Burke Destroyer Adrift

By now I’m sure you’ve heard that the USS Benfold, a Burke class destroyer, was left adrift, without any power, for four days.  Worse, the crew was unable to repair the ship in that time and had to be towed to port where repairs required an additional ten days or so.
 

Benfold lost power on July 24. It was towed to Subic Bay on July 28. Power was restored two days later with all repairs completed by Aug. 7 …[1]

Ships break down all the time and engineering casualties are far from uncommon.  That a breakdown occurred does not bother me as there has been no trend of Burke class engineering casualties that I’m aware of.  So … stuff breaks.  It happens.  No big deal.  However, there are a few disturbing aspects to this incident.
 
Bear in mind that we have no details about what happened.
 
Repair – It is disturbing that the crew was unable to restore even partial power during four days.  A ship that can’t repair itself, at least to a “limp along” capability, is a poorly designed ship.  Was the crew lacking machine shops?  No qualified technicians?  No parts on hand?  Lack of knowledge about their own ship?
 
We know that the Navy has drastically de-emphasized onboard maintenance and has all but eliminated onboard maintenance and machine shops.  This is a disturbing trend for warships that can expect to find themselves damaged at sea and out of reach of immediate assistance.  It is vital that ships be able to repair themselves at least enough to escape the area.  Ships did this routinely in WWII.  We’ve all but lost this capability today.
 
Generators – The Burke class has multiple generators of various types, including emergency generators, physically remote from each other.  Total power failure should be impossible.  Even an explosion should not be able to take out every generator.  I can’t even imagine what kind of failure can result in total power loss especially since there have been no reports of explosions, fire, or any other destructive calamity.
 
We’ll have to wait to find out the details (my guess is that the Navy will classify the news as seems to be their habit now) but this has to be a screaming cry to the Navy’s ship designers to modify the design and damage control procedures to prevent this from ever happening again.  Even if the fuel supply were suddenly contaminated to the point of unusability, I would assume that a Burke has multiple, isolated fuel tanks.  Maybe not?  Again, we’ll have to wait and see.
 
Repair Time – It is also disturbing that it required ten days to repair even after being towed back to port.  Again, with no calamitous event, what go have happened that would require ten days of repairs?  Was the time period due to the complexity of the repair or, alternatively, a lack of repair capability in port (Subic Bay)?

_______________________________

 
[1]USNI News website, “USS Benfold Leaves Japan After Returning from Power Failure Repairs”, Heather Mongilio, 17-Aug-2026,
https://news.usni.org/2026/08/17/uss-benfold-leaves-japan-after-returning-from-power-failure-repairs

Kings Bay Dry Dock Repair

Arguably, the Navy’s biggest shortcoming is adequate repair and maintenance facilities and capacity.  A major part of that is the system of aging and inadequate dry docks.  A few years ago, the Navy committed to a 20 year, $21B overhaul of its public shipyards and dry docks and, in a somewhat surprising development, has been following through on that commitment by issuing contracts for repair of facilities and dry docks … at least, for now.

 

I desperately like to give credit where credit is due – an all too rare occurrence regarding the Navy – and one such example is the repair work for the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay dry dock in Georgia.

 

From the Department of Defense contract award announcements website,

 

Alberici-Mortenson JV, St. Louis, Missouri, is awarded a $12,969,452 firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract N69450-20-C-0016. This modification provides for the recapitalization of the dry dock at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia. Work will be performed in St. Marys, Georgia, and is expected to be completed by April 2023. This modification brings the total cumulative value of the contract to $625,470,806.[2]

 

Dry Dock - Kings Bay, GA

 Here's some detail about the work.

Under an IDIQ contract, the joint venture team of Burns & McDonnell and Moffatt & Nichol have been awarded a series of task orders with Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast (NAVFAC-SE) for a $474 million repair project at the Trident Refit Facility, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia.

 

Alternately titled “Dry Dock Recapitalization,” “TRF Dry Dock Repair,” and simply “Dry Dock Repairs,” the massive effort at the East Coast home of Trident nuclear-powered submarines began with a study, moved into design, and is now in Phase A of construction. NAVFAC-SE’s scope of work encompasses repairs to the massive structure—the largest covered dry dock in the Northern hemisphere—inclusive of building structure and envelope, power, lighting, fire protection, HVAC, plumbing, and support equipment and infrastructure. All existing training and maintenance facilities will be retrofitted, and some new facilities will be constructed to support the next generation of submarines.[1]

 

Dry dock maintenance and repair is desperately needed and far too long overdue.  From a Heritage Foundation report,

 

“The Navy’s attack submarines have also evolved, but the dry docks that service them have not: 17 dry docks can service older Los Angeles-class submarines, but only 12 can accommodate their replacement, the Virginia-class submarine, and only seven can service the newest Block V Virginia-class submarine, which is 83 feet longer than earlier variants and displaces an additional 2,400 tons,” the report reads.[3]

 

The Navy should be ashamed of the state of its maintenance and dry dock facilities and many CNO’s should be recalled to active duty and subjected to courts martial over the decades long neglect but at least the Navy is belatedly beginning to address the problem.  If they’ll diligently and aggressively continue to pursue the repair program then credit is due.  Well done, Navy.  Keep it up.

