Hubbry Logo
Fleet problemFleet problemMain
Open search
Fleet problem
Community hub
Fleet problem
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Fleet problem
Fleet problem
from Wikipedia

United States Navy Fleet Problems
1922–1940
Washington Naval Treaty United States Navy in World War II class-skin-invert-image
USS Ranger (CV-4), USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Saratoga (CV-3) at anchor off Honolulu on 8 April 1938, during Fleet Problem XIX
LocationPacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Panama Canal Zone

The Fleet Problems were a series of United States Navy exercises conducted in the interwar period, later resurrected by the United States Pacific Fleet around 2016.

The first twenty-one Fleet Problems — labeled by Navy leadership as Fleet Problem I through Fleet Problem XXI — were conducted between 1923 and 1940. The culmination of the Navy's annual training maneuvers, they were unscripted, free play exercises involving large concentrations of ships, airplanes, and troops.[1] Fleet Problem XXII, scheduled for 1941, was canceled because of rising tensions with Japan on the eve of the US's entry into World War II.[2] Following the outbreak of war, Fleet Problems underwent a prolonged hiatus, with other names being used to describe large American naval exercises. However, the term was revived in the 21st century under Admiral Scott H. Swift, with Fleet Problem XXIII through XXVIII taking place in the Pacific from 2016 on.[3] Since 2018, the US Navy has not publicly used the historical roman numeral numbering scheme.

Interwar Fleet Problems

[edit]
The Naval War College, incubator for much of the US Navy's reform movement in the late 19th and early 20th century.

The Fleet problems of the 1920's and 1930's were an evolutionary step from existing fleet training exercises. In the 1870's and 1880's, the US Navy was heavily influenced by a reform movement, championed by progressive officers like Admiral William Sims, Admiral Stephen Luce, and Alfred Thayer Mahan.[4] This generation of reform-oriented officers sought to grow the US Navy into a credible battle fleet, which required improving the Navy's equipment, personnel, and training. This movement prompted the creation of the United States Naval Institute in 1873 and the Naval War College in 1884, which both became intellectual hubs for further reform.[5] Modern shipbuilding began in 1882, replacing the largely decrepit wooden-hulled ships built during and after the Civil War with new, steel-hulled vessels, beginning with USS Dolphin.[6] Finally, after the number of modern warships increased throughout the 1880s, large-scale fleet exercises began in 1889.[1] Large-scale exercises continued on a regular basis until the United States entered World War I in 1917.[1][7] The US Navy again held a large exercise in 1921, but remained administratively divided into Pacific and Atlantic Fleets until the creation of the United States Fleet in 1922. This large concentration of peacetime forces under a unified staff and commander (a position known as the Commander-in-Chief, US Fleet, or CINCUS), Admiral Hilary P. Jones, set the stage for the mass exercises that would become known as fleet problems.[1][8]

Fleet Problem I

[edit]
Diagram of maneuvers during Fleet Problem I

From their first announcement, the fleet problems were national news. On 25 December 1922, the New York Times reported about the upcoming exercises for the first time, proclaiming that "all eighteen of the battleships which the United States Government is permitted to retain by the five-power naval treaty will be engaged in these manoeuvres, representing an aggregate of 500,650 tons."[9]

Fleet Problem I was held off the coast of Panama in February and March 1923.[10][11] 165 ships and nearly 40,000 men, sailing from both coasts of the United States, participated in the exercise. The United States Battle Fleet, which constituted the attacking Black force, was tasked with attacking the Panama Canal. Shortly after the ships of the United States Scouting Fleet—which, playing the Blue Force, was tasked to defend the Panama Canal—the canal into the Pacific, Black Force launched a simulated air raid. Two battleships, USS New York (BB-34) and USS Oklahoma (BB-37) simulated aircraft carriers modeled after the under-construction USS Langley (CV-1). A single plane launched from Oklahoma—representing a 15-plane squadron—dropped 10 miniature bombs and theoretically "destroyed" the spillway of the Gatun Dam.[12][13] This trapped the ships of the defending Blue Force in the Gulf of Panama, and allowed the Black Force to make a unopposed surface attack on the coast, ending the fleet problem.[14] The exercise ended with a gunnery exercise, with the fleet sinking the pre-dreadnought battleship USS Iowa. Fleet Problem I was widely regarded as a success, including by members of Congress and reporters who had observed the fleets in action, setting the stage for a repeated experimentation in future years.[15]

US fleet off the coast of Panama, 1 March 1923

Fleet Problems II, III, and IV

[edit]

Fleet Problems II, III, and IV all represented different phases of the same scenario, exploring the initial moves in a notional war against Japan, and took place within the same two months of 1924.[11] These exercises allowed the Army and Navy to validate and practice portions of War Plan Orange, the operations plan for a hypothetical war against Japan in the Pacific, which was formally adopted by the Joint Army and Navy Board later that year.

Fleet Problem II

[edit]

Fleet Problem II, which ran from 2 to 15 January, followed the movement of the Battle Fleet, designated as the "Blue Force", from its base on the West Coast to Panama. This was designed to simulate the first leg of an advance from Hawaii towards Asia, especially how well the ships could handle the long transoceanic voyage.[16][11] During Fleet Problem II, the Navy refined at sea refueling techniques, including refueling side-by-side for the first time between the oiler Cuyama (AO-3) and three other ships.[17]

Fleet Problem III and Grand Joint Army-Navy Exercise No. 2

[edit]

During Fleet Problem III, the Scouting Force, designated the "Black Force," transited from its homeport in the Chesapeake Bay towards the Panama Canal from the Caribbean side. Once in the Caribbean, the naval forces involved in Fleet Problem III joined with the 15th Naval District and the Army's Panama Division in a larger joint exercise.[18] The Blue force defended the canal from an attack from the Caribbean by the Black force, operating from an advance base in the Azores. This portion of the exercise also aimed to practice amphibious landing techniques and transiting a fleet rapidly through the Panama Canal from the Pacific side.[19]

Black Fleet's intelligence officers simulated a number of sabotage operations during the course of Fleet Problem III. On 14 January, Lieutenant Hamilton Bryan, Scouting Force's Intelligence Officer, personally landed in Panama with a small boat. Posing as a journalist, he entered the Panama Canal Zone. There, he "detonated" a series of simulated bombs in the Gatun Locks, control station, and fuel depot, along with simulating sabotaging power lines and communications cables throughout the 16th and 17th, before escaping to his fleet on a sailboat.

On the 15th, one of Bryan's junior officers, Ensign Thomas Hederman, also snuck ashore to the Miraflores Locks. He learned the Blue Fleet's schedule of passage through the Canal from locals, and prepared to board USS California (BB-44), but turned back when he spotted classmates from the United States Naval Academy - who would have recognized and questioned him - on deck. Instead, he boarded USS New York (BB-34), the next ship in line, disguised as an enlisted sailor. After hiding overnight, he emerged early on the morning of the 17th, bluffed his way into the magazine of the No. 3 turret, and simulated blowing up a suicide bomb - just as the battleship was passing through the Culebra Cut, the narrowest portion of the Panama Canal. This "sank" New York, and blocked the Canal, leading the exercise arbiters to rule a defeat of the Blue Force and end that year's Grand Joint Army-Navy Exercise.[20][19] Fleet Problem III was also the first which USS Langley (CV-1) took part in, replacing some of the simulated aircraft carriers used in Fleet Problem I.[21]

Fleet Problem IV

[edit]

The 1924 series culminated with Fleet Problem IV, running from 23 January to 1 February. Designed to simulate offensive amphibious operations against Japan, the Blue Fleet was based in Panama—simulating US forces based in the Philippines—while the Black Fleet, made up of the Special Service Squadron, was tasked with defending Puerto Rico—simulating Japanese defenders of Okinawa. Over the week of gameplay, Black aircraft attacked Blue forces consistently, but failed to prevent an amphibious landing - which allowed the US Marine Corps to test their new landing craft, the Christie amphibious tank, and combat logistics techniques. Fleet Problem IV met with serious criticism for having high levels of notional units - units that existed on paper, not in real life. Nearly 10% of Blue's ships and almost 70% of Black's forces were simulated. Vice Admiral Newton McCully argued that "In all exercises, constructive forces or features should be reduced to a minimum," and no later Fleet Problem used the same high level of simulated forces.[22][11]

Fleet Problem V

[edit]
USS Langley (CV-1) in 1924, the year before her participation in Fleet Problem V.

Fleet Problem V ran from 23 February to 12 March 1925. The Black Force, the aggressor, was formed from the United States Battle Fleet, including the US' first aircraft carrier, USS Langley (CV-1), along with two seaplane tenders. This gave Black 80 aircraft, while Blue Force, formed out of the Scouting Fleet, was allotted only about 30 floatplanes, half of which were fictional. Even these had limited utility, since the floatplanes carried by Wyoming, one of Blue Force's battleships, could not be launched for lack of a working catapult.[23] The two fleets made only limited contact on 10 March, when several Blue submarines spotted and attacked the Black fleet, before being sunk by Blue escorts.[24] By the conclusion of the exercise on 15 March, the two fleets had yet to make contact. Admiral Robert Coontz, then serving as CINCUS, remarked that "in some respects, it was a most interesting problem, as it showed that fleets might pass each other unawares."[25] To avoid this issue in later exercises, Fleet Problems VI and VII both began with the two fleets in close proximity to one another.[26]

While lacking a climactic battle, the exercise did improve the Navy's adoption of emerging technologies. Langley's positive performance helped speed the completion of aircraft carriers Lexington and Saratoga, and increased the role of aircraft onboard battleships and cruisers.[27][25] The observed limitations of existing S-class submarines spurred a requirement for larger "fleet submarines," with the range and speed to act as scouts for the battle fleet.[28] Both fleets failed to observe radio silence, allowing their opponents to collect transmissions, perform cryptanalysis, and in Black's case, to break Blue's codes. Throughout the exercise, both sides were able to locate the other through these methods.[28]

