To
refresh your memory, the combat fleet is composed of carriers, cruisers,
destroyers, frigates, submarines, and amphibious ships (CVN, DDG, CG, FFG, SSN,
SSBN, SSGN, LHA, LHD, LPD, and LSD).
Vessels like the JHSV, MCM, PC, hospital ships, LCS (we’ll count them if
and when they ever get any combat capability), tugs, salvage ships, and ships whose
designation starts with “T” or “A” are not counted as part of the combat fleet.
I’ve
deleted the Ford from the count because, even though technically in commission,
it is not a functional ship yet.
I’ve
also deleted the six idled Ticonderoga class cruisers from the count since they
represent a permanent decrease (they’ll only return to the fleet on a one for
one replacement for a retiring Tico, according to the Navy).
By
Congressional order, the Navy is not allowed to count the Zumwalts until they
complete their delivery over the next several years.
Here
are the updated numbers.
1980
392
1985
421
1990
405
1995
283
2000
243
2005
220
2010
225
2012
210
2014
205
2015 197
2016
191
2017
193
2018
192
2019
194
You
can check the fleet size for yourself at www.nvr.navy.mil
.
I’ll
close this post with the same statement I closed the previous Combat Fleet
Count update posts:
Compare the Navy’s
trend to China’s and ponder the implications for yourself.
I’ll
continue to update this from time to time.
Well some of this could have been avoided by actually storing some ships instead of rushing to eliminate from existence. In any case the soon to be real thing that bothers me is the looming drop is subs. At the end of the day it is the sub that makes the Pacific and Atlantic absolute moats and the easiest way to paralyze anyone's ocean commerce and they bring the ability to do stealth land attack and mining.
ReplyDelete19 Los Angeles subs are still listed as stricken. Given the fact the USN has no new sub models that are anything but concept I hope stricken does not mean gutted and just not cut up. From what little I can find they were retired fairly early to avoid refueling costs. At a time when subs are not going to built at WW2 willow run plant rates having 10 or 15 in some deactivated but potentially ready state would a useful thing.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"I offer no commentary/opinion...I am just throwing out another datapoint for info."
DeleteThis blog does not post random 'data points'. This blog, and its readers, offer commentary and analysis. Comments without any value added are deleted, as was this one.
Feel free to repost with some commentary or analysis added. The data you cited is readily available so why did you bother mentioning it? If you had a reason, say so and offer your thoughts.
At the risk of being banned let me say that we all know hope is not a good strategy. Hoping that china will stop building a fleet that will surely dwarf ours in 7-8 years? is not a plan. Just because china is copying the development of the US model does not necessarily mean it is the correct one. Is the navy becoming obsolete? We are bringing online a fleet of arsenal ships that are not in the water. The B21 is one example. I have not seen one yet but I am looking. Is the wing variable or fixed?Subsonic/Supersonic? What about the numerous sightings of unexplainable air phenomena? I don't believe we have been visited
ReplyDeleteby aliens so I am assuming the unexplained stuff is ours. That's the only positive spin I can put on our shrinking navy.
Hypersonic missiles, if they really exist, not a modified Iskander,
ReplyDeletehave to be able to see their target. A stealth plane is harder to hit. We all know our subs are the only real stealth platform but out latest Gen bomber may be like the subs.
"out latest Gen bomber may be like the subs."
DeleteAircraft stealth is a limited benefit. Stealth aircraft are readily detectable by Mk I eyeball, IRST, EO/IR sensors, and, increasingly, specialized forms of radar. Stealth on aircraft is sort of the general price of admission to the modern aerial battlefield - it's the minimum requirement to have any chance to succeed but it, alone, offers little advantage and what benefits it does offer are being increasingly eroded each year.
You might want to read, "Alternative Stealth"
Meanwhile there are 295 Admirals in the USN. 1.5 Admirals per ship, which tells me that bureaucracy is through the roof.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/bio_list.asp
Then those admirals should be made into captains instead and save taxpayer money
DeleteI've asked on fourms and googled about this, and not gotten an answer- why are there so many admirals? In my amateur ignorance, I would have felt there's only be about 10. One for logistic, one for marines, one for , say, carriers, one for medical etc.
DeleteTo me, 295 admirals tells me there's no shortage of funds, just misallocation.
