Friday, March 14, 2025

USNS Wally Schirra Maintenance

Here’s an interesting piece of potential good news.  According to a press release, the Lewis and Clark class dry cargo ship, USNS Wally Schirra, T-AKE-8, completed a several month maintenance overhaul in Korea at the Hanwha Ocean Co. (previously Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering) facility.[1]  If this turns out to be a viable option, the flexibility to obtain maintenance at a foreign yard increases our maintenance capacity and improves fleet availability.
 
What wasn’t spelled out in the press release was the actual cost compared to budget or the adherence to the planned schedule.  The work was originally supposed to be completed in Dec 2024 but ran into March 2025 when the scope of the work was increased due to additional maintenance requirements discovered during the course of the project.  Thus, it appears that the schedule overrun was an add-on approved by the Navy rather than an inability to meet the original schedule.  It was also not revealed whether all of the maintenance items were addressed within the allotted time frame – typically, US ships in US yards leave their maintenance periods with significant work unaddressed due to time pressures – a practice that simply kicks the maintenance can down the road and causes worse problems in the future.  For example, the USS Port Royal grounding was, in part, directly attributable to the failure to complete work on a faulty navigation system.
 
USNS Wally Schirra Entering Hanwha - that is
one beat up looking ship!

 
A Navy press release gives a hint of the scope of the work: 
ROH [Regular OverHaul] conducted aboard Wally Schirra in the Republic of Korea included dry docking, and more than 300 work items that addressed hull corrosion and a full rudder replacement.
 
“Hanwha addressed extensive deterioration and damage to the hull, propeller, rudder, and rudder post/steering gear,” said Cmdr. Patrick J. Moore, commanding officer, MSC [Military Sealift Command] Office-Korea. “Notably, Hanwha engineers reverse-engineered the damaged rudder, completely replacing the unit when blueprint were not available.[2]

A concerning item is the replacement of the rudder and the lack of a blueprint to do so.  How is it possible for the Navy to not have a blueprint for the ship’s rudder?  That’s mind-boggling.
 
That aside, if the work was completed on time and on budget, that’s a tremendous accomplishment both for the Korean company and for the general Navy maintenance effort.
 
USNS Wally Schirra Leaving Hanwha - that's what
a ship should look like!
 

Hanwha Ocean is currently executing an overhaul on USNS Yukon.
 
If obtaining maintenance from a foreign company turns out to be a viable and effective option, the beneficial impact on Navy readiness cannot be overstated.  This would increase our maintenance capacity, increase ship availability, increase readiness, and improve overall ship quality. 
 
Of course, there is always the issue of sensitive/secret equipment and how to ensure the security of that equipment while in a foreign yard.  It’s probably not that significant an issue for logistics ships but warships are crammed with sensitive/secret equipment.  Still, even being able to obtain additional maintenance on the logistics fleet would be a tremendous help.  I love to be able to say this:  well done, Navy!
 
If nothing else, maybe we can pull into a foreign dock and get the rust removed from our rotting ships!
 
 
 
 
__________________________________
 
[1]Naval News website, “Hanwha Ocean completed its first MRO on US Navy ship”, staff, 13-Mar-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/03/hanwha-ocean-completed-its-first-mro-on-us-navy-ship/
 
[2]Navy website, “USNS Wally Schirra Completes Major Maintenance at South Korean Shipyard”, Grady Fontana, 13-Mar-2025,
https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/4118860/usns-wally-schirra-completes-major-maintenance-at-south-korean-shipyard/
 

Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

43 comments:

  1. AnonymousMarch 14, 2025 at 9:21 AM

    This is good news. Now let's get those friendly foreign shipyards actually building ships, not just repairing them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chinese GordonMarch 14, 2025 at 4:24 PM

      Sejong the Great is a good looking Burke+
      48 extra VLS for cruise missiles and 2 CIWS.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsMarch 16, 2025 at 2:42 PM

      What do you find appealing about a StG over a Burke? The Batch 1 version had more VLS but, as we've demonstrated, that's a marginal improvement and, depending on circumstances, may be a detriment. The Batch II reduced the VLS to 88 cells so I guess the Koreans didn't find sufficient value in the 128 cells to retain them.

      Delete
  2. deariemeMarch 14, 2025 at 12:35 PM

    "How is it possible for the Navy to not have a blueprint for the ship’s rudder?"