While returning to San Francisco later that month, the fleet was followed closely by the Japanese tanker Hyatoma Maru, leading the fleet to tighten its communication security in an attempt to prevent espionage.[25] Fleet Problem V was immediately followed by Grand Joint Army-Navy Exercise No. 3, in which the US Fleet simulated an attack on the Hawaiian Islands to assist the Army in testing and improving their defenses of the territory. The exercise was a failure for the Army; the fleet was able to transit from California to Hawaii undetected by Army patrol planes, and landed the 1st Marine Provisional Marines on Molokai. A series of other contested amphibious landings followed, and by the time the exercise ended on 27 April 1925, almost 30,000 Marines (most fictional, represented by smaller units) were advancing on Schofield Barracks, well into the interior of Oahu. Five days of extensive debrief followed the exercise, which CINCUS Admiral Coontz described as "the best I've ever seen." Army and Navy leadership widely agreed on the need to improve Hawaii's defenses, increasing the size of the garrison and expanding aircraft bases. They disagreed, however, on the efficacy of land-based aircraft against a battle fleet. Army pilots thought highly of their ability to find and defeat ships, reinforcing a misconception that continued until late in World War II, when the Army's failure to effectively sink Japanese ships with land-based aircraft became evident.[24]

Following the conclusion of this exercise in late April, the US Scouting Fleet returned to the East Coast via the Panama Canal, while much of the US Battle Fleet continued on to Australia and New Zealand. The Battle Fleet's voyage lasted until October of 1925, and was the only time that the majority of the interwar US Navy left the Western Hemisphere.[29]

Fleet Problem VI

[edit]

Fleet Problem VI, held in February 1926, was the shortest in the series. The entire event lasted only 64 hours and took place exclusively in a small maneuver area off the coast of Panama. It was designed to test a discrete portion of War Plan Orange: the ability of an American naval force to relieve an Army garrison under siege in Manila. Blue (playing the US) was tasked with protecting convoys en route to the notional base, while Black was tasked with attacking the convoys.[30] It also featured further tests of underway refueling. Fleet Problem VI was notable in being the first exercise to include an aircraft carrier within a circular defensive formation, pioneering a practice that became commonplace in World War II.[11][31]

Fleet Problem VII

[edit]

Fleet Problem VII was held in March 1927, with further exercises continuing until May. It focused on the same tasks of convoy defense and relief of a besieged garrison as Fleet Problem VI, and again used the Panama Canal as a stand-in for Manila.[11][32] The highlight of the exercise was Langley’s successful air raid on the Panama Canal, which led CINCUS Charles F. Hughes and Panama Department Commanding General Charles H. Martin to jointly call for strengthening the air defenses of the Canal Zone.[32]

The wargame floor at the Naval War College, where scenarios like Fleet Problem VII were played out in the interwar period.

Uniquely, Fleet Problem VII and the subsequent amphibious exercises featured the Naval War College in a major role. Simultaneously with the live event in the Caribbean, the Naval War College played the same scenario out on their wargame floor. This allowed for rapid comparison of events. While an initial debrief was held on station, a more formal debrief took place at the Naval War College in Newport several weeks later, led by Admiral Charles Hughes, that meshed lessons from both the real-world and wargame scenarios.[33]

Fleet Problem VIII

[edit]

Held in April 1928 between California and Hawaii and pitted Orange, a cruiser force from Pearl Harbor, versus Blue, the Battle Force.[11][34][35] It also involved a convoy search and anti-submarine operations.[36]

Fleet Problem IX

[edit]

This scenario in January 1929 studied the effects of an attack upon the Panama Canal and conducted the operations necessary to carry out such an eventuality, and pitted the Battle Fleet (less submarines and Lexington) against a combination of forces including the Scouting Force (augmented by Lexington), the Control Forces, Train Squadron 1, and 15th Naval District and local army defense forces.[11] These forces represented a significant commitment of the total US Navy: 72% of the fleet's battleships, 68% of the destroyers, and 52% of modern combat aircraft were involved in the scenario.[37] In a daring move, Saratoga was detached from the fleet with only a single cruiser as escort to make a wide sweep to the south and "attack" the Panama Canal, which was defended by the Scouting Fleet and Saratoga's sister ship, Lexington. She successfully launched her strike on 26 January and, despite being "sunk" three times later in the day, proved the versatility of a carrier-based fast task force.

Fleet Problem X

[edit]

Held in 1930 in Caribbean waters.[38] This time, however, Saratoga and Langley were "disabled" by a surprise attack from Lexington, showing how quickly air power could swing the balance in a naval action.

Fleet Problem XI

[edit]

Held in April 1930 in the Caribbean.[39]

Fleet Problem XII

[edit]
USS Los Angeles moored to USS Patoka, along with other ships off Panama during Fleet Problem XII.

Held in 1931 in waters west of Central America and Panama. Black, attacking from the west, was to land forces and establish bases in Central America and destroy the Panama Canal, while Blue defended with an aviation-heavy fleet.

Blue's two carrier groups, centered on Saratoga and Lexington, attacked the invasion fleets but failed to stop the landings and got too close to the Black fleets.[40]

Fleet Problem XIII

[edit]

Fleet Problem XIII began in March 1932, one month after Army/Navy Grand Joint Exercise 4. Blue, based in Hawaii, was to sail east and invade three "enemy" ports on the North American Pacific coastline to try to gain a foothold for future operations. Blue had nine battleships, one aircraft carrier, and many lesser ships. Black defended with one modern aircraft carrier and some fictional battleships, as well as a number of actual cruisers, submarines, and many other ships.[41]

Blue's advance was quickly located by Black's picket line of submarines which then took heavy losses from air attack. Both sides put a priority on destroying the enemy aircraft carrier, launching air attacks almost simultaneously after a few days of probing. Significant damage was laid on both carriers, with Blue's carrier eventually "sunk" by torpedo from a Black destroyer.[41]

After-action critiques stressed the growing importance of naval aviation, and an increased need for the construction of aircraft carriers in the event of a war in the Pacific.[42] Submarines operating at or near the surface were seen to be critically vulnerable to air observation and attack.[43] The exercise showed that one carrier was insufficient for either fleet attack or area defense, so the practice of two or more carriers operating together became policy. Admiral Harry E. Yarnell said that six to eight carriers would be required for a Pacific campaign, but no orders were placed for new carriers, as Depression-era financial difficulties caused President Herbert Hoover to limit naval expenses.[41]

Fleet Problem XIV

[edit]

Held 10–17 February 1933, Fleet Problem XIV was the first naval exercise to test simulated aircraft carrier attacks against the west coast of the United States. Pacific cities had for decades vied for permanent stationing of U.S. military assets, and vulnerabilities exposed through the exercises were used by metropolitan navy boosters to leverage their cases. In spite of early Navy plans for San Francisco to be home port for the main west coast fleet, these plans had failed to materialize with San Diego incrementally gaining the majority of navy investments.

Fleet Problem XIV occurred the month before Franklin D. Roosevelt, a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, took the office of the presidency. The results of the exercise between the U.S. Navy's Black and Blue fleets, were mixed. The simulated attacks had certainly been mitigated by the defensive Blue fleet, however the Black fleet had scored key victories with strikes on San Pedro and San Francisco, California.[44]

Fleet Problem XV

[edit]

Held in May 1934 in Hawaii, this was a three-phase exercise which encompassed an attack upon and defense of the Panama Canal, the capture of advanced bases, and a major fleet engagement.[38][45]

Fleet Problem XVI

[edit]

Held in May 1935 in the northern Pacific off the coast of Alaska and in waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands, this operation was divided into five distinct phases, modeled on proposals for a US offensive in the Pacific.[46] The largest of these interwar exercises, Fleet Problem XVI was seen as a provocation by Japan, which conducted its own major exercise in response.[47]

Fleet Problem XVII

[edit]

This problem took place off the west coast of the U.S., Central America, and the Panama Canal Zone in the spring of 1936. It was a five-phase exercise devoted to preparing the fleet for anti-submarine operations, testing communications systems, and training of aircraft patrol squadrons for extended fleet operations, and pitted the Battle Force against the submarine-augmented Scouting Force.[46][48]

Fleet Problem XVIII

[edit]

This exercise was held in May 1937 in Alaskan waters and in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands and Midway, practicing the tactics of seizing advanced base sites—a technique later to be polished to a high degree into close support and amphibious warfare doctrines.[46]

Fleet Problem XIX

[edit]
Ranger, foreground; Lexington, middle distance; and Saratoga, background, lie at anchor off Honolulu, Hawaii, 8 April 1938 during Fleet Problem XIX.

This operation in April and May 1938 gave the navy added experience in search tactics; in the use of submarines, destroyers, and aircraft in scouting and attack; in the dispositions of the fleet; and in the conduct of a major fleet battle. In addition, the exercise again dealt with the matter of seizing advanced fleet bases and defending them against minor opposition. Fleet Problem XIX also tested the capabilities of the Hawaiian Defense Force, augmenting it with fleet units to help to defend the islands against the United States Fleet as a whole. The last phase of the exercise exercised the fleet in operations against a defended coastline.[46][49]

Fleet Problem XX

[edit]

Took place in February 1939 in the Caribbean and Atlantic, and observed in person by President Franklin Roosevelt.[13][50][51] The exercise simulated the defense of the East Coast of the United States and Latin America by the Black team from the invading White team.[52] Participating in the maneuvers were 134 ships, 600 planes, and over 52,000 officers and men.[51]

Fleet Problem XXI

[edit]

Problem XXI was the first since Problem IX in 1928 that did not involve almost all of the active fleet. World War II had already begun in Europe, and the US Navy had been called upon to provide "Neutrality Patrols" in the Atlantic Ocean. Over 60 warships, including the aircraft carrier USS Ranger (CV-4), were engaged in these Atlantic patrols at the time of Fleet Problem XXI, which ran from 1 April to 17 May 1940, shrinking the wargame.[53]