 

 

_______________________________

 

[1]https://axiasinc.com/naval-sub-base-kings-bay-dry-dock

 

[2]https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/3151585/

 

[3]https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/03/19/the-us-navys-shaky-plan-to-save-its-shipyards-is-getting-overhauled/

USS Fitzgerald Returns

USS Fitzgerald, repaired after the Jun 2017 collision, recently completed its first deployment since the incident.  Fitzgerald completed three years, almost to the day, of repairs in Jun 2020.  Contrast this to the USS Yorktown that had extensive battle damage repaired in three days, as we just discussed.  Admittedly, this is peacetime and the urgency is not there but three years to repair a damaged ship does not bode well for war.

USS Connecticut, SSN-22, Collision and Repair Timeline

It has been 9 months since USS Connecticut, SSN-22, suffered an underwater collision with a sea mount in the South China Sea.  Let’s review the timetable with an eye towards what this tells us about our potential wartime battle damage repair capability and capacity.

 

 

2-Oct-2021        Collision with sea mount in South China Sea

8-Oct-2021        Arrived Guam for temporary repairs

4-Nov-2021       CO, XO, COB reported relieved

18-Nov-2021      Leaves Guam for temporary repair sea trial

12-Dec-2021      Arrives San Diego after surface transit from Guam

15-Dec-2021      Left San Diego, CA

20-Dec-2021      Arrived Puget Sound for thorough damage assessment

21-Dec-2021      Arrived Bremerton, WA for repairs

?-Feb-2023        Scheduled start of permanent repairs

 

The damage is expected to be repaired during a scheduled Extended Docking Selected Restricted Availability starting in February 2023.[2]

 

If – and that’s a very big ‘if’ – the repairs start on time in Feb 2023, it will have been 16 months since the collision.  That’s a pretty poor repair response for peacetime and would be atrocious during war. 

 

Here is what little we know about the extent of the damage.  Based on photos – because the Navy isn’t saying anything – the bow was sheared off (or removed as part of temporary repairs) and the sonar dome is gone, presumably resting at the bottom of the South China Sea.[2]  Reports suggest that the rudder is damaged, as well.

 

What will that cost to repair?  Here is a hint at the magnitude of the eventual repair bill.

 

Buried deep in the National Defense Authorization Act, two lines—crafted to prevent easy searching—authorize the Navy to receive an initial tranche of $50 million in repair funds—$10 million for a “spare Seawolf class bow dome” (page 1815) and $40 million for “USS Connecticut emergent repairs” (page 1850).[1]

 

That’s $50M just for the beginning of the repair bill, largely intended to cover long lead items.  A reasonable guess would put the final repair bill in the $300M-$400M range.

 

As a comparison, here is the cost and timing for a similar repair on the Los Angeles class submarine, USS San Francisco:

 

In 2005, the USS San Francisco, a Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarine, also struck an underwater mountain, a crash that killed a sailor and injured 97 others. It took 3 1/2 years in Puget Sound to install a sonar dome from the decommissioned USS Honolulu onto the boat, in maintenance that in total cost $134 million.[3]

 

USS San Francisco

The USS McCain required 2 yrs and 2 months to complete repairs.  The USS Fitzgerald required 3 yrs to return to active duty and repair costs were reported as $327M[4].

 

We’re looking at a 2025-2026 time frame to return to active service.  That’s four or five years to effect repairs and that’s only if the repairs start on time which I strongly doubt will happen. 

 

This incident and the Navy’s near state of paralysis regarding the repairs tells us what we need to know about our ability to deal with wartime battle damage … we have no abililty!

 

Damage repair, whether due to combat or accidents, is critical for the maintenance of a strong fleet.  Our repair capacity is almost non-existent, repair timelines are terrible, and costs are enormous.  Our repair response is atrocious.  We have no ability to ‘surge’ a repair. 

 

‘Surge’ a repair?  Yes!  If you recall, the USS Yorktown, CV-5, was badly damaged at the Battle of the Coral Sea.  Repair estimates were for 90 days.  In a massive repair surge, Yorktown was repaired in 3 days and sailed to participate in the Battle of Midway.  The repair surge involved 1400 men and required rolling blackouts in Hawaii to supply the required power for the repair effort.

 

Connecticut’s repair surge is going to require something on the order of 4-5+ years.

 

Yikes!

 

We are not ready for war.

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

 

[1]Forbes website, “Congress Authorizes Millions For Repairs Of USS Connecticut”, Craig Hooper, 20-Dec-2021,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2021/12/20/congress-authorizes-millions-for-uss-connecticut-ssn-22-repairs/?sh=24e12022656c

 

[2]Naval News website, “U.S. Navy Comments On USS Connecticut Submarine”, Peter Ong, 5-Jul-2022,

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/07/u-s-navy-comments-on-uss-connecticut-submarine/

 

[3]Yahoo News website, “USS Connecticut, damaged in crash with underwater mountain, arrives in Bremerton”, Josh Farley, 21-Dec-2021,

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uss-connecticut-damaged-crash-underwater-220043902.html

 

[4]USNI News website, “USS Fitzgerald Leaves Mississippi Drydock After More Than a Year of Repairs”, Sam LaGrone, 16-Apr-2019,

https://news.usni.org/2019/04/16/uss-fitzgerald-leaves-mississippi-drydock-after-more-than-a-year-of-repairs