    Because the blueprint made its way to China long ago?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John DallmanMarch 16, 2025 at 11:53 AM

      More likely secrecy rules prevented it being disclosed.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousMarch 14, 2025 at 2:44 PM

    The SRF in Yokosuka, back in the 1990s anyway, was staffed mostly by Japanese contractors. They did pretty significant work including dry dock activities etc. I recall a four month intermediate level availability there that turned out really well. There’s no reason not to expand that sort of service elsewhere. There are lots of private Japanese shipyards that can handle repairs and maintenance.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousMarch 14, 2025 at 2:59 PM

    Hold on, are you suggesting that good American dollars should be spent to the benefit of foreigners? Is that really in line with US policy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JjabatieMarch 14, 2025 at 3:19 PM

      I see your point...but at the same time, with ships stacking up in maintenance, ships going to sea with unrepaired equipment, and maintenance deferrals creating bigger, more costly issues in the future... do we want to have fully functional ships, or hoarded dollars??? Our yards are not keeping up... so, it seems like a reasonable choice at this point...

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsMarch 14, 2025 at 4:13 PM

      "American dollars should be spent to the benefit of foreigners"

      American dollars should be spent to the benefit of the American navy which benefits the American people. If American firms want the business then it's up to them to develop the capacity and quality to perform the work.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMarch 14, 2025 at 4:14 PM

      "Hold on, are you suggesting that good American dollars should be spent to the benefit of foreigners?"

      Hold on, are you suggesting that America should accept a hollow, ill-maintained navy just to avoid sending a few dollars overseas?

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMarch 15, 2025 at 5:16 AM

      Apologies for not making the irony in my comment clearer.

      Obviously, it would be entirely for the benefit of the USN, and the American people, if US logistic ships - and warships, if security considerations permit - were repaired in foreign yards if they can do the job faster and cheaper.

      But as far as I can make out, the current thinking - if that's the word I'm looking for - of the US government is that too many valuable US dollars are going to foreigners who sell things US citizens want to buy, and that punitive tariffs must be levied, up to 200%, to make sure that Americans buy American.

      What I wondered was: is this likely to be applied to things like ship repairs, and if not why not?

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsMarch 16, 2025 at 2:38 PM

      " is this likely to be applied to things like ship repairs, and if not why not?"

      Are you asking whether tariffs would be applied to work in foreign yards? Tariffs are applied to PRODUCTS coming INTO the country, not services provided in and by another country.

      If that wasn't what you were asking, try again.

      Delete
  5. G2milMarch 15, 2025 at 9:06 AM

    People think we can win a war with China when the USA can't even repair its cargo ships.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousMarch 15, 2025 at 10:16 AM

    A number of US Navy ships have a rust problem.
    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/navsea-comments-on-rusty-u-s-navy-ships-and-new-paint-coatings/
    " From U.S. Navy destroyers to cruisers to support ships, the appearance of rusty decks and rust streaks seem to make the U.S. Navy ships appear old, worn and battered, neglected and ignored. The bright and dark brown rust streaks contrast starkly with the gray paint of U.S. Navy warships, and the ships’ “unclean appearances” generated calls for more and better maintenance, or invoked criticism about the backlog of shipyard maintenance. When compared to foreign naval ships with their clean gray paint, the U.S. Navy warships of late look downright rusty, dingy, and dirty."
    My take : Maintenance has been a huge problem for our Navy.
    PB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 15, 2025 at 10:59 AM

      This was pointed out in the same article : " However, the Washington Times did admit that most foreign navies’ ships operate close to their own nations’ shores and often do not sail globally for extended periods of time."

      Delete
  7. AnonymousMarch 15, 2025 at 10:22 AM

    Are there better corrosion resistant coatings that could be used ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 15, 2025 at 5:24 PM

      Another option is to change the hull material to a corrosion resistant alloy and do away with the need for coatings. The Navy was studying in the late nineties and early two thousands, the use of a different framing system (advanced double hull) that reduced the cost of the hull and using the cost savings to build the hulls out of stainless steel.
      https://p2infohouse.org/ref/32/31635.pdf

      MLW

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 15, 2025 at 9:01 PM

      Or just properly support and prioritize basic upkeep.

      We know how to chip rust and keep ships painted. It’s been a part of daily navy life since we started using steel. It’s not rocket science. We don’t need to try to find some expensive exotic technological silver bullet. We just have to do it.

      Why what used to be routine isn’t happening now should be the question. Is it manpower? Time constraints? I can’t believe it’s a lack of deck grinders or paint supplies.

      Delete
    3. G2milMarch 16, 2025 at 11:34 AM

      It's manpower. Two decades ago the Navy decided it was better to do most maintenance in port so it can cut crew size. Captains are told don't worry about rust, it will be done ashore. But ports have trouble scheduling work when ships deploy so much, so this doesn't get done. But the Navy cannot admit it made a mistake to fix the issue.

