As of this writing, the US Navy has 50 attack subs and is firmly on the downward trend which has been anticipated for decades. With an imminent war with China looming (according to Navy statements), one would assume we’re taking good care of our subs and cranking out their maintenance availabilities with great haste.
The fleet attack submarine breakdown, by class, is :
- Seawolf 3
- Los Angeles 26
- Virginia 21
So, how is the maintenance doing?
“We’re really struggling to get submarines out on time. Over the last ten years, 20 to 30 percent [came] out on time,” said Vice Adm. Bill Galinis … [1]
That means 70% to 80% of maintenance availabilities ran over schedule. That’s not good.
As of Thursday, 18 submarines were in some type of maintenance, PEO Submarines Rear Adm. Jonathan Rucker said … [1]
With only 50 attack submarines in the fleet, that’s 36% of the fleet in maintenance.
What’s causing the problem?
The earliest Virginia-class boats are among the hardest submarines to repair on time.[1]
“We’ve seen a significant growth in the amount of man days required in submarine availabilities, particularly in the Virginia class,” [Vice Adm. Bill] Galinis said.[1]
According to the Government Accountable Office, “Virginia class submarines have returned to operations almost nine months later than expected, on average; Los Angeles class submarines have taken four and a half months longer than scheduled, on average, to return to the fleet.[1]
What’s the problem with the Virginia class. After all, they’re the newest submarines we have so they should have the least maintenance problems, right?
The Virginias were designed to operate closer to shore and with components that met rigorous NAVSEA standards for submarine safety, but were not as durable as some of the older components on the Los Angeles-class boats.[1]
“Where we were in the beginning of the Virginia class, we had a charge early on to build a design and build a submarine for an affordable cost to make sure we got the numbers we needed.”[1]
So, by their own admission, the Navy ‘cheaped out’ on Virginia class subs and now they’re suffering extended maintenance issues and, apparently, poorer quality components. That’s what happens when you design to a business case instead of a combat case.
And now, let’s listen to the Navy rationalize away the problem:
“If you throw a rudder over on the Titanic, it takes a while for the ship to turn,” Rucker told USNI News. “It’s going to take a little bit of time, just because there’s a lag and getting the resources or changing behavior or ensuring that we plan better for what we’re going to do.”[1]
The maintenance delays have been on-going for a decade, at least, admiral. How much more time do you need to ‘throw the rudder over’?
________________________________
[1]USNI News website, “NAVSEA: Navy ‘Struggling’ to Get Attack Subs Out of Repairs on Time as Demand Increases”, Sam LaGrone, 21-Sep-2022,
When you don't design for maintainability (a VERY difficult art) then don't be surprised that repairs take longer. Once again we have forgotten that things break or need to be removed and replaced for overhaul. When the incompetent Government Acquisition Weenies don't require the design engineers to think through how would they remove and replace the parts then again don;t be surprised that they only say well it fits in there. Along with oh you never said you wanted to take it out!
ReplyDeleteAny word on whether that Seawolf class boat that ran into the bottom will ever return to service?
ReplyDeleteIf not, I wonder if it could be useful as a moored training ship, maybe for the Australians?
Bob, I found this article from 1945 webpage that was written last month. The Navy said that it believes it can someday “be fully restored for unrestricted operations.” I can't imagine it will be completed in a reasonable amount of time since there are only three Seawolf-class SSNs (well 2 and 3/4s) which probably means there is a rather thin supply of parts.
Deletehttps://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/09/uss-connecticut-the-damaged-seawolf-class-submarine-update/
"Navy said that it believes it can someday “be fully restored for unrestricted operations."
DeleteThat's encouraging, although didn't the Navy say something similar after USS Miami had that shipyard fire, only to later decide that it would be too expensive, and scrapped it instead?
Has CNO read "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Psychology_of_Military_Incompetence
ReplyDeleteI really, really hope that somehow, someway the Navy figures this repair/maintenance stuff out now in "peacetime" then during a conflict. There should be way more accountability and oversight applied to the acquisition process.
ReplyDeleteStill seems odd to me that the newer boats are harder to repair and stay longer in depot than the older more beat up boats.....even factoring in cheaper components and what not, still have a hard time buying it.
ReplyDeleteDo wonder, how many boats could put out to sea if we enter war with China right now? How many could we turn around in 24 hours? 48 hours? A week?
From USNI, "Attack boats are third in line after nuclear ballistic missile submarines and aircraft carriers when it comes to repair priority and can bear the brunt of the shortfalls at the shipyards."
ReplyDeleteThis is also part of the problem, no?
"This is also part of the problem, no?"
DeleteNo. Emphatically, no. Priority is a rationalization. The issue is repair capacity, repair priority. Priority is another word for poor planning and poor management. When you've screwed up repair and maintenance so badly that you have no way out, then you blame priority.
