Warship reductions likely to hurt BIW (Maine)

Portland Press Herald ^ | February 8, 2005 | MATT WICKENHEISER

[Fido969]

While I see the need to cut spending, I wish they would concentrate on cutting welfare, rather than jobs, in Maine.

[stuartcr]

Not going to do Tidewater VA much good either...thousands of jobs expected to be lost, just from the JFK alone.

[SheLion]

[ClearCase_guy]

We need to keep our eye on China. If they get aggressive, and we need to go to war, the navy will be very important. Diminishing out ability to build a navy just seems dumb.

[ken5050]

Possibly an opening "suggestion" to Maine's two senators, the "Pigeon sisters" to get with W's other programs..

[markedman]

I was a Tin Can Sailor whose service unfortunately crossed over into, but fortunately past Jimmy Carter's presidency. He was another one who didn't seem to have money to keep the Destroyer Fleet, manned, ready and on the line.

Once upon a time when I was the Mount Captain of a Forward 5"/54 Gun on an Adams Class out of Tin Can Alley in San Diego, one of the right loading cradles got busted into an inrepairable state. When I went to order an new one I was told that our boat "didn't have the budget dollars to order the part." God's honest truth.

So with The Chief's and GAMO's tacit blessing we borrowed the ships truck and me and my Gun Gang broke into the new shiny 5" /54 that belonged to the on of the Fleet training schools at the head of the quay and "took what we needed", while making sure to remove all of the safety switches and leave notes so no one would unknowingly light off the Gun Mount.

The NIS (Naval Investigative Service) was called in and tracked down every damn Gunner's Mate at 32nd Street and unfortunately, ultimately found me at the end. They wanted to burn my ass and put me in the brig. Fortunately our old man got on the horn to the Commander of Pacific Fleet and was able to buy me a walk since I was acting only in the best interest of the Navy - something Carter a former Naval Officer should have done.

I can still see the old man snickering as he pinned on my Good Conduct Medal two months later, then asking me if I could comshaw him a Train Warning Bell with a couple of cans of coffee and some foul weather jackets.

I like Bush and voted for him, but he's dead wrong on the Destroyer issue. These boats can get into places Cruisers and Carriers can't.

Be well,

Marked Man, Shell Back

HAIL DAVEY JONES! HAIL KING NEPTUNE!

[meandog]

Unfortunately, the Navy did too good a job under the presidency of Ronald Maximus... There is no great blue water fleet out there on the world's stage (seven seas) now to mount even a hint of a challenge; Osama doesn't have a Navy, Kim Il's is miniscule and the Ayatollah's is practically non-existent. A warship is basically a strategic offensive weapon so I can readily see W's decision to cut back on the DD(X) order. We will still need ships to "show the flag" and promote "gunboat diplomacy" but the future indeed looks dim for the sea services. I invision eventual carriers with no more than 100 or so sailors launching UAVs to do warfighting tasks. Sad!.

A former bubblehead and a "bluenose"

[Fido969]

How about China - and even Russia? Those are still powerful enough to launch an aggressive sea force. And it takes years to ramp up construction on one of these boats.

[ProudVet77]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but the fact is that most of us don't know enough about the issues. We went through a phase a while back when it looked like the SeaWolf was the end of the line for subs. But the Virginia class has taken care of that.
I'll add one technical tidbit. The Arleigh Burke class Aegis destroyer, has 96 missile luanchers. The MK-41 can launch anything from an ASROC, an SM-2 long range anit aircraft missiles, an SM-3 which can shoot down an ICBM, the Tomahawk for use against land and surface targets, and the ESSM anti aircraft missile. Forgot to mention that it also carries 2 LAMPs III helicopters. Toss in the RAM CIWS missile launchers. That is hardly what we have called a destroyer in my day. That would have been a very powerful cruiser. Heck it would have been several cruisers and their destroyer screen.
Now, just in the last year or two some clever engineer figured out how to put 4 ESSM missiles in one Mk41 Cell (MK25 quadpack). So we just enhanced our ability by 4x. As I was fact checking I just found another interesting new toy they've added. It's an unmanned submarine. On selected ABs they will have a 23ft unmanned sub for mine hunting. It's also directly connected into the Aegis sytem, so I'm sure it could be use to target enemy subs as well with it's towed sonar.
To borrow from the Army, this is a Navy of one ship.

[meandog]

Most of Russia's ships are rusting in their northern fleet ports...China has mostly focused on small, fast guided missile FFGs (though I have heard rumors of a planned future CVN)

[Shortwave]

I'm a government contractor supporting the Navy's DDG program. I'm also privy to much of the "transformation" of the military. Although it is important to have a strong fleet of destroyers, military planners have gone back to the table since 9/11 and looked at the threat matrix.

You always need to be prepared for the next military challenge. The folks looking into the crystal ball have determined that threats to the United States are more likely going to come from rogue states without ocean ports and/or rogue enemies without states. The need for sea superiority is, at least for now and the near future, waning. This is not my opinion, but merely the facts.

The supremacy of the sea is and always will be a part of the overall military strategy; however, it is hard to fight small bands of terrorist with sea power. The necessity for fast, mobile, and airborne recognizance, firepower, and manpower is of more importance in the global war on terror. In other words, it's not a matter of reducing capability, as Olympia Snowe likes to elude to, but more of a "shifting" of capability.

