You may have heard the USS Boise (SSN-764, Los Angeles class), which has been sitting idle since 2015 and has long since lost its dive certification, is finally, maybe, scheduled to begin maintenance later this year … maybe … history suggests more delays will occur.(2)
 |
| USS Boise - Abandoned and Forgotten |
Several other subs have been waiting multiple years and have lost their dive certifications.
In fact, the idle time accumulated by submarines waiting for maintenance is stunning. Here’s what a GAO study found:
Last year, the Government Accountability Office found that in total, between 2008 and 2018, attack boats waiting to go into maintenance had sat idle for 10,363 days. (1)
A quick calculation shows us that 10,363 days is 28.4 years of idle wait time for maintenance. That’s a lot of submarine idleness … and the Navy wants more ships and a bigger fleet? That is mismanagement on a nearly criminal scale and should at least be grounds for recalling several retired CNOs to active duty for the purpose of instituting courts martial for gross negligence.
So, not only is there a shortage of numbers of submarines
but the Russian US Navy can’t keep the ones they do have
operational. We quite literally have submarines sitting
pier side, rotting.
Congress should cut all new construction ship funding until the Navy demonstrates that it can properly maintain the ships it has.
_____________________________________
(1)Defense News website, “With the Navy’s submarine maintenance woes, there may yet be hope”, David B. Larter, 7-May-2019,
(2)Navy Times website, “The Navy’s saddest fast-attack sub will finally get the tender loving maintenance it needs”, Geoff Ziezulewicz, 29-Apr-2021,
It is the peace dividend. It was fun to close the shipyards and reprogram the money for extra welfare projects the parties could skim off of.
ReplyDeleteSo now you have companies running the remaining shipyards, run by MBAs who only follow excels and powerpoints, and who don't know and don't care what the workers actually do.
And if tweaking the overtime schedules for Q2 (to get that sweet option grant) pushes back getting the work done, so what? The navy can't take the next ship waiting somewhere else.
The US Navy's budget is at a record high, so don't blame America's poor. It's military welfare that eats up the budget, liking providing Tricare to all retiree's at little cost. GI bill for dependents. Overly generous family leave. Over 100% base pay retirement benefits for Admirals.
DeleteMilitary welfare?? Those people and their families earned those benefits. 'Americas poor' on the other hand, did not. Spending 8-10 months at sea, being away from family, coming home to children that are the better part of a year old at first sight, working insanely long days with no overtime, earning enough to often qualify for civilian welfare, and lets not forget that they are out there potentially to die for their country... Sailors (and soldiers, airmen, etc) earn everything they and their families get!!! Americas poor, continually feed off of productive citizens with no return on investment whatsoever. The handouts arent earned, arent paid back, have no real or enforced boundaries, and the time limits are never enforced. Should we be proud of multigenerational welfare families, or families that repeatedly sent their sons and daughters into uniform(like mine)???? Theres so much more but Ill leave it at that. Comparing welfare cases with military members, retirees, and their families is so wrong as to be offensive...
DeleteWho is willing to invest on a shipyard which is not 100% load year round? If businesses go high and low sorely base on naval need, even most patriotic rich American won't invest.
Delete"It is the peace dividend."
DeleteDisagree. The sad state of our shipyards are echoed in the automobile, steel, and other heavy industries. This is the result of decades of misplaced spending priorities, poor management in private industry, failure of our education system especially the vocational programs, greedy labor unions (compare our unions with those in Germany), over-regulation, and a profound national leadership failure in understanding and communicating rational industrial policy with the public.
Our next generation are largely under-educated socialist turnips, that have zero math/science skills, cannot draw even a rudimentry map of the world, change a car tire, and 95% would starve to death in a month if you put them on a viable farm.
"This is the result of decades of... failure of our education system..."
DeleteI didn't learn steel was an iron-carbon alloy, until AFTER I graduated from high school- from a book published in Communist China, of all places. The same book stated increasing the carbon levels will increase the resulting alloy's rigidity, and gave examples of applications of low-carbon steel and high-carbon steel.
Why isn't this being taught in American high schools? Don't our future architects, engineers, and do-it-yourselfers need such knowledge as a foundation upon which to build their vocations?