Anyway, about ship numbers, The USN obviously either needs to decide to withdraw from the world, or get back in by building subs, destroyers and frigates in far larger numbers, faster.
Andrew
You forgot to included the even greater number of SES "Navy executives" who are mostly former senior Navy officers who fill Admiral level civilian jobs in the Navy and make over $150,000 a year.
Deletehttps://www.secnav.navy.mil/donhr/About/Senior-Executives/Pages/Biographies.aspx
Its interesting that there are more than 10 captains per Admiral... Thats a lot of bodies getting those Admirals coffee!!! It seems theres a lot of bloated staff costs too!!! In all honesty Id like to investigate and see what all the Captains and Admirals are actually billeted to...
Delete"why are there so many admirals?"
DeleteIn my opinion, only 10-20 are needed. As to your question, the answer is contained in this famous saying,
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
"staff"
DeleteThis is a major problem. It wastes personnel, costs money, and returns very little for the investment. I've got to believe that very little staff time is devoted to combat-related issues - which should be the only thing time is devoted to.
It seems there are 20 "Fleet" and "Force" Command Master Chiefs... So an equal-ish number of Admirals seems reasonable. Even doubling it to fluff out overseas Joint/Alliance command posts would be a massive reduction. Going thru recent Flag lists is eye opening. While I dont claim to know the particulars or workloads, there are quite a few billets with some questionable titles!! Id think that many of them could be headed by Commanders that still have a work ethic and an eye towards making "correct" decisions and havent been fully tainted by politics and bureauacracy...
DeleteI also saw a blurb from 2013 about thinning the flag ranks to approx 210 by 2017.... Guess that didnt quite happen...
I think our "advantage" on LO capability be F35, new bomber and even USN SSN is probably less than 5 years away from being nullified by China. When you look at all the stories of hacking, HUMINT spies getting caught and just the sheer number of engineers and money China can throw at a problem, I don't see how we maintain that edge for more than 5 years, might not even be that long.
ReplyDeleteIt should be standard SOP for US forces to immediately lose LO, comms and GPS at the beginning of every exercise.
"SOP for US forces to immediately lose LO, comms and GPS at the beginning of every exercise."
DeleteConceptually, yes. However, complete negation of these capabilities is not what would occur in combat. Capabilities would be lost, degraded, or spoofed (GPS, for example). Total loss of LO in an exercise would lead to unrealistic tactics because you don't 'lose' LO, its value is simply diminished but still there to an extent. For example, and making up numbers, without LO the aircraft can be seen 100 miles away. With fully functioning LO, it can be seen 15 miles away. With partially degraded LO (due to enhanced enemy radar, for instance), it can be seen 30 miles away. You can see, then, that total negation of LO would require different tactics than partial degradation. So, we need to exercise with partial degradation since that's what reality will be.
How do we achieve partial loss of capabilities? The best way, short of using actual enemy systems, is to apply our own best systems against ourselves. Every exercise OpFor should include our best ECM, GPS jamming/spoofing, etc. Unfortunately, we've noted in recent posts that the military has consciously decided not to do that because it's proven too effective, apparently, and knocks out of the game. Instead of fixing the vulnerabilities, we've decided to just make the exercises easier.
Also radar. Our pilots still train to fight within visual range, the navy should also.
DeleteOne of my biggest concerns with the F-35 is that it relies entirely on LO, without that it is in a lot of trouble against interceptors.
"the F-35 is that it relies entirely on LO, without that it is in a lot of trouble against interceptors."
DeleteYes, however, don't fall into the one-sided trap. Don't just consider the F-35 as variable and the enemy as a constant. For example, what happens if the F-35 functions entirely as claimed, LO and all, and yet runs into an enemy LO (F-22-ish) aircraft? If the enemy's LO is better (like the F-22 is significantly better than the F-35, by all accounts), the F-35 will have all its capability but still be outmatched. No one in the military seems to be considering that scenario.
My point is that it's not just the F-35 whose capabilities may change, for better or worse, but the enemy's, as well, also for better or worse. What we're seeing now is that China's stealth aircraft capabilities are steadily improving and will soon pass us. Combined with eventual greater numbers, that's a lethal combination and it's all irrespective of what the F-35 does or does not do.
