We often discuss weapons and weapon inventories. Understandably, the US military’s weapon inventories are not generally public record. Even so, reasonable estimates can be made from procurement quantities, which are public record, and usage patterns which are somewhat publicized.
Here’s some Navy weapon procurement quantities from the FY20 budget.(1) The quantities shown are eyeball annual averages of the six year period FY19 – FY24, inclusive.
|
Weapon |
Qty |
Comment |
|
|
Tactical Tomahawk |
200 |
Includes new missiles and modernization upgrades |
|
|
Standard SM-6 |
140 |
|
|
|
RAM |
120 |
|
|
|
ESSM |
190 |
Trending up to 300/yr projected for FY23 and FY24 |
|
|
Mk48 Torpedo |
70 |
|
|
|
LCS Naval Strike Missile |
20 |
Trending up to 26/yr in FY23 and FY24 |
|
|
LCS Hellfire |
109 |
|
|
|
LRASM |
48 |
Constant purchase quantity across the FY19-FY24 period |
|
It is interesting that the LCS Naval Strike Missile (NSM) is programmed for very low purchase quantities through FY24. At the end of FY24, the fleet inventory will be only 101 (less, actually, depending on the number used for training launches, if any). This limited procurement may be due to manufacturer shortages or may be recognition by the Navy of the limited usefulness of the LCS in combat and the LCS' impending replacement by the new frigate.
Similarly, the LRASM, which is currently only for aerial launch, is being procured in very small quantities.
Hellfire, which is supposed to be the LCS main weapon against small boat swarms, is also being procured in very small quantities.
It’s fairly obvious that any significant usage – you know … like a war – will require hugely increased annual production rates of weapons. We’re talking about factors of 10X – 100X. For example, we’ve seen that a single, partial attack on a small, undefended airbase requires nearly 100 Tomahawks. A strike against a peer defended base would likely require 300+ missiles. That’s for one target! We’ll need 10,000-20,000 Tomahawks per year to wage a peer war. That’s a hundred-fold increase in production. Do we have that kind of industrial production capacity? I seriously doubt it. We need to be planning for wartime production increases, now. It does no good to build a fleet with 10,000 VLS cells if we can only produce 200 Tomahawks per year to fill those cells during a war.
_________________________________
(1)”Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2020 Budget”, 12-Mar-2019, p.4-8
"We’ll need 10,000-20,000 Tomahawks per year to wage a peer war."
ReplyDeleteYou might very well be underestimating that, frankly.
Point is, can the US or China (or anyone, really), produce missiles at such a rate?
Only if both parties can will "modern war" actually happen: otherwise it'll be an one-sided bloodbath or Back to WWII (well, almost).
"You might very well be underestimating that, frankly."
DeleteI might! It all depends on how they're used. If we use them for area bombardment then we'll need far more than that. If we use them for a limited number of fixed targets then, maybe, it would be enough - or not.
"Point is, can the US or China (or anyone, really), produce missiles at such a rate?"
Unless you intentionally gear your industry to that, it's highly unlikely. So, what does that tell us about the weapons path we're on? Does it, perhaps, suggest that we should be arming our ships with large caliber guns instead of so many missiles? We could produce hundreds of thousands (millions?) of shells per year since we did it in WWII. Once both sides have expended all their fancy, sophisticated missiles, an ordinary WWII naval gun will reign supreme. Maybe what this is telling us is that we should be building simpler weapons that can be more easily produced instead of exquisite weapons that are unaffordable and unproducible at meaningful rates. Maybe our entire philosophy of ever more technologically complex weapons is misguided?
"Does it, perhaps, suggest that we should be arming our ships with large caliber guns instead of so many missiles?"
DeleteThe fact that biggest gun in the current US Navy is a tiny five inch thingy, (a small caliber peashooter by naval standards) has always amused me, actually.
Personally, I think wartime will see a big push to develop simpler, "dumber" missiles than can be mass-produced on a significant scale, but I cannot say whether that is possibile or worth it.
It's not only missiles either, as you correctly noted.
A WWII Hellcat could be built in a few days by some random guy with little training, fancy stealth planes are a nightmare in comparison.
Either nobody in high places thought those things through, or they're just wishing everything away.
"simpler, "dumber" missiles"
DeleteDoes anyone believe that China is not putting a great deal of effort into electronic warfare for counter-missile use? What if they develop an electronic means of rendering our missiles much less effective (jamming or disrupting our guidance systems/sensors, for example, or generating 'fake' target signals that decoy our missiles)? With only marginally effective missiles, what will we use for weapons? If we had large caliber naval guns we'd at least still have something. Even large, unguided rockets would help and could be produced cheaply and in great quantity. Dumb bombs. The list goes on. Instead, we're putting all our money and hope into ultra-sophisticated missiles. If we're wrong ...
EW is a major issue (the list of major problems the US military is ignoring is unbeliavable), but not what I was talking about.
DeleteThe Chinese use missiles as well, although we know little about those, and unless they've figured something out they'll run into the same production problems you mentioned, should a peer war happen.
(Then again, I don't think a peer war will happen anytime soon, so maybe they don't care either?)
"EW is a major issue ... but not what I was talking about."
DeleteYes, I understood that wasn't your point. I was piggybacking off your comment to make a separate though somewhat related point. I wasn't trying to misrepresent your comment. My apologies!
Dumber missiles is a great idea in regards to shore bombardment. Make a naval MLRS that can be guided with GPS and back-up inertial navigation.
DeleteFor antiship work, a torpedo rocket may be needed to drop a torp just outside an enemy ships' AA defenses.
Imho, The crucial opening stages to a peer/near-peer war will involve massive decoying and EW efforts by both sides to get their opponent to waste valuable weapons on fake threats and targets. The first side to run out of missiles loses.
"Simpler weapons" you say. Do you realize how many rice bowls you just turned over?
ReplyDeleteGood post, I'd be glad to know the numbers about European navies, especially the Royal Navy, the French and the Italians. There have been rumours about lack of training because not enought round boughts to do it (statement from the previous CEMM). I also read that the Marine Nationale has only purchased 50 MdCN (French cruise missile), i.e. nothing. Sometimes I wonder if navies have bought any reloads ...
ReplyDelete"know the numbers about European navies"
DeleteI wish I had numbers but I don't. I, too, have heard the persistent reports of inadequate inventories. The embarrassing Libya affair a few years back would seem to have been proof of the sorely lacking inventories of European nations.
This is why the US needs to 'abandon' Europe's defense. Europe needs to bulk up their weapon inventories (among many other improvements) but they won't do it until they can no longer depend on the US. Only if forced to it, will they step up in their own defense.