Instead, they're learning from pop culture, leading to misconceptions such as "Titanium is stronger than steel!" ignorant of the fact that while titanium is stronger than steel of the same WEIGHT, steel is stronger than titanium of the same SIZE. I don't doubt such poor education is responsible for how the LCS, Zumwalt class destroyer, and Gerald R. Ford class carrier turned out.
How many smart high school graduates choose STEM? Why do they want to be lawyers, financiers, medical doctors, ... but not scientists and engineers? Majority engineering and science students in graduate schools are foreigners. Worse, Trump wants to kick them out then gives them green card.
DeleteEncourage youngster to study STEM? your fantastic wishful thinking won't work. If they don't great career opportunities, why would they?
Maybe we should have a re-christening ceremony when a Ship/Boat comes out of the yard. That way the careerists and politicians will have a reason and press opportunity to show how much they support the services. You have to appeal to their most base instincts, which is keeping their cushy jobs at all costs.
ReplyDeleteHmm, seems vaguely reminiscent of the Soviet Union decline, with its rusting submarines resting half sunk in out of the way quay yards. Military power is an expression of industrial and economic power. Perhaps we are in the post free market stage which had brought us vitality, confidence, and competence....and now wallow in socialist diaspora hidden by central bank Biden dollars and modern monetary theory. Our rusting hulks and idle subs are likely the veil being pulled back. Sad, decline is a choice as they say.
ReplyDelete@as if....
DeleteYou mirrored my fears as I read this post.
Lutefisk
The economic collapse may not be far off: over half the USD in circulation were printed in the last year. More spending to follow.
DeleteI might suggest that we build toward the fleet we could maintain in the short run with available facilities not getting used for government work. Plenty of commercial yards could support the build and maintenance of corvette sized ships. 8 yards bid for OPC. We might even surprise ourselves and get a small yard running on some small conventional subs with a little initiative.
ReplyDelete" corvette sized ships ... OPC"
DeleteThat's fine but the US Navy has a limited need for small ships - none, actually, if you listen to the Navy. I see a need for dedicated ASW corvettes but the Navy doesn't.
So, getting smaller yards to build small ships won't help us in a war with China.
Now, involving small yards with the goal of evolving them up to destroyer size ships is well worth the effort but, again, the Navy seems to be moving to ever larger ships or very small, unmanned vessels - nothing in between.
Yeah, there nothing in between has been and will remain wrong. It avoids how people learn and understand things and people will still be the majority stakeholder in conflict for this generation at least. I still challenge what we are getting with FFG. I'm hoping FY2022 budget sheds more light, but it seems like they must read blogs just to learn what questions to dodge in what they release.
Delete"So, getting smaller yards to build small ships won't help us in a war with China.
Delete"Now, involving small yards with the goal of evolving them up to destroyer size ships is well worth the effort..."
I agree. The US government must choose between investing MASSIVE amounts of resources (time AS WELL AS money) rebuilding its naval and maritime industries to actually support a larger navy; or abandon plans for a larger navy, and subsequently, any geopolitical stances that need a larger navy, such as challenging Chinese interests in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.
"but, again, the Navy seems to be moving to ever larger ships or very small, unmanned vessels - nothing in between."
I fear the push for unmanned vessels is premature. USVs MIGHT become useful, but it'll likely take DECADES to debug their systems into a reliable and usable state- decades in which the only challenges rival navies will face from the USN, will either be Cold War-era ships that are now hopelessly obsolete and rusting away, or oversized and overpriced prototypes whose "all-new, all-different" systems remain too unreliable for military operations.
Arthur C. Clarke's short story 'Superiority' should be required reading for the US Naval Academy. It's too easy to see parallels between the story's Professor-General Norden, and those responsible for the fiascos that were the LCS, Zumwalt class destroyer, and Gerald R. Ford class carriers.
Nuclear maintenance facilities expensive with result limited number of shipyards capable of nuclear maintenance. The Navy priorities firstly the SSBN's/SSGN's, secondly the CVN's, thirdly Virginia SSN and at bottom of the pile Los Angeles SSN's.
