The Navy just announced that it wants to retire 24 ships next year (FY23).
The Navy wants to decommission 24 ships in the upcoming fiscal year to save $3.6 billion over the next five years, the service announced today.[1]
The planned retirements are:
- 9x Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships
- 5x Ticonderoga-class cruisers
- 2x Los Angeles-class submarines
- 4x Landing Dock Ships
- 2x oilers
- 2x Expeditionary Transfer Docks.
We noted in the previous post that the LCS were being retired in large part because of the now official failure of the ASW module.
“They also do happen to be Freedom class, which also happens to have the drive train challenge. But if I were to be completely transparent, that drivetrain fix isn’t an exorbitant amount of money,” Gumbleton [Navy deputy assistant secretary for budget Rear Adm. John Gumbleton] added, referring to the 9 LCS. “But when you target your savings at one variant, there’s savings programmatically instead of having to sustain two different lines. So, collectively, ASW [and] drive train, led us to this.”[1]
And yet,
Asked about decommissioning the 9 LCS, Meredith Berger, who is currently performing the duties of the under secretary of the Navy, said doing so allows the Navy to “free ourselves of some really costly repairs and maintenance.”[1]
Are the Admiral and the Under Secretary on the same page? One says that the drivetrain fix isn’t that expensive and the other says it will be really costly. Get your stories straight, people! You’re looking like the morons you are.
Are all those 24 ships past their service lives and ready for retirement?
Sixteen of those 24 ships have not yet reached the end of their service lives, meaning the Navy will need to ask for waivers, Gumbleton noted.[1]
What is with this insane pattern of early retiring ships? I hope all you naval observers who keep calling for 40+ year service life ships with future proofing and upgrade capabilities built in are grasping this. All you people who keep arguing against my proposal to build ships with a 10-20 yr service life need to reconcile this reality with your fantasies.
The Expeditionary Transfer Docks are the former Mobile Landing Platforms which the Navy assured us were absolutely vital to amphibious assaults. There are two MLPs, the Montford Point and John Glenn, and they completed trials in 2013 and 2014, respectively, which makes them 10 yrs old and 9 yrs old in 2023. Another nail in the coffin of amphibious assault. Which begs the question, why are we continuing to build America class amphibious assault vessels and why are we continuing to operate amphibious assault ships?
Didn’t we just do a post that discussed the Navy’s belief that we will have a war with China in the next 8 years? And we’re still retiring ships as fast as we can? That’s more insanity!
In FY23, we’re retiring 24 ships but we’re only building 9.[1] Can anyone do the math on that? It’s over my head and, apparently, the Navy’s!
Here’s the Navy’s new construction request for 2023:
- 2x Arleigh Burke class Flight III destroyers
- 2x Virginia class submarines
- 1x Constellation class frigate
- 1x San Antonio class amphibious transport dock
- 1x America class amphibious assault ship
- 1x John Lewis class oiler
- 1x Navajo class towing, salvage and rescue ship
Ignoring counting the tugboat as a warship, that’s 8 new ships while retiring 24.
Again, tell me why we’re early retiring the Mobile Landing Platforms while building America and San Antonio class amphibious ships? Are we in the amphibious assault business or not?
We retire two oilers and build one. Again, someone do the math on that.
The Navy’s own projections call for a decrease in fleet size from 297 ships in 2022 to 280 in 2027. Ah … is that the direction we want to go when we’re expecting a war with China in the next 8 years? Also, bear in mind those numbers hold only if Congress gives the Navy everything it wants for new construction. Any markdowns will make the drop in fleet size even more pronounced.
Regarding budgets and fleet size,
Gumbleton said the request accounts for inflation, with five percent “real growth” for the Navy … [1]
So, a five percent real growth in the Navy budget results in a 5.4% drop in fleet size. The budget goes up and the fleet size goes down. Ah, Mr. Gumbleton, are you sure you’re getting your money’s worth from the budget?
Before we close this bit of insanity theater out, there’s one more entry:
For personnel, the Navy projects cutting about 10,000 sailors between FY 2023 and FY 2027.[1]
Didn’t we just do a post about the Navy being short several thousand at-sea billets? Yes, we did! See, “At-Sea Billet Gaps”. So, the solution is to cut 10,000 sailors? Math, please … anyone?
The Chinese could not do to our Navy what we’re doing to it ourselves.
Some of you think I’m too hard on our Navy idiots leaders. Still think so?
___________________________________
[1]USNI News website, “FY 23 Budget: Navy Wants to Shed 24 Ships for $3.6B in Savings Over Next Five Years”, Mallory Shelbourne, 28-Mar-2022,
Are we now retiring Freedom Class LCS's before they exit the shipyard from their initial construction?
ReplyDeleteLooks that way. With 4 retirements this year and 9 next year that leave 3 Freedom class!