I assume those countries bought very few missiles as well, but their roles are entirely different from the US.
DeleteWhich war are Italy or France even going to fight?
"Which war are Italy or France even going to fight?"
DeleteWell, that is the key question, isn't it? I'll offer my thoughts on the geopolitics of the situation, for your amusement. I don't think Russia is a real threat. I don't think Russia has any designs on continental Europe. Still, the way you ensure that lack of design/desire is by having a strong enough military to make any attempt by Russia, futile. Now, they don't have to size themselves to take on Russia single-handedly. They could form a European defense pact with other countries - NATO without the US.
China is a real threat and war is inevitable. When it comes, it will be global and those countries need to be prepared to contribute in a meaningful way. If the US loses, due to lack of global support, those countries lose, too. China will take over vast areas and impose all kinds of onerous rules.
Just as threatening is the entire Muslim movement which has varying degrees of belligerence ranging from nearly peaceful to all out jihad/caliphate. That threat can only be dealt with militarily.
There's also the threat of a rogue Mediterranean nation - I'm looking at you, Turkey. A Mediterranean war could easily pull area countries in to protect their Mediterranean shipping, trade, and territorial rights.
Finally, there's whatever threats each individual country might have, such as the Falklands presented for the UK.
So, that's my generic answer as to what war Italy or France are going to have to fight. I'd say that's plenty of reason to have a strong military and enough weapons to last more than the week that that the Libyan affair demonstrated.
Italy and France both participated in Odyssey Dawn in 2011, the French have been executing Operation Serval since forever, and French cruise missiles were part of the April 2018 Syria strike. So I'd say they have reasons to be prepared.
DeleteAgree with CNO completely RE: Russia and China. Not sure I agree on the Middle East.
For good measure, both France and Italy are UN sending states if the balloon were to go up in Korea as well.
Deletehttps://www.unc.mil/Organization/Contributors/
In Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies (2019), there´s a great assessment of Russian naval forces and implication for the Danish navy. Unfortunately in Danish. One detail that the author discusses is that the Danish Navy only bought 46 SM2 missiles for their frigates that have a combined missile silo capacity for 96 missiles. (Note that this was the ordered quantity, not something they actually had at the time of writing.) Wartime needs aside, 46 is not enough to do proper training as the author notes. This is not unimportant. Can the crews even use their weapons at their disposal with a necessary degree of speed and confidence if they never get to fire?
DeleteClearly Denmark intends to order more missiles in case there is a war, further increasing the need for greater production capacity. My assumption is that in case of a major war, the US is going to fill its own inventories first. And rightly so. But the implications of this needs to be at least understood by the smaller countries.
IED
"Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies"
DeleteGood comment!
"Clearly Denmark intends to order more missiles in case there is a war"
So, do they intend to sit out the first year of the war while they wait for their order to be filled?
"My assumption is that in case of a major war, the US is going to fill its own inventories first."
Quite right! Raytheon, the missile manufacturer, is a multi-national corporation but it is a US based company. The US Navy will get all the production until the company can gear up to produce excess, at which point they'll try to fill small orders from other countries.
Countries - the US included - just don't seem to think through all these matters, do they?
"Well, that is the key question, isn't it? I'll offer my thoughts on the geopolitics of the situation, for your amusement [...]"
DeleteThat's an interesting reply, so let's unpack it a bit.
First, you are correct in saying that Russia has no intentions of conquering Europe, even if she could (and she can't, even though the combined military might of European nations is at an historical low).
In fact, those countries are excellent customers for Russian gas, and there is no reason to upset them excessively.
Speaking of Russia, many American politicians could do a world of good if they stopped trafficking in ridiculous conspiracy theories and tried to bring Moscow away from Beijing: not easy to do, of course, but it would be a major success if accomplished and well worth trying.
China, on the other hand, does seek world domination, as you have noticed many years ago already (credit where it's due).
However, they've been very careful in avoiding an actual shooting war for very obvious reason, and I don't see why that would change anytime soon, so unless the US decides to shoot first (very very unlikely) at best/worst there'll be a proxy war somewhere in the East Asia/Pacific region, well away from European reach.
Turkey is a legitimate threat and worth preparing for militarily.
Erdogan is a nasty mobster with clear expansionist ambitions and could cause plenty of trouble to various European nations, so a Turkish war is a realistic option in a not so far future.
However is worth noting that pretty much all the potentially interested countries are NATO members, as is Turkey: what happens if they start shooting at each other?
With the noticeable exception above, other Muslim countries aren't going to declare war on European states, despite the Muslim attitude towards suicide.
The very real issues here are mass immigration and terrorist attacks (not unrelated), but you don't solve those with missiles or cruisers, what's needed there is political will.
The Falklands were a bit of an exception, a lower tier nation's attack on a faraway possession, and opportunities for such conflicts are very rare.
(France routinely does military operations in her undeclared but still very existing North African empire, but those are very much asymmetrical one-sided affairs).
That said, while I am strongly in favor of getting rid of NATO (or at least reforming it in some kind of Global Anti-Jihad Alliance), way too many politicians on both sides of the Atlantic enjoy the current status quo to change it.
Also, European negligence aside, a military designed to do colonial policing and occasionally spanking the occasional rogue actor has very different needs from a global force needing to prepare for a fight with a nuclear armed Communist state with over a billion people.
A fascinating line of discussion! from afar, I think America is quite right in pulling back on its responsibilities of militarily propping up Europe. Providing it is done in a way that actually enables Europe to pull its socks up rather than a sudden shock walk-out which would only de-stablise things further. Its time Europe pulled its own weight & a Euro version of NATO would be a good move. NATO in general is past its use-by date with Russia no longer the threat it once was.
DeleteAustralia seems to be getting moving fast in this respect, with a focus on EW assets, home-grown loyal wingman programs (value there may be debatable, but the initative has to be applauded), orders for a variety of new equipment all in the last 12 months.
New Zealand (where I live) is pretty under-equipped for any sort of large-scale warfare, and we usually use the excuse of having a population of ~5 mill as an excuse, but when you mention the value of lower-tech weapons like having sufficient gun firepower physically on board ships, this seems like an area where smaller nations like ours could pull their weight more. Building, or purchase of mission-specific assets like minesweeping or escort frigates/ equivalent would be realistic for small countries to buy in numbers that would be useful, where having numbers of destroyers like Burkes probably isnt realistic (thinking of not the purchase price here but the support infrastructure needed for all the systems & technology they now pack on-board).
NZ is not guiltless though, actually forming a strategy with other nearby countries (Aussie is the obvious choice for us of course) to be militarily useful in a large scale conflict seems to me to be a good strategy, rather than trying to maintain our own independent forces to deal with a variety of threats. Hmm, this is an interesting rabbit hole to go down the more I think about it!
