How many ships does the Navy have?

[SynixMan]

How do you BTDT types think of something like this for MS Ops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Fighter

 

[Gatordev]

Why is it becoming borderline? Is it that they are old and in need of mechanical system refit to be on the line enough or is it a dated combat systems suite that needs updated or is it a core size/performance issue that can't be fixed without major expense/time and we're better of building a similar sized ship that won't be gold plated so we can build enough to cover suitable commitments?

I think it's a combination of both. Our FFGs today have limited comms capability, very limited connectivity, no intel gathering ability and a dated set of combat systems (radars and...that's pretty much it). They could certainly be upgraded, though not worth it due to the age. Again, yes, I think something of similar size could work as long as there isn't the creep.

Totally agree with mission creep going into ship design. I remember the LCS being sold as SUW, ASW, MIW capable because of technology... That starts to get expensive quickly!!

Unfortunately, the problem here is us (Big Navy) and what we want when we build/buy ships. We want all our vessels to employ the latest capability and it's expensive....

I don't think a modern version of an FFG would be incapable of doing any mission, I think that some of the recent Euro-FFGs are well-balanced ships that can do plenty of missions well but for much less cost than an Arleigh Burke DDG. I think you experience with the Perry-class may have colored your view a bit, but that is a 35 year-old design and the surviving ships are on their last legs with the USN, not the best of examples I think of a modern FFG. They are usually a little more expensive than the pierside LCS 2 but also more capable, I don't think the LCS is capable enough.
.

There is no doubt that my experience with FFGs clouds my opinion of them. After 4 deployments, it's understandable. My comparison of the "perverbial Knox Class" and OHP class was because the Knox-type, basically a gun boat, would have the same limited capabilities that a current FFG has unless you put a bunch of new comms and combat systems. And there's where the creep can happen, as Lumpy said. It's endemic. This is an anecdotal observation, but I think the MISSOURI had a better electronics suite when it was decom'ed than a FFG does today.

I actually think we're all agreeing about a lot of the same stuff. We all agree more, non-SPY ships could be useful as long as we don't buy the kitchen sink. But we all agree that that's not the current reality we live in.

 

[CAMike]

If I had one of your posts to make that assessment then I would be wrong. With 3700+ I think we all have a pretty good feeling for your leanings and viewpoints.

Politics and the military are inseparable. We serve at, are equipped at and operate at the whim of politicians that only the naive believe are entirely altruistic. To believe that we all share the same opinion on the course of the country and where our national resources are spent and what the best use of what limited funds we have is equally naïve. So, it is my considered opinion that you and I do not share a whole lot of the same viewpoints on the course of our country.

Of course, a web forum is not exactly the best way to fully express and defend complex ideas so maybe you and I are in lockstep with each other but the evidence points otherwise.

Pugs statement above is very accurate. The Perry FFG during it's design phase was not so bad. It filled a role fairly well at the time in it's original design. Then came the final design reviews just prior to construction. Big Navy and our elected loan approval officer Jimmy Carter, made drastic changes to the design at the last minute to cut costs. The hull was shortened, if memory serves by about 35 to 40 feet. That changed the hydrodynamics substantially. The Caterpillar SSDG specification was butchered and replaced by 2 Allison V-8's bolted together sharing timing cams shafts that were connected with a longitudinal spline gear. Guess what happens to the timing of the two engines on fairly short order as the spline gear wears? And how do you think that affected the ASW role (noise signature)? Not that the sonar specification didn't experience the same kind of cost cuts as the SSDG's. But I digress.

Bottom line- Naval architects and mission designers are often as frustrated with the shape of their final product by no fault of their own. If I were a betting man I'd guess that aviation has been less affected by the congressional cost axe than SW. Looking back maybe Reagan wanted a 600 ship Navy so that we could be deemed effective -if only by such a high number of ships. Who really knows the magic number should be with so many and with such diverse mission requirements in the hot spots around the world.

 

[The Chief]

.... I still don't see a defined threat.

You need to read the NSD more carefully.

But agree with your basic premise that requirements should drive solutions, not solutions out there looking for a requirement. Lot of folk apparently did not get that email.

 

[helolumpy]

How can we determine the size of the Navy or the ship mix unless we know what realistic threats we will face down the road. Perhaps I missed it in the thread but I didn't see any mention of the threat we expect to face in the future (if i missed it excuse a threadjack).
... I still don't see a defined threat.

So should the United States take a 'threat based' approach to defense or a 'capabilities based'?
If we go threat based, then you assess what's out there that could possibly threaten us and you base you capabilities (and planned capabilities) on those actual threats.
If we continue with a capabilities based model, then we consider what systems we are capable of fielding and go with that.

This model has worked thus far, hence our incredible lead in capabilities such as missile defense, stealth technology, aircraft carriers, submarines and amphibs.
The draw back is that a capabilities based strategy is far more expensive. Rather than just being able to beat what is available right now, we can defeat anything they have on the drawing boards right now.

If we decide to move to threat based than we can continue to build Perry Class frigates (with some modernization) since they are as capable as any frigates out there right now. However, we may lose the lead in technology because rather than considering (and then acquiring) "what's possible" we get "good enough".

My opinion, expressed a few times in this thread, is that we need a mix of both. We need DDG's that can rule the waves, but at the same time we need lots of ships for the Forward Presence and Maritime Security type missions that we are doing on a day-in-day-out basis. Since we can't have 200 DDG's what's the compromise?
Should we build more PC's or ships like the WMEC the Coasties deploy in?

So while the NDS and NMS will state grand ideas about the role the Navy SHOULD play in national security, it doesn't really address what the Navy CAN play in a resource constrained environment.

