tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post2945769709089157947..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Hi-Lo, War-PeaceComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67882741318113351422014-09-11T07:49:27.886-07:002014-09-11T07:49:27.886-07:00Jim, you can be skeptical all you want but the num...Jim, you can be skeptical all you want but the numbers are out there. For example, it costs around $2B to build a Burke (remember the Navy only cites hull costs; GFE and other equipment is extra, as is post delivery fitting/refit which is required for the ship to actually enter service). An LCS cost around $750M with a module (if one existed!). A frigate would fall somewhere in between the LCS and Burke. Hence, $1B (probably more!).<br /><br />Now, you can believe that is SHOULDN'T cost that and I would agree with you. Unfortunately, it does in today's Navy/DoD.<br /><br />As fair as serial production cost savings, there is undoubtedly serial savings but they are swamped by the other things that drive up costs: concurrency refits, ever-changing requirements even on ships within a serial production run, simple inflation, guaranteed reductions in quantity, etc. Hence, the serial savings never seem to materialize in observable decreased prices. Just the opposite, in fact. The overall price almost always increases due to the other factors overwhelming any serial savings.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26674318536307345112014-09-11T07:39:25.761-07:002014-09-11T07:39:25.761-07:00B.Smitty, the Level 1+ myth is one of my pet peeve...B.Smitty, the Level 1+ myth is one of my pet peeves. The Navy has flat out lied about that. Check this post (see, <a href="http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2013/01/lcs-survivability.html" rel="nofollow">LCS Survivability</a>)ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30674780278169884882014-09-11T07:20:13.316-07:002014-09-11T07:20:13.316-07:00To me another elephant in the room is how do we ge...To me another elephant in the room is how do we get the cost of naval construction down? <br /><br />I'm very, very skeptical that it really costs a billion dollars to make a frigate. CNO, you did a post earlier where you showed that serial production for us doesn't necessarily decrease cost. IT SHOULD. We need to find out WHY it doesn't. Maybe its the governments fault. Maybe the USN's. But Good Lord, there has to be some efficiencies that can be exploited in there. <br /><br />The fact that an LCS is still, what, $450 billion just for the bloody sea frame, when they are cranking them out to level 1+ standards seems ridiculous to me. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38936003510556012752014-09-11T07:10:27.795-07:002014-09-11T07:10:27.795-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9384088169225299752014-09-11T06:41:04.613-07:002014-09-11T06:41:04.613-07:00Okay. I see I totally missed your point. Still, so...Okay. I see I totally missed your point. Still, sometimes I wonder if our Navy should be involved in some of the things that they say are so vital. Why couldn't that be a USCG job? We'd have to actually give them money of course. <br /><br />Sometimes I wonder if the entire 'soft mission' aspect was designed for the Navy to have a purpose in a post cold war world when Kirov's, Akula's and Backfires were getting retired. <br /><br />I think this gets back to your point that we lack a coherent naval strategy. <br /><br />And to some extent, with changes in technology and the geopolitical landscape, I wonder if we are facing a situation not unlike the one Jackie Fisher faced during his tenure as first sea lord. <br /><br />Lots of new technology to deal with. What are our goals, can we do it with our existing fleet or modifications to that fleet, or do we need to start retiring and building new stuff?<br /><br />I lean more towards the former, but before any of that starts we need that strategy. <br /><br />Right now our Naval strategy seems to be 'soft missions' and 'send the CVN's and DDG's to go perform strike missions, or provide the threat of one, whenever we need it. <br /><br />JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76868814908304730102014-09-10T18:41:30.734-07:002014-09-10T18:41:30.734-07:00GAB: "In the end, our primary goal is to deve...GAB: "In the end, our primary goal is to develop and support the Rule of Law - DoD's mission starts when diplomacy and rule of law *fail*."<br /><br />Well, there's another plaque-worthy statement that ought to be prominently posted in the Pentagon!<br /><br />Great comment!