" an area where smaller nations like ours could pull their weight more."
DeleteI've thought that smaller countries need two things regarding self-defense:
1. A Coast Guard (that's our name for it) and military enforcement force for territorial protection.
2. An agreement with a larger country to 'slot into' their military so as to be useful in a larger war. Of course, this requires the small country to pick a side and commit to it. NZ could potentially offer mine warfare and mine countermeasures as a useful 'slot' to fill, as you alluded to.
My suggestion for NZ would be to partner up with the US and, to a lesser extent, Australia for more limited arrangements since Australia cannot lead a major war by itself, either. NZ as a mine warfare specialist country would be very useful to the US. In return, the value of the US to NZ would be a mutual defense pact.
Something to think about.
I wonder how many 5" 25mm and 20mm rounds we have on hand.
ReplyDeleteSomewhere, recently, I seem to recall seeing that we put in an order for 15,000 5" rounds, if that gives you some idea. I'll see if I can find that reference to double check my memory.
DeleteSmaller rounds, I have no idea.
Just 15,000? a WW2 Gearing carried over 470 shells a gun for over 2800. The USN couldn't even arm 6 Gearing class today? that's terrifying.
Delete"Just 15,000?"
DeleteTo be fair - and assuming I'm recalling that correctly - that's just a single year order. Do that year after year (did they???) and you eventually have a decent inventory. Also, that's peacetime ordering. And, the Gearings had three dual 5" mounts for 6x 5" guns whereas the Burkes have a single 5" gun - 1/6 the need (which is alarming in itself!).
I wonder what the shelf life of a 5" round is?
I think 10 years is suggested, but a well stored round can be reliable long after.
DeleteRegarding US weapon procurement, there is a serious problem - TOO EXPENSIVE. While politicians give us all sorts of reasons, they hide a critical issue - too many well connected (include many retired generals), they treat Pentagon as their ATMs to pay themselves and special interests support them.
ReplyDeleteTake a recent example. In 2019, Thailand purchased a type 071E LPD from China for ~200 million USD. Before making decision, Thailand asked US for a quotation of an equivalent San Antonio class LPD, the quotation stunned them. For US navy, each San Antonio class LPD costs ~1.8 billion USD but estimated ~140 million USD for Chinese navy's type 071 so China's ~200 million export actually makes money.
People frequently cite hourly wage difference is the only reason but if you do all the math, you would find not so.
Today, for advanced destroyer, China spends ~1/3 and use less than 1/2 times.
This must be corrected or US will collapse.
While your overall point about expense is perfectly valid, any quoted prices from China or any other country are hugely misleading. Every time I've looked into this (because someone is always claiming that some country builds ships for next to nothing), I've found the same thing: that claimed costs are not even remotely accurate.
DeleteChina, along with most other countries, employs significant government subsidies which, alone, invalidates any price comparison. The US offers no subsidies - well, yes, they do, sort of, in the form of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). I assume China also uses GFE though I have no idea to what extent. China also has a well established habit of 'loss-leading'. They offer other countries various products at a loss in order to gain footholds, thus invalidating cost comparisons. The list of invalidating factors goes on.
It is also unknown (at least to me) what equipment is included with the Chinese purchase. Electronics, weapons, combat systems, etc. add hugely to the overall costs, as you know.
As I've stated repeatedly, comparing costs between countries is pointless and they mean nothing without a total understanding of all the factors. China is certainly not laying out all their factors.
A big factor in cost differences can end up being time. Using a yard to deliver 1 ship a year vs 8 has a huge impact. If a ship can go from ordered to delivered in 24 months vs 60 ther is a lot of carrying costs avoided. Same way you can spend less money building a house faster.
Delete"A big factor in cost differences can end up being time."
DeleteWe've posted on this. See, "Shipbuilding Costs - Impact of Low Volume"
After lost most civilian ship building industry, US ship building is equivalent to military ship building. Ship yards lost incentive to cut cost and time pressure. They have entered "excuses" mode. Many advanced management skills which are MUST in civilian ship building don't exist in US, not to mention, advanced technologies in civilian ship building which can help reduce costs are non-exist in US.
DeleteBeside China, world's no.2 and no. 3 civilian ship builders are US allies yet there is no incentive for US ship yards to learn from them. Why learn something to reduce your margin? why make union workers and sluggish and slow engineers unhappy?
The cynic in me suspects they keep NSM production low so Congress doesn't start asking why they need the Frigate at double the price.
ReplyDeleteOnce those missiles are fired off by both sides it's going to be awfully hard to fight the war.
ReplyDeleteToo bad nobody has ever invented something to use along with the missiles....something that is less expensive.
You know what? I have an idea.
OK, so you take a really strong steel tube and you put some kind of explosive, I don't know...like gunpowder or something, in the back end.
And then in the front end you put the warhead of the missile.
Then you light the gunpowder and the explosion should force the warhead nose of the missile out the other end of the tube.
As I think about it, you wouldn't even need to put the guidance part of the missile with the explosive because you could just point the tube at the other guys and it would fly at them.
I wonder why nobody has thought of this before?
I should call the navy department....they should get some of these things and put them on their ships...
Several weeks ago you made a comment about military forces should only think about war. I disagreed, pointing out that's what Australia thought till late 2019.
ReplyDeleteIn 2019/2020 the reserves were called out for the first time ever to deal with bushfires, they weren't for WW1 and WW2. The three forces are also heavily involved with coronavirus tracing and guarding quarantine people.
My own belief this is best handled by a civilian response force. But we don't have one.
In view of the firestorm in the US west, how is your thinking progressing?
I have thought for some time that the US is woefully lacking an appropriate emergency response force. IMO, the best approach would be to repurpose the National Guard from a second-string Army/Air Force reserve to a civil defense/emergency response agency. Let the folks who really want to be soldiers transfer to the Army/Air Force/Navy/Marine Reserves. Equip the Guard with bulldozers and backhoes, and train them for emergency response actions.
DeleteFor COVID-19, they could have started by setting up tent testing centers in WalMart, Target, and shopping mall parking lots. Put pressure on CDC and FDA to get tests out a lot quicker, and let the NG do them. Then they could set up mobile hospitals to catch overflows at places that were getting overcrowded.
"In view of the firestorm in the US west, how is your thinking progressing?"
DeleteIt's become more solidified. There are two aspects to this:
1. Whatever problem you think the military should be used for, they aren't trained for it! Whether it's ebola, a virus, firefighting, riots, or whatever … they aren't trained for it and will do the job poorly even if they can manage to not hurt themselves in the process.