Since we are not going to take a threat based model (that will tell us what we need based on presumed enemies) we have to make some strategic assumptions as to what missions we envision the Navy undertaking. There are a few organizations that are doing this type of planning and they feed their results to the CNO on what the make-up of the Navy should look like in the short and not-so-short term future.

The issue is then, if the present number of ship is inadequate for what we're being asked to do, how do we get more ships? We either need more money in the ship building budget (not very likely) or we need to buy cheaper ships or a third option is we have enough ships and our leaders need to learn to say "no" when we get tasked to support everything under the sun...

 

[helolumpy]

The Perry FFG during it's design phase was not so bad... Not that the sonar specification didn't experience the same kind of cost cuts as the SSDG's.

If memory serves; the sonar on the FFG failed so many OPEVALS, they actually changed the design specs to allow the ship to enter service. (I've never seen that documented, but have heard it from a few different reliable sources).

If I were a betting man I'd guess that aviation has been less affected by the congressional cost axe than SW.

I agree with a caveat. Ships cost billions of dollars now, so they are much bigger items individually than aircraft. Where naval aviation gets 'cost adjustments' is in the total number of aircraft purchased over the life of the aircraft. Look at the B-2 and F-22 as prime examples of what happens to the number of airframes actually on the ramp as the costs go up. I'm sure the JSF will go through the same issue.

I do know that there were supposed to be about 15-20 additional 60F purchased as spares as aircraft are destroyed. But the budget folks cancelled the contract early leaving the Navy almost no additional airframes to replace those that crash or are otherwise destroyed over time.

I think it's worth adding that hot-seating an aircraft between squadrons/wings is a whole lot easier than 'sea swap' is with ships. Therefore a shortage of 1 or 2 aircraft is not as significant to the big picture as a shortage of 1 ship.

So IMO when a ship (for example the DD-1000) gets the axe, it's BIG money involved. When aircraft get the axe it's smaller money, therefore it's not as big of an issue in the overall picture.

 

[H60Gunner]

Agree with Lumpy. We also seem to be stuck in the mentality that we need to deploy a CVN in order for the guys on the ground to have CAS. It would be a lot more effective to deploy one squadron to a land base in theater - and then you aren't tearing up the jets and you would actually be able to provide better coverage.

One problem with that is there is not always a land base to operate from. And one squadron might not be enough to cover requirements depending on the size and scope of the conflict.

 

[scoolbubba]

How are we not able to build a 300-500 million dollar frigate? Why does an LCS cost 1 billion dollars? We could have had 3 Lafayette-esque corvette/light frigates for that much.

 

[hscs]

One problem with that is there is not always a land base to operate from. And one squadron might not be enough to cover requirements depending on the size and scope of the conflict.

Agreed - but the current situation in OIF/OND and OEF has sufficient land basing. Think of the extra support that could be provided if the jets didn't have the transit time back to the boat not to mention saving the wear and tear on the jet from the trap.

For another situation where land bases aren't near by - then yes, we need sea basing.

 

[Brett327]

Agreed - but the current situation in OIF/OND and OEF has sufficient land basing. Think of the extra support that could be provided if the jets didn't have the transit time back to the boat not to mention saving the wear and tear on the jet from the trap.

For another situation where land bases aren't near by - then yes, we need sea basing.

There's no doubt that land basing CVW aircraft makes sense in some situations, and it's been done with Prowlers in OIF. Unfortunately, turf wars (who "owns" the jets) can become a significant barrier to what is ultimately a huge increase in capabilities and time on station. If we were operating in a vacuum, it would make sense for the entire CVW to shore-base out of Bagram or Kandahar when it's supporting OEF, but ramp space, hangar space and the ability to support that many personnel would be significant LIMFACS.

Brett

 

[Recovering LSO]

Also lost would be the ability to pick up and move in a different direction at a moment's notice. The 'Stan isn't the only reason we have a carrier presence in the area. I suspect most (not all) of the ATO tasking could be accomplished by land based exped/udp players, but it serves several additional interests to have a traveling alpha strike in the region.

I'm a bit surprised by the path of this thread - sounds like it's coming down to "why do we have carriers?"....

 

[SkywardET]

I'm a bit surprised by the path of this thread - sounds like it's coming down to "why do we have carriers?"....

It's good to question the need of our existing capabilities from time to time, right? CVN's represent an enormous capital investment and their existence does mean that our overall fleet numbers will be lower, which is the primary topic of the thread.

Unfortunately I suspect that all this discussion will be rendered moot in just a couple years as the budget ax find its way into more than just procurement programs.

 

[BigRed389]

I think the bigger problem, and one that transfers across designators, is: how much time do these ships spend at sea? Fewer ships means fewer people. Fewer underway days means less experience. Less people with less experience, but someone has to promote.... Who's it gonna be? Your best DIVO/OOD/etc? Or the dude who's got the best paperwork skills? This is what I think CAPT Kenney should have addressed - because it affects all designators and ends up putting dipshits into very high leadership positions.

Buying more ships isn't the solution to that problem. In fact, more ships, or even maintaining any fixed number of ships, without also increasing the expense of the fuel/training/maintenance budgets (what it seems we're doing now, at least from the lowly operational unit level) means, IMHO, lowered readiness overall.

It would be like saying, with a fixed aviation budget, you shift the proportions to fund more aircraft, but training gets cut to make up the difference. Sounds like accidents waiting to happen.

 

[Random8145]

Here are two interesting articles that were written by George Will recently that you all might find of interest:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will031711.php3
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032011.php3