Posted on 04/11/2019 6:37:45 AM PDT by RitchieAprile
The U.S. Navy’s shipbuilding plans and programs came under attack in the House Armed Services Committee on April 10, with concerns about the accelerated development of a new large surface combatant and unmanned vessels, early retirement of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman and constant changes in long-term plans. House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington) cited numerous failed or troubled ship programs while questioning new proposals, a retired Navy officer doubted the Navy had “a long-term vision” for its fleet and other committee members voiced concerns about meeting combatant commanders’ needs with a reduced carrier force. Questions and concerns also came up about delays in building two amphibious warships, the badly aged strategic sealift fleet, the cybersecurity of the supply chain and the operational impact on the Marine Corps from the hurricane damage to two North Carolina installations. Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John M. Richardson said that, with the need to balance requirements and limited resources, they prioritized modernization to meet rising peer competitors and were working more with industry to match desired requirements with what is achievable and affordable. The plan to retire USS Truman at midlife was a “hard choice” made to allow investments in future technologies, they said. Those investments would suffer if Congress insisted on refueling Truman for another 25 years of service, which committee members indicated they would. Challenged by Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Virginia), a retired commander, that the frequent changes in the 30-year shipbuilding plan indicated a lack of vision, Richardson said, “yes, we have a long-term vision,” but the changes are “reflective of how much the security landscape has changed.” Spencer said the revised shipbuilding program “doesn’t bother me one bit” because it was necessary to adapt to changed conditions. Smith, in his prepared opening statement, cited a long list of troubled Navy programs, including the planned new cruiser CG(X), which was canceled, the DDG-1000, which was cut from 21 to three ships, and the littoral combat ships (LCS), which were bought in blocks without firm requirements and have yet to be deployed with a full capability. “I’m concerned that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past,” Smith said, listing Richardson’s “arbitrary” goal of starting construction on the new surface combatant by 2023 and the plan to buy 20 large unmanned vessels “without any requirements review, understanding of the concept of operations or how to employ weapons on unmanned vessels, including the application of the law of armed conflict.” Smith’s concerns about the unmanned vessels was echoed by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Connecticut), chairman of the Seapower subcommittee, who asked, “Are we getting ahead of our skis?” Spencer told Courtney: “One of things you have charged us with is to go quicker, go smarter. … We think what we have is the smart way” to put the unmanned ships into the fleet, try them, break them and learn. Richardson said the Navy leaders do have a concept for the 20 unmanned ships. But, he said, “we have to learn how to use those to go forward,” which is why the ships are in research and development. Spencer said the Navy is determined to work closer with industry to match capabilities with what can be produced and to adopt commercial best practices. On cybersecurity, he said the Navy is good at protecting its information but is demanding that its industrial suppliers do a better job of protecting data. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert B. Neller said that despite the heavy damage inflicted by Hurricane Florence on Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point last year, the II Marine Expeditionary Force is operational but working in badly degraded conditions. He thanked Congress for reprograming $400 million to start repairs but warned that, without supplemental appropriations for the remaining $3 billion, readiness would suffer.
it’s going to take a while to undo the massive damage done by obama boy ray mabus.
A related story which cannot post due to copyright.
The issue of the Navy not being able to find its ass with both hands is accurate. We’re still pursuing a strategy akin to the previous bigger and bigger battleships. The current small boy hulls can’t take a licking and keep on ticking as shown by collisions with merchant ships much less a hit by a weapon. The Navy is screwed.
Sorry but in the modern technological era of multiple modalities of pinpoint location and even more numerous stealthy missiles, drones and other weapons, surface capital ships are obsolete and those carriers however well defended are floating coffins for their brave young crews. Time for today’s battleship admirals, despite their love and affection for these ships, to face reality.
Did you use the preview button before you posted this?
Truman's dead Jim.
It looks like the entire US government appratus is just one giant disfunctional cluster fluck.
Nobody’s modern frigate or destroyer hulls can do that - because a modern shipkiller missile will easily penetrate any practical thickness of destroyer hull armor and indeed it can use the armor to do even more damage nobody bothers installing much armor on these combatants.
A Fletcher or Gearing is far more heavily armored than a modern Burke. But a Fletcher or Gearing is easy meat for an Exocet or Silkworm or Sunburn.
It's a "wall-o-words"
Sorry bout that. I was in a hurry.
House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington) cited numerous failed or troubled ship programs while questioning new proposals, a retired Navy officer doubted the Navy had “a long-term vision” for its fleet and other committee members voiced concerns about meeting combatant commanders’ needs with a reduced carrier force.
Questions and concerns also came up about delays in building two amphibious warships, the badly aged strategic sealift fleet, the cybersecurity of the supply chain and the operational impact on the Marine Corps from the hurricane damage to two North Carolina installations.
Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John M. Richardson said that, with the need to balance requirements and limited resources, they prioritized modernization to meet rising peer competitors and were working more with industry to match desired requirements with what is achievable and affordable.
The plan to retire USS Truman at midlife was a “hard choice” made to allow investments in future technologies, they said. Those investments would suffer if Congress insisted on refueling Truman for another 25 years of service, which committee members indicated they would.