2. Whatever problem you think the military should be used for, we already have an agency tasked for that. We have the CDS to handle infectious disease. We have local police for riot control. We have interstate firefighting brigades. And so on. Because of a our population as compared to Australia, we have the luxury of dedicated agencies.
So, leave the military to do what they do.
"civil defense/emergency response agency."
DeleteThe problem with a multi-function agency is the same as a multi-function ship or aircraft: you can only train for one function well. Which do you train for? Firefighting? Riot control? Building collapse (9/11)? Anti-terrorism? Infectious disease? Flooding?
You can only train to be good at one and maybe, if you're really diligent, you can be half good at one other although that's unlikely. A Burke can be good at AAW or ASW but not both - there just isn't enough training time. A strike fighter pilot can be good at air combat or air-to-ground but not both - there just isn't enough training time. And so on.
As I said in the previous comment, we already have dedicated agencies for all the various needs. We just need to make sure they're adequately resourced and trained. Let CDS do infectious disease. Let firefighters do firefighting. Let police do riot control. And so on.
The two aren't that different. You need civil defense in any emergency and you need emergency response for almost any civil defense situation. You have different groups within the organization--on the Gulf Coast you have hurricane recovery, in California earthquake and wildfire recovery, in Kansas tornado recovery, with medical and civil defense everywhere.
DeleteActually we don't have dedicated agencies for all the needs. That is precisely the problem. FEMA is not a response agency, they're a bunch of beancounters. CDC and FDA are administrative bureaucrats, not responders. What we don't have is lots of people trained and equipped to be boots on the ground responders,
We absolutely have the dedicated agencies. Whether they're appropriately equipped, trained, and funded is another question.
DeleteDo you seriously think that the same people who are trained firefighters are going to deal with a collapsed building or bridge and deal with a pandemic? Unless they're all former LCS supermen sailors who are cross-trained to do every job in the Navy, it's not possible to know more than one skill. A firefighter knows how to fight fires - nothing else.
Perhaps you're referring to some kind of generic first responder who knows a bit of first aid and whose job is to stand around and act calm? Even search and rescue is an advanced skill that few have.
I don't know what you have in mind for 'civil defense'? Preventing looting, maybe? If so, we have police.
"We absolutely have the dedicated agencies. Whether they're appropriately equipped, trained, and funded is another question."
DeleteNo, we actually don't. We have agencies to administer response, but we don't have actual responders. FEMA doesn't respond, local and state governments do. I'm talking about consciously organizing the response at the state and local levels so that we have sufficient numbers of properly trained and equipped personnel on day one of any emergency.
"Do you seriously think that the same people who are trained firefighters are going to deal with a collapsed building or bridge and deal with a pandemic?"
No, I don't expect the same people to do all those things. But the Guard has 450,000 people. With the repurposing, I would expect some would opt to transfer to the Army or Air Force Reserves. Say 100,000 do. That's still 350,000 people, which is bigger than the active duty Navy. Out of that number, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty who can do each mission, and we can train and equip them to do it. Without having to train on tanks and artillery, they should have time to become pretty proficient on the tasks that are required.
The other thing about the Guard is that someone mentioned the military above. Aside from the posse comitatus issues, there is another problem in that we pay the active duty military 365 days a year. We pay the Guard 60, which means that they are a lot cheaper standby force. We call the Guard out whenever we have these sorts of issues. Why not train them specifically and intentionally to do them, instead of driving tanks and shooting big guns?
"Perhaps you're referring to some kind of generic first responder who knows a bit of first aid and whose job is to stand around and act calm? Even search and rescue is an advanced skill that few have."
No, not at all. I'm talking about people who receive 12 weekends and 12-14 days active duty training every year, and who perform realistic training exercises, at least during that active duty training.
"I don't know what you have in mind for 'civil defense'? Preventing looting, maybe? If so, we have police."
Not enough. And it's a job the Guard gets tasked to do all the time when there is an emergency. Just make it a primary duty instead of a secondary duty, so that they can be trained specifically to do that.
All I'm really saying is to pull the second-string Army/Air Force Reserve mission out of their duties and replace it with a much more robust disaster response mission. You get numbers (which we don't have now), who can be trained (which we don't have now), and equipped (which we don't have now), all for a much cheaper price than maintaining a 24/7/365 full-time force.
DeleteSetting aside any other issues, how do you compensate for the loss of trained soldiers in the event of war needs? At one weekend a month and two weeks a year, you can't maintain proficiency at combat and whatever other civil response duty you'd like to repurpose them to. That's 350,000 (current Army National Guard size) soldiers lost the US for immediate combat use.
DeleteEnlarge the Army, Air Force, and Navy Reserves.
DeleteSeems like there are lots of "jobs" and therefore units in the military that are not specifically combat that may in fact be appropriate for some of these civilian responses. Military police to supplement regular police, Military medical to assist in disaster for first response, and field hospitals, etc. Great potential training exercises that have direct applicability to their military duties. I don't think its do one or the other, but look where the other helps you maintain your one.
Delete"Seems like there are lots of "jobs" and therefore units in the military that are not specifically combat that may in fact be appropriate for some of these civilian responses."
DeleteIt might seem so but there are legal issues that would have to be addressed. The Posse Comitatus Act limits the use of the military in enforcement of laws, for example. Military Police have no civilian police powers or authority. Military medical personnel, unless they are actual doctors (MDs) are generally prohibited from practicing medicine outside the military. Thus, medics and the like, unless they have obtained civilian certification (I don't think that generally happens?), cannot perform medical procedures beyond a layman's first aid level and might not even be able to due that due to liability and (lack of malpractice insurance?). Various military engineering units could probably assist but those units seem to be able to keep gainfully employed in peacetime, anyway.
National Guard units operating on Title 32 orders have significantly different and greater powers to execute DSCA outside of Posse Comitatus. Posse Comitatus only applies to Title 10 forces, not Title 32.
DeleteI think what CDR Chip is referring to is essentially flipping the structure of the Army Reserves and National Guard, so that Governors have access to MPs, Engineers, Medical, and logistics personnel as needed within Title 32 of the US Code.
Currently, Army Reserve (pure Title X) is composed of a lot of those DSCA useful units and people, while Army National Guard (title 10 or 32) forces are infantry/artillery/tankers that have less MOS/mission related utility to DSCA missions.
Until early this year I thought military forces only train for war. But the reality of there being nothing else has made the Defence forces and I to rethink.
DeleteThe Navy's role has always been cyclone relief in Queensland state. This year the evacuated a whole town hiding from fire on a beach. Then sent supermarket supplies into the general area as roads were cut.