Did that make sense?
I cut a corner, usually what happens when I reply from my phone and not my desktop.
DeleteAgree, we wouldn't lose LO or comms or GPS completely BUT we shouldn't assume we always have it 100% of the time, we need more realism for sure where capabilities will be degraded, lost or restored, maybe at full capability, maybe a lot less BUT we still would have to fight the war! Same with quantity, we shouldn't assume that we will have numbers on the Chinese Navy. The trend isn't positive, USN really needs to look at practically fighting at a numerical disadvantage at a minimum and draw some conclusions of what we need to buy from those lessons.
I think some in the DoD do but they are at a low pay grade. The ones that do higher up probably keep their mouths shut because they know where it ill get them.
DeleteHonestly I have tried to get people from the boomer generation to understand the world has changed and it has been like talking to people in a fantasy land.
"understand the world has changed"
DeleteI don't know exactly what you mean by that but you should recognize that the world never changes as regards the foundations of society and humanity. What motivates people never changes. Right and wrong never change. Good and evil never change. The inevitable rise of evil, if we allow it, never changes. The need for strength in defense of freedom never changes.
Technology may change but that's only the peripheral 'how' of society's functioning not the foundation.
As I said, I don't know what you meant so forgive me if I've misunderstood.
Defense News yesterday - Lower number of Ticos/Large Surface Combatants in future fleet
ReplyDeleteThe FY2020 planned budget reveals that once again, the US Navy looking to scrap its largest combatants to save money, six of the twenty two Tico cruisers that the Navy is now planning to decommission by 2022, Bunker Hill, Mobile Bay, Antietam, Leyte Gulf, San Jacinto and Lake Champlain in 2021 and 2022,
All the ships will be at or near the end of their 35-year service lives when they are decommissioned, but the Navy has yet to decide on a replacement for the cruisers, the largest combatants in the fleet with 122 vertical launch systems cells.
The 2018 Navy plan was to keep ships in service longer to meet goal of 355 fleet, with the SLEP Ticos life would be extended to 52 years LOL, now saying SLEP too expensive and ships will be decommissioned at planned after service life of 35 years. Ticos have been notoriously difficult/expensive to maintain from cracking hulls, mainly the aluminum superstructure (built with "wrong" spec aluminium), to aging pipes and mechanical systems. The ships’ SPY-1 radars have also been difficult to maintain as components age.
The Navy eventually agreed to the Congress 2-4-6 plan in 2015, which allowed the Navy to lay up two cruisers a year, for no more than four years and allow no more than six of the ships to undergo modernization at any one time. The Navy began modernizing the cruisers Cowpens and Gettysburg and were put into phased modernization in 2015, need to come out in 2019, Vicksburg and Chosin were placed into phased modernization in 2016, the Navy asked for funding for six cruiser service-life extensions in 2019, re last years 30-year shipbuilding plan, but Navy declined comment if the new 30-year shipbuilding plan for the cruisers due out soon will continue funding Tico SLEPs.
Defense News of the opinion that Congress will not oppose the decommissioning the Ticos this year.
December 17, 2018 CNO Admiral Richardson wanted an aggressive timeline and award the Large Surface Combatant contract in 2023 to deliver as soon as possible, the original timing would have allowed the Navy to end Arleigh Burke Flt III DDG production at the end of the current multiyear contract in 2022 and then build the new Large Surface Combatant hull from 2023.
Jan 10 Rear Adm. Ron Boxall (OPNAV N96) told USNI News said CNO Admiral Richardson challenged him with a 2023 timeline to award the first large surface combatant contract, but “the CNO has also challenged us to do it the right way. So what we’re going to do is, we’re going to do it as quickly as we can. We’re shooting for ‘23 as a goal. ‘23, ‘24, who knows,” he said.
March 14 the FY2020 - FY2024 budget released - makes no mention of Large Surface Combatant acquisition and continues the DDG production line throughout the entire five-year period instead of stopping at the end of the current contract.
If the Navy plans to buy its first Large Surface Combatant in ship in FY2025?, that will be 6 years before placing contract with 6+ year build 2031 or later operational.
That means the dream of the LCS with not only VLS cells but also space for a future large long-range hypersonic attack missiles to threaten China moves to 2035+, that strategic role only possible now with the limited number of Virginia's, especially with Block V's with their enlarged Virginia Payload Modules capable of launching hypersonic missiles.