Fleet Problem XXI was preceded in March with a mobilization exercise, where a simulated period of rising tension allowed the US Navy to practice distribution of secret orders, personnel recall, contingency planning, and other aspects of pre-war crisis. By 3 April, the various participating fleet units had traveled to their starting positions, forming two teams: White, playing the US, operated out of Hawaii and Guam, while Black, playing Japan, operated out of major ports on the West Coast.[54]

Despite the war in Europe, President Roosevelt suggested to CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) Harold Stark that the 1940 fleet problem focus on the southwest Pacific. Owing to logistical concerns, CINCUS (Commander-in-chief, US Fleet) Admiral James Richardson decided to hold the exercise (8–23 April 1940) in the vicinity of Hawaii on the premise of an enemy advancing toward Hawaii with an invasion force after having taken the Philippines. The American fleet, under the command of Admiral Adolphus Andrews, was ordered to prevent the seizure of an advanced base in the Hawaiian islands by the enemy force. Adm. Andrews decided to concentrate his fleet near Lahaina, between the enemy and the anticipated landing site in the expectation of engaging the enemy fleet in a decisive sea battle. However, the enemy commander, Admiral Charles P. Snyder, divided his forces, resulting in an inconclusive battleship engagement and the enemy's expeditionary force reaching its destination.[55]

On 7 May, just days after the conclusion of Fleet Problem XXI, the fleet received orders to stay in Hawaii as a deterrent against Japan's growing aggressiveness.[56] This decision was controversial; Admiral James Richardson, who was Commander in Chief, United States Fleet, protested that the fleet would be left vulnerable to air attack, as evidenced by years of successful air attacks simulated in the Fleet Problems. After months of objection, Admiral Richardson was eventually dismissed. The fleet stayed in Hawaii throughout the rising crisis with Japan, where it was attacked by Japanese air forces on December 7th, 1941.[citation needed]

Fleet Problem XXII

[edit]

There were four proposals for the Fleet Problem scheduled for 1941, with hypothetical exercise areas in the Marshall Islands, Panama, the coast of Mexico, and the Northeastern Pacific. By 3 December 1940, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Harold Stark had cancelled the exercise based on the worsening global situation. In the eighteen years since Fleet Problem I, the series of exercises had become high-profile enough that the cancellation made the front page of the New York Times. Reporter Leland Speers described how, due to international tensions, the fleet would remain concentrated in Pearl Harbor and was engaging in "practically continuous" gunnery training.[57][58] The fleet would remain in and around Pearl Harbor until raided by Japanese air forces on 7 December 1941, which prompted the United States' entry into World War II. Following the US victory in World War II, the United States Navy adopted a strategy of forward deployment, portioning fractions of the total battle fleet out in bases around the world. This left no concentration of forces sufficient to hold maneuvers on the scale of the interwar Fleet Problems.[59]

21st Century Fleet Problems

[edit]
USS Carl Vinson in 2012, several years before leading Fleet Problem XXIII.

Under Admiral Scott Swift, the US Pacific Fleet resurrected the fleet Problem series in 2016, continuing the interwar naming scheme with Fleet Problem XXIII. Problem XXIII centered around Carrier Strike Group One, led by the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson.[3] Pacific Fleet held five more Fleet Problems before Admiral Swift announced the series in an article of USNI Proceedings in early 2018. Later in 2018, Carrier Strike Group Nine participated in a Fleet Problem involving a contested transit from San Diego to Hawaii, which Rear Admiral Steve Koehler described as "a complete free-play high-end event."[60] In 2021, an unnumbered Fleet Problem included a large number of unmanned vehicles led from USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001), a Zumwalt-class destroyer.[3][61]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
The Fleet Problems were a series of twenty-one annual exercises conducted by the from 1923 to 1940, involving up to the entire fleet in simulated campaigns across the Pacific and to test operational doctrines, tactics, and the integration of emerging technologies such as aircraft carriers and against hypothetical adversaries modeled on potential peer competitors like . These maneuvers, which evolved from post-World War I tactical drills into comprehensive strategic simulations, emphasized offensive fluidity, carrier-based air power, and amphibious assaults, foreshadowing key elements of in despite persistent institutional adherence to battleship-centric thinking. Initiated with Fleet Problem I in 1923 off the coast of to rehearse defenses against incursions through the canal, the exercises progressively incorporated larger forces and novel scenarios, such as independent carrier task forces in Fleet Problem X () and surprise strikes simulating attacks on in Fleet Problem XIII (1932), where Rear Admiral Harry Yarnell's "enemy" fleet successfully raided under cover of fog, demonstrating base vulnerabilities that were later criticized for being inadequately addressed in prewar planning. Achievements included pioneering carrier doctrine, with early successes by USS Langley and Saratoga validating air strikes over surface gunnery in fleet engagements, and refining joint operations that informed the Navy's adaptability during the Pacific campaign, though critiques persist that bureaucratic resistance limited full doctrinal shifts until combat realities intervened. The final exercise, Fleet Problem XXI in 1940, tested defensive strategies amid rising global tensions, marking the end of these peacetime innovations as the nation mobilized for war.

Background and Establishment

Historical Context Post-World War I

Following the end of World War I, the United States Navy rapidly demobilized, releasing approximately 400,000 personnel within the first year after the Armistice of November 11, 1918, shrinking from a wartime strength exceeding 500,000 to a peacetime force of around 130,000 by the early 1920s. This reduction, coupled with the disposal of many auxiliary vessels built for antisubmarine warfare, left the fleet focused on capital ships but constrained by fiscal austerity and the absence of recent large-scale combat experience in fleet engagements. The , signed on February 6, 1922, further reshaped naval priorities by establishing a 5:5:3 tonnage ratio among the , , and , limiting U.S. and construction to 525,000 tons and mandating the scrapping of 15 existing or under-construction s. This agreement averted an but compelled the to emphasize cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and nascent aircraft carriers, such as the , converted from a collier in 1922, while testing integration of aviation within treaty constraints. Amid these changes, —formulated in the immediate postwar years and revised periodically through the interwar era—envisioned a trans-Pacific offensive against to relieve the , highlighting the need for practical validation of doctrines like long-range scouting, carrier strikes, and fleet logistics in vast oceanic theaters. With providing lessons primarily in convoy protection rather than decisive fleet battles, leaders, including Admiral Edward W. Eberle (1919–1927), advocated for at-sea maneuvers to simulate war conditions, bridge the gap between wargaming at the and real operations, and adapt to technologies like radio-directed gunnery and air power. These imperatives culminated in the inaugural Fleet Problem I in February–March 1923 near , marking the start of systematic exercises to hone tactics for potential Pacific conflicts.

Objectives and Organizational Framework

The Fleet Problems were designed primarily to train naval personnel in large-scale operations, simulate wartime conditions, and evaluate the integration of emerging technologies such as aircraft carriers and amphibious forces into fleet tactics. These exercises addressed post-World War I doctrinal gaps by testing assumptions from , which anticipated conflict with , through realistic scenarios involving long-distance transits, , and decisive engagements. Objectives included refining procedures, assessing logistical sustainment over extended ranges, and identifying vulnerabilities in battleship-centric formations to air and attacks, thereby fostering adaptability in a resource-constrained environment under naval treaties. Organizationally, the exercises were conducted annually from to , involving up to 70-80% of the Navy's major combatants, including battleships, cruisers, destroyers, and the limited carrier force, divided into opposing "Blue" (representing U.S. forces, often defensive) and "Black" or "Orange" (simulating an aggressor, typically ) fleets. Command was exercised by fleet commanders under the oversight of the , with scenarios developed by the Navy's General Board to reflect strategic priorities like canal defense or island seizures; for instance, Fleet Problem IX in 1929 pitted Black forces attempting to neutralize the against Blue defenders. Participating units operated under wartime mobilization protocols, including reserve activations and fuel rationing to mimic operational constraints. The framework emphasized empirical evaluation through umpiring by senior officers using rules derived from pre-war wargames at the , with decisions on simulated outcomes based on observed maneuvers, effectiveness, and gunnery/air strike approximations rather than strict adherence to pre-existing . Post-exercise critiques, disseminated via official reports, prioritized lessons on carrier task force independence and amphibious feasibility, influencing updates to tactical manuals and force structure recommendations, though implementation often lagged due to resistance and limitations. This iterative process ensured the exercises served as a bridge between theoretical planning and practical warfighting proficiency.

Interwar Fleet Problems (1923–1941)

Fleet Problem I

Fleet Problem I, the inaugural large-scale fleet exercise of the interwar period, took place in 1923 off the coast of Panama. The maneuver involved U.S. Navy vessels from the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Pacific fleets, organized under the battleship squadron and scouting force structure established following the Washington Naval Treaty. This structure concentrated all battleships in a single squadron, with cruisers, destroyers, and other units in the scouting force to emphasize reconnaissance and screening roles. The scenario simulated defense of the against an aggressor force, designated Orange to represent a Pacific threat akin to , initiating operations without a formal . Commanded by Admiral Hilary P. Jones, the Blue force—standing in for U.S. interests—aimed to test fleet readiness, coordination of , and tactical responses to surprise attacks on vital . The exercise incorporated early experiments with and subsurface elements, reflecting post-World War I doctrinal shifts toward integrated operations beyond traditional battleship-centric engagements. Outcomes revealed significant challenges in fleet maneuverability and command, with the Blue force ultimately deemed defeated due to vulnerabilities in and response times. Deficiencies in communication systems, particularly for synchronizing , reconnaissance, and surface units, were highlighted as critical barriers to effective operations. These findings prompted recommendations for refined signaling protocols and enhanced training in joint force integration, influencing subsequent exercises and the evolution of U.S. .