After 6 months of fire all first responders are burnt out or acquired PTSD. They sign up to save their homes from normal fires, not fight fire far from home for months, sometimes while their homes burn. They are unpaid.
Uncontrollable fires and more cyclones is now here.
So our soldiers did logistics including getting supermarkets supplies during the fires.
DeleteThey hit the phones doing contact tracing and helped the police do security at foreign arrivals quarantine (they have zero powers with anyone not a terrorist, that's why the police are there).
"So our soldiers did logistics including getting supermarkets supplies during the fires."
DeleteNothing wrong with that as long as you, as a country, realize the price you pay beyond just budget. Every moment spent doing that is a moment spent not training for combat. Every flight and sea hour of wear and tear spent doing that is an hour less of future combat life for the ships and aircraft. And so on.
There's another interesting aspect to using the military as a humanitarian force and that is the impact on recruitment and the warrior culture. The US Navy, a decade or so ago, opted for a change in recruiting from a warrior appeal to a humanitarian one. The ad slogan was "A Global Force For Good" which sounded like a Peace Corps slogan. What happened was that the recruits shifted from those who wanted adventure, challenge, and danger to those who valued peace, cooperation, and gentleness. Those are fine characteristics but not in a combat organization. The Navy found they had to switch their recruiting pitch but the effect is still being felt in the Navy with a distinct and noticeable loss of warrior mentality.
People who might have joined the Australian military for the challenge and danger of combat may opt not to join due to the prospect of delivering groceries. Just something for Australia to consider as they assign more non-combat responsibilities to the military.
The phonebox 50 metres from where I live has an ad for Army Reserve, showing a blonde soldier nursing a koala bear, with a tagline of "do more than click like".
DeleteThe problem with trying to beef up medical response with reserve or national guard units is those soldiers do those jobs civilian side all ready. You would just be pulling doctor away from his 9 to 5.
DeleteAs of 2016, we were building 36,000 JDAM kits per year. They obviously provide the bulk of our precision munitions, by orders of magnitude.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, JDAM is not a weapon, it is a guidance kit that is attached to dumb bombs. The obvious question, then, is are we also building 36,000 dumb bombs per year to match with the guidance kits? Or, is our inventory of dumb bombs so large that we don't need new bombs? I have no idea.
DeleteI have a hard time believing we'd build more JDAM kits than we have munitions to use them on.
DeleteInteresting related note about bomb manufacture. From Quora,
DeleteThe only bomb casing manufacturer for the US is Tactical Air Munitions unit of General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems at Garland, Texas. This unit conducts forging operations that create precision and conventional forgings for aerospace, ordnance, … . In addition they produce bomb fin systems and steel and aluminum sheet metal which are used to repair and retrofit aircraft.
As for who FILLS these bomb casings, that is the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant ( McAlester, Oklahoma).
What the yearly production rate is, again, I have no idea.
"I have a hard time believing we'd build more JDAM kits than we have munitions to use them on."
DeleteI'm sorry but I had to laugh at that. As I momentarily ponder …
I have a hard time believing we'd build a class of gun support ships whose gun does not work and has no ammo (Zumwalt).
I have a hard time believing that we'd build an entire class of module swapping ship that has no combat capability and no functional modules and can't swap modules in any useful time frame.
I have a hard time believing that we'd build an aircraft carrier without working elevators, catapults, and arresting gear.
I have a hard time believing that we'd accept and commission ships that are substantially incomplete and/or damaged.
I have a hard time believing that we'd allow submarines to sit idle, pierside, for multiple years waiting for their turn at overhauls.
I have a hard time believing that we'd build an amphibious assault ship without a well deck.
I have a hard time believing that we'd repeatedly early retire entire classes of ships.
I have a hard time believing that we'd use up precious flight hours of our front line aircraft doing tanker duty.
I have a hard time believing that we'd design a helo-towing MCM sled without first checking to see if the helo could safely tow the sled.
I have a hard time believing that we'd …
Well, I can do this all night but you get the idea. What seems incomprehensible and nonsensical to you and I is just another day at the office for Navy leadership. They do the 'hard to believe' every day - and not in a good way. More JDAM kits than bombs? Yeah, I could believe it!
This has a detailed breakdown of different PGMs procured across all services by year.
Deletehttps://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45996
For reference, the US dropped over 26,000 bombs and missiles in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan in 2016. Obviously, not all were JDAM-equipped bombs, but we were pretty busy that year.
Delete"Well, I can do this all night but you get the idea. What seems incomprehensible and nonsensical to you and I is just another day at the office for Navy leadership. They do the 'hard to believe' every day - and not in a good way. More JDAM kits than bombs? Yeah, I could believe it!"
ReplyDeleteAll of those are examples of failed requirements, failed development and procurement, or failed sustainment.
OTOH, JDAM is _the_most_successful_ PGM program in history. Over 370,000 JDAM kits have been produced for the DoD. Tens of thousands have been used in combat. The cost of the bombs to attach them to is peanuts. I wouldn't be surprised if we had an order of magnitude more bomb bodies laying around in bunkers leftover from the Cold War.
No one has questioned whether JDAM is a good system - it is. The question you posed was whether we would buy more kits than bombs and you found it hard to believe that we could. The examples listed are all proof of the Navy's ability to make consistent, horrendous, inexplicable decisions. So, yes, it would be easy to believe that the Navy could buy more kits than bombs. I have no idea whether they have or not but it's certainly believable!
DeleteLast May, the Marines placed a $47.6 million order with Raytheon for the Naval Strike Missile. Though I couldn't find how many NSM's the Marines plan to buy.
ReplyDeleteAnd, aren't the Marine buying Tomahawks too?
The FY20 Navy budget docs show a NSM cost of $2.1M per missile which suggests that the Marine purchase of $48M will buy around 24 missiles.
DeleteGoing through your reference, I thought it interesting that the Navy is buying a number of Harpoons too.
DeleteHowever, there are four different Tactical Tomahawks listed, which totals 2,809 missiles over those 5 years or about 560 missiles a year. Of that number, 375 are the Maritime Strike Tomahawk variant.
"totals 2,809 missiles over those 5 years or about 560 missiles a year"
DeleteNo, not quite. Of that total, 2,254 are not new Tomahawk purchases but are, instead, upgrades to existing missiles. They are described in the accompanying text as "Navigation/Communications (NAV/COMMs) kits and TACTOM NAV/COMMs modernization kits". I think the difference is which base model missile they're intended for. The only new missiles are the TACTOM and TACTOM-MST which total 555.
If we are counting LRASM, why aren't we counting JSOW/JSOW-ER?
DeleteFeel free to count JSOWs, if you wish!
Delete"The only new missiles are the TACTOM and TACTOM-MST which total 555."