ReplyDeleteNavy having to fund $21 billion on updating the four nuclear public shipyards, $4 billion for twenty commercial shipyards and subcontractors, as said nuclear expensive.
You see the challenge. The nuclear economy is very expensive and a fixed cost. You can buy more efficiency, but it is still its own separate economy.
DeleteThe lesson is not the cost of nuclear maintenance but the folly of building ships without first building sufficient maintenance capacity to operate those ships.
DeleteDue to regulations, specifications, and worker qualifications, nuclear work costs a premium. But those huge dollar figures arent all due to nuclear-specific issues. The public shipyards are very old, neglected, and they were laid out in the days of reciprocating steam engines, or earlier!! The public shipyards not only are overdue for rehab, but the nation could benefit from the opening of 1 or more. But to lay cost issues on the nuclear component alone isnt accurate. Modernizing (or funding) a shipyard is probably much like an RCOH, where the true nuclear-specific costs arent even close to the majority of the expense.
DeleteTo be fair, nuclear capable yards have had a tougher time with spending, and here's agood example. The now-gone Long Beach Naval Shipyard, which wasn't nuclear-capable, was the only public yard operating under budget and ahead of schedule before its assassination by San Diego lobbyists and its short-sighted BRAC closure...
The real problem is not that they haven't got the maintenance capacity, but that they haven't taken care of the maintenance capacity that they had. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have closed Mare Island or others, but the state that the USN's present shipyards are in is deplorable. ComNavOps may be on to something when he says remove new ship spend, but instead of just cutting it, reprogram it to rehabbing the present shipyard facilities that are owned by the Federal government. Once those facilities have been put into shape, then you can make a determination as to whether you need more capacity.
Delete"instead of just cutting it, reprogram it to rehabbing the present shipyard facilities"
DeleteYes!
Re my post above and saying the Los Angeles class at the bottom of the pile for 'maintenance', not strictly true as the nuclear public shipyards responsible for scrapping nuclear ships and subs, USS Long Beach was decommissioned in 1994, its highly radio active hull still at PSNS 27 years later awaiting funding and space to complete its dismantlement, CVN-65 Enterprise the first nuclear carrier is moored at Hampton Roads after defueling in early 2017, awaiting a Navy 'disposal plan'.
DeleteAs said nuclear propulsion expensive, my thoughts that nuclear power should be reserved for subs, all surface ships conventionally powered, that would have the benefit to progressively free up the nuclear public shipyards for purely sub maintenance.
With ballistic missile defense requiring high-powered radars and high-resolution infrared sensors, which then require large amounts of energy to power, one can argue surface ships need nuclear power- at least if they're operating far from friendly shores and the fuel facilities there. Yes, you can refuel at sea, but the resulting costs can exceed the operating cost of a nuclear reactor.
DeleteThe US government needs to seriously ask itself, "Do we want to abandon our ambition to influence the world, which will allow our military to operate close to our borders, and save money? Or do we want to exert influence over the entire world, which will require our military to operate far from our borders, which will then require us to invest massive amounts of resources in support of this ambition?"
"With ballistic missile defense requiring high-powered radars and high-resolution infrared sensors, which then require large amounts of energy to power, one can argue surface ships need nuclear power"
DeleteIR sensors are passive and require no significant energy to run. Our current radars are adequate for BMD and their energy demands are met by our current ships so I don't see nuclear energy type levels as being justified. Do you have a reference that suggests our radars need massively more energy than can currently be supplied?
The simple fact radar performance is often directly related to size, and photos of land-based BMD radars like Alaska's Cobra Dane.
Delete"land based BMD radars"
DeleteYour statement was that surface ships needed nuclear power for radars and that appears not to be correct.
I may be overestimating how big a radar a ship needs to detect, track, and target ballistic missiles by themselves, instead of a third party (USAF Cobra Ball aircraft, Cobra Dane and other land-based radar stations); and how much energy these radars consume. Of course, radars won't be the only things consuming power aboard a warship. If the Navy makes a railgun usable and reliable enough to shoot down a ballistic missile...
DeleteThe Navy officially dropped rail gun efforts some time ago.