Fleet Problems II–IV

Fleet Problem II, held in 1924, simulated the opening phase of a fleet advance westward across the Pacific Ocean, with exercises conducted in the to test long-distance operations and logistical sustainment. Key innovations included trials of using the "riding abeam" or broadside method, where ships refueled alongside each other at sea to extend operational range without halting the fleet. This addressed limitations in fuel endurance for battleship-heavy formations, revealing practical challenges in maintaining formation speed and stability during transfers. Fleet Problem III, conducted later in 1924 as part of Grand Joint Army-Navy Exercise No. 2, centered on defending the against an invasion from the approaches. The Blue force, representing U.S. defenders, faced a Black force simulating an enemy fleet advancing from bases in the or departing from , which attempted sabotage and amphibious assault. The attackers "sank" the battleship New York in the through simulated strikes, exposing gaps in canal fortifications, effectiveness, and joint Army-Navy coordination for repelling landings. Outcomes underscored the canal's strategic vulnerability and prompted refinements in defensive tactics, including enhanced air with the seaplane tender and early integration of Marine detachments for shore defense. Fleet Problem IV, completed in 1924, modeled an offensive fleet movement from a forward base in the western Pacific to assault Japanese home islands, substituting and Pacific coastal areas for realism in transit and concentration maneuvers. The exercise involved dividing forces into scouting elements and main battle fleets to practice rendezvous after dispersal, testing command-and-control over vast distances with limited communications. It highlighted issues in fleet cohesion during high-speed advances and the nascent role of aircraft carriers like Langley for , though battleships remained central to strike forces. Lessons reinforced the need for robust trains and improved signaling to counter enemy interception in a War Plan Orange scenario.

Fleet Problem V

Fleet Problem V, held from February 23 to April 1925, simulated a naval assault on to evaluate fleet tactics, carrier integration, and defensive preparations against a Pacific aggressor. The exercise divided forces into Black (aggressor, drawn from the ) and Blue (defender), with Black incorporating the , the U.S. Navy's first , alongside seaplane tenders and supporting vessels equipped for aerial operations. Blue lacked dedicated carriers, relying on battleship-based aircraft like those on USS Wyoming, which proved ineffective due to catapult malfunctions. Key maneuvers included Black's approach via refueling at sea and an auxiliary operation near off , where forces practiced assaults on lightly defended positions to test logistical sustainment and rapid strikes. Carrier aviation from Langley demonstrated offensive potential in scouting and simulated strikes, highlighting aircraft's role in disrupting enemy formations ahead of surface engagement. However, the exercise exposed vulnerabilities in , as both sides repeatedly intercepted signals—Black decrypted Blue's codes, while Blue obtained positional fixes on Black battleships—underscoring the need for enhanced cryptography and . Outcomes favored Black's aggressive tactics, with Langley's performance validating carrier utility and prompting accelerated construction of larger vessels like USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Saratoga (CV-3). The problem transitioned into Grand Joint Army-Navy Exercise No. 3, extending the Hawaii scenario to integrate ground defenses, but naval critiques emphasized carrier scouting's edge over battleship-centric defenses. Lessons reinforced experimentation with and , influencing interwar doctrinal shifts toward balanced fleet compositions amid treaty-limited battleship numbers.

Fleet Problem VI

Fleet Problem VI was conducted from February 11 to 13, 1926, off the west coast of in Bay. This exercise marked the shortest in the series, lasting only 64 hours and confined to a small maneuver area. It involved the Scouting Fleet transiting the on February 4–5 to rendezvous with the , testing the Navy's ability to rapidly concentrate forces across theaters. The scenario focused on operations related to potential attacks on the , building on prior exercises' emphasis on canal defense amid concerns over vulnerabilities to enemy raids. USS Langley (CV-1) participated, steaming south from the U.S. to join the maneuvers and evaluate early carrier integration in fleet operations. However, detailed records—including orders, instructions, and operational reports—have been lost, limiting analysis of tactics, outcomes, or specific . This scarcity underscores challenges in historical reconstruction but aligns with the exercises' broader goal of refining joint fleet responsiveness in strategic chokepoints.

Fleet Problem VII

Fleet Problem VII was conducted by the from to 14, 1927, in the , simulating the defense of the against an aggressor force designated as the "Black Fleet." The exercise tested fleet tactics for protecting vital infrastructure, including convoy escort operations and responses to amphibious threats, with the Blue Force () defending against simulated attacks on the canal zone. USS Langley (CV-1), the Navy's first , participated prominently after sorting with the on February 17, 1927. Operating in the exercise, Langley launched aircraft for reconnaissance, fleet air defense, and simulated bombing strikes on enemy surface units, highlighting the emerging role of carrier aviation in modern . A notable event was Langley's successful mock air raid on the Balboa anchorage near the , which underscored the vulnerability of fixed defenses to aerial assault. The problem incorporated joint Army-Navy elements and featured significant involvement from the in planning and analysis, marking an early emphasis on integrated operations. Langley also provided for a simulated slow transiting the , demonstrating carrier support for logistical movements. Outcomes reinforced the value of air and strike capabilities, though the Navy's battleship-oriented doctrine limited full doctrinal shifts at the time.

Fleet Problem VIII

Fleet Problem VIII took place in April 1928 in the , primarily between and , simulating a scenario where Orange forces—a cruiser detachment operating from —engaged the Blue Battle Force representing the U.S. main fleet. The exercise aimed to test fleet maneuvers, scouting patrols, and the integration of emerging carrier-based aviation into naval operations, with a focus on defensive and offensive capabilities against raiding forces. Under the command of Louis R. de Steiguer, the Battle Force included key assets such as the USS Langley (CV-1), which embarked approximately 36 to 42 aircraft for the maneuvers. A pivotal event occurred during operations off when Langley launched 35 on May 17, 1928, executing a simulated dawn surprise attack on as part of Orange's raiding tactics against Blue defenses. This air strike achieved complete surprise, demonstrating the vulnerability of naval bases to carrier-launched and highlighting the potential of for long-range and independent of the battle line. The exercise underscored the need for carriers to operate with greater freedom of maneuver to maximize deployment, as Langley's slow speed limited its tactical flexibility within the fleet formation. Outcomes emphasized the evolving role of air power in fleet problems, with carrier aircraft proving effective in tactical scouting, simulated bombing of ships, and disrupting enemy light forces, though challenges persisted in coordinating air operations with surface units under constrained budgets and limited carrier numbers. The problem reinforced lessons from prior exercises on the importance of anti-air defenses and rapid response to aerial threats, influencing subsequent doctrinal developments toward more autonomous carrier task groups.

Fleet Problem IX

Fleet Problem IX was conducted by the in January 1929, primarily in the waters off the Pacific side of the , with preparations beginning at , . The exercise aimed to assess the vulnerability of the to seaborne attack and to test the feasibility of independent operations by an detached from the main . It involved approximately 52 percent of the Navy's first-line combat aircraft and a significant portion of its surface fleet, including 72 percent of battleships, 38 percent of cruisers, 68 percent of destroyers, and 40 percent of submarines. The scenario pitted "Blue" Force, representing U.S. defenders tasked with protecting the canal, against "Black" Force, simulating an enemy seeking to disable key infrastructure such as the Gatun, Miraflores, and Pedro Miguel locks. Blue Force, commanded by Vice Admiral Montgomery M. Taylor, included the aircraft carrier USS Lexington (CV-2), multiple battleships, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, aircraft tenders, and shore-based aviation assets. Black Force, under Admiral William V. Pratt with Rear Admiral Joseph M. "Bull" Reeves overseeing air operations, featured the carrier USS Saratoga (CV-3) as its centerpiece, supported by battleships, cruisers, and destroyers organized into a high-speed striking group for maneuverability and surprise. This marked one of the earliest experiments with multicarrier elements, though Saratoga conducted the primary strike, launching from 140 miles offshore after a high-speed dash to the Galapagos Islands area to evade detection. On 26 January, Saratoga executed a pre-dawn launch at 0445 of 70 to 83 —including 17 F3B fighters, additional F3B and F2B fighters, and T4M torpedo bombers—in the first large-scale night carrier operation of its kind, maximizing deck capacity despite risks. The strike reached targets by 0638, simulating dive-bombing, strafing of facilities, and dogfights, which umpires ruled successfully "destroyed" the canal locks and achieved Black's objective. Reeves prioritized offensive tempo over defensive caution, accepting potential losses for strategic impact, and integrated the carrier with cruiser-destroyer screens to enhance evasion. The exercise lasted five days and revealed both carrier strengths and limitations: independent task force operations proved viable for long-range strikes but exposed Saratoga to repeated "sinking" by Blue battleships and due to detection risks, while Lexington suffered simulated heavy damage from Black surface units. Vulnerabilities included limited aircraft range, fuel constraints, and susceptibility to layered defenses combining surface gunfire, , and enemy aircraft, underscoring the need for surprise, superior scouting, and escorts to mitigate anti-access threats. Despite inconclusive resolution on battleship obsolescence, the results advanced carrier doctrine, emphasizing high-tempo aviation and integration, influencing future tactics like those seen in fast carrier groups.

Fleet Problem X

Fleet Problem X took place from March to April 1930 in the , involving large-scale maneuvers between opposing fleets of roughly equal strength to test tactical superiority through integrated operations. The Fleet formed an independent around USS Lexington (CV-2), augmented by a division and two squadrons, emphasizing carrier-centric tactics detached from the main battle line. A pivotal event occurred when Lexington's aircraft executed a surprise attack, simulating the disabling of USS Saratoga (CV-3) and USS Langley (CV-1), which highlighted carriers' susceptibility to undetected long-range air raids before they could launch their own strikes. This demonstrated the potential for air power to decisively shift battle outcomes in moments, particularly via preemptive scouting and bombing. In response, Saratoga launched retaliatory aircraft strikes against the opposing fleet's anchorage at , on April 20, 1930, simulating damage to anchored ships and reinforcing the value of offensive carrier . Overall, the problem reinforced the of prioritizing first strikes on enemy carriers to neutralize their air threat, influencing interwar toward greater emphasis on scouting, rapid deployment, and protection against surprise attacks.

