Posted on 11/02/2019 6:11:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I’m sure this is one of those sixes or sevens types of question. Operating the ship hard usually means eventually breaking it hard. Or do you put it into storage and operate it just frequently enough to keep it updated and ready for immediate activation?
The underlying issue is shifting from peacetime tempo to wartime tempo. Just how much of that 355 ship goal is necessary to permit a reasonable (e.g. sustainable) peacetime operational tempo? 300 ships? 310? 320? How will the Navy flow into the war zone as the surge hulls manned by USNR crews come on line?
A key point to note in the CBO report is that only 5 shipyards in the United States are capable of building major combatants. Even they will require significant investment ($4 billion) to meet the demands of the 355 ship fleet building program despite it being carried out over a nearly three decade time frame.
The notion that there is some significant excess naval combatant ship building capacity that could be brought on line quickly after the emergency is upon us is not realistic. Heck, the Navy identified that bottleneck in production prior to WWII (and those were much simpler ships to build).
Given the time, anything is possible. But the fleet as it exists at the beginning of the conflict will have to carry the load until any new production capability begins deliveries. The time to build up the reserve is before the event even if you have to store it to contain peacetime O&S costs. Who knows? The cost savings may even be enough to offset a significant fraction of the shipbuilding budget increase.
I’m not sure we, the USA have the capability to catch up with a Pearl Harbor event any more. We need to keep what we have up to speed and build as we go. That’s my opinion but we need to project power. It took a significant amount of time to get our command staff up to speed in 1941/42. Desk jockeys don’t win wars. Fight the ship or stay on the beach. We need a good command structure and getting it cost a hell of a lot of us grunts in 1942. We are stagnant with desk jockeys and the training sucks. If you can’t miss a freighter with a tin can you can’t pee in a punch bowl.
Build modern day disposable Liberty ships, plenty of long range howitzers or box launched rockets can be strapped to the decks.
Since drones seem to be the future build anti drone units.
Its a shame woman have the style of no stockings and more tats nowadays.
We’re going to have to keep making Arleigh Burkes for the forseeable short-to-medium term future because DDX turned out to also be a boondoggle, albeit for different reasons, and we’re only going to build three of them. The DDX doesn’t even have a functional gun on it. Unfortunately, the crews for even the modernized Arleigh Burkes are going to be kind of screwed in a modern battle as they basically don’t have any significant stealth features and will be getting shredded in any missile exchange against a proper modern combatant - or those hellish capital-missile carrying stealthy missile boats the Chinese have.
What’s going to take a significant chunk of that budget is the FFG-X program, the crash program to buy in an off-the-shelf foreign frigate design, modify it for American service and build them in the US. Initial order is going to be 20 (which IMHO is far too low unless we really *are* only going to use them as a stopgap) with overall per unit cost being $1B each, plus the additional license fees, program development costs, etc.
We are also going to build more SSNs (there are some screwups with this class of late), SSBNs (we do have a new class of these), and the new *SSGNs*. There may also be an effort to somehow make something out of the LCS and DDX programs so they weren’t complete wastes.
You may be thinking of our Frigate fleet - the Oliver Hazard Perry-class, decommissioned after only 20-24 years partly due to the hull issues (among other reasons).
I was referring to the Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers, the six oldest are being retired about 6-8 years shy of their 35-year life-span.
355 is just barely enough ships to cover a two ocean navy - ships have to rotate in and out of maintenance on schedule and if they can’t some other asset has to fill in.
305 is way short of the needed ships. Percentage numbers do not help fill fleet deployment levels.
Besides the defense money issues, there are two larger problems:
1) the Navy brass likes the latest toys which are very expensive to build and maintain and so can only build a few; the purchase of 3 additions Ford Class CVNs is idiotic when it begins to look like, no matter what is done, the first, the USS Ford will never be combat ready.
2) most of the US shipyards are closed and gone or are facing bankruptcy because of 1.
