The Department of Defense (DoD) is proposing cutting 5 of 12
planned Burke Flt III destroyers in the 2021-25 period.(1) These ships are the supposed replacements for
the Ticonderoga class cruisers.
The DoD proposal also calls for cutting the 22 Ticonderoga
cruisers down to 9.(1) Digest that a
moment. DoD want’s to not only cut our
prime AAW cruisers from 22 to 9 but, at the same time, reduce their planned
replacements from 12 to 7. That’s a
double hit on our central AAW force.
DoD’s proposal would decrease the size of the fleet from the
current 293 to 287 at the same time that the official Navy fleet size goal (and
the legislatively mandated fleet size!) remains at 355 ships.
How can the Navy cut ships and still produce a 355 ship
fleet? By building small, unmanned ships
with little combat capability and counting them as battle fleet ships. You’ll recall that the Navy already attempted
to count hospital ships and other non-combat ships as well as delivered but
non-functional ships as active battle fleet ships. Congress stepped in and passed legislation
preventing that but the Navy is determined to do it anyway.
…
DOD shall submit a legislative proposal to redefine a battleforce ship to
include unmanned ships, complete with clearly defined capability and
performance thresholds to define a ship’s inclusion in the overall battleforce
ship count. (1)
We’re going to have unmanned rowboats counting as battle
fleet ships but the Navy will be able to say that they met their 355 ship goal.
Continuing, the Navy proposes to decommission the first four
LCS one to two decades early. (2) The
Navy will, undoubtedly tell us that the rationale for retiring the first four
ships of the type is that they are non-standard because they were
developmental. Well, that’s what happens
when you start building without an actual design or finished construction
drawings. What’s next? Are we going to retire the first four Fords
early? Someone has got to be fired over
this.
The Navy also wants to decommission three Whidbey Island
class LSD-41 amphibious ships (LSD-41, 42, 44) between 8-14 years early. (2)
Do you see the consistent theme being continued here? The Navy retires virtually every ship class
early. Los Angeles, Spruance, Tarawa, Perry,
and now LCS, Whidbey Island, and Ticonderoga have all been retired early. At the same time, the Navy is, on paper at
least, claiming to increase ship service lives.
Worse, the Navy continues to try to ‘future-proof’ ships during
construction, at significant added cost, despite the overwhelming evidence that
they’ll be early retired. That’s an
enormous logical inconsistency.
ComNavOps has called for reducing ship design service lives to 15-20
years which is what the Navy is doing anyway.
Despite this, many commenters continue to call for 50 year lives and
maximum upgradability. That’s completely
wrong and completely at odds with demonstrated Navy practice.
How can Congress fund even a single new ship for the Navy given the demonstrated practice of deferred and neglected maintenance and early retirements? I wouldn’t give the Navy a single penny until they prove they’ll maintain and fully use the ships they have.
How can Congress fund even a single new ship for the Navy given the demonstrated practice of deferred and neglected maintenance and early retirements? I wouldn’t give the Navy a single penny until they prove they’ll maintain and fully use the ships they have.
Finally, the Navy wants to defer acquisition of one Virginia class submarine and one FFG(X).
The Navy seems fully dedicated to abandoning manned ships in
favor of unmanned ships with greatly reduced capabilities and firepower. The rationale would appear to be the pursuit
of the Navy’s Holy Grail - manning cost savings. The Navy is building a profitability business
case at the expense of combat firepower and effectiveness. The Navy has a long and proud tradition of
idiotic decisions over the last several decades but this is looking to be their
crowning achievement , their magnum opus of stupidity – a colossal monument of
stupidity for future generations to admire in stupefied and befuddled awe.
We are designing our own defeat right before our eyes. Stunning.
We are designing our own defeat right before our eyes. Stunning.
__________________________________
(1)Defense News website, “Pentagon proposes big cuts to US
Navy destroyer construction, retiring 13 cruisers”, David B. Larter, 24-Dec-2019,https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/24/pentagon-proposes-big-cuts-to-us-navy-destroyer-construction-retiring-13-cruisers/
(2)Defense News website, “US Navy proposes decommissioning
first 4 LCS more than a decade early”, David B. Larter, 24-Dec-2019,
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/24/us-navy-proposes-decommissioning-first-4-lcs-more-than-a-decade-early/
Follow the money. The USN's actions make sense if the priority is to spend more money on shipbuilding and less on crews, maintenance and weapons. Look at which politicians will get more money spent in their states and districts as a consequence. Compare that list with the politicians on the relevant committees.