Nick, do me a favor, please, and shy away from quoting passages without accompanying analysis or commentary. For example, I quote extensively in posts but I analyze and comment on everything I quote. There are plenty of sites where raw information can be found but I try to ensure that this site is the place where in-depth analysis occurs. Plus, I like to see what readers think rather than just what they've read.
DeleteYou quoted passages so they must have meant something to you. Tell us what and why!
Thanks. I appreciate your cooperation and contributions!
CNO thanks for critique
DeleteRe my post an analysis / commentary re point of your post on the continuing declining numbers of combatant ships/subs in Navy fleet.
The navy high command, CNO Admiral Richardson, reflecting on the current great power race with China, Navy came up with a 355 ship fleet plan, Plan A to meet that number part of CNO 2018 plan was extend the life of Tico cruisers by an additional 17 years over design life, totally unrealistic due the shape the Ticos are in and the high cost.
New Plan B, retire the old Ticos and sooner rather than later will need to retire the older Burkes, replace with a new Large Surface Combatant, its a priority according to the CNO in December and contract for first ship will be placed in 2023, it will come with the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon, NGLAW, likely hypersonic with nuclear warhead requiring a new larger VLS and so able to pose a realistic threat to China.
Take away the LSC Rear Adm. Ron Boxall said it will be more expensive than a Burke Flight III, little or no chance that numbers will increase, more likely decrease.
March 2019 Navy Plan C, three months later its revealed that the 'priority' LCS is no longer a priority, contract for first ship slipped to two years to 2025.
Meanwhile China will keep pumping out its Large Surface Combatants, current estimate is a launch rate of three 052D/E destroyers and two Type 055/A cruisers a year.
Take away it will not be too many years before China is the premier world navy, a position that USN has held for the last 75 years since the 1940's.
"Take away it will not be too many years before China is the premier world navy, "
DeleteYou've nicely laid out the problem. Now, what's the solution for the US assuming you think it would be desirable for the US to remain the premier navy in the world?
Within the constraint of the budget, what would you do differently? What's your Plan A?
Utopia, no pork barrel Congress, you as Navy Secretary :) and a new like minded CNO Admiral.
DeleteFollow your policy as outlined in Single Versus Multi-Function Ships, Monday, October 29, 2018.
Would cancel all new nuclear carrier procurement as too expensive and return to conventional propulsion carriers, secondly thru new buy ships with superior up front engineering to bring crew numbers down, Fincantieri FFG(X) base crew 135, understand average sailor costs Navy ~$350K p.a., for a 5,000 crew of a CVN looking at $1.75B crew costs alone, nuclear carriers look to be manpower intensive, understand over 40% of seagoing sailors on the carriers.
Navy proposed FY2020 budget $160B excl'd Marines, includes $23.8B for new build and conversions and another $10B for 'other' procurement, so would say no shortage of funding.
If new ships come on-line with their modern superior up front engineering with payback of major reductions in the O&M costs (total Navy O&M budget is a very big number $68.5B, not broken out between ships, subs and aircraft) the savings will build up as they come into operation and the old costly generation ships decommissioned and will fund additional ships with their substantially lower O&M costs.
"bring crew numbers down"
DeleteThis is the only part I disagree with. There's just no getting around needing numbers for battle, attrition, and damage control.
"average sailor costs Navy ~$350K"
I flat out don't believe this. The rule of thumb is that benefit (medical, etc.) costs equal the salary. So, if the average sailor on a ship makes, say, $70,000 per year, the total cost would be $140,000 per year with benefits included. That's WAY off the $350,000 figure. Whoever came up with that $350,000 figure included some costs that shouldn't normally be included.
This is one of those topics that's on my to-do list but, let's face it, cost accounting is boring and tedious to research so I'm not highly motivated!
"average sailor costs ~ $350,000" ? Very difficult to find true figures, check out the CSIS briefing, its a minefield, sure there are other sources. Will be interested in your findings and good luck.
Delete~$350,000 based on following - November 14, 2012 NORFOLK, VA – Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus went on a tour of the USS San Antonio, LPD-17, today to promote his new initiative to separate all enlisted sailors and replace them with civilian contractors.
