The Los Angeles class submarine, USS Boise (SSN-764), has
been waiting pier side since 2015 for routine maintenance. The Navy has now announced that a 2024, $1.2B
maintenance contract has been terminated and the vessel will be retired.
Boise was commissioned 1992 and served around 22 yrs until
being abandoned pier side by the Navy in 2015 where it has been rotting since.
A perfectly good, world class submarine abandoned by the
Navy because they prioritized new hulls over maintenance of existing ones.
We’re in a pre-war arms race with China and the Navy does
this?
I’m not a lawyer but this is unforgivable criminal
negligence, dereliction of duty, and fraudulent management of the nation’s
resources by a decade of Navy leadership.
Every CNO since 2015 should be recalled to active duty and
court-martialed. It’s depressing how
many of my posts end with that sentence, isn’t it?
 |
| Bye Bye Boise |
Submarines are the non-obsolete part of the navy. Time for the Admiral Byng treatment.
ReplyDeleteI like 20 year life span on ships, but they need be built for that in mind. We are woefully short on maintenance to support fleet we have. It makes no sense to try and grow fleet if we can't maintain it. 11 years Pierside just wow
ReplyDeleteThere were 10 guys working on the Boise.
DeleteAccounting was pleased with the arrangement,
since the key performance indicator was minimizing annual labor costs. The accountant for the Boise got
excellent annual reviews for hitting his KPI.
(the above conjecture, people doing an excellent job,
just not a job that aligns with a fighting fleet.)
This is a deeply depressing post.
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, outside of recalling to duty the senior officers responsible and putting them in front of a court martial, what is to be done?
"This is a deeply depressing post.
DeleteBut seriously, outside of recalling to duty the senior officers responsible and putting them in front of a court martial, what is to be done?"
Truly this is so disheartening, frustrating, infuriating it is hard to come up with anything new to say about it.
The people that should be overseeing all of this, the watchdog designed into the system, is the congress.
They should be aggressively investigating these things and grilling military leaders when they are brought up to the hill hearings.
Those oversights are clearly not happening.
But it's not different than the phenomenal levels of fraud being discovered in everything from USAID to Medicaid to Learing Centers.
Who were overseeing those programs?
But ultimately, we as voters are to blame.
We are a democracy...demos - the people/body politic, cracy - rule.
It is our job to oversee the overseers.
What is it going to take to get the congress critters to do their jobs?
Enough pressure to overcome the influence of campaign donations from organizations with deep pockets and different priorities.
That is a tall order.
The beginning is blogs like this one.
Without CNO and his blog I wouldn't even be aware at all of any of this.
Knowledge of what is happening needs to be disseminated.
However, how to make that next leap is as much a mystery to me as it is to everyone else...but it needs to happen.
Otherwise the reality check is a naval disaster that lays bare all of the rot in the system that is hidden from view.
But everything possible should be done to prevent that eventuality, because the consequences of something like that happening are significant and possibly history-altering (in a bad way).
Lutefisk
There are many things that can be done. Prime among them is for Congress to exercise the power of the purse and refuse to fund anymore new ships until the Navy brings all of their existing ships up to proper maintenance levels. In other words, a Congressionally imposed moratorium on new construction until the Navy gets its act together and proves they can be good stewards of the nations resources and the people's money.
DeleteOther simple measures include the President or SecNav firing an admiral a week until all Navy ships are brought up to maintenance standards.
Good ideas, although I cringe at the ripples in the shipbuilding industry and it's supply chains if Congress made such a threat- the Navy is already the worst customer known to man lol, and certainly can't be counted on to see projected classes or anything else taken to completion!! But perhaps somthing that extreme is what's needed.
DeleteAs far as firing Admirals, we should be doing that anyway...
"I cringe at the ripples in the shipbuilding industry and it's supply chains"
DeleteI covered this before. Not only would there be no negative repercussions, it would be highly beneficial for the shipbuilding industry and suppliers. During the moratorium, EVERY Navy ship would need expensive maintenance and overhauls. That's 280 some ships lined up, waiting for extensive overhaul contracts; a windfall for industry. This would add welcome and needed stability for the shipbuilding industry. Coming out of the moratorium, industry would get new construction AND maintain the elevated maintenance contracts or else Congress would shut the Navy down again. Combined with firing admirals, this should prove effective at getting the Navy to start behaving.
Yet another benefit is that during the moratorium we could devote time to developing CONOPS and designs for new ships when we emerge from the moratorium and we could take the time to do the designs right rather than be pressured to get something ... anything ... in the water quickly.