DeleteWhy even bother finishing building them!
Given that we are unilaterally disarming, I think that makes it MORE likely that the CHinese will move against Taiwan in the next few years.
ReplyDeleteIs this all to save money for the future unmanned fleet that we don't know how to build or operate yet?
ReplyDelete"One says that the drivetrain fix isn’t that expensive and the other says it will be really costly. Get your stories straight, boys! "
ReplyDeleteShe said "some really costly repairs and maintenance". Perhaps there are OTHER repairs in addition to the drive train fix, that we haven't been told about !!
"The admiral also said the Navy expects to save $3.6 billion in future years by retiring all 24 ship" 3.6/5 ~$0.7 billion per year.
ReplyDeleteThe $0.7 billion will go to help fund the token number of 200 hypersonic land attack CPS missiles by 2040, FY2023 CPS R&D budgeted at ~$1.4 billion. The 200 CPS missiles estimated at approx. $20 billion, $100+ million each including R&D whereas the Army to buy 120 of the land attack SRBM Precision Strike Missiles in FY2023, an increase from 110 costing $166 million in FY2022 budget, so the 17" dia. PrSM $1.5 million each in procurement costs.
An apples to oranges comparison in terms of range etc, but does give an indication of the astronomical cost of the hypersonic CPS missiles compared to ballistic missiles. CPS must be one of Gilday's pet projects as it comes at the expense of decommissioning 24 ships and to me it appears Gilday has things totally out of perspective.
"Berger [the official performing the duties of the Navy under secretary] said the administration generally remains committed to achieving a 355-ship fleet, although the Navy’s fleet as of March 2022 stands at 298 battle force ships" in FY2027 280-ship fleet, LOL
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/navy-wants-to-add-9-new-ships-but-decommission-24-in-fy23-budget-request/
"In FY23, we’re retiring 24 ships but we’re only building 9."
ReplyDeleteNew ships have become more and more expensive. It is a harsh reality that way too many now on the food chain.
China can build an equivalent ship with a fraction of cost. Many think only on wages but it is more, much more than wage differences.
"Many think only on wages but it is more, much more than wage differences."
DeleteWhen you come right down to it, all costs are wage costs. When you buy iron ore to make it into steel, you don't pay the ground for the iron, you pay the wages of the guys who dug it out and transported it to you. When you eat a steak, you don't pay the steer, you pay the rancher who raised it and everybody else down the supply chain.
So if wages are higher, the cost of everything will be higher.
That is the "Labor cost theory of value" and it is now longer in the prevailing orthodoxy.
DeleteLabor cost cannot be simplified to hourly pay. It also involves efficiency. For instance, some government task can be done by one person in one hour but politicians want to add jobs than make this task very complicated - more signatures, more evaluations, more reviews, external consultations, ... all add up. One symptom is slowness.
DeleteIts snot so much the retirements as the lack of anything creative or positive to look forward to. It in no way tries to make new use for young good ships like ESSD, when there are so many neglected areas it might fill on the cheap. Tender, medical ship, Sea base without aviation or at least less abundant aviation.
ReplyDeleteNothing that helps boost numbers down the road in spite of saying there is a need. The SSBN bow wave and all the screwed up programs have already killed the future based on this plan. That said, it would be nice if they actually posted it so we could get the nitty gritty details.
"the lack of anything creative or positive to look forward to."
DeleteThere are two issues here:
1. As you note, there is little being offered in the way of future capabilities beyond the vague unmanned desires. If we're eliminating present capabilities but could look forward to superior future capabilities that would offer some slight comfort; it would still be incredibly stupid but there would, at least, be a positive benefit coming. But, we have nothing but unmanned hopes and dreams.
2. If the Navy believes that war with China is likely in the next 8 years then these retirements are, literally, risking our national security and are unforgivable.
While a sports team might have the luxury of tearing down a team in preparation for a future rebuild, the military does not. The military is obligated to be combat ready for the worst case war every day. There is no grace period to tear down the military.
Significantly reducing our military combat capability, as we're doing, is an open invitation to the Chinese to start hostilities sooner rather than later. For everyone who believes in deterrence, what the Navy is doing is the exact opposite.
"as we're doing, is an open invitation to the Chinese to start hostilities sooner rather than later."
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think there is way deflecting that. Its clear from the Ukraine war that just having a lot of stuff but having not fought a larger real war in forever is not a good combination. China fought its last big war when?
Sure the USN and Marines seems to have no real ideal what they are doing at the moment. So stop worrying about China's feelings and start sending Taiwan a lot more stuff it needs to make China ambitions bloody. A lot of the NSM land based mobile systems, Anti aircraft systems and a shat ton of ammunition so thay fire away without running out, mine kits etc. Add loans or grants or something to finance more hardened positions/basing and dispersed locations. basing and storage.
