The Navy has repeatedly tried to early retire the entire Ticonderoga Aegis cruiser class because the Navy claims the ships are too old and too expensive to maintain and operate.
The Navy has tried at least twice to early retire Nimitz class carriers because the Navy says that they are too expensive to maintain.
The Navy early retired the Tarawa class because they claimed they were too expensive to maintain and operate.
That’s a lot of highly capable, combat-worthy ships that the Navy has gotten rid of or tried to get rid of due to claimed maintenance and operating costs.
In contrast, and disturbingly,
The Navy has issued multiple awards cumulatively worth up to $2.76 billion to maintain its East Coast-based Littoral Combat Ships, according to a Friday Defense Department contract announcement. (1)
So, the cruisers, carriers, and amphibious ship’s maintenance costs are too expensive to justify keeping them in the fleet but the LCS, with no credible combat capability, is worth nearly $3B to keep active?
What’s wrong with this picture?
Note: And that’s just the east coast LCS. The west coast will, presumably, need an equal amount of money for maintenance.
_____________________________________
(1)USNI News website, “Navy Issues Multiple Contracts Worth Up to $2.76B for East Coast Littoral Combat Ship Maintenance”, Mallory Shelbourne, 13-Aug-2021,
Unfortunately that is what happens when you have the wrong people at the wrong places.
ReplyDeleteEither they are incompetent and cut things just because they appear to be expensive or think high intensity naval warfare (like the one that could happen with China) is not gonna happen and thus it's only about fancy tech and associated shenanigans.
"think high intensity naval warfare (like the one that could happen with China) is not gonna happen"
DeleteWell, I don't think that will happen anytime soon either, still doesn't justify the behavior from Navy (and the military as a whole).
The fire department is supposed to be ready for fires at all times, even when they think it's an unlikely event, it's literally their job to do so.
Same thing here.
I'm of the opinion that we will have a war with China, this decade, on their terms unless we sacrifice another country to our enemies.
DeleteThat aside, we need to stop degrading our navy by ending the policy of retiring our most capable & proven ships while retaining our least capable & proven failures.
We simply do not have that luxury or time to have 25% of our fleet be garbage anymore.
Most have read that east coast number to include the repair of the Renk transmissions. Still, a huge pile of money that could go to the cruisers, even if we found they needed more work than planned.
ReplyDeleteI have seen nothing to indicate that some of the contracted funds will go towards repair of the propulsion/gear system. Do you have a reference to support that?
DeleteI've seen that the Navy is invoking the 'latent defect' clause of the construction contract and are currently engaged in negotiating how much the manufacturer will pay and how much the Navy will pay. Once settled, the Navy will then have to obtain additional funds somewhere.
The Nimitz early retirement threats were really just budget maneuvers. The Navy fully expected Congress to reinstate the RCOH funding.
ReplyDeleteThat is possible, however, I've seen no actual proof that was the case. Had Congress not intervened, the Navy would have gone ahead with the early retirement(s). Do you have a reference to support your contention? Lacking any evidence along those lines, I take the Navy's actions at face value.
Delete“I think one of the toughest challenges we’ve had is quite frankly one is how we do the maintenance. That was very different for us – going to the [contractor]-based maintenance and sailors being more of an operational role and maybe picking up 10 to 20 percent of the work to be done,” Kitchener told reporters in June. “It left us with the inability quite frankly to troubleshoot to the level that the Navy is used to doing. You know, on all the ships I served [on] that’s why we have them – sailors – there and we have all the things, the tools needed.”
ReplyDeleteNow, USN proposals will just send unmanned ships to do the job way ahead of the fleet and....how is that going to work out in terms of refueling, re-arming or general maintenance? Or does making them unmanned just magically resolve these problems?!? Because when USN gets it so wrong on LCS class, hard to feel all warm and fuzzy on unmanned ships....plus, you have to figure there's going to be even a higher technological level on unmanned ships that sailors will have to work on, how does that work out in terms of enlistment and training? Finally, will sailors really care about a ship they don't live and fight on? When you look how crappy USN appear in terms of rust and just problems we hear across the fleet, how much exactly will sailors really care for a USV? My guess all maintenance and general care will be perfunctory at best....
You make an excellent point about the level of maintenance that is likely to be applied to unmanned vessels.
Delete"contractor-based maintenance"
DeleteLet's add this one to the list of things that won't be available in war.