Fleet Problem XI

Fleet Problem XI, conducted from April 14 to 18, 1930, in the Caribbean Sea near Panama, pitted the Battle Fleet against the Scouting Fleet in a scenario emphasizing scouting operations, amphibious assault simulation, and fleet resupply challenges. The exercise, held just a month after Fleet Problem X, incorporated carrier-based aircraft from vessels including Lexington, Saratoga, Langley, Wright, and minesweeper Sandpiper (AM-51), alongside battleships such as California. Objectives centered on evaluating the limitations of scouting planes in fleet reconnaissance and their integration with surface forces for offensive maneuvers. Key tactics tested included long-range gunnery at distances up to 32,000–35,000 yards with aerial spotting, reverse-course maneuvers to counter simulated enemy battle cruisers, and coordinated battle dispositions under the "Tentative Fleet Dispositions and Battle Plans, 1930." The problem simulated defensive and offensive phases, with emphasis on rapid to locate enemy forces and support amphibious landings, highlighting the need for improved aircraft-fleet coordination. Outcomes underscored deficiencies, prompting recommendations to expand squadrons to 18 planes per carrier and develop advanced aircraft featuring greater range, flotation, short takeoff/landing capabilities, compact size, folding wings, and higher speeds. Howard F. Kingman praised the tested battle plans for promoting flexibility and initiative, while Frederick J. Horne noted their simplicity in execution, influencing subsequent doctrinal codification in Fleet Tactical Publication 142 (1934). These findings advanced U.S. understanding of carrier task group formations, advocating semi-permanent units comprising one large carrier, a division, and a division for enhanced training cohesion.

Fleet Problem XII

Fleet Problem XII took place in in the Pacific waters off and west of . The exercise emphasized strategic , the integration of carriers with surface forces, and underway refueling operations. Its central theme involved simulating combat between a battleship-dominated fleet and carrier-based air power, highlighting the growing role of in . In the scenario, the force, representing an aggressor advancing from the west, sought to conduct amphibious landings and secure a base in the , opposed by the defending White force. Carrier from the Black side executed strikes that "sank" the majority of White's battleships, underscoring the vulnerability of surface combatants to aerial attack despite defensive measures. Elements such as the airship , moored to the oiler off , supported scouting efforts, testing utility in fleet operations. The problem also innovated in command resilience by issuing sealed orders to the Blue team, simulating the incapacitation of the and staff, which forced evaluation of succession protocols. Post-exercise analysis reinforced the need for faster escorts to accompany carriers, as battleships and destroyers struggled to match aviation group speeds during engagements. These outcomes contributed to evolving U.S. toward prioritizing carrier task forces over traditional battle lines.

Fleet Problem XIII

Fleet Problem XIII was conducted by the from late January to March 1932 in the , encompassing Hawaiian waters and the West Coast, as part of a series of annual fleet exercises to test operational doctrines, , and defensive capabilities against potential Pacific threats. It followed Grand Joint Exercise 4 (January 31 to February 12), which integrated Army-Navy coordination to simulate defenses against , and extended into broader naval maneuvers in March to evaluate fleet responses to enemy incursions. The exercise emphasized the evolving role of aircraft carriers and air power in fleet operations, amid growing recognition of vulnerabilities in forward bases like . The scenario pitted Blue forces, simulating an aggressive western Pacific power, against Black forces representing U.S. defenses centered on . Rear Admiral Harry E. Yarnell commanded the Blue carrier striking force, comprising the aircraft carriers USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Saratoga (CV-3), supported by cruisers, destroyers, and s, tasked with penetrating Hawaiian defenses to neutralize the battle fleet at anchor. Black forces, under Vice Admiral William V. Pratt as Commander-in-Chief U.S. Fleet, included the main battle line, patrol aircraft, and shore-based defenses at , with objectives to detect and repel the approach while protecting Oahu's strategic assets. Subsidiary elements tested operations and , highlighting aircraft effectiveness against submerged targets. A pivotal event occurred on February 7, 1932, when Yarnell's force exploited fog, darkness, and lax weekend routines to position carriers 200 miles northwest of Oahu, launching approximately 152 aircraft in two waves to simulate bombing runs on , Hickam Field, and anchored battleships. The attackers flew low to evade detection, mimicking tactics of a surprise raid, and achieved "hits" that umpires initially scored as devastating the and airfields before defenses could fully mobilize. Patrol forces failed to provide timely warning, underscoring limitations in reconnaissance range and coordination. Umpires debated the raid's validity, citing rules against Sunday attacks and assumed poor weather for flight operations, but ultimately validated key aspects, confirming Pearl Harbor's exposure to carrier-launched strikes if the fleet remained concentrated at base during alerts. The exercise revealed carrier 's decisive potential over traditional -centric strategies, prompting recommendations for dispersed basing, enhanced long-range patrols, and integrated air defenses, though budgetary constraints delayed implementations like adoption. It also demonstrated submarines' vulnerability to aerial detection and attack, influencing future anti-submarine doctrines. Despite these insights, senior leadership downplayed the full implications, prioritizing treaty-limited numbers over expansion.

Fleet Problem XIV

Fleet Problem XIV, conducted from February 10 to 17, 1933, in the eastern between and the U.S. West Coast, simulated a defensive against raiding attacks by a hostile "" fleet representing , with the U.S. "" force responsible for protecting coastal assets. The exercise emphasized carrier-initiated operations in a context, where the Black force held the initiative to launch surprise strikes, testing the Blue force's ability to respond to rapid air raids without prior detection. Umpired by Admiral Richard H. Leigh, the maneuver incorporated 212 ships, 236 aircraft, and approximately 39,000 personnel, marking a large-scale evaluation of fleet mobility, air power integration, and defensive positioning. A pivotal element involved Black carrier groups, including the USS Saratoga simulating Japanese forces, launching aircraft against West Coast targets; strikes on were ruled to have devastated defenses, followed by a withdrawal for refueling and a repeat assault on , also adjudged destroyed due to the Blue battleships' distant positioning preventing effective intervention. These simulated attacks underscored the extended range and disruptive potential of carrier aviation against fixed coastal installations, revealing gaps in early warning, interception, and the integration of battleship gunfire with air cover. The USS Langley participated by steaming from to waters, contributing to and support roles that highlighted auxiliary carriers' limitations in fleet-scale operations. The problem also advanced logistical tactics through experiments in , successfully demonstrating simultaneous fueling of two destroyers alongside larger vessels, which extended operational endurance for screening forces and reduced vulnerability to interruptions in supply lines. Overall, outcomes reinforced the strategic primacy of offensive carrier employment over static defenses, influencing subsequent doctrinal shifts toward prioritizing air superiority and rapid reinforcement in transpacific scenarios, though umpiring decisions favoring attackers drew internal debate on realism versus tactical assumptions.

Fleet Problem XV

Fleet Problem XV was a major fleet exercise conducted by the from April 19 to May 12, 1934, in the and Panamanian waters, comprising three tactical phases aimed at enhancing realism in fleet operations and testing responses to simulated threats against strategic assets. The first phase focused on the attack and defense of the , pitting elements of the Battle Force against an augmented Scouting Force in maneuvers that evaluated defensive tactics and rapid response capabilities. Subsequent phases simulated the capture of advanced island bases and the defense of Oahu, , incorporating amphibious operations and fleet defense strategies to prepare for potential Pacific conflicts. Carrier aviation played a prominent role, with USS Lexington (CV-2), USS Saratoga (CV-3), and USS Langley (CV-1) conducting extensive operations alongside battleships like USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) and USS New York (BB-34). Aircraft from these carriers executed coordinated strikes timed to coincide with surface engagements, demonstrating the potential for air power to disrupt enemy formations before battleship gunnery ranges were closed. However, logistical challenges emerged, including fuel shortages for Lexington that underscored the limitations of undersea replenishment and the need for improved at-sea fueling methods. Key outcomes highlighted carriers' offensive primacy, with post-exercise critiques recommending that at least three-fourths of carrier aircraft be equipped to deliver 500- to 1,000-pound bombs, rendering lighter 100-pound ordnance obsolete against modern threats. These findings reinforced the shift toward armoring and arming for decisive strikes, influencing aircraft procurement and tactical doctrine amid ongoing debates over battleship-centric strategies. The problem's emphasis on integrated air-surface-amphibious maneuvers also validated the Navy's evolving focus on Pacific defense, though execution revealed gaps in speed matching between carriers and escorting surface units.

Fleet Problem XVI

Fleet Problem XVI, conducted from April 29 to June 10, 1935, represented the largest naval exercise in U.S. history up to that point, spanning five million square miles across the Pacific from the Aleutian Islands to Midway and Hawaii. The maneuvers involved approximately 160 vessels, 450 aircraft, and 50,000 personnel from the Navy, Army, and Coast Guard, testing fleet mobility, reconnaissance, and combat operations in a vast theater simulating potential Pacific conflicts. This problem consisted of five distinct phases, with the third emphasizing massed flights of patrol squadrons for long-range reconnaissance and search. Key innovations included the first simultaneous at-sea operation of four aircraft carriers—USS Lexington (CV-2), USS Saratoga (CV-3), USS Ranger (CV-4), and USS Langley (AV-3)—integrating them into fleet formations for air support and strikes. Scenarios encompassed defensive patrols, simulated attacks on enemy forces, and amphibious elements, with "Blue" forces (representing the U.S.) defending against "Black" aggressors in hypothetical invasion or raiding situations. Concentrated surface gunfire proved highly effective, as demonstrated when the battleship USS Idaho (BB-42) was "sunk" in six minutes during a tactical engagement. However, aircraft and personnel losses from accidents disrupted carrier operations, limiting deeper tactical evaluations. Outcomes underscored the value of coordinated long-range air patrols for early detection but revealed vulnerabilities in carrier deck operations and aircraft reliability under sustained exercise conditions. The exercises provided practical experience in multi-service coordination and logistics over extended distances, informing U.S. Navy preparations for trans-Pacific warfare, though no revolutionary doctrinal shifts emerged due to the interruptions. Post-exercise reports by Commander-in-Chief U.S. Fleet (CINCUS) analyzed operational plans and intelligence, emphasizing improvements in aviation maintenance and search patterns.