DeleteIn other words, it's really 111 new Tomahawks per year with the rest being recertified or modified missiles. But, with all due respect, your eyeballed annual average for the Tomahawk is 200 a year which "includes new missiles and modernization upgrades."
"it's really 111 new Tomahawks per year"
DeleteYep. My eyeball was off on that one. That's why it's called an eyeball average rather than a precise statistical mean.
By the way, since you're endeavoring to be precise, the statistical mean for the time period is actually 92.5, not 111, since the period is for FY19-FY24 inclusive which is a six year period, not five.
"why aren't we counting JSOW/JSOW-ER?"
DeleteJSOW is not listed in the Navy budget doc so the Navy apparently is not buying any JSOW in the FY19-FY24 period.
Look at the 2021 request. 525 in the 5 year plan, back up to 250 by 2025.
DeleteI wasn't trying to be precise, statistically or otherwise. Nor, was I trying to play Gotcha. I was just trying to square your numbers and comments with the cited reference.
DeleteOn the other hand, the numbers give a rough estimate for the Navy's inventory of Tomahawks for the next 5 years.
"the numbers give a rough estimate for the Navy's inventory of Tomahawks for the next 5 years."
DeleteYes, they do. I've repeatedly stated that my best estimate of the total Tomahawk inventory is around 3000 and this is yet another bit of circumstantial evidence to support that. You have to figure that the number of upgrade kits equals the number of non-upgraded Tomahawks which is probably 3/4 of the inventory or so. So, that suggests, again, a total inventory of a few thousand.
Why is this important, aside from idle curiosity? Because so many people want to build ships with more and more VLS, completely forgetting that we already have more VLS cells than missiles! Building more VLS cells gains nothing if you have nothing to put in them.
When the specs for the new FFG(X) came out, the first thing most observers said was that they wanted more VLS cells. No one asked whether we had missiles to put in them.
Obviously, more than just Tomahawks go in the VLS cells but the Standard missile inventory isn't very large, either.
So, with likely not enough missiles to fill the current VLS cells, what is the Navy doing? That's right, they're building large unmanned vessels to be VLS missile barges! Does that make sense? (*)
(*) Note: it may make sense if you're planning to retire Burkes and replace them with a family of unmanned vessels which is exactly what the Navy has stated they're going to do to a significant extent.
US and Western forces really need some kind of modular missile, plug and play seeker, nothing fancy in the construction, easy to change warhead type and Ok range, not really sure we really need as much range as DoD range thinks, without proper targeting, range is limited, would rather see bigger warheads, multiple warheads or just different types compared to more fuel but then you realize it probably wouldn't be a big money maker so very unlikely that we will see a "cheaper" missile coming out anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'd argue that the US needs to look at the family of systems and continue to develop the 21 inch missile body (SM-3 Block II), the 10 inch missile body (ESSM), and the 7 inch missile body (AMRAAM) into a family of compatible seekers capable of AAW, ASuW, maritime strike, radiation strike, and land strike.
DeleteOver time, the Navy should end the 13.5" inch missile in favor of the 21", quadpacked 10", or ninepacked 7"
I'd like to see a new 28" VLS cell that can quad pack a 13.5. Allow for the potential of something the size of Talos.
DeleteThe Mk. 57 is 28". God knows if the Navy's even tried to fit the SM-6 in a quadpack. Given their propensity to not spend a couple million to fix a billion dollar mistake, I suspect not.
DeleteNICO,
DeleteOtto Aviation has an interesting experimental airplane that uses a diesel engine (RED A03) that along with the extensive laminar flow over the airframe, allows for extreme range (4,500 miles). Their website is promoting a drone version and a larger version of the aircraft.
Aircraft/drones that can be produced in automobile like volumes will be needed in a peer war. The use of a diesel engine that could be manufactured by any large automobile or diesel engine manufacturer makes war production scale up much easier since the production base already exists.
Automotive scale and technology level should result in an airframe that should be less than $500K. If the resulting drone/optionally manned aircraft can drop a pair of Mark 82 bombs, then you have a reusable "missile " that can put the same level of payload as a tomahawk missile on target, while being less expensive and reusable.
At $500k the drone/aircraft would be less expensive than the missile that would be used to shoot it down.
Simplified terrain following based on automotive self driving hardware (optical, Lidar and microwave) would allow for low level bombing runs similar to the original tomahawk guidance system.
Maverick is probably the closest thing to what I have in mind but with closer to 50 mile range and simplified frame so in war we could have more than just 1 manufacturer, different warheads and no clue how many companies can produce the rocket, probably no more than 1 or 2 in the USA. That's an obvious HUGE bottleneck. I wonder how difficult it would be to "simplify" it so more manufacturers could produce it or any missile really...and thats not even worrying about the warhead or rocket. That's likely to be a whole different level of difficulty....
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody else think the Navy is spending way too much on ships and not enough on the weapons those ships carry?
ReplyDeleteThe poster child is probably te Zumwalts--$13 billion on three ships with no bullets for their guns. But it's way more widespread than that.
Suppose that instead of a $13B Ford we built a $9B Nimitz. No matter what claims the Navy makes for the Fords (and those are pretty hollow claims until the catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts--and toilets--work), is it worth trading off $4B worth of surface ships or missiles or bullets (or some combination of the three) to get whatever incremental capability the Ford brings? I don't think so.
I suspect inflation would greatly increase the cost of the Nimitz, and CVN-79 cost $11.39B. The difference between the two probably isn’t all that great....
DeleteThe last 3 Nimitzes averaged $8.5B. Now, it's pretty clear that the Navy is playing accounting tricks with the numbers, so who knows what anything actually costs? But even a $2B cost differential would buy a lot of other stuff.
DeleteThe bottom line is that the Navy is spending too much money on too few and too expensive ships. And the opportunity costs being imposed as a result are huge.
Not sure where you got that figure, but the last Nimitz was officially procured in 2001. The USD has changed since then. Doubly so for military acquisition.
DeleteI strongly suspect that the real cost difference is much less than $2B.
"CVN-79 cost $11.39B."
DeleteCVN-79 is not complete, yet, so we don't know what it will cost. It is highly unlikely (100% certain) that the cost will be overbudget. From the recent GAO annual report,
"Further, the Navy is unlikely to obtain planned cost savings and construction efficiencies on the next three ships in the Ford class. We previously reported on the optimistic cost and labor assumptions for CVN 79, based on a projected 18 percent labor hour reduction compared to hours to construct CVN 78. In 2019 the shipbuilder increased the estimated cost at completion due to using more labor hours for CVN 79 than expected. In addition, the Navy awarded a contract to buy two carriers simultaneously—CVNs 80 and 81—based on the assumption that this strategy will save the Navy over $4 billion. However, the Navy’s cost analysis showed that CVN 80 and 81 have a high likelihood of experiencing cost overruns, and it is uncertain whether the Navy can achieve the expected savings."