“This is a great way to save the Navy money,” Mabus said as he explained the reasoning behind the pending decision. “Every sailor costs the Navy roughly $300,000 a year, so we decided to give them all generous separation packages and rehire them as contractors at double their enlisted salary. It won’t cost a thing to recruit or train them.”
More info on costs of sailors, CSIS Press Briefing: FY 2018 Defense Budget Report December 7, 2017.
I know there are Navy sources stating that personnel cost is $350,000. I just don't believe it because nothing in the civilian world, where I've seen actual figures, comes even remotely close. The Navy routinely makes up all kinds of ridiculous 'facts' and 'data'. That doesn't make them true.
DeleteReason it out for yourself. You can pretty well estimate the average salary cost for a sailor on a ship. Double that for the benefits cost and there you have it. The Navy is obviously adding in extraneous costs not normally considered part of personnel costs and they're doing it to make a case for whatever it is that they want.
If I had to guess, the Navy's personnel cost figure is some kind of calculation like 'total operating costs' divided by number of personnel where operating costs include things like the cost of a hospital facility or mess hall or barracks or some such. Those kinds of costs, while real, are not normally part of personnel costs.
You can say anything you want with numbers and the Navy has proven to be masters at manipulating numbers.
FWIW, the Navy FY2020 Highlights quote Navy + reserve personnel and medicare-eligible retiree health fund contribution costs as $32.8B, the March 30 year plan has graph showing manpower for battle force ships as ~$9B in FY 2020, difference ~$24B, question do Navy pro rate some additional personnel costs as overheads eg manning and other costs of the training facilities, it cannot be cheap to train a pilot, to arrive at $350K cost per sailor, need a detailed breakdown of Navy calculation.
Delete@Nick... I have to agree with CNO here. The Navys figures are very heavilly manipulated, and frankly cant be trusted. The crew cost you cited of $1.75B is a great example. The Navy is claiming a $1B a year operational savings by retiring Truman, yet the figures they cite/ you used postulate the crew alone costs nearly twice that much. So which figure is manipulated? Certainly the $300K is vastly overstated, as an employee's pay is generally half of an employers total cost. And remember we havent added in all the rest of the costs, which are substantial, such as jet fuel, paint, cheeseburgers, spare parts, floor wax, training materials, etc...
ReplyDeleteAs far as stopping nuclear carrier production, weve seen those costs skyrocket(and CNO pointed out much of that is due to budget manipulation and the drawing out of build times), but the numbers Ive found show that the nuclear component, while certainly more expensive than conventional, are not a massive part of the build cost, and in fact to me are suprisingly low. The same goes for the RCOHs... So honestly, the benefits of nuclear propulsion outweigh the additional costs. The Navy believes this, and I have to agree. So while a Nimitz class restart after the Ford pricetag/lack of promised functionality debacle ala Zumwalt/Burke might have been a better choice, I still see the CVN as our best choice weapon. The only caveat being the reduced air wing sizes and capability, but thats somewhat of a different topic that does need to be addressed and rectified to wring every ounce of capability out of our carrier investments.
@Jj Abatie - Ford Phase 1 build cost $12.9B in then year $, Navy in 2014 quoted actual as $15B, you then have to add Phase 2 build costs of approx another $1B, total ~$16B (excluding all R&D), being optimistic assumes follow on ships a third cheaper $11B, you then need to fund mid life nuclear re-fueling ~$3B+ and then disposal $2.5B+, looking at ~$17B.
DeleteWhy do nuclear ships cost so much to build, two thoughts, Navy does not disclose cost of reactors, only reason being expensive, secondly a nuclear shipyard overheads will be high for its special nuclear facilities to ensure safety and security standards.
The two Brit 70,000t carriers cost $8B total, even if US shipyard built a single CATOBAR carrier for $8B that's two for cost of a single nuclear and fuel costs would not be expensive, Enterprise averaged only 20,000nm per year over its 51 year life.
"The two Brit 70,000t carriers cost $8B total,"
DeleteTrying to compare costs between two different countries is almost impossible.