Drones and subs will determine the outcome of any pacific wide war
ReplyDeleteNot that your comment wasn't a masterful example of in-depth analysis but is there any evidence, whatsoever, you'd care to present in support of your contention especially given that we've pretty thoroughly discredited drones in naval warfare.
DeleteYou've discredited drones in their current iteration as used in the black sea during a current war. We cannot limit our understanding or concept of operations be limited to what is currently understood.
DeleteSurface drones are definitely of limited value, however with ingenuity mixed with trial and error they will change the face of war. We need to let the engineers and warfighters imagine ways in which they can be used whether it be surveillance, attack, loitering attack/ISR, etc. Just like we cannot limit our think to saying that drones are only good as a surface or air asset. What happens if you mix a semi-submersible concept with endurance and payload?
What we can discern is the technology is changing the face of war faster than the warfighter can adapt. We need leadership and industry to be flexible because one thing is also clear. The ability for drones to be adapted to the realities and operational environments rapidly is not in question.
"... however with ingenuity mixed with trial and error they will change the face of war. "
DeleteI think that's overly optimistic. While on land, they've certainly caused some changes ( although as CNO has reportedly mentioned, the Ukraine war isn't somthing to derive "lessons" from due to ineptitude on both sides), naval warfare is a totally different ballgame. The way I see it, drones have far too many downsides to ever be useful in naval combat. The big one is size. If they're small, they have minimal range/payload. And as they get bigger to overcome those problems, they just become easier targets. The amount of drones the US has lost to Iran and the Houthis shows the truth in that. And the same holds true for surface drones- the balancing act of size/range/payload doesn't favor them causing a revolution in naval warfare. When you add in the need to control them over great distance, and/or carry adequate sensors, it gets even harder. So while they're a threat to ships in port that aren't adequately defended, as the Russians have allowed to happen- I'm not seeing how the current bandwagon/cult of the unmanned is really going anywhere with respect to the US Navy and the fights that are on its horizon. The Navy should certainly continue to look at defensive measures- especially high power microwave units, but the pursuit of unmanned gadgetry seems mostly like an answer looking for a question...
"they will change the face of war"
DeleteThat's an extremely generic and non-specific statement currently unsupported by any evidence. Do you have something more specific? By the way, do you have any idea how weapon systems throughout history have claimed to be the next game changer versus how many actually have?
"What happens if you mix a semi-submersible concept with endurance and payload?"
Wait ... I know this one! It's called a torpedo.
"technology is changing the face of war faster than the warfighter can adapt."
Again, no evidence of this and a great deal of evidence to the contrary. For example, Ukraine and Russia have both already adapted to the reality of drones.
"The ability for drones to be adapted to the realities and operational environments rapidly is not in question."
What IS in question is the usefulness and effectiveness of drones. Thus far, they have little use in naval warfare (perhaps a bit more in land warfare?).
Unmanned assets may someday prove useful in combat but that day is nowhere near, yet, unless one's enemy is utterly inept, as we see in Ukraine-Russia. US-Houthis have demonstrated just how useless and ineffective unmanned assets are against a prepared opponent.
"They're a threat to ships in port that aren't adequately defended."
DeleteI think this is the most important takeaway to date - areas long assumed to be safely "behind the lines" can no longer make that assumption. This includes stateside ports. Are we ready for that threat? There is no evidence that we are. A small flight of drones launched against a destroyer tied up in Norfolk wouldn't sink it, but could cause enough damage to, say, radars or flight facilities to render it partially mission capable, at least in the short term. Getting the drones in launch position would be a challenge (of course), but, as Ukraine demonstrated with its attack on Russian bomber bases, with time and creativity it can be done. Even if unlikely, I'd hate to base my defense on the presumed incompetence of my potential enemies.
Note the drone attacks the Ukranoans performed against russian airbases, infiltrating drones in 18 wheelers.and using commercial drivers as patsies.
DeleteChinese linked entities have started buying land near CONUS USAF airbases. At the most benign they'll be getting eyes on our movements. But it's definirely a lot easier for them to.do a ukraine style attack if they wanted to.
If our military was stupid enough and oblivious enough to ignore the possibility then you'd be potentially be correct. Fortunately, we don't share a border with China, as Russia does with Ukraine, so the challenge for China is much greater.
DeleteWhile that's true, we have ongoing trade with china at present, and no restrictions on purchase of land near our bases. As you yourself have noted previously, the Chinese have been going around buying up ports all over the world as part of their geopolitical strategy. Furthermore, we share borders with third party nations (canada and Mexico) that have looser border controls than we do.