Fleet Problem XVII

Fleet Problem XVII was conducted by the United States Navy in the spring of 1936, primarily in the Panama-Pacific area encompassing the west coast of the United States, Central America, and the Panama Canal Zone. The exercise comprised five separate phases designed to test fleet readiness under simulated combat conditions. Participating forces included the Battle Force opposing a submarine-augmented Scouting Force, with carriers such as USS Ranger (CV-4) integrated into operations. The primary objectives centered on (ASW), convoy protection, communications system validation, and training aircraft patrol squadrons for prolonged fleet support roles. Scenarios simulated defensive operations against submarine threats, emphasizing patrol plane deployment and coordination with surface units to safeguard convoys and detect submerged adversaries. assets saw extensive utilization, including patrol planes equipped with automatic pilots, which demonstrated effectiveness in extended reconnaissance but yielded primarily technical rather than doctrinal advancements. A notable event occurred on May 20, 1936, when the fleet crossed the equator near the Galápagos Islands, initiating 29,751 "pollywogs" into the Solemn Mysteries of the Ancient Order of the Deep through traditional shellback ceremonies aboard ships including USS Astoria (CA-34). Outcomes highlighted improved ASW tactics and communication reliability, underscoring vulnerabilities in convoy defenses against submarines and the value of integrated air patrols for early warning. These findings contributed to pre-World War II refinements in naval doctrine, though the exercise focused more on operational training than revolutionary innovations.

Fleet Problem XVIII

Fleet Problem XVIII was U.S. exercise held from to , , simulating operations in the Pacific against a hypothetical adversary akin to . The maneuvers occurred in Alaskan waters, near the , and around , emphasizing tactics for attacking and defending advanced bases. A key focus was the tactical employment of aircraft carriers, debating integration with the battleship-dominated main fleet versus independent operations to reduce vulnerability and enhance offensive reach. USS Ranger (CV-4) participated in scouting and spotting missions, limited by its small size and air complement. Black forces, representing the enemy, highlighted risks of carriers tied to the fleet, while U.S. commanders advocated for coordinated protection. The exercise demonstrated effective coordinated carrier strikes in base seizure and fleet actions, affirming aviation's expanding role in . Yet, doctrinal uncertainty persisted on optimal carrier positioning, with no consensus achieved, spurring further refinement ahead of .

Fleet Problem XIX

![USS Ranger (CV-4)][float-right] Fleet Problem XIX, conducted by the from April 1 to May 11, 1938, in the waters around and the West Coast, emphasized defensive operations following a simulated initial defeat in the Pacific. The exercise comprised Parts II, , and XI of the annual fleet problems, with the playing a central role in carrier aviation demonstrations as part of the ongoing evaluation of light carrier capabilities. The primary scenario posited a major U.S. Navy setback, forcing Blue forces (representing the U.S.) to defend from a weakened position against an aggressive Black Fleet (simulating a peer adversary, implicitly ). A key phase involved Black executing a surprise attack on , crippling defenses and enabling a simulated invasion of Oahu, which underscored the harbor's vulnerability to aerial assault and the potential for rapid enemy advances. This mirrored tactics later employed by in , though the exercise revealed inadequate preparations for such strikes, including limited air patrols and . Participants gained practical experience in integrated search and scouting operations, employing submarines, destroyers, and to locate enemy forces over vast expanses. Carrier Ranger's operations highlighted advancements in tactics, such as coordinated strikes and defensive air cover, but also exposed limitations in light carrier endurance and compared to emerging fleet carriers. roles in ambushes and blockades were tested, revealing challenges in communication and evasion under fleet-scale maneuvers. Outcomes reinforced the strategic primacy of aircraft carriers in projecting power and defending forward bases, while exposing doctrinal gaps in amphibious defense and logistics sustainment for prolonged engagements. The successful simulated invasion of prompted recommendations for enhanced fortifications, improved early warning systems, and greater emphasis on mobile carrier task forces over static harbor defenses, influencing pre-World War II naval planning.

Fleet Problem XX

Fleet Problem XX was conducted from February 16 to 27, 1939, in the , encompassing areas near , the , and Trinidad, marking the first such exercise in the Atlantic since 1934 amid rising European tensions. The scenario simulated enforcement of the , pitting defending BLACK forces (representing the U.S. Navy) against invading WHITE forces (simulating a European power), with objectives for BLACK to destroy the WHITE fleet, seize or neutralize WHITE auxiliaries designated as UTAHS, and establish forward bases, while WHITE aimed to secure sea control, deny BLACK access to bases, and escort UTAHS to a destination termed Port William. President observed portions of the exercise aboard the heavy cruiser USS Houston. The exercise involved approximately 134 ships, 600 aircraft, 3,210 officers, and 49,445 enlisted personnel, including seven aircraft carriers operating a total of around 518 planes, with each carrier handling roughly 74 aircraft, necessitating meticulous planning for logistics and coordination. BLACK forces comprised one carrier (Ranger), six battleships, eight heavy cruisers, six light cruisers, 32 destroyers, 102 patrol planes, and 64 Marine aircraft; WHITE forces included three carriers (Lexington, Yorktown, and Enterprise), six battleships, six heavy cruisers, six light cruisers, 31 destroyers, 13 submarines, and 216 . Yorktown and Enterprise, though relatively new to fleet operations, demonstrated peak efficiency in carrier tactics, emphasizing coordination between aircraft and destroyers for anti-submarine and evasion maneuvers. The exercise unfolded in phases: initial positioning from February 16–20, interception of UTAHS on February 21, raiding actions from February 22–25, and a climactic on February 27. On February 21, WHITE carrier aircraft struck BLACK cruisers, allowing UTAHS to evade interception; by February 24, BLACK patrol planes inflicted damage on Lexington and Enterprise, temporarily reducing their effectiveness. The final featured extensive carrier-based scouting, dive-bombing, and torpedo attacks, with WHITE carriers positioned amid s for mutual protection, while traditional commanders integrated carrier doctrine without direct surface gunnery from s. Outcomes included UTAHS successfully reaching Port William, partial WHITE success in denying BLACK bases, BLACK sinking two WHITE cruisers, and temporary neutralization of WHITE carrier air power, underscoring vulnerabilities in carrier operations without robust scouting. Key lessons emphasized the critical need for carrier task force protection, long-range plane integration for early detection, and secure communications to prevent interception, while highlighting refined tactics for aircraft-surface coordination and the evolving dominance of air power in fleet actions. The exercise demonstrated a high level of operational sophistication, preparing the for potential hemispheric defense scenarios akin to protecting the against eastern threats.

Fleet Problem XXI

Fleet Problem XXI, conducted from April 1 to May 17, 1940, in the Hawaiian-Pacific area, marked the Navy's final large-scale fleet exercise before . Limited by neutrality patrols involving over 60 warships, participation was reduced compared to prior problems, yet it incorporated carriers including USS Yorktown, USS Enterprise, and USS Saratoga. The exercise comprised two major phases and two minor ones—Fleet Joint Air Exercise 114A and Fleet Exercise 114—preceded by a March mobilization drill simulating rising tensions to test force distribution and readiness. The first major exercise focused on training in operational planning, scouting, screening forces, unit coordination, standard and fleet dispositions, and culminating in decisive engagement tactics. The second phase expanded to include communications, convoy protection, and base seizure operations, with an emphasis on carrier aviation integration such as escort duties and aircraft-surface coordination. A key scenario simulated a carrier-based air raid on Oahu, with "" forces (representing a hostile power) approaching from the north to strike Hawaiian defenses, mirroring aspects of a potential surprise attack; however, umpires assessed that detection by patrols and shore defenses would have prevented significant damage, underestimating the raid's feasibility despite demonstrated carrier approach capabilities. Minor exercises tested Army-Navy joint operations for Hawaiian defense and compared patrol plane low-level attacks against high-altitude bombing simulations, revealing patrol vulnerabilities and limited efficacy of low-level tactics. Overall outcomes stressed the necessity for enhanced Army-Navy cooperation to defend , granted carrier commanders broader operational latitude under general directives, and reaffirmed prior carrier warfare refinements without uncovering novel challenges. Upon conclusion on May 3, 1940, the fleet remained in Hawaiian waters, shifting its permanent base to on May 7, a decision influenced by strategic assessments but later exposing it to concentrated risk.

Planned Fleet Problem XXII and Cancellation

Fleet Problem XXII was the final planned exercise in the U.S. Navy's series of interwar fleet problems, scheduled for January 1941 in the Central or North Pacific to simulate advanced operational scenarios amid growing global threats. The exercise aimed to test fleet mobility, coordination, and defensive postures in a Pacific theater context, building on lessons from prior problems that emphasized carrier integration and amphibious operations, though specific scenarios were not publicly detailed due to strategic sensitivities. On December 3, 1940, Harold R. Stark formally canceled the exercise, redirecting naval assets and personnel to heightened readiness measures. The decision stemmed from deteriorating relations with , exacerbated by the ongoing and European conflict, which made large-scale maneuvers in contested waters risky and resource-intensive. U.S. leadership, including President , prioritized avoiding any perception of provocation that could accelerate hostilities, while conserving fuel, ammunition, and training time for real-world contingencies over simulated ones. This cancellation marked the end of the Fleet Problem series, which had run annually from 1923 to 1940, as the shifted to wartime mobilization; smaller-scale joint exercises replaced problems to maintain operational tempo without exposing vulnerabilities. The move reflected a pragmatic assessment that empirical testing through exercises yielded amid imminent conflict, with resources better allocated to fleet expansion and doctrinal refinement under combat pressures.

