Command, decided that the reports should be classified because he was concerned about adversaries using them to exploit ships’ weaknesses, said his spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Phil Rosi.
“Because the reports point out material deficiencies that could reveal potentially degraded mission areas on the ships, the Navy determined that this information, if it was divulged, could prove beneficial to a potential enemy by highlighting possible crew or ship difficulties,” Rosi said.
Under the White House’s Executive Order 13292 of 2003, information may be classified only if several conditions are met, including if “the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security.”
But one naval analyst said the reports, full of mundane details about broken fuel pumps or leaky scuttlebutts, couldn’t tell enemies anything about U.S. warships they don’t already know.
“It would be simpler to build no ships at all and conceal that fact under the cloak of specious classification,” said A.D. Baker III, a retired Office of Naval Intelligence analyst and editor of “Combat Fleets of the World.”
“Do we actually have a Navy? Sorry, can’t tell you that, Kyrgyzstan might find out and build a river to the sea.”
Likewise, two members of Congress said the rule change concerned them and could hurt their ability to provide an oversight role over shipbuilding and readiness issues.
The new classification applies to ships that have undergone an InSurv after Dec. 1; reports from before then are still unclassified. Also still unclassified are InSurvs for new-construction ships and submarines on acceptance trials, which haven’t yet been delivered to the Navy. Rosi said he did not know the reasons for the exceptions.
He said no single event spurred the decision to change the rules for classifying InSurvs.
“The Navy review[s] standard procedures, including classification levels of reports, on a pretty routine basis — when needed, we adjust procedures accordingly,” he said.
Rosi said the change was “absolutely not” put in place as a reaction to stories in Navy Times and other publications that have exposed problems on different ships using InSurv reports. And he said that anyone still could request a report under the Freedom of Information Act, but that it would be redacted before it was released. When Navy Times received the InSurv of a ship dated Dec. 12, it was entirely redacted.
In 2008, reports on the destroyer Stout, the cruiser Chosin and the amphibious transport dock New Orleans revealed warships that had severe problems. The Stout and Chosin were deemed “unfit for sustained combat operations,” and the New Orleans couldn’t do its basic job of taking aboard Marines and their gear. Previous InSurvs of New Orleans’ sister ship, the class-leading San Antonio, revealed widespread problems and prompted Navy Secretary Donald Winter to publicly chastise shipbuilder Northrop Grumman.
Oversight implications
Members of Congress worried that the new rule will keep them from getting primary-source information about the material condition of the fleet. Although some staff members are cleared to get InSurv reports, members of Congress would not be able to refer openly to their classified contents in hearings or speeches.
Rep. Eric Massa, a New York Democrat and former surface warfare officer, said he was “extremely concerned” that InSurvs are now classified and that he planned to ask Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead to look into the decision. Massa is a freshman member on the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee.
He remembered being part of many InSurvs over 25 years in the Navy, which included service aboard the battleship New Jersey, and he said one of his priorities in Congress would be to maintain the surface force.
“I’m exceptionally concerned about the material readiness of our fleet,” Massa said. “We’ve been robbing Peter to pay Paul for too long now.”
Rep. Rob Wittman, a Virginia Republican and another member of the subcommittee, said in a written statement that he agreed with concerns about InSurvs falling into the wrong hands, but he also asserted Congress’ need to monitor the Navy.
“In the interest of operational security I understand that certain aspects of InSurv reports could be classified; however, I am deeply concerned that a decision to classify these reports across the board would inhibit the Congress’s ability to provide necessary and constitutionally-mandated oversight,” Wittman said.
Article: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/03/navy_insurv_030809w/
The reports, filed by the Board of Inspection and Survey, or InSurv, contain the findings of meticulous, days-long inspections that cover every detail of the workings of surface ships, aircraft carriers and submarines.
Adm. Jonathan Greenert, head of Fleet Forces Command, decided that the reports should be classified because he was concerned about adversaries using them to exploit ships’ weaknesses, said his spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Phil Rosi.
“Because the reports point out material deficiencies that could reveal potentially degraded mission areas on the ships, the Navy determined that this information, if it was divulged, could prove beneficial to a potential enemy by highlighting possible crew or ship difficulties,” Rosi said.
Under the White House’s Executive Order 13292 of 2003, information may be classified only if several conditions are met, including if “the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security.”
But one naval analyst said the reports, full of mundane details about broken fuel pumps or leaky scuttlebutts, couldn’t tell enemies anything about U.S. warships they don’t already know.
“It would be simpler to build no ships at all and conceal that fact under the cloak of specious classification,” said A.D. Baker III, a retired Office of Naval Intelligence analyst and editor of “Combat Fleets of the World.”
“Do we actually have a Navy? Sorry, can’t tell you that, Kyrgyzstan might find out and build a river to the sea.”
Likewise, two members of Congress said the rule change concerned them and could hurt their ability to provide an oversight role over shipbuilding and readiness issues.
The new classification applies to ships that have undergone an InSurv after Dec. 1; reports from before then are still unclassified. Also still unclassified are InSurvs for new-construction ships and submarines on acceptance trials, which haven’t yet been delivered to the Navy. Rosi said he did not know the reasons for the exceptions.
He said no single event spurred the decision to change the rules for classifying InSurvs.
“The Navy review[s] standard procedures, including classification levels of reports, on a pretty routine basis — when needed, we adjust procedures accordingly,” he said.
Rosi said the change was “absolutely not” put in place as a reaction to stories in Navy Times and other publications that have exposed problems on different ships using InSurv reports. And he said that anyone still could request a report under the Freedom of Information Act, but that it would be redacted before it was released. When Navy Times received the InSurv of a ship dated Dec. 12, it was entirely redacted.
In 2008, reports on the destroyer Stout, the cruiser Chosin and the amphibious transport dock New Orleans revealed warships that had severe problems. The Stout and Chosin were deemed “unfit for sustained combat operations,” and the New Orleans couldn’t do its basic job of taking aboard Marines and their gear. Previous InSurvs of New Orleans’ sister ship, the class-leading San Antonio, revealed widespread problems and prompted Navy Secretary Donald Winter to publicly chastise shipbuilder Northrop Grumman.
Oversight implications
Members of Congress worried that the new rule will keep them from getting primary-source information about the material condition of the fleet. Although some staff members are cleared to get InSurv reports, members of Congress would not be able to refer openly to their classified contents in hearings or speeches.
Rep. Eric Massa, a New York Democrat and former surface warfare officer, said he was “extremely concerned” that InSurvs are now classified and that he planned to ask Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead to look into the decision. Massa is a freshman member on the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee.
He remembered being part of many InSurvs over 25 years in the Navy, which included service aboard the battleship New Jersey, and he said one of his priorities in Congress would be to maintain the surface force.
“I’m exceptionally concerned about the material readiness of our fleet,” Massa said. “We’ve been robbing Peter to pay Paul for too long now.”
Rep. Rob Wittman, a Virginia Republican and another member of the subcommittee, said in a written statement that he agreed with concerns about InSurvs falling into the wrong hands, but he also asserted Congress’ need to monitor the Navy.
“In the interest of operational security I understand that certain aspects of InSurv reports could be classified; however, I am deeply concerned that a decision to classify these reports across the board would inhibit the Congress’s ability to provide necessary and constitutionally-mandated oversight,” Wittman said.
Article: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/03/navy_insurv_030809w/