The Navy blew through three cost caps on Ford and only managed to stay under the last one by deferring construction to post-delivery which is a fraudulent practice.
The Navy budget docs make it impossible to break out individual carrier costs but the FY20 Navy SCN budget shows an average Total Obligation Authority cost of $12.3B ($12.6B if scheduled outfitting costs are included) for the Ford Class and that is without post-delivery construction (the Navy is now using a two phase construction approach to obscure costs and get around cost caps). Consider that the Ford, despite being delivered and commissioned two years ago, is still undergoing basic construction and modifications. Similar story with Zumwalt due to the Navy's two phase construction approach.
It is absolutely certain that CVN-79 will wind up significantly over budget. A likely, realistic cost will be around $15B, I suspect. Of course, we'll never know the post-delivery construction cost since the Navy doesn't publish that.
"Not sure where you got that figure"
DeleteSee, "Carrier Costs"
"A likely, realistic cost will be around $15B, I suspect. Of course, we'll never know the post-delivery construction cost since the Navy doesn't publish that."
DeleteSo, twenty-plus billion dollars (plus lots more for the air wing) to build a carrier that doesn't work and even it worked would be useless in a peer war anyway.
Heckuva job, Navy.
"So, twenty-plus billion dollars (plus lots more for the air wing) to build a carrier that doesn't work and even it worked would be useless in a peer war anyway."
DeleteI don't know about the "useless in a peer war" part. I don't see te need to be terrified into paralysis by China's A2/AD capability. But I think the Navy is focused too much on the airport and not enough on the airplanes. When a $8-10B carrier can haul the same air wing as a $15B carrier, it seems to me that we need to spend less on the carrier and more on the airplanes.
There's a great argument the airwing is insufficient, and I agree. "useless in a peer war" is a huge analytical reach and doesn't account for the vast majority of what the carrier actually does.
DeleteYes, CVN-79 may likely see cost-overruns (although last i read it was ahead of schedule which would indicate otherwise). I highly doubt the DBR-less CVN will cost more than the DBR CVN.
My basic point is that the cost-drivers are not the new class but the basic problems in shipbuilding altogether.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/carrier-kennedy-nearly-three-quarters-complete-as-single-phase-delivery-negotiations-continue
DeleteIs this a sign that the Navy's dropping the dual phase delivery approach?
"I don't know about the "useless in a peer war" part."
DeleteAs long as EMALS/AWE/etc. are not shielded or replaced the ship will be renouncing to any hope of EMCON and announcing her position to any competent enemy.
Nimitz carriers would be useful in a China war, Ford will be a big, fat, expensive target.
(Absolutely agree on the "airport and airplanes" point, though.)
"Is this a sign that the Navy's dropping the dual phase delivery approach?"
DeleteThe most recent GAO report describes the two phase delivery process so I would assume it's still in effect.
I didn't read the article as indicating the dual phase process was terminated but that the first phase was still, somehow, not finalized???? How that could be is beyond me but that's what it sounded like: that HII was still negotiating the first phase price.
"As the yard continues to build and install compartments and other systems on the ship, HII is still negotiating the single-phase delivery of the ship. The USN had initially contracted for a dual-phase Kennedy delivery – the first phase being the hull and associated systems, followed by the second delivery of combat systems and other equipment."
DeleteThe word initially suggests there's been a change.
"As long as EMALS/AWE/etc. are not shielded"
DeleteThis is a good point regarding combat effectiveness. Inexplicably, we got away from designing ships for combat (shock hardening, EMCON shielding, damage control, etc.) and instead started designing for peacetime duties.
The EMALS emissions was a stunning admission from CNO Greenert.
"As long as EMALS/AWE/etc. are not shielded or replaced the ship will be renouncing to any hope of EMCON and announcing her position to any competent enemy."
DeleteI hadn't thought of that and have no way to corroborate or rebut that assertion. It's worth doing operational testing for sure. That said, that doesn't make it inherently useless in a peer war.
https://news.usni.org/2019/10/29/navy-rethinking-need-for-dual-phase-carrier-delivery
DeleteI wouldn't be surprised if a new Nimitz was $10-11B. But partly offsetting inflation is that it is an established design and some economies should be realized through repeat production.
ReplyDeleteLike ComNavOps, I doubt any Ford will get to the fleet as an operational carrier for less that $15B.
RAND estimated their CVN-LX at $9.4B in 2017. It's an 70-80,000T carrier with 3 cats and a hybrid nuclear/gas/electric plant. It's plenty big to handle a modern CVW, plus some. Going down to 2 cats would knock that projection down to about $9.2B. ComNavOps doesn't agree, and I respect his opinion, but I'd still like to consider it wit 2 cats and putting a ski-jump on the bow.
In the same study, RAND priced a Ford at $12.9B and what they called a de-scoped Ford, a CVN-8X, at $12.6B, So, apples to apples, we would expect a CVN-LX to save at least $3B versus a Ford.
Ford yes. JFK, no. Enterprise, no. Doris Miller, maybe.
DeleteIt makes more sense to SLEP the Nimitzes then it does to build a CVN-LX from a cost and a capability standpoint.
That depends on how much life you can add to the Nimitzes. Let's assume they're good for 50 years, and SLEP could push that to 60. The newest is 10+ years old, and SLEP might get you 50 More for that one. But the original is 45, so maybe 15. Quick look, you'd have 3 that you could get 20 years out of, 3 that you could get 30, one 40, and one 50.
DeleteI agree that it makes more sense to SLEP the Nimitzes or build CVN-LX than to build more Fords. But to SLEP the Nimitzes is a short-term solution if anything.
I see no reason an RCOH+ ($4-5B) couldn't add 25 years for a full 75.
DeletePersonally I'd prefer the Navy slow but not stop the Ford production line (1 every 8 instead of 1 every 5) and SLEP every Nimitz to a full 75. It would give the Navy some flexibility to get its maintenance program together without taking away from readiness of the operational fleet.
Another example of opaque procurement. A simple Google search of the cost of Truman's RCOH yielded three wildly different cost citations from serious news organizations.... Anything from $3.5B-6.5B. This is ridiculous.
Delete"I see no reason an RCOH+ ($4-5B) couldn't add 25 years for a full 75."
DeleteYou can't take a ship that far without totally rebuilding it. The reactors and associated equipment suffer radiological embrittlement. The various tanks and voids suffer corrosion to the point of leaking and structural weakening. The hull plating corrodes. And so on. All of this is exacerbated by the Navy's routine deferral of maintenance.