Key Strategic Lessons and Innovations

Emergence of Carrier Aviation Dominance

The introduction of aircraft carriers into the U.S. Navy's Fleet Problems marked a pivotal shift toward recognizing aviation's offensive potential, beginning with the limited role of USS Langley (CV-1), the Navy's first carrier, commissioned in 1922 and participating in early exercises like Fleet Problem V in 1925, where its slow speed and small air complement of about 30 aircraft restricted it to scouting and support functions rather than decisive strikes. By the late 1920s, the commissioning of larger, faster carriers USS Lexington (CV-2) and USS Saratoga (CV-3) in 1927 enabled more ambitious tests, demonstrating carriers' capacity for independent operations and long-range strikes that could neutralize shore installations or enemy fleets without relying on gunfire. Fleet Problem IX, conducted in January 1929 off , represented the first employment of carriers as an independent striking force, with Saratoga launching a simulated dawn raid on 26 January using 70 aircraft to "destroy" the , achieving Black Force's strategic objective despite prior failures by Blue Force defenders. This exercise, involving over 52% of the Navy's frontline combat aircraft, underscored carriers' ability to project power asymmetrically over distances exceeding 600 miles, though post-strike vulnerabilities were exposed when Saratoga was "sunk" twice by Blue battleships and submarines, prompting refinements in escort tactics and carrier protection. Subsequent analyses highlighted the need for enhanced ranges and heavier loads, shifting toward carriers as the fleet's primary offensive arm capable of decisive first strikes. Building on this, Fleet Problem XIII in March 1932 featured Harry Yarnell's carrier force simulating an with 152 aircraft, penetrating defenses under and "devastating" the base, which revealed the vulnerability of anchored fleets and fixed installations to undetected carrier approaches from windward directions. In Fleet Problem XIV (February 1933), carriers executed the first simulated strikes against the U.S. West Coast, further validating aviation's dominance over surface forces by reversing hypothetical engagements through air superiority. These outcomes, replicated in later exercises like Fleet Problem XIX (1938), where Saratoga struck from 1,000 miles away, entrenched the view that carriers could control sea lanes and attrit enemy strength preemptively, diminishing the battleship's role from vanguard to support despite treaty-limited numbers. By the mid-1930s, Fleet Problems had catalyzed doctrinal innovations, including standardized carrier task groups with and screens established in Fleet Problem XII (1931) and emphasis on 500-1,000 lb bombs for anti-ship efficacy by Fleet Problem XV (1934), fostering a tactical framework where carrier air wings prioritized search, , and dive-bombing to achieve dominance before surface engagements. This evolution, driven by empirical results rather than theoretical advocacy, positioned carriers as the nexus of naval , influencing prewar formations like the fast carrier task forces that proved instrumental in Pacific operations.

Amphibious Assault and Logistics Developments

The Fleet Problems progressively refined amphibious tactics by simulating large-scale s against defended positions, revealing critical deficiencies in coordination, equipment, and support. In Fleet Problem XI (1930), the exercise featured a simulated amphibious on a defended coastline, emphasizing the integration of naval gunfire, carrier-based air cover, and Marine landing forces, which exposed vulnerabilities in real-time command structures and the need for specialized craft to overcome beach obstacles and surf conditions. Fleet Problem XIII (1932), combined with Grand Joint Exercise No. 4, tested s on fortified Hawaiian shores with over 20,000 troops and multiple carriers providing , demonstrating the feasibility of rapid buildup but highlighting delays in unloading heavy due to inadequate lighters and the risks of enemy counterattacks during vulnerable debarkation phases. These simulations drove doctrinal shifts toward joint Navy-Marine operations, including the establishment of amphibious task forces with dedicated transport groups and preliminary bombardment protocols to suppress defenses, laying groundwork for landings like and . Persistent challenges, such as tide-dependent beaching of transports and limited inland from shorelines, spurred early experimentation with tracked landing vehicles and improved hydrographic surveys, though full-scale solutions like the Higgins boat emerged later through parallel efforts. Logistics developments emphasized sustaining extended Pacific operations, where distances exceeded 5,000 miles from U.S. bases, necessitating mobile fleet trains over static depots. Early problems, such as Fleet Problem I (1923), underscored fuel and ammunition shortages during prolonged maneuvers, prompting the design of oilers and supply ships capable of 12 knots to match speeds, as validated in exercises where slower auxiliaries lagged and disrupted formations. Innovations included trials, using hoses for fuel transfer at sea, and convoyed cargo echelons to support assault follow-on forces, reducing vulnerability to but revealing tensions between speed and capacity in contested waters. By the late 1930s, exercises like Fleet Problem XXI (1940) integrated with amphibious thrusts, simulating resupply for 100,000-man invasions with advance base battalions establishing temporary ports using pontoons and dredging gear, which informed the creation of the Navy's Service Force and prepositioning strategies critical for sustaining operations without secure harbors. These advancements prioritized causal factors like weather, enemy air threats, and fragility, fostering realism over optimistic assumptions in planning.

Submarine Warfare and Defensive Vulnerabilities

The Fleet Problems frequently employed to simulate enemy attacks on major fleet units, revealing significant gaps in (ASW) capabilities and screening tactics. In Fleet Problem IX (1929), a Blue Force successfully penetrated defenses to launch a simulated attack on the carrier , "sinking" it after the vessel had already been targeted by surface forces, underscoring the challenges of protecting high-value assets amid multi-domain threats. Similar penetrations occurred across exercises, where often evaded screens and patrols to reach firing positions against battleships and carriers, demonstrating that interwar ASW relied excessively on passive measures like zigzag steaming rather than integrated detection and response. These simulated successes highlighted defensive vulnerabilities rooted in limited technological tools and doctrinal priorities. , operating with greater stealth than surface escorts could counter, exploited gaps in fleet formations during maneuvers, as seen in repeated instances where "hits" were scored on capital ships before ASW forces could react effectively. However, exercise umpires often applied restrictive rules, such as deeming s "sunk" upon mere detection without confirmatory attack, which artificially diminished their demonstrated threat and reflected a broader institutional toward surface fleet-centric operations over defense or persistent ASW. This scoring practice, while promoting training realism in some respects, understated real-world submarine endurance and quiet-running capabilities, delaying doctrinal shifts toward advanced integration and dedicated ASW groups. Despite these revelations, the lessons spurred incremental innovations, including experiments with for subsurface search and improved tactics for inner screens. Yet, the Navy's emphasis on battleship-centric decisive engagements limited comprehensive adoption of ASW as a fleet-wide priority until wartime necessities, as evidenced by persistent vulnerabilities exposed in later problems like XIII (), where air assets proved more effective against submarines than surface countermeasures but required better coordination. Overall, the exercises validated submarines' offensive potential while exposing systemic defensive shortcomings, informing postwar ASW evolution though not fully resolving interwar inertia.

Criticisms and Shortcomings

Inadequate Response to Simulated Attacks

In Fleet Problem IX (1929), the Black Force's USS Saratoga executed a surprise 70-plane aerial strike on the Panama Canal's Gatun and Miraflores Locks at dawn on January 26, achieving complete tactical surprise and simulating their destruction, rendering the canal inoperable for the exercise duration, with no attacking aircraft lost to defensive action. Defending forces detected the carrier only after a screening destroyer was already "sunk," and cruiser-destroyer dispersal formations failed to prevent penetration, underscoring reconnaissance and early warning shortcomings against carrier-launched raids. Fleet Problem XIII (1932) further illustrated defensive lapses when Harry E. Yarnell's Black carrier force approached Oahu undetected from the northeast, launching aircraft that inflicted heavy simulated damage on anchored battleships and airfields at using flour-bag bombs to represent hits. The raid crippled the Blue Fleet's battle line and air assets before countermeasures could mobilize, revealing gaps in patrol coverage, radar-less detection, and integrated air defense, though senior umpires later nullified much of the success citing improper and excessive carrier proximity to simulate continental reinforcement. Submarine operations in exercises like Fleet Problem I (1923) and VII (1927) exposed anti-submarine warfare deficiencies, as attacking submarines routinely evaded destroyer screens to position for torpedo runs amid poor fleet-submarine coordination and limited air scouting integration. While umpires highlighted submarine surface vulnerabilities to patrol aircraft, the frequency of penetrations indicated that standard screening tactics and depth-charge responses were often too slow or dispersed to neutralize threats effectively. These patterns demonstrated that battle fleet formations prioritized offensive gun power over layered defense, leaving capital ships exposed to asymmetric strikes, yet post-exercise analyses frequently emphasized attacker constraints over urgent defensive reforms.

Doctrinal Resistance and Institutional Inertia

Despite demonstrations of carrier aviation's potential during the Fleet Problems, U.S. Navy doctrine remained anchored in Alfred Thayer Mahan's emphasis on decisive surface engagements between fleets, viewing carriers primarily as scouting and support elements rather than primary striking forces. This persistence reflected a broader reluctance to upend established tenets, even as exercises like Fleet Problem XIII in 1932 showcased carrier-led forces simulating the seizure of through air strikes that neutralized defending s. Post-exercise analyses often qualified such outcomes by stressing doctrinal assumptions, such as the primacy of gun-armed capital ships in fair-weather, mutual-contact battles, thereby limiting doctrinal revisions to incremental adjustments rather than shifts. Umpire rulings further exemplified doctrinal resistance, frequently favoring battleship resilience over aviation's disruptive effects by invoking procedural or environmental caveats. In Fleet Problem XII (1931), for instance, umpires adjudicated carrier air attacks as ineffective against defended formations, ruling that simulated dive-bombing runs failed to achieve decisive hits due to assumed anti-aircraft defenses and fighter intercepts, despite real-world technological limitations on those defenses at the time. Similarly, during Fleet Problem XVIII (1937), a carrier task force's surprise raid mirroring potential vulnerabilities was dismissed in critiques for lacking a formal "" and relying on undetected approaches under ideal conditions, preserving the narrative of invulnerability in orthodox fleet actions. These adjudications, influenced by senior officers steeped in traditions, reinforced institutional preferences over empirical exercise outcomes, delaying the codification of carrier-centric tactics until wartime necessities. Institutional inertia compounded this resistance through entrenched promotion pathways and cultural biases favoring expertise. Naval officers advanced primarily via command billets, with aviators required to demonstrate surface qualifications for flag rank, which marginalized dedicated aviation specialists in doctrinal formulation until the late . This structure perpetuated skepticism among the "gun club"—senior admirals invested in -centric careers—toward aviation's strategic primacy, as evidenced by limited carrier construction priorities relative to programs despite treaty allowances. Even as Fleet Problems highlighted vulnerabilities like undetected carrier approaches, the Navy's general board and war planning staff upheld Mahanian frameworks, requiring external shocks like the 1941 attack to catalyze doctrinal evolution.

