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

[Flash]

Are there any FFGs even left? The ones I've familiar with had all been sold (or pending sale). Or blown up.

Not in the US Navy, the last one was decommed at the end of FY15.

 

[Pags]

I was reading that yesterday, and it seems like the authors are neglecting a couple of big items in the name of reaching a magic number of hulls in the water. Their plan treats reaching a 350-ship fleet as an end unto itself, with no real thought as to what comes next.

Bringing CGs and FFGs out of mothballs sounds good, but even if practical, it's a stopgap solution; we'd get maybe 10 years out of them, and in the meantime new-build replacements would have to be in the works. So between the several hundred million to refurbish the CGs/FFGs, and whatever it'd cost to design and build the next gen, I don't see any cost savings. And it ignores altogether the fact that the Columbia-class alone eats up the Navy's entire shipbuilding budget for the next ten years.

This article is the SWO equivalent of "bring airplane X back from the boneyard!"

I also thought his line about "nearly wholly dependent upon huge container ships, is nearing its fracture point" was a little too "sky is falling." And it was stated as fact, nothing in the article to back up this assertion.

But Jerry Hendrix has made a nice name for himself as a guy who likes to tilt at windmills.

 

[Gatordev]

Not in the US Navy, the last one was decommed at the end of FY15.

 

[Brett327]

Yeah. They'll bring back mothballed ships when they bring back the F-14.

 

[nittany03]

Yeah. They'll bring back mothballed ships when they bring back the F-14.

Don't give the Internet fanboys hope, now . . .

 

[Randy Daytona]

I was reading that yesterday, and it seems like the authors are neglecting a couple of big items in the name of reaching a magic number of hulls in the water. Their plan treats reaching a 350-ship fleet as an end unto itself, with no real thought as to what comes next.

Bringing CGs and FFGs out of mothballs sounds good, but even if practical, it's a stopgap solution; we'd get maybe 10 years out of them, and in the meantime new-build replacements would have to be in the works. So between the several hundred million to refurbish the CGs/FFGs, and whatever it'd cost to design and build the next gen, I don't see any cost savings. And it ignores altogether the fact that the Columbia-class alone eats up the Navy's entire shipbuilding budget for the next ten years.

10 years of service of the military, but for the political party in power it allows them to show a quick increase in hull numbers at minimal cost.

As for paying for the Columbia class, you got any insight or thoughts on this? Looks like the Navy is trying to set up a different funding stream for the subs.

Navy’s Deterrence Fund Is Just Another Washington Budget Gimmick
Last week, the Navy quietly scored a $100 billion victory against the Army and Air Force. The advancement of the Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines into a new program phase triggered a congressional provision to move its funding from the Navy shipbuilding account to a defense-wide account called the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund

http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...another_washington_budget_gimmick_110616.html

 

[Uncle Fester]

10 years of service of the military, but for the political party in power it allows them to show a "quick" increase in hull numbers at "minimal" cost.

I don't see any way a modernization program would be either quick or cheap. Several CNOs have fought the CG refit scheme, and it's not because they don't like cruisers.

As for paying for the Columbia class, you got any insight or thoughts on this? Looks like the Navy is trying to set up a different funding stream for the subs.

Nope. The NSBDF idea is a budget dodge - "this shouldn't come out of my allowance because it's not really for me" - and I would be deeply shocked if the Navy pulled it off. Not least because if they do, the AF wants the same deal to pay for their missile upgrades and the B-21.

The basic problem is that this administration can't articulate what it wants a 350-ship Navy for. You can't argue for both isolationism and a huge fleet. At least, not if you want to get decades of massive shipbuilding budget increases past dovish Democrats and Republican budget hawks. The current admin needs a SecNav who can articulate a clear case to Congress and get support - or at least non-opposition - from congressmen who's districts don't include shipyards or Navy bases, like Lehman did for Reagan. Randy Forbes could probably do it; he understands the Navy and Congress. But apparently Mattis doesn't like him.

 

[Randy Daytona]

The Navy Now Says It Can Get More Service Life Out Of Its Existing Fleet
Now that shipbuilders' order books are filling up, the Navy claims it can get more service life out of the ships it already owns.

Vice Admiral Tom Moore, who was speaking at an event put on by the Center for Strategic and International studies and the U.S. Naval Institure, stated the following: “We’re taking a pretty close look at what it would take to get them out another five, another 10 years. And the reality is, for a steel hull, if you do the maintenance, you can get its service life out much longer... I think there’s great opportunity to make the investments, a relatively small investment, to keep the ships around longer than we have today.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...t-more-service-life-out-of-its-existing-fleet

Good photo below

 

[Recovering LSO]

Vice Admiral Tom Moore, who was speaking at an event put on by the Center for Strategic and International studies and the U.S. Naval Institure, stated the following: “We’re taking a pretty close look at what it would take to get them out another five, another 10 years. And the reality is, for a steel hull, if you do the maintenance, you can get its service life out much longer... I think there’s great opportunity to make the investments, a relatively small investment, to keep the ships around longer than we have today.

Also of possible relevance: IS TRUMP’S 350-SHIP NAVY ON THE ROCKS? THE POLITICS, PROMISE, AND PERIL OF SHIPBUILDING - Bryan McGrath

 

[nittany03]

Good photo below

Pretty, but with the angle, the first thing I thought of was PORT ROYAL on the rocks.

 

[Uncle Fester]

...And the reality is, for a steel hull, if you do the maintenance, you can get its service life out much longer...

Maybe I'm missing something here, but that seems to me like watching your house burn and saying, if we put that fire out right now, we can still live in what's left. Instead of, you know, putting out the fire.

