Navy Expected to Recommend a Force of About 300 Ships

National Defense Magazine ^ | 3/16/2012 | Sandra Erwin

[U-238]

A "force structure" review that is about to be completed is likely to recommend that the Navy needs around 300 ships to meet its future demands.

The study is not yet finished, but could be presented to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus as early as next week, said Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert.

A 300-ship Navy is slightly larger than the current fleet of 285, but it is smaller than previous recommendations. Navy leaders since 2006 have said the fleet should grow to 313 ships.

During a breakfast with reporters March 16, Greenert said the review is not "budget driven" but is based on what the Navy projects it will need to carry out global responsibilities by 2020.

After Mabus gives the study the green light, it will be sent to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for approval, and then presented to congressional committees before it is publicly released, Greenert said.

The 300-ship recommendation is likely to spur criticism from Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee, who have chided Navy leaders for under-funding shipbuilding accounts at a time when naval forces are in high demand, and a potential crisis is brewing in the Persian Gulf.

From the current fleet of 285 ships, 100 are deployed, said Greenert.

He pushed back on the criticism that the Navy is not budgeting enough money as it seeks to expand its presence in Asia-Pacific, the Middle East and increase support of Southern Command's antidrug campaign. "I am comfortable that we can resource the strategy properly," Greenert said.

The 300-ship Navy, however, would not materialize until after 2020. The current budget forecasts a 285-ship force at least through 2017.

[bert]

The number of admirals is not really a function of the number of ships. The number of admirals is rather a function of the executive management structure. certain jobs require certain pay grades to be in line with DOD civilian and private pay.

There can be some argument as to the fact there are unnecessary slots and if a Captain can function where there might be admiral creep, but that is different.

[GailA]

With 0 forcing 3,000 CPO’s out early who is going to run the ships? Brass give orders, they don’t do grunt work, that is what CPO’s and lower class ranks do.

This goes DITTO for the other branches of the Military..he has a vendetta against the mid ranks who are the back bone, and trainers in our Military.

[GailA]

Oh, I forgot to add IF you passed your EVALS for this year, you can kiss your promotion GOODBYE according to the Navy Times. And your health ins is GOING UP! Retired included in that one.

[Steve Newton]

Humm

Food for thought

Thank all of you

[cva66snipe]

Here's more food. Basically we have left two shipyards one on each coast that are set up to do overhauls and maintenance on carriers. One is located across the river from our only carrier builder left.

What doesn't get discussed is things like when the Base Closures starting in early 1990's began key defense production facilities as well as various military bases weren't just simply mothballed. They were tore down, land sold, tooling sold or destroyed, and no replacement. Russia wasn't even this stupid.

Before WW2 we went from 790 active duty ships in Dec 1940 to 6768 in August 1945. We were able to do so because we already had factories set up which could easily be adjusted to defense production use. Today much of our production capability comes from the very nation we will one day be going to war with which is China.

Shipbuilding is a learned trade that takes years to perfect. Next real major all out war we won't have the time margin we did in WW2 to allow us to catch up. We won't even have fuel to power transportation.

There is also a false notion that a nuclear powered ship can deploy indefinately. That is not true realistically. Their required downtime is much the same as a conventional. The reason being the downtime is also for replacing and repairing things like pumps, galley equipment, repair/replace steam pipes, repair/replace air conditioning plants, hull painting/repairs, etc. This involves cutting through several decks to accomplish and it takes a few months to do it right.

Generally after an six month deployment every surface ship needs a shipyard period for repairs that are not safe or able to do else where. Anything less greatly shortens the ships service life.

[Steve Newton]

Uh

I didn’t know this and it’s a little on the scary side.

Thank you my FRiend

[Steve Newton]

Just thinking

We DO have the capacity to bring our moth balled fleet on line?

Don’t we?

[central_va]

I do not think the USN “moth balls” ships anymore. I think we use them for target practice and to make reefs.

[cva66snipe]

We DO have the capacity to bring our moth balled fleet on line? Don’t we?

Without altering down times for our active because of available yard space to do the work? I'm not sure. On the smaller surface ships yes we can bring them back because there are several yards that can do the work. The smaller ships are Diesel Engine or Gas Turbine powered. The subs? No. They have to be rebuilt from keel up. The carriers? Limited yards. Bremerton on the west coast {Long Beach was the other but is no more} and Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, VA is the other carrier yard. Newport News Shipbuilding if not doing construction could do some work. They do the carrier Ship Life Extension Program now.

But the reality is the ones in mothball are wore out. The boilers is the real issue. All but Forestall are 1200 PSI systems 8 boilers per ship. To replace the boilers would be easier and likely quicker to build a new conventional. 1200 PSI of superheated steam with a leak the size of a pencil lead can dismember you. Worse is you can't hear it and you can't see it.

JFK was the newest conventional but she's had it and is mothballed. Too much neglect due to underfunding. America the next one back was sank for data for the Gerald R Ford. She had a major boiler-room explosion in 1994 I think it was at the pier. She had done three - six month deployments in three years. She was towed Cold Iron up the river to Portsmouth, VA then patched up and made one deployment afterward. Enterprise is still active and 50 plus years in age now. Constellation and Kitty Hawk could possibly fire up but for how long? It's really asking a lot out of the boilers and would be placing the crew at substantial risk as well. But the carriers would not matter because we don't have planes for them either.

Short Term solution till we get the numbers back up on surface ships is building submarines nuclear and conventional. Conventional powered ships have one huge advantage and that is in training a crew. A conventional Snipe will be standing advanced watches before a Nuke gets out of school and will have acquired a good sum of knowledge about the ship.

One other issue is IIRC the Navy discontinued the Boilerman Rating. It was consolidated with Machinist Mate I think.

[Steve Newton]

Mercy my friend

You should write a book if you haven’t already. I have learned more today about our naval capacity than I have in a long time.

Thank you for taking the time.

And by the way, I want you as my SECNAV

[cva66snipe]

LOL I don't know nothing about it really. I just understand carriers basic deployment and maintenance cycles and observed what happens when they aren't followed. The two carriers that failed to get underway after 9/11 was a direct cause of upkeep not being funded. The Navy's answer was firing the C.O.'s who had little say in funding.

I do wish the Navy would spread out it's remaining assets in terms of homeports. I won't go into it here but most persons understand where I'm coming from. One or more of the Norfolk bases needs to be relocated further south as does pier 10 at N.O.B. Norfolk. Norfolk Naval Base should never, ever, for any reason, have five carriers berthed there at once.