No, I’m thinking of the Ticonderogas. They have found that the Ticos had faster than projected hull wear as well, especially on the older units. As far as I’m aware they only retired the five non-VLS ships with the twin-arm launchers fore and aft. Those were not very upgradable, either. Per Wikipedia:
“All five of the twin-arm (Mk-26) cruisers have been decommissioned. In 2003, the newer 22 of the 27 ships (CG-52 to CG-73) in the class were upgraded to keep them combat-relevant, giving the ships a service life of 35 years.[18] In the years leading up to their decommissioning, the five twin-arm ships had been assigned primarily home-waters duties, acting as command ships for destroyer squadrons assigned to the eastern Pacific and western Atlantic areas.
As of July 2013 12 cruisers have completed hull, mechanical, and electrical (HM&E) upgrades and 8 cruisers have had combat systems upgrades. These include an upgrade of the AEGIS computational system with new computers and equipment cabinets, the SPQ-9B radar system upgrade introducing an increased capability over just gunfire control, some optical fiber data communications and software upgrades, and modifications to the vertical launch system allowing two 8 cell modules to fire the RIM-162 ESSM. The most recent upgrade packages will include SM-6 and Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air (NIFC-CA) capability. Another upgrade is improving the SQQ-89A(V)15 sonar with a multi-function towed array. Hull, sonar, radar, electrical, computer, and weapons systems upgrades can cost up to $250 million per ship.[19][20]”
The six oldest VLS ships have been *proposed* to be retired, again in part due to wear, but that hasn’t been approved or rejected by Congress yet. They would require service life extension upgrades to serve further, which includes... replacing the hull plating. Again, per Wiki:
“In March 2019, the Navy proposed decommissioning the six oldest of the active ships; Bunker Hill, Mobile Bay, Antietam, Leyte Gulf, San Jacinto and Lake Champlain, in 2021 and 2022, instead of dry-docking them for life-extension maintenance updates, as a cost-saving measure. This wouldn’t technically be an “early retirement”, as the ships would be at their originally planned 35-year life dates, but they would be able to serve longer with the upgrades. The proposal still needs the approval of Congress, who are usually hesitant to approve any actions that would reduce the size of the active combat fleet.”
It’s not an early retirement.
Not technically, but it will remove them from the fleet due to funding issues. That was my main point.
If you can get 20 more years out of a modern warship in an environment where it may take more than two decades to bring a new one on line....
Yes, but they’re having to rebuild the entire hull - and you’re still left with something that’s not really fully up to date. A Tico is a biiiig non-stealthy missile target these days.
Admittedly, I don't get my talking points from my own extensive research, but from The Heritage Foundation's annual military review:
https://www.heritage.org/military-strength
(unable to grab the hard-link itself, sorry)
Lucky you-meeting people like Ens. Gay is like physically putting your finger on the pulse of history! I have often wondered what that must have been like for him that day in June 1942. Peering out from under that floating seat cushion...wondering if he was going to die in the water, or just as bad, be captured...then to have that ringside seat, survive, and make it home.
To be the only survivor. Just wow.
Yes...CDR. Evans, indeed all of those men deserve our hand salute and eternal respect.
Zhang Fei is right. Almost our entire economy was focused on the war effort.
“If you can’t miss a freighter with a tin can you can’t pee in a punch bowl.”
It took me a moment to figure out what you were referring to but then I remembered the “accident” in the sea lanes off of mainland Japan.
I agree. It doesn’t matter how new, costly, or good the equipment is if the training that you need to operate the systems and navigate the ship is lacking.
On 1 May, President Trump announced he overrode the decision to decommission USS Harry S. Truman, stating “I am overriding the Decommission Order of the magnificent aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman, built in 1998 (fairly new), and considered one of the largest and finest in the world. It will be updated at a fraction of the cost of a new one (which also are being built)!”[64]
In late August it was announced that a malfunction of the ship’s electrical distribution system would prevent its scheduled deployment.
I thought about that, but wasn't sure if it was written in stone.
Thanks for the heads-up. She's due, I think, for a mid-life RCOH anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.