The factories that built components for the older ships, were allowed to close down, making the ships increasingly difficult to maintain, due to a lack of replacement parts; in contrast, the factories building components for the LCSs remains open, as the ships are still in production.
ReplyDeleteNo government or military leaders have proposed the obvious solution to problems maintaining the older ships, i.e., sustaining and outright subsidizing the industries building critical components, reopening closed factories and/or building new ones as necessary.
It's the leadership problem that is most glaring. Instead of fixing the fleets' problems here and now, the leaders want a magic unmanned fleet that will fly through their chimneys in the near future to wish away all their problems like a fairy godmother.
The Army had an equally stupid mindset, wanting to close down the factories responsible for the M1 Abrams and save a little money it can then invest in the "Future Combat Systems" that were to be its fairy godmother; it was fortunate Congress kept ordering new Abrams over the Army's objections, allowing the factories to stay open. Sadly, Congress didn't do the same regarding the Nimitz and Ticonderoga classes.
Subsidizing and maintaining defense industry factories is, from a national security perspective, not an unreasonable proposition. There is, however, another, easier solution and that is to not need those factories. Huh? How do we maintain ships and not need parts factories? Simple. By building ships for only short life spans like 10-20 years. With a much shorter life span, the factories are likely to still be operational and any that show signs of closing prematurely can be given an order for sufficient spares to last the life of the affected ships. This is a simpler solution that solves a LOT of problems involving modernization and overhauls as I've discussed in multiple posts and comments.
Delete"By building ships for only short life spans like 10-20 years... This is a simpler solution that solves a LOT of problems involving modernization and overhauls as I've discussed in multiple posts and comments."
DeleteOnly if our political leaders continue ordering the systems at rates that allow them to be replaced as scheduled, and resist the stupid temptation to let a critical warfighting ability wither away to save a quick buck.
I have little confidence our leaders will do so.
I have little confidence our leaders will do ANYTHING right but I'll continue to put forth good ideas in the hopes that some of them will listen. If we just give in to despair then, for sure, nothing will change.
DeleteSorry, you need to wake up. Pentagon has become ATM of well connected.
ReplyDeletePolitical forces power struggle behind different interest groups determine which weapons are procured. Few uncorrupted generals cannot make decisions.
Great point CNO... This shows the extremely nonsensical mindset we have at the upper levels of uniformed and civilian leadership. Spending money on somthing that doesn't contribute to the "lethality" everyone talks about, while trying to get rid of the platforms with the most firepower is absurd, age be damned!! I don't understand if its strictly a pursuit of shiny new toys, or what exactly. I know Gilday said a main focus of his was to "get LCS right", although at this point, anyone with a room temperature IQ can see the whole program has been a failure and should have been stopped completely.
ReplyDeleteI know lots of folks talk about the Flag ranks being corrupted, and being focused on lucrative post-Naval career defense industry jobs. And while thats clearly become an issue, theres somthing else at work here, Im just not sure what it is.
In the past we've had programs and ideas go awry. We've had ideas that didn't survive long due to changing and evolvingng tech. (Think USS United States, ICBM-equipped surface ships etc) But the past decades have shown us chasing weak and substandard systems and ideas. Not world-beaters that failed, or grandiose budget-grab items that were just beyond reality. Maybe we have a longer-running symptom of the peace dividend than we thought, and those currently in leadership are a product of the hubris of becoming the lone superpower. Certainly if I was a Flag, Id like my legacy to be having pushed the worlds newest and most lethal warship ever into production, or ensuring the highest number of missile tubes in the fleet, or somthing raising the bar. Using Gilday as an example, I would NOT want to be the guy that retired the arguably most powerful ships afloat, and hundreds and hundreds of missile tubes, while working to "get LCS right"!!! Thats poor prioritization writ large. Where are the Rickovers and their ilk, never mind the Halseys to use the power they created???
I think it's some "corruption" but mainly USN and really DoD have just completely abdicated all ideas and concepts to the industry. Even USMC Berger "war plan" and all the "gaming", I wouldn't be surprised in a few years, we'll hear how much his whole new concept wasn't just pushed by industry to buy new missiles and a new class of ship. It's not anymore about what DoD needs but what industry needs to sell...
DeleteEven more bazar. On one hand, Navy is early retiring LCS. At the same time, continue building new ones.
ReplyDelete