Also, BIW has not done a very good job of diversifying its portfolio of offerings. There are several factors for this, but most probable is the culture. There is no argument about BIW built ships. They truly are the best built naval ships in the world, period. Unfortunately, the Navy, which once took quality into consideration when purchasing ships for the fleet, have away from the business philosophy and now want quantity.

So where does that leave BIW? I don't know. Senator Snow and Collins are fighting the good fight, for that I commend them for it. From a political stand point, if the Dems pickup some Senate seats the next election and the margin of majority is one or two, then the ante will be upped tremendously. In a blue state like Maine, there maybe even pressure on them to jump ship to the democratic party to tip the balance of power back to the Dems.

The current administration has to tread lightly on this issue. Right now the President is firmly in charge and has a vision for America's military, regardless of what we all may think.

For me, I will continue to do my job as contracted. If I lose it because of changes in military need, so be it. I'll move on. To me, at least, the more important issue is, can America defend itself, not will the government buy unnecessary assets so I can keep my job. Frankly, that's welfare.

[ProudVet77]

Where do I get one of those T-Shirts???!!!!

[Grut]

We need to keep our eye on China. If they get aggressive, and we need to go to war, the navy will be very important.

If we go to war with China they can shut down American retail trade in about a week. Therefore, we are not going to go to war with China and the Navy will not be important, at least not for that reason.

[Shortwave]

Made it myself.

[Shortwave]

Agreed. Also, China has built one of the most strategic liabilities in modern human history, the Three Gorges Dam. If destoryed, even by convetional means, it would kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, and critically wound the countries infrastructure.

The idea here is "emerging threats." China is, at this time, not a threat. The Chinese think long term. We will all be long dead and the current class of destroyers all decommisioned before this threat appears on the matrix.

[geedee]

Possibly an opening "suggestion" to Maine's two senators, the "Pigeon sisters" to get with W's other programs..

LOL. I'll bet you're right. This is GW's shot across the bow that some Pubbies had best learn to be team players.

[ken5050]

Very interesting thread, and thanks to you all for your comments and observations. From my position of ignorance on naval issues ( USMC 68-72 ) though well read on current issues..( long time subcripber to "Proceedings" I have one question for all of you. The Navy is determined, on all future ships, to substantially reduce crewsize, primarily via technology. Reasons why are obvious, yet no one has yet addressed the question of what happens during Damage Control needs in time of war. These new destroyers, frigates..whatever you want to call them..they're being designed for operation ( as I have seen it described) with a crew one third or less the size of a comparably sized vessel in WW II..You may well be able to operate, and fight, the ship this way..but these smaller craft will operate close in...all your comments say this..indeed, you cite it as the main advantage of these type of craft,a nd the reason why we need more of them..But one hit from a missile, can the ship survive?..are there enough survivors who can effect repairs and fight the ship to safe harbor? Everyone says that carriers may be obsolete, because they are big targets..may well be true, thought the Navy has substantially downsized the number of ships in a battlegroup in the last decade. They're big targets, but tough targets, whereas the smaller newer, destroyer types...very lightly manned..well..while this analogy may be a stretch, look what the Army has learned about the use of HUMVEES and helos in Iraq...we've had to redesign our combat formations and tactical use just because of the RPG and IED threat..

IOW, is the design philosphy flawed, to the extent that reducing the number of these craft in the pipeline might well be a good thing?

I'd welcome your comments, and any links you might suggest for further reading/research on my part. Regards..

[ProudVet77]

That's an excellent point.
While everyone is trained in DC there is a Damage Controlmen (DC) rating. Usually the Damage control teams are made up of other engineering rates (machinist mates, electricians mates, hull technician etc). and led by DCs.
If we look at where the cuts in numbers come from it's not likely to be in these ratings where it takes a pair of hands to do the job. Automation will will cut into operational ratings (EW, OS, ST, DS, OT and IT (ex-RM)) most. Also the weapons ratings are going to shrink big time. All the missiles are in sealed cells, so there is no maintenance to do (so no GMMs/MTs/TMs). The gunnersmates will shrink a lot. Read someplace a twin 5"/38 took about 30 people to load and fire a single turret. The newer 155MM has an automated loader and targetting is under control of the Aegis system (no FTs).
All of the above is best guess, so your mileage may vary.

[Fledermaus]

I was near Bath Iron Works on vacation in Oct. 2000. The area was already depressed and the workers were on strike for their usual whiney greivances of not being handed every amenity of life for welding.

The Clinton years did more to hurt ship builders than anything Bush MIGHT do in the future.

[Fledermaus]

U.S. Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, said no one is claiming the United States needs fewer ships.

"What they are saying is we don't have the money to pay for them. We don't have the money because we're spending $1 billion, $1.5 billion a week in Iraq. That's basically a destroyer a week," Allen said.

Hey liberal whiney Democrat...if you want more money for ships to keep jobs in your tax laden third world city in Maine then how about dumping those gazillion worthless social programs you waste billions and billions on each year?

Yeah, that's what I thought....silence.