Setting that aside, be very careful that you do not attempt to suggest that a 70,000t QE is the equivalent of a US carrier, just with a different type of launch system. I think this is kind of what you're doing. The reality is that the QE is barely a 'jeep' carrier despite its enormous displacement. For example, its hangar can accommodate 20 aircraft which is ridiculously small. It lacks magazine space, self defense weapons (only 3 Phalanx for its entire defense!), electronic countermeasures, etc. In terms of capabilities, it is more like a 30,000t carrier.
The QE is sized to carry a max of 36 F-35s plus a few helos and no AEW, tankers, or EW aircraft. So, 36 aircraft (with no supporting aircraft) is half (functionally, less than that) of a US air wing even by today's shrunken air wing standards. Thus, it's the equivalent of a 40-50,000t carrier, if even that.
Honestly, the QE seems like just an oversized version of our America class LHA.
"even if US shipyard built a single CATOBAR carrier for $8B"
DeleteAs a data point, the last Nimitz cost around $8B in then year dollars.
CNO do agree QE capabilities limited, that's why arbitrarily doubled the cost for a ROM US shipyard conventionally powered CATOBAR carrier. Brits designed the PA2 for the French, Porte-Avions 2, 'Aircraft Carrier 2', CATOBAR variant based on same hull, 75,000t ; 928'; 40 aircraft, Rafale, E-2 Hawkeye & NH-90 helicopters; 16 VLS cells, cancelled 2013.
DeleteWe come back to manning and its true cost, CVN ~5,000, 50/50 ship crew 2,500 and air component 2,500, PA2 figures ship crew 1,000 and air 650, they look low to me but even if had to increase ship crew by 50+% it shows that conventional propulsion ships using modern superior engineering can bring major cost savings compared to nuclear, could be in the $Bs (saving 500 crew? x $350K? = $175M x 50 years = $8.8B? vers. 500 x $100K x 50 = $2.5B ), as an aside reported that Navy have paid their nuclear engineers a $100,000 bonus to ensure retention. My figures not accurate but would guess in ballpark.
Regarding manpower costs but are you suggesting that nuclear power accounts for a significant portion of the crew? The power plant of any ship requires an engineering crew whether nuclear or conventional. I have never read that nuclear power plants require more crew. They may well require better trained crew but I've not seen that they require more crew. Even if nuclear power required more crew it wouldn't be significant - perhaps 10%-20% more ENGINEERING crew which might translate to a dozen extra people???
DeleteI think we've also debunked the Navy's $350,000 manpower cost. A figure of $150,000 would seem much more realistic. Think about it. On a ship, the average salary of a sailor is probably around $70,000 (officers make more, enlisted less). According to the Navy, that leaves $280,000 in benefits???!!!!!!! Does that sound reasonable to you?
Throughout industry, manpower is salary plus benefits and benefits are estimated to be twice the salary. So, the Navy is trying to say that it pays benefits THREE TIMES INDUSTRY AVERAGE???!!!!!! If that were true, people would be lining up, demanding to get into the Navy. Without a doubt, the Navy is rolling non-standard costs into the figure to try to make their case (whatever case they're making) look better. Instead, it just looks like utter nonsense.
"ship crew 1,000 and air 650, they look low to me but even if had to increase ship crew by 50+% it shows that conventional propulsion"
DeleteYou're attributing the entire increase in crew size from a QE to a Ford/Nimitz to be due to nuclear power. As I said in the other comment, I've never read that nuclear plants require more crew.
Setting that aside, you're also forgetting that for every extra crew, additional support crew are required (galley, cooks, laundry, electricians, pipefitters, barbers, etc.). So, if you add, say, 1000 people because of a larger air wing, you have to add 100(?) people to support them and that has nothing to do with nuclear versus conventional power.
The America class LHA has a crew of 1000 (don't know if that includes the air wing?) and an air wing, such as it is, that is one quarter that of a Nimitz. Scaling up from the America to a Nimitz air wing is a factor of four. So, the manning ought to increase by a factor of four which would indicate 4000 crew. That's simplistic and unrealistic but it gives the conceptual idea that the crew size on a Nimitz/Ford is not just a function of nuclear power.
I'm ambivalent about nuclear power and that's mainly because every study that attempted a degree of objectivity has concluded that nuclear power is preferred though not by any great margin. The problem I have with most nuclear power discussions is that the discussers(?) inevitably cherry pick facts to make their case for or against.