Challenged by Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Virginia), a retired commander, that the frequent changes in the 30-year shipbuilding plan indicated a lack of vision, Richardson said, “yes, we have a long-term vision,” but the changes are “reflective of how much the security landscape has changed.”
Spencer said the revised shipbuilding program “doesn’t bother me one bit” because it was necessary to adapt to changed conditions. Smith, in his prepared opening statement, cited a long list of troubled Navy programs, including the planned new cruiser CG(X), which was canceled, the DDG-1000, which was cut from 21 to three ships, and the littoral combat ships (LCS), which were bought in blocks without firm requirements and have yet to be deployed with a full capability.
“I’m concerned that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past,” Smith said, listing Richardson’s “arbitrary” goal of starting construction on the new surface combatant by 2023 and the plan to buy 20 large unmanned vessels “without any requirements review, understanding of the concept of operations or how to employ weapons on unmanned vessels, including the application of the law of armed conflict.”
Smith’s concerns about the unmanned vessels was echoed by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Connecticut), chairman of the Seapower subcommittee, who asked, “Are we getting ahead of our skis?”
Spencer told Courtney: “One of things you have charged us with is to go quicker, go smarter … We think what we have is the smart way” to put the unmanned ships into the fleet, try them, break them and learn. Richardson said the Navy leaders do have a concept for the 20 unmanned ships. But, he said, “we have to learn how to use those to go forward,” which is why the ships are in research and development.
Spencer said the Navy is determined to work closer with industry to match capabilities with what can be produced and to adopt commercial best practices. On cybersecurity, he said the Navy is good at protecting its information but is demanding that its industrial suppliers do a better job of protecting data.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert B. Neller said that despite the heavy damage inflicted by Hurricane Florence on Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point last year, the II Marine Expeditionary Force is operational but working in badly degraded conditions. He thanked Congress for reprograming $400 million to start repairs but warned that, without supplemental appropriations for the remaining $3 billion, readiness would suffer.
The CVN Truman 25 year early retirement is to save the money it would cost to maintain it in order to finance a block buy of two more Ford class CVNs. The Navy is preparing to spend tens of billions on one of its latest toys that does not work whose systems may have to be ripped out and replaces in order to buy two more of the class which will have to be redesigned to work adding still more billions in cost over runs on top of the normal cost over runs..
And here's the exciting part: The Chinese are installing a EMALS system (on their new but still under construction carrier) that works.
See
U.S. Navy's Troubled New Aircraft Carrier Delayed Again As Propulsion Issues Arise
See
Shock Trials or No, the Navy's Newest Supercarrier Is Still an Unreliable Debacle
See
The Puzzling Case Of The Navy's Attempt To Retire Supercarrier USS Harry S. Truman Early
See
Navy's Newest Carrier Needs Critical Updates To Launch And Recover Aircraft With Certain Loadouts
Funny. I thought the recent collisions showed 2 things: 1) seamanship is seriously lacking in today’s Navy, and 2) the “Burke-class” is pretty difficult to sink.
The damage to the Burke class ships didn’t involve a warhead. They were still out of commission.
They were hit by very large cargo vessels that outweighed them by an order of magnitude yet they did not sink. That’s a tough ship with a very good damage control system. A SSM does a lot of damage even when the warhead fails. The USS Stark — a lighter frigate — took 2 missile hits during the Iran-Iraq War and did not sink.
That said, the systems on these ships are delicate. Electronics don’t like saltwater. Finely balance high-speed propeller shafts don’t like to be knocked out of alignment. The shock of an impact, whether it be from a small missile traveling at high speed or a large vessel colliding at cruising speed, is going to knock a ship out for a very long time.
A Burke is orders of magnitude more difficult to detect, even in the littorals. Have you ever served on one?
No, but I’m purely talking about what happens when a missile impacts a ship. The armored destroyers of the past are at least as vulnerable versus a shipkiller missile despite all their armor as a modern ‘lightly armored’ destroyer. The older ships’ armor is at best useless against a shipkiller, so there’s no reason to retain it in full.
The EMALS catapault issue is pretty much a software problem. There are other issues with it involving maintainability, but the launch issues are a software problem.
I don’t recall what the problem with the munitions elevator is, but the reactor problems appear to be mostly expected and allowable teething trouble for an all new reactor power system. The reason the Fords have an all new A1B power system is because the A4W system used on the Nimitz class ships does *not* have enough electrical power to run all the systems (original plus retrofitted) on the carrier at once. The A1Bs are designed to provide currently required power and have a 25% margin for future expansion.
I’m well aware of what happens when a missile impacts a ship, or when a ship strikes a mine. There’s something called the ‘Kill Chain’ - that involves locating, identifying, tracking, targeting and striking. It’s not a simple process, and there are tens of thousands of merchant ships in the mix. Our Burke Class DDGs are quite survivable because everything in the ‘Kill Chain’ is hard when a warship has the radar signature of a small fishing boat.
I was specifically addressing the original poster’s implied ‘how come modern Navy vessels don’t have armor any more’ question. Not any of the rest of that.
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.