Posted on 06/20/2002 10:38:00 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
The US Navy's (USN's) nuclear attack submarine (SSN) force structure is inadequate to meet the long-term demands of the war on terrorism, senior service officials said last week. However, tentative navy plans may cause cuts in submarine force structure.The problem, the officials said, is that increased demand from regional combatant commanders has risen dramatically since the beginning of the war on terrorism, causing severe operational tempo (OPTEMPO) challenges that threaten to overstretch the current SSN force of 54 boats.
Adm Frank Bowman, Director of Naval Nuclear Reactors, explained: "As one direct result of 11 September, the combatant commanders' demands for our attack submarines went 30% higher. It is at the highest level since the end of the Cold War ... our 54 submarines simply cannot meet the requirement from the theatre.
To deal with this shortfall, the navy has implemented a series of "short-term band-aid efforts", Adm Bowman said. These include increasing transit speeds into theatre by 25%, reducing turn-around times and increasing deployed OPTEMPO "to a ridiculous 85%".
While these measures afford greater availability for each sub in the operational theatre, running SSNs at an OPTEMPO above the goal of 60% has negative effects on the health of the boats and their crews by drastically reducing time to conduct maintenance, participate in exercises and experimentation and perform engagement missions, said Rear Adm John Padgett, commander, Submarine Force, US Pacific Fleet.
"This tempo is running our boats and possibly our people out of gas long before we can reach the extended operating lifetime of 33 years we are shooting for," Adm Bowman said, noting the practice is "taking an enormous toll on long-term force structure".
The high demand for SSNs comes when tentative navy plans in its Fiscal Year 2004-2009 programme objective memorandum budget call for cutting funds to refuel three of its Los Angeles-class SSNs, effectively forcing their decommissioning.
Such cutbacks would go against the increasing demand regional commanders-in-chief (CINCs) have for the SSNs, the senior submariners said. According to Vice Adm John Grossenbacher, Commander of Naval Submarine Forces, current CINC demand equates to an SSN force structure requirement of 65 boats. Adm Padgett echoed those claims, saying "we need more attack submarines in the Pacific". He said there is a "critical demand for 35 SSNs" in the Pacific Fleet, which currently has 26 boats.
To solve the problem, Adm Bowman said, the navy needs to accelerate the rate at which it procures Virginia-class SSNs, adding that procurement must be done smarter and in a more cost-effective manner. He suggested the navy look at an acquisition strategy of "smarter batch buys...getting multi-year procurements of multi-ships per year, and by upfront investments in economic ordering quantities".
Adm Bowman added that the navy is working on "significant but classified propulsion-plant innovations" for the Virginia-class submarines. Work on a "transformational technology [nuclear] core" will begin in 2003 that will provide a 30-50% increase in energy output, he said.
Yet nobody in the Navy was willing to stand up to Klinton over what he was doing to the fleet. Thanks Pentagon bureaucrats.
Even with the Virginia class, we're only gonna get about 4 of those in the next 5 years. And the Seawolf class has for the most part been put on the back burner.
The NAVY has allowed this to happen. There's plenty of infrastructure, just not enough skilled workers.
At Newport News, for instance, workforce is at pre WW II levels.
It would be much easier to ramp up workforces at EB and NNS, but that can't be done overnight either.
To make matters worse, the Navy is not currently planning to start to ramp up shipbuilding schedules for another 3-4 years. This is nuts.
I don't know how that happens. As far as I know, there is currently only the Virginia under construction.
OD, is that right?
Walt
By very early 1993 the Navy maintenance program was deplorable. It's still is. Yard times and replacement ships are not coming fast enough to meet demand. Either we rebuild or figure on keeping or forces and fleets home untrained and unmaintained. We can not afford anymore defense cuts or reductions in strenght.
I have the same thought. Is this something like wanting
to retake the picture of a wedding party because an
off-camera relative had his eyes closed?
No this is more like Candid pictures that are taken. Subs do covert and survielance opps. They can literally pull into any given sea port, or tail another ship at sea, take pictures, and leave without anyone the wiser. Subs are indeed extremely usefull in the WOT.
You are correct. However, 54 should be plenty, neh?
No not if it like in the case of our aircraft carriers is over extending their usage. Over extension means missed maintenance times, missed schools for crew members, shorter inport times, and LOWER RETENTION RATES. just for starters. It's one of the most demanding duties in the Navy. Some persons think 12 carriers is sufficent but as we are now learning it's not. The ship and crew suffer for the over deployments.
The problem is we keep making the same mistakes over and over expecting a different result. It literally takes four ships to properly keep one in a constant battle ready condition and deployed at all times. When one is deployed for six months another is in a year or longer drydock. Another is in the yards getting a shorter term {3 month post deployment repair} and another is doing work ups to relieve the one currently deployed. Technically we have 4 deployable aircraft carriers 13 deployable subs to keep up with the carrier groups, amphibious groups, and other deployed groups. That is what we have if it was being ran by the book. This is not factoring in emergency deployments to the Middle East which have been just about an annual event since 1989. But in 1989 we had the ships and subs sitting in that region {Med Sea operations area} 24/7/365 as we had sufficent number to do the job without causing disruption in needed down times of others.
Over extension and bad Pentagon judgement cost us the USS COLE. Where was her escorts? Were was the Oiler? Why was a ship two days out away from fleet support and alone? Simply because there are not enough ships to meet our demands is the main reason. The cut backs should have stopped in 1991.
Perhaps one of the biggest benifits of having a high number of subs is their stealth ability. You start limiting the numbers of subs aviable and it's pretty easy to guess where they are. The first and foremost function of government is national defense. It's time our leaders started treating it that way.
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.