The US Navy is embarked on the Ford class carrier construction program. Setting aside any misgivings about the value of the Ford class, another issue is that the Navy lacks dry docks capable of supporting the carrier. Only one dry dock is even theoretically capable of handling the Ford class and even that’s not actually possible without future modifications.
Only one of the Navy’s 18 dry docks used for maintaining the nuclear-powered carrier fleet can support a Ford-class carrier, Navy officials told USNI News.
Dry Dock 8 at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard can handle a Ford-class carrier, but only after a temporary cooling water systems is set up. A permanent cooling water system and other upgrades to Dry Dock 8 are scheduled to occur before USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) enters its first planned dry dock availability, Anna Taylor, a Naval Sea Systems Command spokeswoman, told USNI News in an email.
The Navy also plans to upgrade a West Coast dry dock to handle the future USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), Taylor added.[1]
Dry dock 8, by the way, opened in 1942.
Perusing the various dry dock related contracts, it appears that 2026 is the earliest date that dry dock 8 would be Ford-capable and schedules always slip.
In contrast, China has built a brand new carrier dry dock complex at the Sanya naval base in Hainan. The dry dock is sized to accommodate the upcoming Type 003, Nimitz/Ford type carriers. They’ve built the dry dock before they built the carrier. Amazing! An astounding example of basic common sense that eludes the US Navy.
 |
| Sanya Dry Dock |
China appears to be correctly and wisely addressing its support needs as it builds its navy. The US, on the other hand, is depending on hundred year old dry docks although the recently begun 20 year renovation program offers some relief if the program is continued from one budget year to the next for 20 years – a dubious proposition, to say the least.
__________________________________
[1]USNI News website, “Navy to Update 2 Dry Docks to Accommodate Ford-Class Carriers”, Ben Werner, 30-Aug-2019,
Points taken, It is perhaps worthwhile to remember that Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. has available docks that fit the new carriers--they build them. As a side note, when my DD went into drydock at Boston Naval Shipyard, the dock was built in 1805--still worked fine.
ReplyDelete"available docks that fit the new carriers--they build them"
DeleteThey're not available for maintenance since we're always building new carriers. We can maintain or we can build. We can't do both with the docks we have available.
NNS #12 is too shallow for the ships to come back in after launch due to weight of outfitting. The other keeps the refueling going full time. If we moved to a build new strategy and stopped RCOH it would open up one dock. #11
DeleteWhy do I already know the headline in 10 years from now:"Ford can't refit because 100 year old dock hasn't been upgraded like USN promised?"
ReplyDeleteIndustrial capacity is essentially military capacity. To anyone with eyes, the United States has been in industrial economic decline for 20 years. Through the use of false financial data and "bread and circus" colorful phone apps, the powers that be attempt to gaslight us into being blind to this.But we should believe our eyes. Downtown Portland, tent cities, closed shopfronts, debased currency, supply disruptions, energy insecurity, censorship.
ReplyDeleteIn this environment of declining resources, it will take a savvy, ruthlessly efficient NAVY to retain sea-lane security and the current international order.
Oh crap....guess we're in in trouble.
"To anyone with eyes, the United States has been in industrial economic decline for 20 years."
DeleteWhat data do you have to support that? I'm not necessarily disputing your statement; I just want you to be sure there's data to support your contention. For example, we produce cars, aircraft, toilet paper, pencils, soup, and a million other things that we need and do so in quantities sufficient for our needs (the last couple years excepted). The various measures of the economy have been generally strong over the last 20 years. And so on. What data leads you to believe that we are in an 'industrial economic decline'?
I encourage you to research your position and present the data to us and then offer some solutions. That would make for a great comment! I hope you do this and, if you do, I really look forward to seeing what you find.
I just looked at the numbers and obviously more complicated than Anon says..
DeleteTechnically speaking, we have been in a decline since 1945! Duh, we were free of any bombing after the war and Germany and Japan were buried under rubble so it was easy to have most of the world's manufacturing! It has been declining ever since. The numbers would suggest it got bad in 80s and then again between 2000 and 2008. Seems like it has stabilized around 11%.
China has become world leader in manufacturing BUT how much is just civilian consumer oriented? How much is just "stuff" that sells at Walmart? How much is dual use? How much is high tech? Not all manufacturing is equal...
One interesting facet of Russia Ukraine War is hearing how both sides seem to be using dual use technology and small labs, reconfigured small plants to produce smalls UAV and other military gear. Obviously, you not making any tanks or IFVs or Patriot missile like that does show that with some ingenuity, you can produce some military gear pretty fast...
"It has been declining ever since."
DeleteHas it? Or, has our portion shrunk in relation to the rest of the world as they catch up even though our absolute production has remained relatively constant? I don't know what specific numbers you're looking at so I can't evaluate.
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/manufacturing/who-killed-us-manufacturing
Deletehttps://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/manufacturing-output
This is what I used for my comment. I'm on my phone at work....