When you build a ship, and ship, you FIRST ensure that you have sufficient repair and maintenance capability and capacity. If you don't, there's no point building the ship because you know it will wind up sitting pier side for years, waiting for its priority.
How can any asset that costs multi-billions of dollars have insufficient priority for timely repairs and maintenance? That's just insanity level poor planning and management.
Incompetence, they name is Navy.
It is beholden on us, as observers, analysts, and taxpayers (the US citizens) to reject any attempt at rationalizing the Navy's failure.
Priority???? That's how the supremely incompetent man rationalizes his failure.
"The issue is repair capacity, repair priority."
DeleteAgreed. The Navy needs more repair capacity. But, the likihood of having enough capacity all the time is next to zero.
"the likihood of having enough capacity all the time is next to zero."
DeleteThat's just more rationalization. The auto industry has all the repair capacity they need, all the time because they planned for it as an equally important adjunct to new vehicle construction. The Navy needs to do the same. Observers and analysts giving them a free pass on their rationalization does not help and is self-delusional.
The lack of repair capacity would be like ... oh, I don't know ... building a new class of aircraft carrier without having a drydock that can accept the carrier. Oh wait ... we just did that. The issue is not priority, it's planning and management and the Navy has failed utterly. Stop accepting their pathetic rationalizations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/opinion/china-us-shipping-security.html
DeleteRead it and weep. What I have been crowing about for over 10 years....someone has finally written a piece that has garnered attention.
I am all for what he is saying, just do not know how, after decades of telling young folks that the only way to get ahead is to go to college, how they are going to change that thinking.
"Read it and weep."
DeleteUnfortunately, your link is behind a subscriber wall. Please, everyone, be aware of walls if you link an article.
The article is paywalled.
DeleteIf you have time, would you be able to give us the main idea?
Lutefisk
"how they are going to change that thinking."
DeleteIt has to occur at the local level school boards. Parents need to get involved and demand that schools create and offer trades training - what we used to call vocational ed.
It certainly seems plain that we need more repair capacity. Any thoughts on whether it's better to achieve that by building a new shipyard, probably on the West Coast, or by trying to add capacity to existing shipyards (maybe with additional, perhaps floating, drydocks)?
ReplyDeleteWhile we could certainly use additional capacity at existing yards, or new yards operated by existing companies, a better approach is to develop new companies by slowly elevating smaller companies to become bigger and helping them expand their capacities. This approach not only provides additional capacity but, unlike adding to existing companies, it provides new competition and choice.
DeleteObviously, this is something that would require years to come to fruition. The Chinese could teach us something about taking the long view and working towards long term objectives!
Good point, although the nuclear ships are actually maintained in public yards. And there are concerns with getting a new smaller yard capable of handling nuclear ships. Are you suggesting that that should change?
DeleteOur current system is not working. That much is obvious. Bringing in additional companies/yards can only help in the long run. Given how few nuke yards we have, one can easily imagine that a handful of Chinese saboteurs could bring our nuke repair efforts to a screeching halt when war comes. The more nuke-capable yards we have, the more likely that some will stay operational. The concerns/difficulties with getting new yards nuke-capable are nothing compared to the problems with having a war and not having the capacity to service our nukes.
DeleteUnfortunately, a big part of the problem is that businesses only look to the next quarter and our politicians only look as far as the next election. Our systems and culture have stifled the capacity for taking the long view.
Delete""Our systems and culture have stifled the capacity for taking the long view."
DeleteIt certainly puts the focus on short term gains but it does not rule out long term goals. The moon landing program is an example of our culture and system embracing a long term goal. Social Security and Medicare are examples of long term goals (ignoring the question of whether those are good goals). The construction of the Interstate highway system is an example of a long term goal. The Navy's 20 year plan for upgrading the public shipyards is an example of a long term goal. And so on.
We can do long term projects when someone lays out a clear and compelling case for it. We just often lack vision and visionaries.
One of the trends I see on this blog is that so many people resign themselves to acceptance of prevailing conditions. It's a 'woe is us' attitude; a belief that we can't do things because they're difficult. Well, this is the uninspired, lazy approach to challenges. Yes, challenges and difficulties abound but there is nothing we CAN'T do. We just have to WANT to do it and we have to be willing to pay the PRICE it requires. Unfortunately, our society has been moving down the road of wanting things without being willing to pay the price.
Article in "Defense News "
ReplyDeletehttps://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/09/22/next-generation-attack-subs-will-be-designed-with-maintenance-in-mind/
No word in this article about increasing yard capacity or the possibility of adding yards to sustain a SSN.
That's called inertia. The military/govt keeps doing what it's been doing instead of thinking just a tiny ways outside the box and brining new companies/yards into the process.
Delete