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

[BigRed389]

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?

Overtasked in terms of the Fleet tasking requirement that is running the Fleet ragged, not yard capacity.

BIW/HII do not get involved (with very limited exceptions) with ship maintenance once the ship's leave the BIW/HII shipyard. I'm fairly certain the CVN side is similar but maybe not.

The mid-life overhauls/modernizations are done at a mix of Government and private shipyards, usually done near the major Fleet bases.

Generally there would be 2 sides of SLEP.
1 would be the HM&E stuff to keep the ship's plant running and in general keep shit from falling apart.
On the actual combat systems side, we are turning ship's commissioned in 1990 into state of the art warships more capable than those built 10 years ago. So you can definitely make them suitable to meet current/advanced threats.

The latter doesn't help if the former isn't a viable option. The point NAVSEA is making is that some of the older ships do have good life remaining in the hulls. So as an example, you could run the same modernization on some of the CGs sitting around in inactive status, and bring them up to the capability of the most advanced surface combatants we've got.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Overtasked in terms of the Fleet tasking requirement that is running the Fleet ragged, not yard capacity.

BIW/HII do not get involved (with very limited exceptions) with ship maintenance once the ship's leave the BIW/HII shipyard. I'm fairly certain the CVN side is similar but maybe not.

The mid-life overhauls/modernizations are done at a mix of Government and private shipyards, usually done near the major Fleet bases.

Generally there would be 2 sides of SLEP.
1 would be the HM&E stuff to keep the ship's plant running and in general keep shit from falling apart.
On the actual combat systems side, we are turning ship's commissioned in 1990 into state of the art warships more capable than those built 10 years ago. So you can definitely make them suitable to meet current/advanced threats.

The latter doesn't help if the former isn't a viable option. The point NAVSEA is making is that some of the older ships do have good life remaining in the hulls. So as an example, you could run the same modernization on some of the CGs sitting around in inactive status, and bring them up to the capability of the most advanced surface combatants we've got.

There have been many ships that had good hulls and overall material condition that were decommissioned because they were never upgraded to new systems, many have been sold off to foreign countries or used as targets.

 

[Recovering LSO]

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 shell game of of counting ships is largely meaningless when it comes to actual combat capability and capacity. But, at least you're honest here with what it does impact (maybe): campaign rhetoric and votes.

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

But does it, really?

Allow me to redirect attention toward this article.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Some outside the box (or more accurately, inside the shipping container) thinking...

Need More Naval Missiles? Stick the Launchers in Shipping Containers
Warships don't need to be complicated

“If missiles are housed in a box launcher or a modified shipping container, they could be placed on almost any kind of ship,” Rubel writes. “If the missiles are capable of being launched on remote command, the host vessel may not need to support them in any way other than an electrical power feed. This means that virtually any vessel could be a missile shooter.”

These drop-in, pop-up launchers have appeared sporadically. Russia has developed a version of the Club-K anti-ship missile—which has a greater range than the Harpoon—with the launchers camouflaged inside a shipping container.

http://warisboring.com/need-more-naval-missiles-stick-the-launchers-in-shipping-containers/

 

[BigRed389]

Some outside the box (or more accurately, inside the shipping container) thinking...

Need More Naval Missiles? Stick the Launchers in Shipping Containers
Warships don't need to be complicated

“If missiles are housed in a box launcher or a modified shipping container, they could be placed on almost any kind of ship,” Rubel writes. “If the missiles are capable of being launched on remote command, the host vessel may not need to support them in any way other than an electrical power feed. This means that virtually any vessel could be a missile shooter.”

These drop-in, pop-up launchers have appeared sporadically. Russia has developed a version of the Club-K anti-ship missile—which has a greater range than the Harpoon—with the launchers camouflaged inside a shipping container.

http://warisboring.com/need-more-naval-missiles-stick-the-launchers-in-shipping-containers/

I'm not saying it's a terrible idea...but it's definitely a lot easier said than done. Lots of questions it doesn't answer on how this would be practically done.