DeleteI wonder how much the general increase over the years of what is needed in terms of power is really about the radar and other weapon systems and not just the increase in demand for the regular "hotel" services.....
DeleteWith ships sitting for so long, waiting for maintenance, I wonder if that effectively pushes out their retirement date, since they arent "putting on any miles" while being pier queens...????
ReplyDeleteTime waits for no ship.... in the water.
DeleteNot really since just sitting means more parts expire and have to be replaced or need more inspections.
DeleteIn actual wartime combat operations during prospective high intensity, large scale conflict with naval forces ships and submarines will sustain damage; sufficient repair capacity is essential. During sustained and longer term wartime conditions this is critical, think of battle damage sustained and repaired during World War II involving U.S. naval forces. What are we potentially heading into with inadequate shipyard repair, maintenance and refit capacity and capability!
ReplyDeleteWhat is scary sad, we all know what USN leaders are REALLY thinking: "how can we get rid of all these old subs?"!!!
ReplyDeleteUSN doesn't want to spend money on maintenance, they would retire all the old Los Angeles class SSN in a heart beat if Congress would be ok with it....
US has lost civilian ship building industry for a long time. Now, the ship building in the nation means military ship building. What do you then expect? Yes, more ship yards are needed but if you run a ship yard, do you want to invest on new capacity with high potential to idle for lots of times? Military businesses go high and low base on budgets.
ReplyDeleteLook this photo from link and you would know the problem. It is a picture of China's 3rd aircraft carrier under construction. My point is not the carrier but a even larger container ship under construction next to it. Because of her huge civilian ship building industry, not only they can apply cost saving and efficiency learned from civilian side, they can also find capacity easily.
https://positivelyscottish.scot/world/expert-lu-003-aircraft-carrier-is-stronger-than-us-ford-class-aircraft-carrier/
Exactly. Military power follows on the coat tails of economic power. You cannot have a conventional military without a manufacturing base to support it.
DeleteThan America should go to her strength. If we only build river boats and lakers/coastal freighter, than make a bunch of small freighters with better salt water protection and raised forcastle, engined for 20 knots, and stuff the holds full of launch cells. 20 man crews, 2 on the bridge at a time with modern nav gear and data links to the Burke in the same general area, the rest there to change filters on the engines. 5 Marines or GMs to keep China fishing militia from boarding.
DeleteYou need a strong civilian industry base to support your navy. As US industry base keeps dwindling, what do you then expect? Despite the blogger keeps arguing otherwise, all information shows China does spend far less to build a naval ship than US on an equivalent ship. This is a result of strong industrial base.
DeleteLook the link which I put, the container ship under construction next to the aircraft carrier under construction. This means if necessary, they can at the same site, build two carriers together.
Just last week, China committed a type 094A strategic nuclear submarine into service. Of course, 094A has no match to the OHIO class but with a strong industry base, they can build more faster and cheaper. Worse, as their technology progress fast, it is matter of time, we will see their under R&D type 096 soon.
Build a modern navy needs industry and technology bases. Patriotic talks and heritage pride are not helpful.
USNI Interview: Elaine Luria Says Navy Needs to Build ‘Battle Force 2025’ Instead of Divesting to Prepare for a 2045 Fight"
ReplyDeletehttps://news.usni.org/2021/05/05/interview-elaine-luria-says-navy-needs-to-build-battle-force-2025-instead-of-divesting-to-prepare-for-a-2045-fight
Talks a lot of sense, more than have seen from any of the current Navy Admirals, maintenance gets a mention, worth a read.
Read to me like she wants more of where we are at. She didn't offer ideas that would require resources outside the Virginia tidewater.
Delete"Read to me like she wants more of where we are at."
DeleteThen she's using her brain. The officers the USN currently has, keep trying to retire old but still serviceable ships, to buy new but unproven ships- like someone burning down his own house, expecting the insurance company to pay for a new house's construction. I'm sure we're smart enough to recognize such behavior is self-destructive.