Ha Guys, I'm at work too! Maybe if we all did not spend so much time pouring over Navymatters our country's productivity would be through the roof and we would have nothing to worry about. : )
DeleteAs I alluded to in my quick comment above concerning our stealth declining productivity and wealth....I think the official numbers provided by the apparatchik class can not be trusted. It would probably take a team in China working the American desk to devine what is actually happening. There are many moving parts and and accurate assessment would be difficult.
One thing they might look at is energy consumption. A growing, productive economy, would be expected to show an growing avaricious appetite for energy.
The chart below shows a rather flat rate of energy consumption in the USA since approximately 2000. Strange given that our population at that time was about 282 million. Our population has OFFICIALLY grown to 331 million in that time interval, but such numbers do not include the estimated 80 million here illeagally and 10's of millions on green cards. I suppose it could be that we are just more energy efficient. But again.....my eyes tell me something different. I bet yours do too. Can't you just feel it, the decline? Electronic consumer goods sort of hide it because they feel so novel. But I think they obscure the lack of advancement, the end of Moore's law, etc.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf301/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.ebf301/files/Revised_folder/Lesson_01/US%20Energy%20Consumption%20by%20Source%201950-2019.png
The American government accounts for a huge proportion of the economy. More still when you include 60% funding of healthcare, state government, local government, and the bullsheeit portion of the labor force in private sector which exist merely to stay compliant with the government regulatory state. It's a self-licking icecream cone. And no way to run an economy
Government does most things very poorly so it should not be a surprise that productivity declines with a greater share of government largess. An example: the same crowd that runs our government...runs our Navy.
China, Russia, etc. all have their own similar problems. Thank G-d, or the jig would have been up long ago....now it just seems like we are on the cusp of it.
"I'm on my phone at work"
DeleteMulti-tasking! That's good old USA productivity!
"Maybe if we all did not spend so much time pouring over Navymatters our country's productivity would be through the roof"
DeleteSo ... I'm responsible for the fall of Western civilization? :)
I had to laugh at your comment.. That was outstanding!
"There are many moving parts"
Productivity (or industrial might or whatever measure you want to use) can be whatever you want it to be depending on how you choose to measure it. It's good that you recognize that.
"I suppose it could be that we are just more energy efficient."
See? The USA is amazing!
"it should not be a surprise that productivity declines with a greater share of government largess."
Perhaps ... depending on how you measure productivity.
My purpose in asking questions about your original comment was twofold:
1. Ensure that you have actual data supporting your belief. Sometimes what we believe isn't correct.
2. There is a tendency for every generation to believe that the country is falling apart and yet ... we're still here. The Founding Fathers undoubtedly believed that the young people of colonial America were lazy, good-for-nothings and that the country was falling apart. In fact, fascinatingly, if you read colonial writings, they had almost word for word the same complaints about the justice system, lawyers, government overreach, etc. that we do. So, you want to be sure that what you 'feel' is actually real. That's why I asked about supporting data.
Did any of the designers realize they were making the Ford a bit too big? Another example,
ReplyDelete"Over the weekend, Portsmouth, U.K.’s The News reported that because of the carrier’s size, it would anchor in Stokes Bay, off the coast of the town of Gosport, as opposed to pulling up to the pier in Portsmouth."
This may be an issue at most ports.
https://news.usni.org/2022/11/14/uss-gerald-r-ford-makes-trans-atlantic-port-visit-to-portsmouth-u-k
"Did any of the designers realize they were making the Ford a bit too big?"
DeleteThe better question is why did the Ford have to be bigger when the air wings are steadily getting smaller? There's a logical disconnect there.
Size is the same as Nimitz. Starting with Reagan they all have the Bulbous bow and can't fit the length Pearl Harbor's big dock. The 134 waterline beam is the same. The electrical, water, hotel services needed of the docks have changed. Similar needs at the piers. This is the kind of work they had to do in Apra and Yokosuka to allow Nimitz dockings.
DeleteAlso not mentioned here. Pueget Sound is to get a new carrier dock as the current one is built over a fault line.
This point about dry-docking at Pearl Harbor is just sad. Reagan was laid down in 1998 and presumably the design parameters locked down even earlier, yet in 25 years the navy has never strongly felt the need to upgrade its facilities to accommodate this or subsequent vessels.
DeleteQuite apart from the question of how much can it possibly cost to modify an existing dry dock (oh go the cries we can't take it out of service), how much does it cost to build a brand new state-of-the-art dry dock?
"how much does it cost to build a brand new state-of-the-art dry dock?"
DeleteA preliminary cost estimate for a new 650 ft dry dock at Pearl Harbor was between $1.5B - $2.0B. An 1100 ft dock for carriers would be substantially greater, one assumes.
When we're spending $14.0 B+ on a single carrier or $1-3.0 B on lesser surface combatants not spending this much (little) on a piece of infrastructure that will, based on other comments, retain its' utility for up two 200 years seems like an incredible false economy.
DeleteBut this is a navy that can't even be relied upon to sustain or replace critical fuel infrastructure so false economies and a shortage of maps and flashlights seem par for the course.