ReplyDeleteNone of these people are thinking about defeat in war, they all "know" that's "impossible," so they are sure they can skim some benefits from the budget, provided they do it within the rules of the game. They're protected by the way that questioning US invincibility is patriotically impossible.
Meanwhile the Chinese are building 052Ds and 055s as fast as they can.
ReplyDeleteWhat could possibly go wrong?
Different take on this.
DeleteIf you read the 'Report to Congress on Chinese Naval Modernization' (12/23, news.usni.org), in it,
"China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, is assessed as being aimed at developing capabilities for addressing the situation with Taiwan militarily, if need be; for achieving a greater degree of control or domination over China’s near-seas region, particularly the South China Sea; for enforcing China’s view that it has the right to regulate foreign military activities in its 200-mile maritime exclusive economic zone (EEZ); for defending China’s commercial sea lines of communication (SLOCs), particularly those linking China to the Persian Gulf; for displacing U.S. influence in the Western Pacific; and for asserting China’s status as the leading regional power and a major world power. "
One can see, from Chinese POV (near to far, now to future, narrowest to broadest interest/focus)- it's a progression from 'Taiwan' to 'major world power'. Nowhere in that paragraph is, as goal, a direct confrontation of USN (unless China mismanages the US-China relationship and accidental war as result.) Even in the case of 'Taiwan', there is the caveat 'if need be', as in avoidance of US-China war. Therefore, when China ramps up its DDGs and carriers fleet structure- it is not to win a Taiwan war (because such fleet is not needed), and not to take on USN at deep Pacific (because they, a junior version of USN, will lose). I believe it's prep for a future post-negotiation/accommodation era of SLOC protection and show of flag.
Agreed with that first paragraph.
DeleteI really don't see China as being particularly aggressive in the global sense. The latest info that they are cutting back on their carrier program affirms that point of view.
They want what they want in their backyard, and they are using primarily commercial leverage to achieve it. They are going to protect their supply lines and its somewhat hard to say that is wrong when everyone from the west has been doing exactly the same thing for centuries.
Meanwhile the US has a disagreement with the Philippines over something trivial that may eventually require Americans to get visas to enter the Philippines. How to win friends and influence enemies. Particularly when basing in the SCS is already somewhat problematic.
The Chinese are also pulling back a bit on the buildup. Their next generation of carriers that would have been nuclear powered and near US size are being delayed/canceled. Also the 055's & 053D production could be slowed and/or capped earlier.
DeleteReason: Budget issues. Also that the army & air force are complaining that the navy has gotten too many toys compared to them so funds will be redirected.
When you take a look at the chinese Wikipedia, then you actually might get the impression that the chinese naval buildup is not decelerating in any meaningful way.
DeleteIn the next three years, until the end of 2022, some 13 Type 052d destroyers are scheduled for being commissioned. In addition to that, since 2017 thay are launching some 2 Type 055 destroyers per year.
That makes some 6 major surface combatants per year.
And they are still launching Type 056A at a rate of some 8 warships per year.
Well China does have a lot of old coastal warfare ships to replace with the Type 056A's as well a number of older limited run destroyers to replace with the Type 052D's.
DeleteAs long as China is decommissioning older ships as fast as they commission the new ships it's clear that China is focused on modernising rather than expansion.
Not to play devil's advocate here but getting rid of LCS is a great idea just add 4 ffgx to the 20, hell just replace all LCS with ffgx would be even better
ReplyDeleteI forgot to add that the Navy is also looking at cutting 2-4 FFG(X).
DeleteDoesn't the navy use Burkes primarily to carry and launch Tomahawks? I know they are capable of more, but I didn't think they carry the necessary missiles to get the full benefit from their AAW potential. If so, I am actually okay with decreasing the number of destroyers. Destroyers are the third (and worst) option for delivering cruise missiles. If we insist on using them primarily as Tomahawk launchers, we are better off with fewer.