DeleteThe Ukranians loaded drones into conexes, and used their agents to contract for land transport using proxies acting within the commercial driving network. The chinese don't have that complication - they can just get the materials shipped to their sites and stage from there. And it's not like they need to be right up against an airbase - an offset of 20 miles is sufficient.
Presumably, you assume, as do I, that the US is well aware of who owns what property around military bases and is carefully monitoring them. You're attempting to concoct a very unlikely scenario that, even if it were to happen, would result in no more than minor annoyance for the military. The explosion of anti-drone electronic and kinetic weaponry also suggests that the type of small, commercial UAVs that would be available in such a scenario would be highly susceptible to countermeasures.
DeleteUkraine owned no land anywhere near the Russian bomber bases they attacked. I see land ownership as, at best, a peripheral issue to this concern.
Delete"a scenario would be highly susceptible to countermeasures."
Agree - in principle! But I am currently unaware of any deployed anti-drone countermeasure systems in place at any US navy bases, nor any plans, budget items, etc. for such a purpose. From where I sit, this appears to not be getting much, if any, attention from navy staff.
"I see land ownership as, at best, a peripheral issue to this concern."
DeleteYou brought it up!
"unaware of any deployed anti-drone countermeasure systems in place at any US navy bases"
Unless the Navy is sharing their defense plans with you, you have no idea what, if any, defensive systems have been deployed. I've heard rumors of installed systems but nothing I've been able to verify. Until we have definitive proof one way or the other, I'll assume that base commanders are aware of defensive needs and have, or will have, appropriate defenses in place when war comes. Of course, the Navy's track record of intelligent thinking is not good so ...
It's one thing for Ukrainian Russians to move around in Russia and it's another for Chinese to move around the US, procuring, transporting, and assembling drones during a time of war and heightened awareness. I see very little chance of your scenario happening. I'm far more concerned about mines threatening our naval base waters.
I'm just saying fellas, we're putting a lotta trust in an organisation that let an expensive valuable combat asset rot away for ELEVEN YEARS.
DeleteTo sat nothing of the rest of the military's fumbles, which this blog is full of.
Correct - my point exactly!
DeleteCNO is also correct - we've zero definitive evidence one way or the other that the Navy has taken any step to invest in anti-drone stateside base defense. So, that leaves us with trusting the Navy that this has all been figured out and it is under control. Do you trust that? I certainly do not!!
We have seen lots of evidence that the military, in general, is working on anti-small UAV defensive systems. Aside from various electronic disruption systems, we've seen dozens of kinetic systems tested. As one example, a Coyote system was installed on a Burke just recently and reports are that similar systems have been installed on several ships in the Middle East. None of that is evidence that anything has been installed at a Navy base but it is evidence that we have suitable systems that COULD be installed in fairly short order.
DeleteWe also have a good deal of evidence that base security has been improved. There have been dozens of reports of Chinese people being apprehended surveilling various military bases. Clearly, base commanders are well aware of outside agents and are monitoring the areas around bases.
So, no hard evidence one way or the other but we do have indications of potential defensive systems and proof of heightened security.
I would agree with that. I'm mindful that it took the Cole before the Navy took in-port small boat defense seriously - I'm hoping that's not what happens here.
DeleteAs I understand it, the Navy was very reluctant to send the Boise to the scrap heap, having already spent upwards of $1.4 billion on refit work to date. However, owing to a lack of shipyard construction and repair capacity, particularly skilled and security cleared labor, and because the long delays in making a start on the job had caused the boat to lose its diving certification, it didn’t make financial or operational sense to continue.
ReplyDeleteShipyards with the ability to undertake the work are all apparently fully occupied now and well into the future in converting retired LA Class boats to training platforms, and building new Virginia and Ohio Class boats, and this was deemed to be a better use of the limited resources available.
If the above is correct then the fault or responsibility for the Boise fiasco probably lies more with Congress than with the Navy.
You may have a different perspective on the matter.
"You may have a different perspective on the matter."
DeleteI do.
Commander of Naval Opinions what do you think about this? https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/04/new-super-battleship-under-construction-in-china/
ReplyDeleteYou noted the date of the article, right?
DeleteGive it to the Aussies to finish. They certainly couldn't do any worse.
ReplyDeleteA bit off topic, but this article struck me as weird - not the part about care packages not being delivered, but that our ships are running short of basic foodstuffs
ReplyDeletehttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/04/16/iran-war-mail-packages-middle-east/89609308007/