The USN decision to shutdown Arleigh Burke construction to accelerate the Zumwalt class' introduction to service, was beyond stupid. It should've kept the Arleigh Burke in low-rate construction, in case something went wrong with the Zumwalt class; as the builders were private companies, they had zero interest in maintaining a production line for something that wouldn't be in production or bring them profit, forcing the Navy to spend a lot of money recreating those production lines once it realized as something DID go wrong with the Zumwalt class.
Ive read a few of Rep. Lurias statements, and I think she makes valid points. If you look at ship counts, projected growth and build rates, etc, the further into the future you get, the worse it looks for the USN in a contest with the PLAN... I think the current leadership sees this, and is gambling on future tech to offset our increasing numerical disadvantage. But giving up on-hand firepower for an unlikely future "game changer" is dumb at best. Premature retirement of platforms makes the current as well as future situations worse...
DeleteI know there are laws that dictate "X number of active aircraft carriers", maybe we need more specific legislation that dictates "X number of CGs, DDs" etc, or maybe "X number of deployable VLS cells", or some other metric that reigns in the Navy and ensures some kind of viable battle force numbers are maintained????
CNO, not exactly related, but in looking at the FYDP (The CNOs report to Congress) and its ship build/retirement/procurement report, I found some inconsistencies that I cant understand.
DeleteIn 2027/28, its shows delivery of 4 and 5 LSCs. Since there is no Burke follow-on in existence, maybe those are more Flt IIIs(??) But im not seeing any previous years procurement spikes that correlate to 4/5 per year shipbuilding, and in fact the report spells out a steady two per year Burke schedule. Also, the LSC delivery/retirement schedule through 2030 shows +26/-20 for a net +6 increase, yet the battle force projection shows +9...!!! Now admittedly theres lots I dont understand about procurement and funding, but these seem like some glaringly questionable items I noticed right away. As a report going to Congress that originated from the CNOs office and cost over a quarter million dollars to produce, it probably shouldnt have math mistakes, or if its just fiction, it should do a better job of concealing the fact!!!
"I know there are laws that dictate 'X number of active aircraft carriers', maybe we need more specific legislation that dictates 'X number of CGs, DDs' etc, or maybe 'X number of deployable VLS cells', or some other metric that reigns in the Navy and ensures some kind of viable battle force numbers are maintained????"
DeleteIt's too easy for the Navy to simply relabel a destroyer a "cruiser" and an LCS a "destroyer", to get around this requirement- the USS Long Beach was originally classified a frigate, before the Navy reclassified her as a cruiser, to soothe congressional concerns with a "cruiser gap" during the Cold War. Best specify the Navy must have "X number of large surface combatants, 'large' defined as no smaller than a displacement of 6000 tons empty, capable of at least 30 knots maximum speed, and an unrefueled range of at least 3000 nautical miles," any and all further details necessary to prevent the Navy from getting away with half-assed work.
Some really unexpected news and big news - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-07/israeli-company-elbit-systems-of-australia-removed-army/100121238
ReplyDelete"Defence has begun stripping Israeli-developed technology from Army equipment because of fears it could be used to harvest sensitive data from military hardware and systems.
Key points:
The Army has ordered Israeli-developed technology be removed from certain equipment by the middle of May
Elbit Systems of Australia "strongly" rejects "security rumours" connected to its multi-billion-dollar product
Military sources say Defence fears the Elbit technology could compromise sensitive military data
The company in question, Elbit Systems of Australia, has "strongly" rejected what it claims are "security rumours" connected to its multi-billion-dollar Battle Management System (BMS).
However, the ABC can reveal Army Headquarters last month issued a directive ordering Defence to "cease use" of the Elbit BMS Command and Control (BMS-C2) in preparation for a replacement system.
"The employment of the BMS-C2 system version 7.1 within Army's preparedness environment is to cease no later than May 15 2021," the order states.
Military sources have told the ABC that Defence believes the Elbit technology may compromise sensitive data, triggering a directive that it "not be configured or accessed" on certain Army systems.
Elbit's BMS, introduced a decade ago, allowed Army commanders to replace maps and analogue radios with advanced digital, encrypted technology and networks to better coordinate their units in the field and to protect classified information.
Army's directive last month also demanded items such as USB memory sticks and software "be withdrawn from issue to users and consolidated and quarantined by signals support staff".