The Surface force is already overtasked. Too much time underway and not nearly enough time in the yards. If you don't have more hulls or less tasking, then the only way the math works is to defer maintenance time. Reaching a355-ship Fleet isn't an end unto itself. What the hell's the point of having a big Navy if most of it is old, broke, and clamped to the pier?

 

[BigRed389]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but that seems to me like watching your house burn and saying, if we put that fire out right now, we can still live in what's left. Instead of, you know, putting out the fire.

The Surface force is already overtasked. Too much time underway and not nearly enough time in the yards. If you don't have more hulls or less tasking, then the only way the math works is to defer maintenance time. Reaching a355-ship Fleet isn't an end unto itself. What the hell's the point of having a big Navy if most of it is old, broke, and clamped to the pier?

But if you had the hulls you wouldn't be overtasked (hopefully). Nice Catch 22 we got here.

The idea is we can look at SLEP cost vs new build, essentially. Interesting to see how it'll play out. SLEP will likely be painfully expensive and time consuming to do right as well.

 

[Randy Daytona]

The Surface force is already overtasked. Too much time underway and not nearly enough time in the yards. If you don't have more hulls or less tasking, then the only way the math works is to defer maintenance time. Reaching a 355-ship Fleet isn't an end unto itself. What the hell's the point of having a big Navy if most of it is old, broke, and clamped to the pier?

This might help.

Navy to hire more than 2,000 new federal shipyard workers
The Navy wants to hire about 2,000 new shipyard workers to help make more repairs to surface warships and keep them in service longer, said Vice Adm. Thomas Moore, the Navy’s top commander for ship maintenance.

Hiring more workers is a critical component in the Navy’s plan to increase the fleet to 350 ships, Moore said Thursday at a panel at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

https://www.stripes.com/news/navy-t...ederal-shipyard-workers-1.471520#.WTK_p67yuM8


Meanwhile, from China - their interpretation of the arsenal ship? submersible? semi-submersible?

China is developing a warship of naval theorists' dreams
An arsenal ship that can be submerged in water.

http://www.popsci.com/futuristic-chinese-warship-concept-is-making-waves

 

[Uncle Fester]

But if you had the hulls you wouldn't be overtasked (hopefully). Nice Catch 22 we got here.

The idea is we can look at SLEP cost vs new build, essentially. Interesting to see how it'll play out. SLEP will likely be painfully expensive and time consuming to do right as well.

This might help.

Navy to hire more than 2,000 new federal shipyard workers
The Navy wants to hire about 2,000 new shipyard workers to help make more repairs to surface warships and keep them in service longer, said Vice Adm. Thomas Moore, the Navy’s top commander for ship maintenance.

Hiring more workers is a critical component in the Navy’s plan to increase the fleet to 350 ships, Moore said Thursday at a panel at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

I'm no kind of expert on this, but I didn't think yard capacity was the issue. I read a while ago the BIW president saying they could build two additional DDGs per FY with their current infrastructure. I imagine HII is similar. NNS could build a CVN in four years instead of 5+. I don't know about the Sub yards but Virginia-class production is mature and humming along. The production schedule is stretched out to spread costs over multiple budget years and make the arithmetic work, not because there aren't enough workers or big enough plant. How much would a SLEP cost, and could we get new construction of a 30-year-lifespan hull for the money instead?

It's as if when you make a number the goal, then everyone quickly becomes target-fixated on reaching that number, whether it makes sense or not. There are some pretty fundamental questions that are still unanswered before anyone can say whether a 5-10-year SLEP helps you or not.
- What's our national strategy? What do we need our Navy to do?
- How many and what kinds of ships do we need to accomplish that strategy?
- If we need to ramp up production, what do we do to sustain the industrial base once the 'surge' is done? And can we afford it anyway?
- If SLEP is the answer, what comes after the 5-10-years?
- If SLEP is the answer, does that mean we can meet our tasking with current designs? In which case, why not build more of the existing design, since it works well enough?
- If our existing ships aren't suitable, then why are we SLEPing them?

 

[Randy Daytona]

I'm no kind of expert on this, but I didn't think yard capacity was the issue. I read a while ago the BIW president saying they could build two additional DDGs per FY with their current infrastructure. I imagine HII is similar. NNS could build a CVN in four years instead of 5+. I don't know about the Sub yards but Virginia-class production is mature and humming along. The production schedule is stretched out to spread costs over multiple budget years and make the arithmetic work, not because there aren't enough workers or big enough plant. How much would a SLEP cost, and could we get new construction of a 30-year-lifespan hull for the money instead?

It's as if when you make a number the goal, then everyone quickly becomes target-fixated on reaching that number, whether it makes sense or not. There are some pretty fundamental questions that are still unanswered before anyone can say whether a 5-10-year SLEP helps you or not.
- What's our national strategy? What do we need our Navy to do?
- How many and what kinds of ships do we need to accomplish that strategy?
- If we need to ramp up production, what do we do to sustain the industrial base once the 'surge' is done? And can we afford it anyway?
- If SLEP is the answer, what comes after the 5-10-years?
- If SLEP is the answer, does that mean we can meet our tasking with current designs? In which case, why not build more of the existing design, since it works well enough?
- If our existing ships aren't suitable, then why are we SLEPing them?

All good questions.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, from a domestic political consideration it allows the administration to show a substantial increase in the size of the Navy much quicker - and at a discount. Also, it allows an increase in jobs and contracts rebuilding the ships, which could be important in a number of states and electoral college votes that were very close in the last election (Virginia and Pennsylvania come to mind.)

The fact that it helps the Navy expand is nice too.