ReplyDeleteBurkes also form primary ABM defense for the fleet.
DeleteThe main function of the Burke is AAW (and now BMD). Tomahawk is a secondary, though important, function.
DeleteDo you know the typical missile loadout they carry?
DeleteThere's no such thing as typical but, if there were, it would be somewhere around 30% Tomahawk, 60% Standard SM-3/6, and 10% misc (ESSM, VL-ASROC). Of course, it varies for the anticipated mission and inventory availability.
DeleteAh okay. I was under the impression Burkes usually carried 56 tomahawks “standard.”
DeleteUnless a strike mission was anticipated, 56 Tomahawks would cut deeply into the AAW loadout.
DeleteAs a side note, there is a major and short-sighted squabble flaring between the Philippines and the US.
ReplyDeletehttps://news.abs-cbn.com/news/12/27/19/ph-bars-entry-of-2-us-senators-backing-de-lima-warns-of-visas-for-all-americans
The Flt III Burkes were to be a Tico/FLT I replacement, as well as a stop-gap until the LSC started building... But its been pushed back as well. In fact, with such a lack of nrws on it lately, I wonder if its going the way of CG(X)? The "money saved" by the different proposed cuts...where will it go?? More unmanned, no-CONOPS idiocy? R&D? If a new ship or three was cancelled to rebuild shipyard infrastructure and get maintenance schedules caught up, Id be fine with that. But I want to know where that money is going!! And clearly the Navy is once again playing games with the Ticos... The 2-4-6 plan was skirted around, the "modernization" was a joke, theyve basically disobeyed Congress, and now theyve published their intent to do so yet again with planned decomms...
ReplyDeleteI dont mind the dumping of the LCS. Its been a tremendous waste for a long time, and its overdue to stop hemmoraging cubic dollars on them. But everyone even remotely involved with the program should be fired/removed.
These new proposals come awful quickly on the heels of the management change, so do you think they were contrived by new or old(?) Im just at a loss about most of this. Everything seems to point to a rudderless Navy, with decisions made in a budget-reactionary, grabasstic, nonsensical fashion. Its not even budgetary really. If used INTELLIGENTLY... The budget is fine!!! Actual combat capability and offensive power seem nonexistent on the priority list. Im at a point where i wish i was blissfully unaware of the idiocy that has taken control of my Navy and the DOD leadership...
As you say, there is already plenty of money. The problem is the idiotic way its being spent/wasted.
DeleteOne thing that would really help is for the Columbia SSBN's to have their own budget instead of being part of the general building fund.
DeleteMy guess is LSC will go nowhere, just like the rest of the alphabet soup. Soon enough, we'll be talking about the DDG-51 Flight IV as the next big thing. Why don't we just take the King Sejong the Great class, which are effectively supersized Burkes, fit them with AMDR, call them Burke Flight IV's and call it good enough for government work? At this point, that is probably the best case scenario. Unfortunately, that probably makes too much sense to pass muster with either the Navy or Congress.
Delete"At this point, that is probably the best case scenario."
DeleteNo. It might be the least bad scenario but it's still a bad scenario. I'm going to keep pushing for a good scenario!
Should we ever find out, ten or so years from now, that Navy leaderships was being paid by the CCP, I won't be too surprised.
ReplyDeleteNope.
DeleteMy bet is they are being paid, very indirectly, by the promise of future employment in the defense industry.
I honestly think the only way to fix this is to pay senior ranks a lot more money including raising pensions, but also bar them from working anywhere near the defense industry after retirement. And possibly a bar on political activity as well.
There is just too much money sloshing around, and it is always going to find a home.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at US defense spending and work out how the MIC has engineered it to their benefit while completely trashing their oaths to defend from enemies foreign and domestic.
I could drive a Ford through the gaps that any reasonable person can see. And I'm not that good a driver.
I know they are (probably) not on the Chinese payroll, yet... if you were a Chinese agent trying to reduce American military power as much as possible without being found out, could you do better than what's going on right now?
DeleteProbably, yes, but not by that much.
I think if the Chinese were responsible the effects would be much more subtle.