<br /><br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41089615214831679562014-09-10T18:36:54.518-07:002014-09-10T18:36:54.518-07:00B.Smitty, I already did a post disproving the Leve...B.Smitty, I already did a post disproving the Level 1+ survivability myth.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23481313326976921932014-09-10T18:35:09.059-07:002014-09-10T18:35:09.059-07:00CDR, I'd possibly be with you on the Hi-Lo mix...CDR, I'd possibly be with you on the Hi-Lo mix if we could actually build low cost Lo ships. However, when a frigate would cost over $1B and an emascualted LCS is pushing $750M, the Lo end winds up with a high end price. Hence, my call for a clean separation of war and peace. At least in my proposal, civilian standards apply only to peace ships, not war ships.<br /><br />Good comment!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62189954202587110012014-09-10T18:29:32.643-07:002014-09-10T18:29:32.643-07:00GAB, now there's an astute and relevant questi...GAB, now there's an astute and relevant question!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-48772147422973569082014-09-10T18:26:33.744-07:002014-09-10T18:26:33.744-07:00Anon, you make a fascinating point about Humphrey&...Anon, you make a fascinating point about Humphrey's frigates. Of course, the key point is not just that they were smaller than the ships of the line but that they represented a new approach to shipbuilding (the type and extent of frame construction) that gave them a significant combat advantage. <br /><br />Trying to translate that point to today, simply building more small vessels with no corresponding technological advancement is just going to produce more weak vessels that offer no advantage other than pure numbers.<br /><br />As an historical footnote, remember that Humphrey's frigates never (to the best of my recollection) engaged a larger ship. Their engagements were all against other frigate sized ships. How they would have fared against a ship of the line is a fascinating question to ponder.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82380583445730413602014-09-10T18:20:18.202-07:002014-09-10T18:20:18.202-07:00B.Smitty, you're possibly being somewhat selec...B.Smitty, you're possibly being somewhat selective in your assessment of our ability to keep and upgrade ships for extended lifetimes and the associated costs. There is no reason we can't greatly extend ship lives with a combination of reduced usage (garrison), improved maintenance, and wise upgrades. While upgrades are not cheap they are far less expensive than a new ship. Consider the Australian's upgrade of the Perrys. It cost $100M or so but significantly upgraded their capability. To address your worst case upgrade scenario of the Adams and steam plants, if we wanted to do so we could remove the plants and install state of the art engine systems. It would be expensive but far cheaper than a brand new ship.<br /><br />If you think 50 years is too much for major combatants then you're being arbitrary with no evidence to support it. We have routinely seen our ships exceed their lifetimes by significant margins though not always in USN service. Consider WWII LSTs and various other ship types that served for many decades with various countries and some are still serving! Perry's will serve for many more years in the navies of other countries. In this proposal, the high end ships would spend significant amounts of time in garrison thereby extending their lives by large amounts. Just as with the B-52, we can re-wing, re-fuselage, re-whatever our ships if we choose. There is nothing, including hull plating that can't be replaced.<br /><br />The upgrade costs would be paid for by the greatly reduced number of new constructions required.<br /><br />The last SCN I recall was $15.7B which I rounded to $16B. The SSBN replacement is a challenge, no doubt.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56170571506502211752014-09-10T15:21:09.107-07:002014-09-10T15:21:09.107-07:00Smitty: "Home porting a large number of USCG ...Smitty: "Home porting a large number of USCG cutters abroad (perhaps more than the USCG has now) is another. "<br /><br />xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<br /><br />I am not following the "why" of this: the whole point of putting more USCG assets overseas is to get allied nations to do the policing instead of the USG.<br /><br />Any strategy that is looking to send massive numbers of vessels overseas to do that which others should be doing is wasteful and unsustainable. And yes that includes deployment of DoD personnel too.