The Ukraine is over 15 times larger than Taiwan so once a landing happens it's not a large area to occupy.
DeleteChina also has a larger military with a more nationalist military than Russia's current one (or at least the one sent into the Ukraine).
It still as to manage an amphibious assault something it has never done on any real scale. There are only a couple of places China realistically land. That's why sending a ton of mobile anti ship missiles would be very very useful.
DeleteThe most logical course would be for China to blockade Taiwan. Then the US could have to choose if it would use military force to break the blockade or accept the fait accompli.
DeleteEven if Taiwan were to break the blockade itself through SSMs, other nations would have to decide if they are willing to send civilian ships into an effective war zone.
The US would be at the far end of its logistical tether while China would be under its long-range air cover. The US would have to organize heavily escorted convoys to relieve Taiwan.
The US would not have the economic leverage against China that we do against Russia.
According to Wikipedia, Taiwan has at least 6 months of food reserves, only 2% domestic energy supply.
Plus a blockade is by its very nature is a longer, more drawn out confrontation with more time for domestic politics to shift, allies to waffle, commanders to kick the can down the road rather than risk their assets (or reputations), etc. There will be lots of pressure for a diplomatic solution and I’m not sure the US is really prepared to go to war with China over Taiwan. OTOH, the US realizes it can’t abandon Taiwan either without raising questions from our other allies. A blockade would be as much a political challenge to US policy as it would be a military operation. It would force the US to decide if it values it’s decades long commitment to Taiwan (with all of the baggage that carries with it) vs. its desire for trade relations with PRC (with all of the domestic implications that carries with it).
You get it. China is going to do there own version of what we are doing in Ukraine. "We're not at war with Taiwan" while they do everything that makes Taiwan unable to mount an effective defense or rally the world to their side. I doubt they will make the mistakes the Russians have done. Will they make new ones, sure. Will we want to bet the farm on that, no.
DeleteCurious so how does the Navy go about cutting 10,000 sailors. They just don't let them sign a new contract. Or do they just cut new recruitment slots and have some metric for how many sailors are not going to re up based on past data?
ReplyDeleteThere are avenues BUPERS can take to reduce sailors over time within the cited 4-year window. This is primarily for enlisted, based upon experience (which may be outdated):
Delete1. Increase the required score for advancement. This would reduce advancements while giving the sailor an indirect signal of not reenlisting. A sailor may opt to go for another rating, but BUPERS would give those folks very few choices to mostly in fields that are severely undermanned. If the sailor cannot advance in their rating, then they would be hit by High Year Tenure (HYT) which requires a sailor to reach a rate within [x] amount years of service or be separated. I’m not sure if HYT cut-off for PO2 is still 12 years of service.
2. Stricter Perform To Serve (PTS) looks by BUPERS. When a sailor’s PTS window comes in and is required to submit a PTS for future reenlistment, BUPERS would further scrutinize the sailor to find a reason to reject their PTS application and thus precluding future enlistment.
3. Easier Administrative Separations (ADMINSEP). Probably give Commanding Officers more latitude to ADMINSEP sailors with infractions that would not historically warrant it.
4. “Career Boards”. I forgot what it is formally called but to the best of my understanding, a pseudo-PTS outside the sailor’s window. BUPERS would look for sailors with disciplinary records, regardless how minor was the infraction and separate those first. Then they look at the next infraction until they reach the quota.
My understanding is the Navy is targeting the middle portion of the enlisted force (i.e., long-term PO3, PO2, PO1). The Navy always needs fresh bodies, so I doubt they are looking to reduce recruitment goals (few folks want to crank twice). The numbers for CPOs are controlled by Congress and no doubt the Navy always wants to maximize those numbers.
My question still is, has the Navy ever able to plug the shortage of sailors afloat?
Thanks Gray S.
DeleteI was just curious because my kid just got out of boot and is pretty exited . He came out with 3 stripes and got the little flags for sharpshooter and being in the top of the class/group. Got one of the two jobs he was shooting for but has to cool his heels in the Naval station for 6 months before a slot is open in A school. I hope that time does not count against him since I cant see how he rank up just waiting.
I say that your kid is doing well so far. Being a seaman (E-3, three stripes) and great marksmanship out of bootcamp can make advancement come earlier. I got lucky to be a seaman right off the bat and when I arrived at my 1st command after “A” school, they signed me up to take the “catch-up” advancement exam (for those that missed the regular schedule) in a few weeks and made it.
DeleteI see a potential conundrum with your kid and it’s not his fault. Being a seaman and waiting for “A” school means your kid would lose time to waiting. Advancement to PO3 requires graduating from “A” school. What makes it worse is unlike being on a ship or shore command (where his rating is of use), he could do oddball jobs in that naval station which can be a waste of time. On a ship, you can learn your rating, damage control, seamanship, or get a few PQS completed. The same could happen in a shore command where actual rating skills are used (e.g., Logistics Specialist (LS) working at the warehouse or post office).