DeleteThe American defense industry doesn't do subtle as well, and to my eyes their fingerprints are all over this mess.
Tons of money for shiny new toys, many of which don't work well or even work at all.
No money to keep the hardware, software and wetware in optimum condition or its expected service life. Doesn't sound like a sustainable way to run a military to me.
"if you were a Chinese agent ... could you do better than what's going on right now?"
DeleteI've described exactly this in a humor piece. You'll get a kick out of it.
China Sabotages US Navy
Perfect!
DeleteAnd you didn't even touch on the Zumwalt fiasco.
The news of early retirements isn't clearly good for the defense industry since they also announced significant cuts to new platforms as well. As such, this doesn't play well into the "Brass in bed with industry" narrative, but may ultimately be true as well.
DeleteLong term suggestions such as ComNavOps plan for reduced planned lifetimes for platforms would be much for effective at both improving ship construction costs, reducing design timelines and a boon to industry. It is surprising that such suggestions aren't given more scrutiny by DoD leadership.
"this doesn't play well into the "Brass in bed with industry" narrative"
DeleteAgreed. So, what do you think is the Navy's rationale? Do you think they really believe that reducing firepower in favor of unmanned is the way to win a war? Or, do you think it's simply a case of chasing after reduced manning cost savings? Something else?
It isn't clear what Navy's strategy is from public policy statements. Perhaps there isn't a single, cogent strategy but a number of competing strategies and pet projects.
DeleteCertainly, countering the industrial capacity of China seems to require either large numbers of less capable platforms or a few highly capable platforms. The focus on drones appears to address the larger numbers at lower cost, as does the cruiser retirement; however, drones have not been proven to work against capable opponents and without data intensive networks. As for the development of new large platforms, the DoD is stuck in a feedback loop where designs take longer and cost more, which leads to fewer designs. These platforms then need to last longer and therefore need more advanced technologies, which require and more R&D and so on.
Often analogies are drawn between the American and Soviet military design philosophies of WWII which focused on high production rates of proven but less capable technology. Whereas German philosophy focused on fewer but more capable weapons. The German economy was resource and manpower limited, so that decision may have been the best for them (even though it didn't win the war). The current US approach appears to be mimicking the German philosophy against a Chinese approach which is more similar to the American/Soviet approach.
While China did have significant economic power, it isn't clear that the US is disadvantaged at the current time even though trends show a declining American manufacturing capacity.
A return to simple, but proven technologies and a focus on critical manufacturing infrastructure (shipyards, railways, steel) seems to be a more successful and less risky long term strategy, rather than rely on cutting edge developmental technologies that are expensive and may not even be effective.
What I want to know is what happens to the new radars for the IIAs? I'd be curious about the modernization plans in general, but I doubt there is anything encouraging or they would say so.
ReplyDeleteGiven the way things are going, I could very easily see the US Navy going the way of the once proud Soviet Navy. But the Soviet military collapsed because the Soviet economy imploded after decades of mismanagement, the USSR fell apart and none of their successsor states could afford to maintain a large fleet.
ReplyDeleteThe USN's woes by contrast appear to be entirely self inflicted, the result of bad decisions since the end of the Cold War, while the US economy is still in much better shape than that of the USSR even with all of our problems here at home.
Oh I would expect things to get far worse if the hard left Dem's win in 2020. Those social programs need even more money squandered on them without reform after all.
DeleteRemember, this is not a political blog but you're correct and valid that social program funding impacts military matters.
DeleteThis Navy leadership needs a Gandalf-Wormtoungue moment.
ReplyDeleteSo the ACTUV drone sub hunter is still being funded ? Would seem like we still need a dedicated ASW warship that is manned.
ReplyDeleteNavy sees funding slashed for next generation fighter aircraft
ReplyDeletehttps://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/22/amid-a-heated-aircraft-carrier-debate-the-us-navy-sees-funding-slashed-for-a-next-generation-fighter/
This is an example of what I've continually preached about. Instead of trying to develop a leap ahead, next generation aircraft with anti-gravity, adaptive, nuclear engines, just stick with whatever the best EXISTING engine is and let it go at that. It will be state of the art, by definition, but affordable and already developed.