      Delete
    4. ComNavOpsMarch 16, 2025 at 2:16 PM

      "Is it manpower? Time constraints?"
      "maintenance in port so it can cut crew size"

      Yes, those are factors. Another major factor is environmental regulations which, for example, ban rust/paint chips from falling into the water. That pretty much eliminates casual, pier side paint maintenance and relegates it to formal dry docking or other facility level maintenance.

      Environmental regulations have also resulted in paint coatings that are less effective and less durable, resulting in more rapid and widespread onset of rust.

      Government safety regulations have also greatly restricted casual over-the-side work. We can no longer simply 'hang' a man over the side to chip and paint.

      Beyond that, the Navy has prioritized other activities like gender, equity, diversity, harassment, climate, etc. instead of chipping and painting.

      What I haven't understood is why, once we're outside US territorial waters, we can't, as a minimum, freely chip and paint superstructures. If we have time to sit in dedicated video game lounges, one would think we'd have time to chip and paint. Yes, I recognize that sailors can't work 24 hours a day but instead of doing transgender rodeos (yes, that was an event on a carrier), how about doing a chip and paint event?

      Delete
    5. ComNavOpsMarch 16, 2025 at 2:32 PM

      "advanced double hull"

      The article you linked was interesting but far from persuasive. For example, the first figure showed a supposed structural comparison between a double hull and a conventional hull and yet they looked identical !

      The article casually suggests eliminating transverse framing but does not address the - presumed - loss of transverse strength. One would think a structure with no transverse support would fold in on itself and the article did not describe how/why this would not occur.

      The article also did not address the importance of transverse bulkheads in blast and damage mitigation/containment. Transverse bulkheads are key components of the overall armor and mitigation scheme.

      And so on.

      Interesting but not persuasive.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousMarch 18, 2025 at 6:11 PM

      Transverse bulkheads are not eliminated in the advanced double hull. The article I tagged to the post is fairly superficial in its explanation of the design. The following is a more in depth design guidelines document. Page 30 has information on the transverse bulkheads.

      https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA409221.pdf

      I hope you find it interesting
      MLW

      Delete
  8. AnonymousMarch 16, 2025 at 5:15 PM

    The article by Naval News above also mentions coatings technologies that are more durable and enviromentaly friendly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousMarch 17, 2025 at 5:43 PM

    Off topic, for which I apologize.
    These landing barges and their possibilities are fascinating. How would they stand up in a hot war?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A_WW7KLyZw&t=35s
    I find this most interesting. It seems you would have to be nearly completely free of aggressors to ensure these barges could function.

    In addition it looks like Canada plus about another five or so European or South East Asian countries are rethinking the purchase of F-35s.

    This is basically FAFO. I have always thought the F-35 was a political purchase by the US and all of her allies. Looks like some of those chickens might be coming home to roost. Letting LockMart keep control of many of the key features was always a dumb as a stump decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 18, 2025 at 12:20 AM

      This is China's answer to the Mulberry Harbor. You don't use this in the first beach assault, you use it after the beach is secure to bring up your supplies and follow on forces.

      Delete
  10. AnonymousMarch 17, 2025 at 6:33 PM

    This is worth looking at from about 15:00 on. Interesting discussion about buying from the US or somewhere else.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgYC81czWgE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 17, 2025 at 6:45 PM

      I don't mind links as long as you provide some value-added analysis or commentary. What's your take on it?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 18, 2025 at 7:48 AM

      The whole speech was interesting. The most telling part was a very brief section where he mentioned "our security needs". Canadian Prime Ministers never do this, they always speak about alliance security needs. Mark Carney is a very smart guy. This was not an inadvertent slip up.

      It is very clear now that Canada and the US are not on the same page. For the first time in basically forever. This fifty-first state nonsense is going to have long lived consequences, none of them good for Fortress America.

      There is a better than even chance that Canada is going to cancel the F-35 purchase.

      I expect that Canada is going to see a huge ramp up in military spending, and none of it will be spent in the US. I expect to start with it going to be European purchases, or perhaps Japanese or Korean. Going further forward, I expect to see those products built under license in Canada while we rebuild our own aerospace defense and military naval industry.

      Three months ago, nobody cared. Today, this has become a really big deal.

      I would actually not be surprised to see some fence mending with China and some military acquisitions from them.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 18, 2025 at 8:34 AM

      I would also note that Carney went to Europe as his first State visit. This never happens. The first State visit is always to the US. In the immortal words of CCR, there is a Bad Moon Rising. There is no reason and no excuse for this. What on earth would make a US president blow up relations with Canada?