Resource Constraints from Treaties and Budgets

The of 1922 imposed strict limits on U.S. naval armament, capping tonnage at 525,000 tons and tonnage at 135,000 tons overall, with individual carriers restricted to 27,000 tons except for conversions like Lexington and Saratoga. These provisions halted new construction—a cornerstone of pre-treaty fleet planning—and confined early Fleet Problems (1923–1930) to a force comprising aging I-era s, limited cruisers, and just three carriers (Langley, Lexington, and Saratoga), totaling under 66,000 tons of carrier displacement by the early . Exercises thus frequently relied on umpires and scripted simulations to represent unattainable larger formations, undermining the ability to test full-spectrum operations against a treaty-noncompliant opponent like , which began evading limits after 1934. The London Naval Treaty of 1930 extended these restrictions, maintaining carrier tonnage caps while limiting heavy cruisers to 10-inch guns and total cruiser displacement, which delayed offensive surface capabilities and left the fleet short on scouting and screening vessels for realistic Pacific scenarios. By the late 1930s, these treaties contributed to a U.S. carrier force of only seven ships—versus Japan's ten—despite allowances for more, as new builds like Ranger (commissioned 1934) and Yorktown-class vessels strained against qualitative rules that prioritized battleship parity over expansion. Fleet Problems, such as XVIII in 1937 involving 152 ships and three carriers, adapted by assuming enemy adherence to similar constraints, but this assumption faltered post-1936 treaty lapse, exposing doctrinal gaps in scaling for attrition-heavy campaigns without fortified bases. Budgetary austerity compounded treaty effects, with post-World War I slashing personnel by 50,000 in 1920 alone and Depression-era cuts reducing naval appropriations to one-sixth of 1918 levels by 1931–1933, authorizing just one carrier, 22 surface combatants, and six from 1923 to 1932 despite higher treaty quotas. Enlisted strength stabilized at approximately 80,000–90,000 through , curtailing maintenance, training rotations, and fuel allotments, which forced exercises to emphasize tactical maneuvers over sustained or multi-week endurance tests reflective of trans-Pacific conflict. The Vinson-Trammell Act of 1934 permitted replacement of obsolete hulls within treaty tonnages, but funding delays—exacerbated by isolationist Congresses—postponed modernizations until 1937, leaving Fleet Problems reliant on overage vessels prone to breakdowns and limiting innovation in areas like night operations or advanced base support due to resource scarcity.

Legacy and Postwar Influence

Contributions to World War II Pacific Strategy

The interwar Fleet Problems provided critical empirical validation for the U.S. Navy's shift toward a carrier-dominated Pacific strategy in , emphasizing offensive projection across vast distances against a presumed Japanese adversary. By simulating advance base seizures and fleet engagements under scenarios, these exercises honed doctrines for centralized command of dispersed forces, integrated scouting, and rapid adaptation—elements that enabled the transition from defensive attrition in 1942 to decisive counteroffensives by 1944. Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz later attributed the Navy's foresight in predicting key campaign outcomes, such as carrier strikes and island captures, to insights from these maneuvers and associated wargames. Carrier aviation's preeminence was repeatedly tested and affirmed, most notably in Fleet Problem IX of January 1929, where an independent centered on USS Saratoga executed a 70-aircraft dawn strike at 0700 hours on 26 January, achieving complete surprise and "destroying" without battleship escort. This demonstrated carriers' capacity for strategic paralysis of enemy infrastructure, though it also exposed vulnerabilities like post-strike recovery risks, prompting refinements in high-speed screening and tactical dispersal. Such innovations directly informed the of fast carrier s, which by the on 4–7 June 1942 leveraged concentrated air power to sink four Japanese carriers, and later dominated the Central Pacific drive through 1945. Amphibious operations received foundational development, with Fleet Problem III in 1924 deploying 1,700 to seize Fort Randolph in a simulated raid, establishing joint Navy-Marine procedures for rapid landings and exploitation. Building on this, Fleet Problem XI in 1930 incorporated fleet resupply amid assaults and introduced amphibious tanks in Problem IV, addressing logistics over extended supply lines—tactics scaled up for the starting 7 August 1942 and subsequent atolls like on 20 November 1943. Fleet Problem XIII in February 1932, combined with Grand Joint Exercise No. 4 around , integrated carrier strikes with defensive fleet concentrations, testing vulnerability to long-range raids and refining coordination for base defense and counterattacks. These evolutions fostered and intelligence-driven operations, allowing autonomy in fluid environments like the and Marianas, where scouting proficiency from exercises proved instrumental in securing sea lanes and enabling over 100 amphibious landings by war's end.

Doctrinal Shifts and Technological Validations

The U.S. Navy's Fleet Problems precipitated a doctrinal transition from battleship-centered formations to carrier-dominated task forces, recognizing aviation's capacity for long-range strikes and fleet decisive engagements. Fleet Problem IX in January 1929 marked a pivotal validation, deploying the carriers Lexington and Saratoga as an independent striking force that successfully neutralized enemy defenses without support, underscoring carriers' offensive primacy over scouting roles. This exercise refined multicarrier coordination tactics, evolving into the concept central to interwar . These innovations found empirical confirmation in Pacific operations, where carrier air wings executed the precision strikes and maneuvers prototyped in the problems, as evidenced by victories at in May 1942 and Midway in June 1942, which dismantled Japanese naval power through aviation-led offensives. Senior officers, seasoned by Fleet Problem participation, adapted these doctrines rapidly amid combat, validating the exercises' emphasis on fluid, aviation-centric maneuvers over rigid battle lines. Technologically, the problems authenticated dive-bombing and delivery from carriers, techniques that proved decisive against surface fleets despite pre-war skepticism from battleship advocates. Postwar, the validated carrier doctrine informed the Navy's force structure, prioritizing supercarriers and integrated task groups as the core of offensive capabilities against peer threats, a legacy evident in the sustained expansion of numbers and amphibious integration from interwar experiments. This shift marginalized roles, redirecting resources to technologies and ASW countermeasures refined through simulated threats in exercises like Fleet Problem XIII. The problems' rigorous testing under realistic constraints thus embedded causal understandings of technological leverage, enduring in Cold War-era despite budgetary pressures.

Modern Revivals and Adaptations

Post-Cold War Experimentation

Following the end of the in 1991, the U.S. Navy shifted from large-scale, peer-competitor fleet maneuvers to more focused operational experimentation emphasizing littoral operations, ashore, and under the "...From the Sea" strategy introduced in 1992. This era saw the initiation of Fleet Battle Experiments (FBEs) in 1997, a series of at-sea tests integrating new concepts like , joint , and advanced sensors into fleet operations. Unlike the expansive, scenario-driven interwar Fleet Problems, FBEs typically involved smaller formations such as carrier battle groups or expeditionary strike groups, prioritizing rapid prototyping and data collection over comprehensive fleet-level simulation of high-end conflict. The FBEs, sponsored by the and executed primarily by the Third and Seventh Fleets, aimed to validate innovations through realistic fleet conditions, often incorporating simulations via tools like the Naval Simulation System for scenario expansion. For instance, FBE-Juliet in July 1997 off demonstrated capabilities for reconnaissance and targeting, outperforming larger manned systems in endurance and cost-effectiveness during integrated strikes. Subsequent iterations, such as FBE-Delta in 1999, tested for networked fires, enabling ships to share sensor data and engage targets beyond line-of-sight. By the early 2000s, over a dozen FBEs had been conducted, influencing doctrine shifts toward distributed lethality precursors, though limited scale—often confined to single battle groups—drew criticism for insufficiently stressing fleet-wide under contested conditions. Complementary exercises like the biennial series, evolving from U.S.-Chilean Escuadra drills in 1995, further advanced post-Cold War experimentation by simulating amphibious and strike operations in littoral environments, incorporating multinational forces to test and rapid deployment. These efforts, supported by reduced fleet sizes—from 594 battle force ships in 1990 to 371 by 2000—reflected resource constraints but yielded tangible outcomes, including accelerated fielding of systems like the E-2C Hawkeye upgrades for improved awareness. However, institutional focus on counter-insurgency support post-9/11 diluted high-end naval experimentation, with readiness metrics showing declining surge capacity for peer threats by the mid-2000s.

21st-Century Exercises and Conceptual Resurgence

In the mid-2010s, the U.S. Pacific Fleet revived the Fleet Problem exercises under Scott Swift to counter training shortfalls against peer adversaries, shifting from scripted, low-threat drills to unscripted, high-end scenarios that prioritized mission accomplishment over task checklists. These modern iterations, starting around 2016, incorporated opposition forces using realistic capabilities like advanced submarines and disrupted communications to simulate anti-access/area-denial environments, with over six exercises conducted in the first two years alone. For example, a 2017 exercise involving the USS Theodore Roosevelt tested long-range strikes and submarine evasion tactics against aggressor teams drawn from the Pacific Naval Aggressor Team and experts. Fleet Problem XXIII, centered on the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group, exemplified this approach by employing entire as opposition forces in free-play operations, revealing gaps in tactics, doctrine, and command structures while encouraging failure as a learning mechanism to accelerate adaptation. The revival drew directly from interwar precedents, aiming to rebuild warfighting instincts eroded by post-Cold War focus on and coalition operations, with emphasis on distributed lethality and sea control against numerically superior foes. This conceptual resurgence evolved into the Fleet Battle Problem series, such as FBP 22-1 in March 2022, which integrated unmanned underwater vehicles, forces, and concepts across sea and shore domains. FBP 23-1 in June 2023 further tested multi-domain integration off the U.S. East Coast, involving U.S. Fleet Forces Command and Marine Corps elements to refine maritime capabilities against complex threats. These efforts informed broader initiatives like Large Scale Exercise 2025, a global, all-domain event commencing July 30, 2025, that simulates peer-level conflicts from U.S. bases to forward areas, synchronizing naval and Marine Corps operations to validate emerging doctrines such as .

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.