DeleteGo ahead an research magic engines but do so in an R&D environment, not in concurrent production which always fails.
In short, I fully support cutting the funding though probably not for the reasons Congress did.
Nobody actually wants to R&D anymore because that implies the possibility of failure.
DeleteExactly. We could probably have a first-flighttest F-14 replacement in 12-18 months if pushed to do so with the newest proven components. A new air superiority fighter with proper range is sorely missing from flight decks. Proper single mission planes are overall, and could go from dusty old plans to state of the art prototypes in a matter of a year or two. IF the will was there to make it happen!!! I wholly believe that todays design teams, with all the CAD, could do this quickly and logically.
DeleteWhile everyone pushes new tech and "the modern battlespace", the reality is, the Cold-War era missions have returned. And frankly with some MINOR tweaking, the Cold-War era force we had, is what we need again...
So many answers are found in the past....
"We could probably have a first-flighttest F-14 replacement in 12-18 months if pushed to do so with the newest proven components."
DeleteI would start with a Naval version of the F-15 Silent Eagle. A naval version was proposed in the early 70's to compete with the F-14. The F-15 production line is still open so it could be done rapidly. If you also included the missile hauling capability of the F-15X it could be an interesting plane. The F-15 SEXN (Silent Eagle X Naval).
"SEXN"
DeleteA bit salacious can't tell if that would sell or not
Unfortunately, while an F-14 airframe would be a huge asset for NAVAIR, the development time for new software alone would be difficult to achieve in a reasonable (12-18 month) timeframe even with proven mechanical components.
Delete"development time for new software alone would be difficult to achieve"
DeleteWhy do you say that? What aspect would be difficult? We have several aircraft that we ought to be able to use as starting points.
For example, the F-35 has required inordinate amounts of time to develop its software but it's because we tried to make one aircraft/software fit three different versions and we tried to tie it all together with an all-encompassing logistics package that was, unfortunately, intimately tied to aircraft flight. Had we dropped ALIS and built just a single version of the aircraft, would it really have taken an unacceptably long time?
We've come to think that extended development times are normal because we continually do stupid things like 3-aircraft-in-1 and ALIS. What if we opted for a navalized F-22 (which was proposed). We'd have a proven, debugged airframe and software as a starting point. Would it really take all that long to get it flying? All the manufacturing parts and molds have been saved. We ought to be able to set up the production line in 6 months, during which we ought to be able to design in the naval mods. Let's double that and call it a year. We ought to see production aircraft in a year.
"A bit salacious can't tell if that would sell or not"
DeleteGovernment agencies love acronyms, but I agree calling it the F-15 SEXN may hinder the program.
While hard to get exact timeframes, the F-4 and the "F-teen" fighters all generally went from proposals or studies or restaurant napkin doodles to first flights in 5-7 years. With true intent behind it, modern design tools, and existing tech, I just cant see why the timeline cant be 2yrs, maybe even less to a prototype flight. Theres just no will to make it happen!! The multi-decade long development has become the new normal, and clearly the ridiculously long time spent doesnt produce anything worth the wait...
Delete"Why do you say that? What aspect would be difficult? We have several aircraft that we ought to be able to use as starting points."
DeleteWhile mechanical components can be reused fairly easily, software components often cannot be reused as easily. Flight control software is designed for a particular hardware set. Latencies and number and types of sensor inputs work in combination with the processor to adjust outputs in nearly real-time. Channing the CPU in an old plane or adding new actuators to an old plane requires very careful design and testing. So, while building new F-14 airframes would be possible with minor redesigns, new avionics to replicate the previous controls would be a large endeavor (but not impossible).
Each new software feature added on top would need thorough testing as a subset and in the final system tests. The pieces are tested apart as well as interactions under all conditions. The bloat from ALIS added thousands (maybe millions?) of lines of code to the F-35 software and seems to be related to the repeated delays in producing a fully functional software release for the F-35. It certainly would not be simple or quick to port F-35 software directly to a new aircraft or a remanufactured F-14 due to these interactions and testing requirements.
"What if we opted for a navalized F-22 (which was proposed)."