      Delete
    4. ComNavOpsMarch 18, 2025 at 10:07 AM

      "fifty-first state nonsense"

      Without delving into the politics of it, you need to recognize that Trump has no desire to make Canada a US state. That's just part of his negotiating related to trade relations (tariffs) so just relax and enjoy a good chuckle!

      "better than even chance that Canada is going to cancel the F-35 purchase."

      That would be a good thing for the US. The sooner we abandon that disaster of a program, the better!

      "I expect that Canada is going to see a huge ramp up in military spending"

      That is exactly one of Trump's goals for US allies: to get all of them to increase their defense spending. It would be nice if some of that increase came from US industry but that's of secondary importance.

      "Canada while we rebuild our own aerospace defense and military naval industry."

      I - and Trump - hope Canada does exactly that! A stronger Canada benefits the US and the world.

      "China and some military acquisitions from them."

      How stupid would Canada have to be to allow Chinese technology and software inside Canada's military?

      "What on earth would make a US president blow up relations with Canada?"

      There's no 'blow up' of relations. As I just explained, Trump is accomplishing his goals (trade and defense) while nudging Canada in the desired direction. Honestly, you'd have to be pretty silly to believe that any of the 51st state nonsense is real. Canada is more perceptive than that, I would hope.

      Here's a quote from PM Carney during an interview:

      ""In many respects, part of my experience overlaps with that of the President - we're both looking out for our countries. But he knows, and I know from long experience, that we can find mutual solutions that win for both," he said.

      Carney, who said he had no immediate plans to talk to the president, also said Trump administration talk of annexing Canada was "crazy"."

      Carney gets it. You should, too!

      Delete
    5. AnonymousMarch 18, 2025 at 10:43 AM

      I suggest that there is no more risk in Canada buying from China than there is of Canada buying from the US. We are gradually waking up to the fact that China is not our enemy, and never has been. I am way more concerned about Russia than I am about China. China is a trading nation, hence belt and road. Unlike the US, they are not imperialist and never have been. I've never really understood why the US and China don't get along better. Unless its just two hegemons that instinctively don't like each other.

      Russia on the other hand seems to quite like the idea of resurrecting the USSR so I would trust them about as far as I could throw them.

      The US is in the process of seriously damaging relations with Canada, and the damage is likely to be long term as we tend to be slow to anger and slow to forgive. I get that many Americans don't realize the scope of that yet, but let me assure you its true. And its getting worse by the day. Take a look at Air Canada and Westjet cutting flights to the US because no one wants to go there. Same thing shopping, US products unsold on the shelves.

      This speech was in the UK today. Looks to me like Carney isn't kidding, and when he says crazy, he means dangerously crazy. Not a term normally used in diplomacy and Carney is a pretty good diplomat. Elbows up!
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgQ5pw0a5lA

      Delete
    6. ComNavOpsMarch 18, 2025 at 12:27 PM

      We're into pure politics now so we'll end it right here.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousMarch 19, 2025 at 4:54 AM

      Returning to purely naval matters: ComNavOps seems in favour of abandoning the F35 program. That would seriously affect various armed forces of nations that had believed the US was an ally, particularly the British navy. CNO's opinion on this?

      Delete
    8. AnonymousMarch 19, 2025 at 5:39 AM

      There is some discussion that Canada, Germany, Finland, Denmark & the Swiss are having a re-think about F-35 purchases. Hard to say how much truth is in that, and what might come of it.
      I believe the big concern is over how much control LockMart can exercise over advanced functions. Obviously software and hardware upgrades and maintenance planning is already in their hands.

      Delete
    9. ComNavOpsMarch 19, 2025 at 7:10 AM

      "ComNavOps seems in favour of abandoning the F35 program. "

      Seems??? There's no 'seems' about it. I am absolutely in favor of terminating the F-35.

      The US has no obligation to supply aircraft to other countries. It is nice if we can do so but it's not a requirement.

      The F-35 is bankrupting the US military with gazillion dollar costs and even higher opportunity costs and for what? A nearly obsolete aircraft that does not meet current needs and does not even have its full combat capabilities?

      The several dozen foreign F-35s will make no difference in any future war so, again, terminating the program has no negative effect.

      I have called for a new design aircraft to be built AND FIELDED in five years and have laid out how to go about it so foreign countries can simply wait five years and then get a better aircraft.

      Delete
    10. ComNavOpsMarch 19, 2025 at 7:12 AM

      "big concern is over how much control LockMart can exercise over advanced functions."

      Spot on! This is a bad purchase for the US and any other country. Foreign countries should run away from this program and be thankful for getting away!