<br /><br />The piracy issue ceased to a U.S. problem decades ago when shipping companies abandoned the USA and chose to sail under Panamanian and Liberian flags. This is a great example of globalization gone badly and the U.S. taxpayer getting stuck with the bill. <br /><br />Pass!<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26078436902951912022014-09-10T15:07:13.395-07:002014-09-10T15:07:13.395-07:00Jim, yes, you are misunderstanding a couple of thi...Jim, yes, you are misunderstanding a couple of things. First, this proposal has no "peacetime combatant" as you put it. Peacetime ships are NOT combatants. Secondly, the high end force has whatever vessels in whatever roles are needed to fight a high end war. That would, undoubtedly, include small, dedicated MCM and ASW vessels and any other specialized ship needed for combat. That may or may not include frigates, corvettes, or even the LCS (unlikely that it would be useful in a high end combat scenario but a modified version might).<br /><br />Any combat ship is wasted in peacetime tasks. You mention an OHP as being somewhat combat capable (possibly true but not necessarily) and able to fill peacetime tasks. You miss the point. A combat ship performing peacetime tasks is being wasted. It should be performing maintenance, upgrades, intensive training, or sit in garrison to save wear and life. Performing peacetime tasks simply wears out the high value units just as we're currently doing and detracts from maintenance and training.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18609291757751165212014-09-10T14:07:12.375-07:002014-09-10T14:07:12.375-07:00I guess one thing I'm missing with all this is...I guess one thing I'm missing with all this is to me, we need a 'Lo' mix of specialized vessels to do specialized tasks. Your smaller peacetime combatant is good for those jobs you mention; and frankly sounds like a smaller version of the LCS. But it seems you've cut out the role of a Frigate type ship entirely? Am I misunderstanding? <br /><br />My two biggest complaints with the LCS are cost and capability. If the LCS was cheaper, and going to be the type of 'peacetime' ship you say, it'd be fine. <br /><br />But where the LCS fails utterly is that its trying to replace the Perry's as blue water ASW ships, the Avengers as MW ships, and be that 'peacetime combatant'. <br /><br />Your ships might be cheaper, but they still leave us with billion dollar burkes doing the ASW role for the fleet.<br /><br />I do wonder if the Hi Lo mix might be done more cheaply than having a bunch of peacetime ships and a warfighting Navy. <br /><br />We've seen the OHP's can do the peace time role. I love the idea of the CG doing it as well. <br /><br />But an OHP type ship also has a real warfighting role: ASW escort. If LRASM or maybe NSM can be fired out of a canister, and you can put a decent radar on it just good enough to guide the missile, its not totally toothless in a midlevel conflict, and the space isn't a waste in doing its peacetime roles. <br /><br />Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63050511076115137172014-09-10T12:31:55.620-07:002014-09-10T12:31:55.620-07:00TA
We can afford to buy the ford class, Zumwalt c...TA<br /> We can afford to buy the ford class, Zumwalt class, and Super AB (no not AB III, but a enlarged and improved AB type), We can even afford CG(x), But we have to change the way we buy ships. We have to stop buying proceedure and paper to feed the bureaucrates and start buying ships. That way we will get results, ships in the water.G Lofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36253342791387035452014-09-10T10:43:25.399-07:002014-09-10T10:43:25.399-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74035143984929309942014-09-10T10:10:17.833-07:002014-09-10T10:10:17.833-07:00Smitty,
The USCG already deploys detachments to U...Smitty,<br /><br />The USCG already deploys detachments to USN ships, and as part of DHS: frequently have attaches and permanent teams in embassies.<br /><br />USCG has been in Iraq pretty much since 2003 working alongside DoD *and* as part of the embassy Country Team.<br /><br />I am not USCG, but I have the greatest respect for the job they do.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45389572073699751392014-09-10T08:03:31.352-07:002014-09-10T08:03:31.352-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31843375422401544772014-09-10T07:21:59.010-07:002014-09-10T07:21:59.010-07:00Gentlemen,