 

[Pags]

I'm not saying it's a terrible idea...but it's definitely a lot easier said than done. Lots of questions it doesn't answer on how this would be practically done.

Any ship can get a box launcher and shoot a missile. Not every ship can shoot it accurately and hit something. And fewer ships have the fully integrated combat systems that allow them to corollary data from multiple sources and take action on it.

So if all you want to do is send a cloud of missiles down range then its box launchers for all my friends. If you want to fight a peer adversary then you might want something more.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Not to mention, take hits when the bad guys decide to shoot back...

 

[hscs]

I'm not saying it's a terrible idea...but it's definitely a lot easier said than done. Lots of questions it doesn't answer on how this would be practically done.

Agreed. Someone has to be onboard to maintain the missiles at a minimum.

 

[Recovering LSO]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...tired-carrier-uss-kitty-hawk-out-of-mothballs

So... is 350 for political/rehetorical reasons, or is 350 because of strategic imperative/objective analysis? I mean we could get to 350 pretty quickly following this route, and actually become a worse navy in the process.

 

[nittany03]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...tired-carrier-uss-kitty-hawk-out-of-mothballs

So... is 350 for political/rehetorical reasons, or is 350 because of strategic imperative/objective analysis? I mean we could get to 350 pretty quickly following this route, and actually become a worse navy in the process.

She was the "Shitty Kitty" before . . . wonder how bad her material condition is now!

 

[hscs]

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...tired-carrier-uss-kitty-hawk-out-of-mothballs

So... is 350 for political/rehetorical reasons, or is 350 because of strategic imperative/objective analysis? I mean we could get to 350 pretty quickly following this route, and actually become a worse navy in the process.

Worst idea. Ever.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Worst idea. Ever.

Here is Vice Admiral Moore speaking about it.

After the massive delays and cost overruns on the Ford, the Zumwalt and the LCS, maybe spending a few billion on rebuilding an old, but proven, carrier and a few Perry class frigates is worth a serious look - will be interesting to see what the Admiral concludes. Apparently the Turkish rebuilds of the Perry are a lot more capable than the LCS - any idea how many of the Perry class are mothballed?

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3936/watch-this-turkish-submarine-torpedo-a-frigate-in-half

 

[Recovering LSO]

Again Randy, do you want numbers (politics) or capabilities (war fighting)? Zombie ships aide the former and jeopardize the later.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Again Randy, do you want numbers (politics) or capabilities (war fighting)? Zombie ships aide the former and jeopardize the later.

I would like both, however....

Shipbuilding is always good for domestic politics - both for the local jobs they provide and the prestige a bigger fleet confers.

As for rebuilding and combat effectiveness of those ships, I am sure the admiral will make an informed decision on the viability of the Kitty Hawk and/or the Perry class. I agree, Zombie ships are not good for the fleet - but if I can have a fully rebuilt carrier for the price of 4 LCS's, that is another story - it all depends on the material condition of the mothballed ship and the available funding.

 

[Gatordev]

I agree, Zombie ships are not good for the fleet - but if I can have a fully rebuilt carrier for the price of 4 LCS's, that is another story - it all depends on the material condition of the mothballed ship and the available funding.

But how do you know that the price of pulling that carrier out will equal 4 LCSssess? You're lamenting the acquisition side for going over-budget and under-performing (for good reason), so what makes you think the current estimate is even accurate? I can't speak to the Kitty Hawk, but I can tell you the FFGs are d-u-n, done. Their hulls constantly buckle and leak, and the infrastructure to get them just to support rotary will be "robust." Could we do it? I have no doubt, but I'm not buying that it would be economical.

Switching gears, it's interesting to see the Admiral's stack. This isn't meant as an argument for or against our awards system, but he has no NAMs and no campaign ribbons despite having, from the looks of it, a very successful career. Not something you see everyday.