      Delete
    11. AnonymousMarch 19, 2025 at 11:26 AM

      CNO: you wrote “The US has no obligation to supply aircraft to other countries”. As a general statement, that is absolutely true, and applies to far more than aircraft.

      In specific cases, though, it may be otherwise. If a US manufacturer, or the US government, has entered into a contractual agreement to supply aircraft, or anything else, to foreigners, and then makes a unilateral decision to resile from that contract, there may be consequences. What they would be would depend on the terms of the contract. It is I suppose possible that Lockheed Martin’s F35 contracts with foreigners contained words to the effect of “LM reserve the right to withdraw at any time from this contract and make no further supplies to their customers, for whatever reasons seem good to LM, and without LM being in any way liable for breach of contract, or for payment of any costs or damages incurred by the customers”. But I doubt it. Do you know more than I do about this?

      In the case of the British navy, costs incurred by the US abandoning the F35 might be considerable, since their carriers have been specifically designed to operate that aircraft.

      Delete
    12. ComNavOpsMarch 19, 2025 at 11:54 AM

      "entered into a contractual agreement"

      Well of course an actual contract must be fulfilled. I'm speaking in general terms. Are you really not capable of grasping that? Assuming you can grasp that, then you're just being pedantic and argumentative and that's not the type of reader/comment that meets the standards of this blog.

      Delete
    13. AnonymousMarch 19, 2025 at 12:24 PM

      Apologies if I've fallen below your high standards. I quite agree, and said so, that in general terms you are quite right. I am being argumentative, certainly, about specific cases: I've always supposed that argument is the way to reach a correct conclusion. The conclusion I'm hoping to reach is: would cancelling the F35 cause serious problems for US allies, or would it not? Specifically, for the British navy? If it would, does that matter?

      Delete
    14. ComNavOpsMarch 19, 2025 at 12:37 PM

      "would cancelling the F35 cause serious problems for US allies, or would it not?"

      If you want to contribute to the discussion, why don't you research a bit and then offer an informed opinion? Be productive, not pedantic.

      Delete
    15. AnonymousMarch 19, 2025 at 12:59 PM

      Well, the bit of research I have done indicates that the Royal Navy's two new carriers can operate helicopters, F35Cs and damn all else useful; and that cancelling the F35 program would leave them seriously up the spout; which I think might be a bad thing. But I know I'm not as thoroughly informed as ComNavOps, and would value his opinion.

      Delete
    16. ComNavOpsMarch 19, 2025 at 1:54 PM

      "the bit of research I have done"

      You have not done any research. If you did, you'd know that the Royal Navy's carriers operate the 'B' model of the F-35 not the 'C'. You'd also know that the UK has, according to my vague following of the subject, only 48 aircraft under contract and those will all be delivered by end-2025. While there are plans (hopes) for more aircraft, I do not believe there are any more under contract. You'd also know that the 'B' model has serious range and payload restrictions which make it far less effective than an 'A' or 'C' although significantly better than a Harrier. You'd also know that the sustainment costs of the F-35 (all models) are crippling, even for the US. You'd know that the F-35 (all models) are not going to receive their full combat-capable software any time soon and many of the capabilities have been dropped or put off to some nebulous 'future' upgrade which, of course, will never happen. You'd also know that the UK carriers can only operate 2-3 dozen aircraft (though they would claim up to 4 dozen despite never having done it) which makes them only a marginally useful asset. You'd also know that without combat support aircraft like EW, AEW, and tankers, carrier aircraft are severely disadvantaged in combat, again making them only marginally useful.

      I've had enough of this. Either contribute something useful or stop wasting my time. Fair warning.

      Delete
    17. AnonymousMarch 19, 2025 at 5:03 PM

      It is worth noting that the US is buying twice as many F-35s as the rest of the world combined - total foreign F-35 orders to date are around 800 airframes, while the US is buying 2400. The UK is also hedging its bets with Tempemst, its own homegrown fighter. The perceived uncertainties in the F-35 program are why Europe is moving forward with their own fighter programs (FCAS, GCAP).

      That said, while the B's range limitation is a clear weakness, this is somewhat mitigated by the nature of fighting in Europe, where combat ranges are shorter than we anticipate in the pacific. Of course, it also means that airbases can expect to be under threat from tactical and brigade level fires, so cest la vie.

      Intereatingly the Singaporeans chose the B due to their concerns about airbase damage, wanting to use STOVL fornsignificantly shorter takeoff runs and landings from damaged runways. The 800km radius was also sufficient for their needs, as that allowed them to strike the malaysoan and indonesian capitals of Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta - which was why the Indonesians moved their capital to Kalimantan, across the South China Sea, and why RSAF procured more tankers.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)