It is not possible to simply SLEP a ship to 75 years.
Have we tried? I have doubts.
DeleteUntil I saw an actual cost estimate from someone independent of the acquisition of new carriers, I have doubts that a major RCOH couldn't add 25 years.
DeleteOne thing you'd have to do to get any significant life extension is a second refueling, that would add a lot of cost.
Delete"Personally I'd prefer the Navy slow but not stop the Ford production line (1 every 8 instead of 1 every 5) and SLEP every Nimitz to a full 75."
Delete75 years is a lot for a CVN, at that point just build more Nimitz-class from scratch.
"Have we tried? I have doubts."
DeleteIn a sense, yes. We've have noted the problems I cited in every comprehensive overhaul we've ever done so we are 100% certain that we can't exceed the structural life of the ships.
Now, if we want to implement extensive preventive maintenance from day one of a ship's life then, yes, we could greatly extend the life span, at least for non-nuclear ships. There's just no getting around that nuclear embrittlement problem other than a total replacement of the nuclear plant which would be prohibitively expensive.
You've probably noted that almost every ship that has gone in for significant overhauls has required far more time than scheduled. It's because they keep finding far more extensive corrosion of tanks and voids than expected (though by this time it should pretty well be expected since it happens every time!). Again, if we were doing proper, regular preventive maintenance we wouldn't have such extensive corrosion but the Navy would rather build hideously expensive new ships - and fewer of them - then perform proper maintenance on existing ships so that they'll last longer.
"Until I saw an actual cost estimate from someone independent of the acquisition of new carriers, I have doubts that a major RCOH couldn't add 25 years."
DeleteAs I explained, it's not a cost issue. It's a physical corrosion, degradation, and structural weakening issue.
"a second refueling,"
DeleteNot possible due to nuclear fatigue and embrittlement.
Who specifically said it's not possible and based on what grounds? I know it's not technically the same thing but we now have civilian reactors going on 80 years in the US...
Deletehttps://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think
And absolutely agree that maintenance has been a nightmare, which is the biggest argument for maintaining a larger than needed CVN fleet (to enable good, thorough maintenance without detracting from operational readiness).
We aren't getting to excess carriers off newbuilds alone.
"To date, 20 reactors, representing more than a fifth of the nation’s fleet, are planning or intending to operate up to 80 years. More are expected to apply in the future as they get closer to the end of their operating licenses."
DeleteI suspect reactor embrittlement can be dealt with.
I'm not providing a class on nuclear power but you can begin researching the topic with the Wiki entry on "Neutron Embrittlement". I don't know what civilian reactors do or how they are maintained.
DeleteIt appears that the oldest US nuclear reactor is Nine Mile Point 1 which was activated in Dec 1969 which makes it 50 yrs old, not 80, and it is scheduled to be shut down this year. It is a boiling water reactor which the Wiki article notes is less susceptible to embrittlement. Navy reactors are pressurized water reactors which are susceptible.
Naval and civilian reactors are substantially different.
As one example, here's a passage from Quora:
Naval reactors are fueled with high enrichment fuel. Commercial reactors use low enrichment fuel. A Naval reactor’s fuel load will last for the life of the vessel. [Note: not true until just recently] A commercial reactor is going to shut down for maintenance and refueling every 18–24 months (U.S. light water reactors).
Turkey Point 3 and 4 are 47/48 year old PWRs and are licensed through Age 80.
DeleteYes, they're different. But the science is the same. I suspect the problem can be managed at a far more cost-effective level than building a new carrier.
I've explained the problem to you. I've pointed you at explanatory articles. Civilian and naval reactors are generally different designs and, apparently, use different fuels. Naval reactors have to be built to constantly move and flex due to sailing and they have to be built to combat damage specs. And so on. All the evidence points to being unable to extend a naval reactor's life to 75-80 yrs and the ship's physical structure is unable to be extended to that level under the Navy's accepted level of maintenance. It's clear that a 75-80 yr carrier lifespan is not feasible under current conditions. This blog works on facts and those are the facts.
DeleteNow, if you'd like to speculate about a completely different long term maintenance plan, a new type of naval reactor, and significantly stronger built ships that might be extendable to 75-80 years, that's fine but it would be pure, largely unsupported speculation.
You didn't present facts, you presented a speculated problem that clearly has a potential solution, which I pointed out in explanatory articles. Now, do you have actual facts on the material condition of Nimitz's internal neutron barrier? If so, please don't share because that's almost certainly classified.
DeleteIf, like me, you have no idea, then at least admit you're just speculating that the material condition of the Nimitz doesn't support it.
My hypothesis, which I freely confess is not informed by the certainly classified material condition of the ship, is that just like with 50 year old civilian PWR reactors, proper maintenance can extend the life of the Nimitz upwards of another 25 years.
Delete"just like with 50 year old civilian PWR reactors"
DeleteCivilian PWR reactors are not the same as naval reactors: different fuel, different enrichment, different operating conditions, different long term fatigue, different structural and damage requirements. To conclude that a civilian plant proves the ability to extend a naval plant is utterly unfounded.
Speculation, when identified as such, is fine as long as it remains logical. Illogical conclusions are not acceptable. The most that can be said about this is that a future, purpose designed, civilian based, long life reactor MIGHT be possible. Of course, such a reactor might well not be suitable for naval use. Space constraints and reactor energy density, for example, might be significant problems.
I concluded that absent independent (non-Navy and) verification of the material state of the Nimitz internal neutron barrier, you are simply speculating without actually acknowledging you're speculating.
DeleteDifferent fuel+enrichment isn't overly relevant to the material state of the barrier. Differing operating conditions and damage requirements may or not be relevant. You've concluded (without evidence) that it's all relevant. I personally have seen CVN-65 go 55 years and suspect CVN-68's reactors are better built and more capable of 70+ years.
This is doubly the case if the Navy acquired CVN-79 and 80 on schedule and had two excess carriers to enable universal 2 year EDSRAs instead of 6/10 month PIAs/DPIAs for all Nimitz/Fords.
Sorry, that was supposed to say CVN-80 and 81, not 79 and 80. Fundamentally, I think the liklihood that the Navy could stretch the life of CVN-68 to cover until CVN-81 gets out of post-shakedown availability sometime in the mid-30s is high. That's only 5 years more than Big E made it.
DeleteJust to be clear, Enterprise was commissioned in 1961 and deactivated in 2012, for a total operating life of 51 years.
DeleteYou're right. She was inactivated in 2012 but decommissioned in 2017. I didn't realize she had a 5 year gap between those two dates.
Delete