The point is that the USCG is the righ...Gentlemen,<br /><br />The point is that the USCG is the right instrument for the "peacetime engagement mission."<br /><br />Much of the DoD involvement in these type of missions is driven by pentagon mission creep, and the inability of the executive branch to understand, let alone plan and resource national strategy.<br /><br />I have a few decades of experience in this, and my recollections of Pentagon involvement in overseas training to support counter drug, police training, counter piracy, etc. is that USN, USA, USMC simply "do not get it." That is not a swipe at DoD, it is reality that it is really tough to turn military forces into trainers of what is essentially a law enforcement mission.<br /><br />Worse, DoD involvement in these missions tends to screw up the law enforcement relationships that should have been developed by DHS, DOJ, and Diplomatic Security.<br /><br />In the end, our primary goal is to develop and support the Rule of Law - DoD's mission starts when diplomacy and rule of law *fail*.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57371120170294026942014-09-10T06:12:13.031-07:002014-09-10T06:12:13.031-07:00TA;
Excellent points, except that it does not a...TA; <br /><br />Excellent points, except that it does not address the historical facts. <br /><br />First only 14 Essex Class Carriers saw action, the rest were completed after the war ended. ALl 9 of the Independence class CVLs saw action. A 1.5:1 ratio.<br /><br />Second, although the crews did not think they were as tough as the Essex ships, we have to ask ourselves why did the US Navy decide to build and operate these ships?<br /><br />I think there are 2 reasons here. <br /><br />The first is econmics and manufacturing, we could not afford or build fast enough the other 8 Essex ships.<br /><br />The second is that once war starts losses (ships and people) become reality and acceptable. In peacetime no losses are acceptable, but in war they are reality. Therefore minimizing the overall loss, i.e. ending the war in the fastest manner possible, means you have to bring the most capability on-line in the shortest amount of time. The firstest with the mostest wins.<br /><br />I realize this is brutal but war is hell as a famous general said. Also look at teh Sherman tank. Compared to the Panther and Tiger it was seriously deficient, but we could build more of them than the Germans could built tanks OR 88 shells.<br /><br />Perhaps you are right and the smaller number of high end assets are needed to blunt or hold in the first phase of a war. But consider that the longer view is being able to produce (economically and manufacturing wise) the most capability.<br /><br />We CANNOT afford, or PRODUCE USS Ford Carriers, DDG 1000, or Arliegh Burke IIIs in large numbers, so what do we do? I suggest we look at Joshua Humphreys approach (more Large Frigates vice Ships of the Line) and figure out how to design and build affordable and capable ships.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14126924585120603432014-09-10T06:10:27.709-07:002014-09-10T06:10:27.709-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56159780752784798982014-09-10T05:05:21.865-07:002014-09-10T05:05:21.865-07:00Thanks ComNavOps for clarifying that point, and ge...Thanks ComNavOps for clarifying that point, and get where you are coming from.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Mark<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42158405863988753452014-09-10T01:16:04.134-07:002014-09-10T01:16:04.134-07:00I was on active duty during the hi-lo mix days of ...I was on active duty during the hi-lo mix days of the 1970s, and while the low end ships had significant limitations, they were the only way we could maintain sufficient numbers. I'm a huge supporter of the concept, and my previous posts have indicated.<br /><br />I'm not quite sure I'd go as far as war/peace. I think the low end ships can be built with enough capability to function effectively against third-world military forces and non-governmental forces. And I think those asymmetric engagements are the ones we are most likely to fight. We need enough high end to go against Russia and China. But that's probably not our most likely scenario.<br /><br />The biggest problem we seem to have is that we don't take anything off the shelf. We have to redesign it to meet our standards. One of my favorite examples is the we liked the Italian Lerici minehunter design so we adapted it as the Osprey class--only Lericis are 620 tons and Ospreys are 893 tons. There are a lot of designs floating around NATO navies and other allies that would make effective platforms for us if we didn't have to overdesign them. ComNavOps, your recent blog entry captured the problem precisely.