Fundamental issue is -- China has strongest civilian ship building industry of the world but US' civilian ship building industry is practically dead.
ReplyDeleteCivilian shipbuilding has norhing to do with US Navy owned drydocks, public shipyards, or the lack of common sense logistical planning for the new CVN class...
DeleteThere is no such thing as a "Civilian ship building industry" in China. EVERYTHING is government subsidized.
DeleteIts worth paying attention to "Technical Standards for New Civilian Ships to Implement National Defense Requirements". This approach is just about the opposite of how the US has been going about sealift requirements, and has quite a few advantages. In addition, the fishing boats in the Maritime Militia are going to be a big help to the PLA(N) if a conflict erupts. Reminds me of Soviet Trawlers back in the day.
Deletehttps://warontherocks.com/2021/08/mind-the-gap-how-chinas-civilian-shipping-could-enable-a-taiwan-invasion/
https://thediplomat.com/2015/06/china-prepares-its-172000-civilian-ships-for-war/
One reason I am alomost 100% sure of is the incredibly restrictive environmental rules the United States has imposed on itself. If the Navy wanted to build a new graving dock the environmental studies to do this would take 10 years. I am not sure about this but fairly certain that Chiana doesn't give two hoots about the environment
ReplyDeleteShouldn't dockability have been a limiting factor in designing the Fords? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is the the size of the Queen Elizabeth class was constrained by the capacity of UK drydocks
ReplyDeleteCDR C, the Ford is bigger to force a bigger dry dock to be built. The Navy is subtle. Like in the old days, the Navy would repair a ship by taking completely to bits, and building new ship in its place. My congress critter told me, so it is the gospel truth.
DeleteThe size factor is strictly around the addition of the bulbous bow which started on Reagan. QE was limited by the size of the building dock rather than maintenance in our case.
Delete"Shouldn't dockability have been a limiting factor in designing the Fords? "
DeleteOne would think that half size air wings would have been a limiting factor but that didn't happen !
Well, let's hope somebody is smart enough to use trade agreements to avert a war with China. If the US were willing to cede control of the south Pacific to them (and they seem to be), there's no reason for a war with a nuclear power. There's absolutely no benefit to the American people, nor is China threatening us in any way.
ReplyDelete"There's absolutely no benefit to the American people, nor is China threatening us in any way."
DeleteI disagree completely. A significant percentage of the world's shipping passes through the various choke points of the region and to place those under Chinese control would constitute a severe threat to the US. Anytime China wanted something, all they'd have to do is threaten to halt shipping.
We've already seen that China is trying to exclude the US from the Pacific. Witness their actions in the Solomons.
Given China's demonstrated disregard for international treaties (UNCLOS tribunal, for example), there is no reason to believe they would act in good faith if granted control of the region.
I can go on with example after example of the negative effects of China controlling the region but this suffices to make the point. You're welcome to your opinion but it is necessary to point out that it is an opinion not universally shared.
"Well, let's hope somebody is smart enough to use trade agreements to avert a war with China."
DeleteI would point out that the parallels between China, today, and Nazi Germany are remarkable. Appeasement and 'peace at any price' have been demonstrated to merely put off the problem until it becomes even worse. The only thing worse than war with an evil power is war with an evil power that has had even more time to build up its power.
I think there is one fundamental difference between Germany and China: the former never really could or even really wanted world domination, her goal was essentially to establish an empire over central and eastern Europe: significant for sure, but not the whole world.
DeleteChina, on the other hand, can aim for the entire planet.
The Ford class continues to be more of a liability than an asset. Assuming it did work as designed, what capability do we get from it? In my estimation, the last major achievement in US carrier design was the Forrestal class. Every "improvement" that followed has been marginal (a little larger and carry a few more aircraft). Nuclear power was a major change for carriers, but I consider it a trade-off rather than a true improvement. What is one Nimitz or Ford class capable of performing that two Forrestal class carriers cannot do better? We have discussed carrier construction and maintenance cost on this blog; 2 to 1 does not seem unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteIf it were up to me, we would be building a modern version of the Forrestal. They could be built at more shipyards than just Newport News. There would also be more flexibility in shipyards/drydocks for maintenance. Our current carriers undergo a long and costly refuel-overhaul at the 25-year point. On these "modern Forrestals", 25 years would be the planned retirement age. Service extension if needed, otherwise it goes into reserve lay-up. After some time (maybe 20 years), it gets scrapped.
In a couple years the USS Nimitz will be retiring. Newport News Shipyard will be in a near continuous situation with one Ford class under construction, one Nimitz class in mid-life refuel-overhaul, and one Nimitz class in decommissioning (cutting out reactor cores). This situation would leave little margin for emergency conditions; putting all your eggs in one basket. It might be good for corporate profits, but bad for military readiness.
I've drifted off the topic of shipyard construction and upgrades. Yes, I agree with funding these facilities as needed (Congress funding the Navy is a Constitutional mandate), and I would favor construction of new larger drydocks if the larger ship were providing equivalent increased capabilities, but I'm not seeing the benefit.
MM-13B