DeleteThis would most certainly be a better and quicker course of action. It would alleviate the number of new variables and testing required. I whole heatedly agree with either this or the F-15 adaptation suggested above.
"would not be simple or quick to port F-35 software directly to a new aircraft "
DeleteOf course not! However, a port of the current, functioning F-22 software to a navalized F-22 new aircraft would seem quite doable. Similarly, a port of the current, functioning F-15 software to a navalized F-15 would seem doable.
"I forgot to add that the Navy is also looking at cutting 2-4 FFG(X)."
ReplyDeleteThis ultimately because of crew right? The navy wants toys without any people to really run them outside of passive environment. This is the MBA thinking that created all the Smart ship stuff what 2 decades ago. This works OK at the Walmart because when 5 people simultaneously have issues in self checkout the whole store does go up in flames and nobody dies because one employee is trying to deal with everything at once and calling for a manger because the 6th person needs to buy beer and he/she is 17.
"That’s an enormous logical inconsistency. ComNavOps has called for reducing ship design service lives to 15-20 years which is what the Navy is doing anyway."
The average age of the USCG fleet is 52 years I bet they wish they the budget muscle to retire and replace at 20 years. How can the USN get away with a non logical system while a sister service cannot.
The Turkish upgrades to their cast off Perry acquisitions are demonstrably better ships the LCS and also less expensive to create. The USN need not run them all the time but the USN reserve (or USN national guard? if it existed) could putting only limited time on old hulls that were mostly just a strategic reserve.
Perhaps the navy needs to think in terms of a navy it needs (and can train and run effectively) in peace time and the one it can float in 2 months, 3 months, 6 months or a year in a real navy war.
Why the ~350 number why not 270 or 380 or 190? I mean I would rather have 200 if the sailors could navigate, and their enough of them to have redundant damage control parties or any other crew function when the ship goes dark or is on fire.
"Why the ~350 number why not 270 or 380 or 190"
ReplyDeleteThat number ought to be based on a realistic assessment of political threats and opportunities, and what the USN would do if they materialised, plus some contingency reserve.
However, viewed from the UK, the US doesn't seem to have a clear idea of its current political goals, never mind the threats to them, which makes any further stages impossible.
Well that was sort of point the number just seems like a number for budget battles (we need to justify our [USN] share). Is the political assessment that say a Russian attack on Latvia means NATO is all in so the USN has a lot of back up. Or are we doing everything everywhere all on our own. Does the situation in Hong Kong mean Taiwan might decide one state two systems is really not for them and we might have to face the possibility of the that.
DeleteSo I agree the view from early morning SE Idaho also says the USN has no particular ideal of US strategic goals or what to about them or what to recommend anything to Congress except buy stuff our power point presentations make look cewl.
"viewed from the UK, the US doesn't seem to have a clear idea of its current political goals"
DeleteViewed from anywhere, the US doesn't seem to have a clear idea!
To be fair, the Trump administration has laid out a clearer vision of our geopolitical goals than any previous administration going back to Reagan and his clear vision of defeating communism. It's not great because it lacks a lot of specifics but it's better than what's come before.
"the number [355] just seems like a number for budget battles"
DeleteNot entirely. The number comes from the 2016 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) and the number has since been incorporated into the Navy's 30 year build plans. So, it's not an entirely made up number, however, the rigor of the analysis that went into the FSA is highly suspect and, by my standards, quite lacking. But, just to be clear, it did come from a study.
"To be fair, the Trump administration has laid out a clearer vision of our geopolitical goals"
DeleteI'm sure I think I missed them aside from spend more on whatever the Pentagon wants. Also unfair to GB Jr was fairly clear we were going to fight a endless war on global terror and invade Iraq. Also in terms administration's vision Rumsfeld was pretty clear he was in charge and going to eliminate what programs he deemed needed trimming or that got in the way of the GWOT. Note not meant to political just I don't think passing over the GBjr admin is fair. It knew where it wanted to go and got there and made a huge mark on US military policy. Its possible to conclude that the US wasted a decade or so where it could have other military choices, but hindsight is always rather good.