<br /><br />I don't think that designing to civilian damage control standards is the proper way to cut costs. The Brits found out in the Falklands that frigates designed to civilian standards tend to go up like Roman candles with one hit. Dud missile hits put several of them on the bottom, whereas Glamorgan took an Exocet that exploded and was back in action within hours. Some of those cheaper designs would have to be upgraded to military standards in this area, and that would add cost. But they don't need 50% displacement increases.<br /><br />The other point I would make is that MCM needs to be a dedicated capability and not an add-on to something else if we are to be any good at it. It takes too much specialized skill to be something that you go into port and bolt on a module and come out ready to do it.<br /><br />CDR Chipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-80842123981223803322014-09-09T15:02:29.135-07:002014-09-09T15:02:29.135-07:00TA, your example of the Asiatic/Yangtze is appropr...TA, your example of the Asiatic/Yangtze is appropriate. The peacetime vessels would perform the patrol and presence tasks. If it came to war, they would simply leave or be destroyed.<br /><br />You also raise the same question that several people, myself included, have. What peacetime roles should we take on. That, however, is another topic. The fact is that the USN has opted to take on a bunch of peacetime tasks and is currently using (using up!) Burkes and the like. This proposal at least dedicates peacetime vessels to peacetime tasks, saves wear on our high end ships, enhances fleet numbers, enhances maintenance, and ensures better training. It's the logical conclusion to the half-correct NNFM.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6132702153335240592014-09-09T14:11:21.849-07:002014-09-09T14:11:21.849-07:00Your point regarding a “Hi-Lo” mix is apt, however...Your point regarding a “Hi-Lo” mix is apt, however it is important to note that during the previous “cash-strapped” intewar period of the ‘20s and ‘30s, the US Navy chose to develop a capable high end fleet of BBs, CV, CC, submarines and screening vessels, and surge built most of the low-end vessels (CVEs, PTs, Liberty Ships) after the war began. Allied victory would have been very difficult without the hi-lo combination.<br /><br />For Aviation, the high end consisted of the 8 pre-war fleet carriers, and an additional 17 Essex Class carriers (+7 completed after VJ Day). The 9 Independence Class CVLs were built on cruiser hulls on the verge of and immediately following Pearl Harbor. These ships were not well regarded:<br /><br />“These were limited-capability ships, whose principal virtue was near-term availability. Their small size made for seakeeping problems and a relatively high aircraft accident rate. Protection was modest and many munitions had to be stowed at the hangar level, a factor that contributed greatly to the loss of Princeton in October 1944.” – Naval Historical Center<br /><br />CVEs were quickly and inexpensively built on commercial hulls and served in both the Atlantic and Pacific in great numbers. Their crews referred to these ships as "Combustible, Vulnerable and Expendable." These vessels served heroically, but they were very much a low end combat asset.<br /><br />The Battle off Samar is an example of a Hi vs. Low engagement. Though considered an American victory, the US traded two CVEs, two DDs, one DE, and over 1200 men, for three IJN cruisers (which had virtually no aircover). Japanese BBs and CCs literally shot completely through CVE hulls. Kurita was turned away, but only because he mistook the tenacity of TAFFY 3 for Halsey’s main battle fleet.<br /><br />The lesson I choose to learn is if you are considering fighting a high end adversary, you should bring hi end weapons, and well trained crews for the leading edge. Your low end fleet will protect you logistics tail.<br /><br />As to a proposed peacetime Navy, reference the Asiatic Fleet/Yangtze Patrol. These were appx. 26 (1920-1942) lightly built and lightly armed gunboats built for peacetime presence missions. These ships did not fare well against anything beyond bandits, insurgents, and pirates, eg. USS Panay. This fleet exisited at a time when the Philippines was a US protectorate and there were significant US interests in Mainland China. <br /><br />Why now should the US Navy or Coast Guard assume an overseas peacetime role and build a gunboat Navy to conduct missions like fisheries and resources protection in the SCS? Isn’t this the role of the Philippine, Vietnamese, and Japanese navy/maritime LE? Our responsibility is to ensure our military and economic FON, our sea control, and our ability to deny the adversary sea control and mobility.<br /><br />Trons Away<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com