My experience was that my honest recruiter (and I know that maybe an oxymoron to some) said that my bootcamp schedule is dependent on “A” school slots and so I waited for a while. I also watched other recent videos that the Navy tries to stick with that. Something is going on if your kid must wait 6 months for “A” school.
$3.6B over 5 years? That is not much of a savings. How can we grow the Navy if we are doing more subtractions of ships than adding. We're going backwards. Is the Columbia-class SSBN a must have, meaning are the Ohio-class SSBNs/SSGNs at the end of their serviceable lives?
ReplyDeleteI think we've already established that the Navy overly committed to extremely expensive and problematic programs.
Autonomous platforms: which domain is the priority? surface or aviation? Which is closer to making a more direct impact in the implementation of naval/national security? Wasn't it the CNO who made a statement about not being able to develop the NGAD, SSN(X) and the DDG(X) at the same time? Why can't that be applied to AI, etc?
"a must have"
DeleteAs I recall, you've followed this blog long enough to know that we don't need to make 'one or the other, but not both' choices. We can have EVERYTHING we want (and have money left over!) IF WE STOP MAKING IDIOTIC DECISIONS.
Had we just continued building evolutionary improved Nimitzes instead of Fords we'd have saved $8B per Ford. That savings alone funds almost all the other wish lists!
Beyond that, had we not pursued the idiotic Zumwalt we'd have saved around $28B !!!!!!!!!!!!
Had we not done the LCS ...
And the list goes on.
The Navy's budget is far more than it needs. We just need to stop being idiots.
"Beyond that, had we not pursued the idiotic Zumwalt we'd have saved around $28B !!!!!!!!!!!!"
DeleteYou know I little on the fence on that. I am not against trying some kind of jump in design or technology. But once the plug got pulled on it it should have been reduced to just one ans say sunk cost lets see what we can learn from one. I can't understand killing but still building three.
Same for the Ford really I can see building one but I can't understand laying down 2 more before the all high tech stuff on the Ford is proven.
"I can see building one but I can't understand laying down 2 more before the all high tech stuff on the Ford is proven."
DeleteThere are currently five Fords built, building, or undercontract.
"I am not against trying some kind of jump in design or technology."
DeleteThat's what a SINGLE prototype is for.
"There are currently five Fords built, building, or undercontract."
DeleteMy bad I thought the damage was only 3 so far...
"That's what a SINGLE prototype is for."
Again that was my point.
My follow up question is: Who does the responsibility of mitigating these idiotic decisions being made, fall upon? Is the CNO, the SecNav, the SecDef, or Congress?
Delete"Beyond that, had we not pursued the idiotic Zumwalt we'd have saved around $28B."
DeleteI'm not sure the Navy has learned their lesson yet as we're building $12 billion dollar carriers with plans to build billion dollar frigates and $9 billion dollar SSBNs.
Also I always thought the the name Zumwalt was a back handed insult to the man. Since as I recall he was very much against wonder weapons.
ReplyDeleteNow that the budget is actually posted, the search for nuggets begins. Hoping there is something hidden and useful, but hope is not a strategy.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that it's really retiring of 16 and building 8. I've honestly never included the LCS in the USN ship numbers, and thus have always thought the really USN numbers have been near 260-270 for a decade.
ReplyDeleteBut if they really wanted to save a few $ billion every decade, they could trim most of the humumgous number of admirals, captains and their staff in the USN. Just do a google search of how many there are!
Andrew
Do the salaries of the civilian employees of the Navy come out of the Navy's budget or separate? If the former is the case, why not make cuts from there as well? Trim the fat.
ReplyDeleteAll,
ReplyDeleteThis article appeared on Breaking Defense's website:
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/navys-shipbuilding-request-may-be-violation-of-law-inhofe-warns/
Interesting but dry interview with the a ranking house member on the navy
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XjEoZiMFs8
She seems a bit underwhelmed with the Navy retirement plans, the LCS, the Ford building without pro typing, the plan/whispers to axe the Truman, Lack of ship yard capacity. If she is a bellwether I don't Congress is going to think much of the Navy plan as summited.
Usually I would expect a post with such a content (24 warships being retired) to be posted on April 1st as an April joke.
ReplyDeleteIt's horrifying how much factual stuff I report that ought to exist only as an April Fools post!
DeleteI was shocked when I learned that Taiwan claims islands that are literally in the channel leading to mainland China ports! This article was eye-opening to say the least. I thought we were talking about the large island....not a whole constellation of small islands that make me wonder why China just hasn't taken them for a propaganda victory.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/taiwan-china-wargames/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB%2011.08.2021&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief