Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

[Flash]

No, it doesn't. But what winds up happening is the US-built versions get bogged down in politics and legal challenges (VH-71, A-29), or wind up as Frankensteined bastards (HH-65A).

I think ships could be a much different story, much like the T-6 being made from scratch here only using the design with American mods and a completely free license to do what we want while most of the others you cite had much more serious limitations from mere assembly to licensing issues.

All that being said, it is up to the Navy to ask/contract for that sort of platform and for our shipbuilders to actually build them. It isn't like the LCS or Zumwalts sprouted out of nowhere or shipbuilder's fervent minds, we can thank the Navy for those bright ideas and everyone for its wonderful execution.

 

[SynixMan]

Sorry, that was a bit of a rhetorical question. NAVSEA had a plan (DDGX and LCS+modules) that fell on its face and we ended up here. Probably lots of reasons we can't liscense those designs and build them domestically, but, in hindsight, NAVSEA/Big Navy dropped the ball on this a while ago.

 

[bert]

Any of you guys with the Naval Postgrad School Executive Emm Bee Ayyy (and a procurement subspecialty in your service record) wanna comment?

So when I read some of these suggestions I actually thought they were too dumb to bother commenting on. Zero useful thought was given to manning, O&M, or a dozen other gaping holes in the concepts.

As a side note, every time I see this thread title I read it in The Bobs' voices.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Well that 350 (or 355) presumably came out of some level of OPNAV strategic analysis.
What's less clear is just exactly what kind of 355.
355 with a battle force entirely made up of AEGIS ships for surface combatants is going to have very different cost and capability from one made up of LCS or follow on FFs.

IF the current fleet (even brought back to speed with a healthy injection of maintenance) is insufficient for the strategy, and not enough shipbuilding funds are available to execute the preferred strategy - are there any suggestions?

 

[BigRed389]

I think ships could be a much different story, much like the T-6 being made from scratch here only using the design with American mods and a completely free license to do what we want while most of the others you cite had much more serious limitations from mere assembly to licensing issues.

All that being said, it is up to the Navy to ask/contract for that sort of platform and for our shipbuilders to actually build them. It isn't like the LCS or Zumwalts sprouted out of nowhere or shipbuilder's fervent minds, we can thank the Navy for those bright ideas and everyone for its wonderful execution.

Pulling in a foreign design really wouldn't solve our problems, and would bring with it entirely new ones. The Europeans also have different accounting for their costs, which also lets them run lower numbers than we do. The Japanese and ROKs, being #2 and #3 shipbuilders on the planet behind the PRC, are probably always going to kick other developed nation's asses on construction cost and efficiency. Since we're not ever going to be allowed to buy ships actually BUILT overseas, buying foreign wouldn't help us.

As you noted, the LCS problems didn't come out of our shipbuilders...we got exactly what we asked for. Same problems as JSF, except the tech development for LCS just isn't a high enough priority for funding, and Zumwalt basically doesn't even make sense in terms of what it was originally thought up to do.
When the requirements are that hosed up, the design side doesn't even have a chance.

It's not like we can't design or build ships. We run into trouble when we try to get "transformational" with immature technology.

IF the current fleet (even brought back to full health with a healthy injection of maintenance) is insufficient for the strategy, and not enough shipbuilding funds are available to execute the preferred strategy - are there any suggestions?

Depends. Like I was saying...we haven't really articulated the desired end mix of capacity/capability.

What is the desired end state? The future Fleet of 20-30 years is what we should be looking to build towards. Shipbuilding takes a LONG time, and that's just with known designs.
The current shipbuilding strategy will probably keep us on rough trajectory for maintaining a rough status quo while we figure out the long term game.
If we can't fund that, there aren't any magic solutions that get us there on thin air...we'd need to go back and re-scope what the sustainable end state needs to be to fit the available funding.

Now if we are just looking to temporarily solve problems in the nearer term, then yeah, one off solutions like modernization or arming ships differently (see concepts to arm either the EPF/HSV transports or the LPDs) start to make sense. Or even just shit out a bunch of smaller frigates/corvette missile sponges if you just need to hit a capacity target for Fleet presence.

 

[Flash]

...As you noted, the LCS problems didn't come out of our shipbuilders...we got exactly what we asked for. Same problems as JSF, except the tech development for LCS just isn't a high enough priority for funding, and Zumwalt basically doesn't even make sense in terms of what it was originally thought up to do. When the requirements are that hosed up, the design side doesn't even have a chance.

With the huge cost overruns and the issues since I would lay some blame on executions on the shipbuilders too.

Or even just shit out a bunch of smaller frigates/corvette missile sponges if you just need to hit a capacity target for Fleet presence.

At this point that seems like a reasonable option.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Pulling in a foreign design really wouldn't solve our problems, and would bring with it entirely new ones. The Europeans also have different accounting for their costs, which also lets them run lower numbers than we do. The Japanese and ROKs, being #2 and #3 shipbuilders on the planet behind the PRC, are probably always going to kick other developed nation's asses on construction cost and efficiency. Since we're not ever going to be allowed to buy ships actually BUILT overseas, buying foreign wouldn't help us.

As you noted, the LCS problems didn't come out of our shipbuilders...we got exactly what we asked for. Same problems as JSF, except the tech development for LCS just isn't a high enough priority for funding, and Zumwalt basically doesn't even make sense in terms of what it was originally thought up to do.
When the requirements are that hosed up, the design side doesn't even have a chance.

It's not like we can't design or build ships. We run into trouble when we try to get "transformational" with immature technology.



Depends. Like I was saying...we haven't really articulated the desired end mix of capacity/capability.

What is the desired end state? The future Fleet of 20-30 years is what we should be looking to build towards. Shipbuilding takes a LONG time, and that's just with known designs.
The current shipbuilding strategy will probably keep us on rough trajectory for maintaining a rough status quo while we figure out the long term game.
If we can't fund that, there aren't any magic solutions that get us there on thin air...we'd need to go back and re-scope what the sustainable end state needs to be to fit the available funding.

Now if we are just looking to temporarily solve problems in the nearer term, then yeah, one off solutions like modernization or arming ships differently (see concepts to arm either the EPF/HSV transports or the LPDs) start to make sense. Or even just shit out a bunch of smaller frigates/corvette missile sponges if you just need to hit a capacity target for Fleet presence.

Then this showed up today.

CNO: Navy ‘Taking a Hard Look’ at Bringing Back Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates, DDG Life Extensions as Options to Build Out 355 Ship Fleet

https://news.usni.org/2017/06/13/cn...g-life-extension-options-build-355-ship-fleet

 

[BigRed389]

Then this showed up today.

CNO: Navy ‘Taking a Hard Look’ at Bringing Back Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates, DDG Life Extensions as Options to Build Out 355 Ship Fleet

https://news.usni.org/2017/06/13/cn...g-life-extension-options-build-355-ship-fleet

Yeah. I heard the same from someone earlier today who would know that, no, they're not kidding.

Apparently the fact that we've been able to clean them up enough for foreign sales made the OHP side a more appealing prospect.

Not surprised about the DDG life extensions. We've been doing some very expensive modernizations of DDGs at ~the 25 year mark to give them the same capabilities as the ships rolling off the line today. Scrapping them 15 years later seemed pretty unlikely.

 

[RedFive]

Does this mean we have to give back all that brass we....barrowed....when we decommed her?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Pretty good breakdown from RCD of the challenges a de-mothballing program would face:
Of Mothballs and Modernization

One interesting point: "(Kitty Hawk) was the subject of a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) overhaul from 1987 to 1990 that was designed to add 15 years to the ships existing lifespan. That overhaul cost $947.5 million in 1987 dollars and just over $2 billion in 2017 (dollars)."

 

[Pags]

Pretty good breakdown from RCD of the challenges a de-mothballing program would face:
Of Mothballs and Modernization

One interesting point: "(Kitty Hawk) was the subject of a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) overhaul from 1987 to 1990 that was designed to add 15 years to the ships existing lifespan. That overhaul cost $947.5 million in 1987 dollars and just over $2 billion in 2017 (dollars)."

Seems to be a more realistic analysis that covers many more potential pros and cons of bringing back old boats.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Also thought it relevant regarding the Aussies' OHP refit/modernization:

"The Australian navy had an ambitious program to upgrade its Perry-class vessels to include newer and larger numbers of weapons, improved sensors, and HM&E upgrades. This upgrade cost about $1B U.S. dollars in 2008 and involved only four of the six total Australian FFG’s. The first of these upgraded ships, HMAS Sidney, re-entered service in 2008, but has already been retired and is being scrapped. She was 32 years old when removed from active service. This suggests the Australians paid a billion dollars to get ten more years of life for a quartet of aging ships."

 

[Randy Daytona]

Pretty good breakdown from RCD of the challenges a de-mothballing program would face:
Of Mothballs and Modernization

One interesting point: "(Kitty Hawk) was the subject of a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) overhaul from 1987 to 1990 that was designed to add 15 years to the ships existing lifespan. That overhaul cost $947.5 million in 1987 dollars and just over $2 billion in 2017 (dollars)."

Looks like the guess of $2 Billion from a few posts back was pretty close. Even double that amount for 15 years is a similar price to the Ford costing $12 billion for 50 years. Although less capable, the upsides include getting to the fleet much quicker, different funding streams and as I have mentioned before, the domestic political benefits of more good paying jobs. The other ship classes seemed to have the same tradeoff. As this is a good political move, I would think the idea would be seriously entertained.

If the national security situation dictates that the fleet needs to expand to 12 carriers, keeping the Nimitz around longer after the new Kennedy arrives, add in a refurbished Kitty Hawk and you are back to a 12 carrier fleet. As noted above, to prevent a hollow fleet, maintenance must be emphasized.

Another nugget of information in the article was "The 1980’s “600 ship” Navy included combat logistics and service vessels that are now under the jurisdiction and operation of the Military Sealift Command. Returning these ships to the official fleet strength number will immediately add upwards of 50 ships to the fleet strength." was a good way of comparing the Cold War fleet of the 1980's to what the past several administrations have let the fleet shrink to.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/us-ship-force-levels.html#2000

 

[Uncle Fester]

USNI: Senate Armed Services Bill Directs Navy to Start a Preliminary Design Effort for a Light Carrier, Pluses Up Shipbuilding Totals Over Trump Budget

If the purpose of a 'light carrier' is just "more hulls with strike capability, cheaper," then the most efficient way of doing that would seem to be building more non-well-deck America-class. Stand up some Navy "light" air wings with a mix of -35Bs and 'Hawks if the Marines don't want to/can't meet the extra requirement. As opposed to designing a new class, which is not going to get any new hulls in the water in less than 15 years, given our ship acquisition processes. Even a modified America-class with cats and AG would add a lot of programmatic risk. All you gain with CATOBAR is E-2 capability, which ain't nothing, but is it worth the squeeze?

 

[sevenhelmet]

I think we need to maintain our existing ships better before we start making new ones beyond a replacement rate. It amazes me how few people really understand how badly the fleet is hurting. It's the Naval equivalent of only barely being able to maintain a 1979 Honda Accord with a busted headlight, rusted body, and one cylinder misfiring, and saying "I'm going to keep this, restore a WWII Jeep, and buy a brand new Tesla, too."

I know, pots/colors of money. It's always more politically viable to go for the shiny new toys (even when they are unproven). Yet again, military gets boned by politics.