"don't think passing over the GBjr admin is fair"
DeleteThe GBjr (nice abbrev.!) admin lacked a geopolitical strategy. It lacked a document that laid out how we were going to relate to, and deal with, other countries. Yes, they had a vision of an endless fight against terror but that was a reactionary ACTION rather than a strategy and it didn't address our relations/actions with other countries. The admin had a singular focus on terror and lacked a geopolitical strategy.
Rumsfeld's actions were methods, not geopolitical strategies.
In contrast, the Trump admin has issued an actual geopolitical strategy that identifies who our enemies are and, in broad terms, how we will deal with them. It lacks the necessary specifics to be truly effective but it's far superior to anything that came before, dating back to Reagan. You can agree or disagree with the strategy but the admin has one and is implementing it (pulling out of bad agreements, renegotiating trade deals, trade war with China, etc.). So, agree or disagree, I give the admin credit for having some kind of strategy. In turn, this should make it possible for the military to formulate a strategy for dealing with our friends and enemies in both peace and war. Unfortunately, the military has let the admin down and failed to formulate a viable military strategy.
To add perspective the Chinese Navy don't seem to have a problem in building warships in numbers, its been provisionally reported that they have launched following in 2019, 2x ~13,000t Type 055 cruisers, 7x ~7,000t+ Type 052D/E destroyers, 12x ~1,400t Type 056 corvettes, 1x ~40,000t Type 075 LHD and 1x ~25,000t Type 071 LPD, no mention of subs launched, expect confirmation/update of numbers in New Year.
ReplyDelete"ComNavOps has called for reducing ship design service lives to 15-20 years which is what the Navy is doing anyway."
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be the exception rather than the rule. In your Fleet Size - Going Up or Down? post from 2012, you listed the service life of different classes of ships decommissioned between 2008 and 2012. Minesweepers and Aegis cruisers were at the low end at 11 and 21 years, respectively. Frigates had a service life of 29 years and carriers with 44 years.
There have been some major ships decommissioned with 20 years or less of service life. All four the Virginia-class cruisers were paid off within 20 years in the 1990's. Plus, 12 of the 62 Los Angeles-class SSNs were retired with 20 years or less of service. And, if this plan is executed, the first four LCS will fall in that category as well.
At the same time, the Navy is trying to get 42 years of service out of the Ohio-class to bridge the gap until the Columbia-class enter service. The Ohio-class were built with a 30-year life, the lead ship, USS Ohio (SSGN-726) has served 38 years to date. Previously, the longest serving boomer was the USS Kamehameha (SSBN-642/SSN-642) which served 36 years.
If decommissioned in 2022, the Aegis cruisers Monterey, Vella Gulf, and Port Royal will have served 32, 29, and 28 years, respectively. If decommissioned in 2024, Shiloh will have served 32 years.
While the Navy is decommissioning too many ships before their time, they are getting about 30 years of service out of their major combatants.
"China Sabotages US Navy"
ReplyDeleteIt is not only the US Navy, the US Air Force seems to be suffering from the same problem.
Look at F-22. At the beginning it was planned to procure 750 aircraft, and after spending some $35 billion on R&D it was clear that it is going to be the best jet fighter built so far.
Now imagine you are a foreign agent and want to sabotage the F-22 program.
Could you do a better job (without revealing yourself as a foreign agent) than to make the DoD stop procurement at 189 aircraft, of which only 125 are actually combat-coded?
Oh, and the ChiComs just launched their 10th Type 052D class DDG for this year.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.snafu-solomon.com/2019/12/china-just-launched-its-10th-type.html?m=1
And we're talking about retiring most of our CG's next year and cutting way back on the construction of Flight III Burkes? What the hell have they been smoking in the SECNAV's office?
Dont think it's all on them OMB is what I have read is what's driving these idiotic proposals
DeleteActually it was 8 Type 052d and 2 Type 055, which makes 10 destroyers in total.
ReplyDeleteImho this part political part military the political to get more money militarily it could be a stunt knowing full well these numbers could pull the Chicoms to slow down in shipbuilding which is insane I am beginning to read more articles about unmanned vessels also they may have some uses but I really have a lot of doubts. No matter though 287 is a lot more than the once Proud Rn has talk about a hollow force look no further than them
ReplyDelete