US Navy News and updates

[John Fedup]

The cost to repair Bonhomme Richard is unknown at this time but it will be significant and the timeframe of 2-4 years versus 3 years to build a new America class ship (plus an additional 2 years for commissioning) makes a new ship pretty enticing, especially if the repair time is closer to 4 years. I suspect a cost/ service life analysis will be the deciding factor concerning a repair.

 

[hauritz]

When you consider the amount of damage, and the age of the ship, it would hardly seem to be worth the effort trying to bring it back into service. There are other options. I would just accelerate the construction rate of the America class and delay the retirement of the oldest Wasp class for a few more years. In a worst case scenario you still have a couple of Tarawa's sitting in reserve.

 

[Todjaeger]

Firstly, I have to admit that other than the news reports that came out at the time of the incident, I haven't read much else about what exactly happened, but for the content of this reply i want to put that to one side.

As an exercise in rebuilding lost skills & being pig headed to prove a point, I would say that there is a viability in what is being suggested for THIS ship. Other types / classes would automatically be written off due to their design / complexity &cost to repair versus replace. An overview of the last 15 years & the incidents/accidents that have befell several Arleigh Burke's, should not be viewed in the same way, as the AB's are still being manufactured, so it is feasible to have parts "made to order" for repairs.

Look at it logically. Imagine that an LHD is effectively x3 tiers of a wedding cake. The base is where all the fuel is stored & the majority of the plant that allow the ship to operate (Engines / gearbox / steering controls / fuel tanks). The middle tier is the cavernous space where the landing dock is / storage for vehicles (land & water based) / hangar area for storage/care/maintenance of aircraft (including the bomb shops / magazines). Upper tier is the flight deck / bridge / control tower for flight ops & the radar / radio / communications farm.

At this time the base is effectively intact (albeit that miles of cables that go from power generation / signalling systems / comms, all go to areas that have been ravaged by fire, making them effectively useless / needing replaced).

The middle & upper tiers are where all the damage is & while the ship is 20 odd years old, she would be likely to have been kept in service for a total of 45 - 50 years. The US is one of the few nations in the western world to predominately keep her old ships, so with over 250 vessels currently on the books as active, there are probably around another 200 vessels of different types & classes, sat in various states of 'mothballed' conditions.

The US has a wide/varied amount of equipment, but it has had a tendency to try & keep continuity across classes/types for decades, only really updating the newest vessels joining the fleet with the newest equipment, then slowly updating & retrofitting older ships as they progress. It is this wide base of kit & its length of service that will give the US Navy the ability to pull-thru a lot of 'older equipment' to rebuild / keep the LHD going.

The retrofit of new steel to the upper two tiers will be a hard task, but 2 - 4 years of work (with no hard charging to get the ship back into the fleet), they should be able to manage it. From a cost perspective if the have to spend 30 - 55% of what the ship originally cost, then it will be worth it, as they will effectively be saving 45 - 70% of the cost of a complete new ship.

I appreciate that it will be an uphill battle, with many from our modern 'throw-away' society questioning the logic, but as long as the surveyors / structural engineers & Naval Architects believe it is possible & the Navy/Administration are prepared to fund it, it will be a totally worth while exercise...

I think something should be clarified in terms of how long the USN typically keeps various types of vessels commissioned and in active service. While the USN's CVN supercarriers are designed to have 50 year service lives, it seems that most vessels tend to see about 30 years of service. After which, the vessels are decommissioned and either disposed of or put into reserve for a period of time, depending on projected needs and the capabilities of the vessel itself. Looking at ships of the Tarawa-class LHA, which was the class which preceded the Wasp-class LHD, the longest serving ship saw ~35 years of service before getting put into reserve but the average service life was ~31 years.

Applying that to the current USS Bonhomme Richard, then it would have been quite possible that she would be replaced within a decade had no major fire broken out. This in turn makes me question whether or not it would be worth the time and treasure required to repair the Bonhomme Richard for a return to service. The more extensive the work done to repair the LHD and extend the service life, the more time and treasure required. The more time and treasure involved, the closer the point becomes where having a brand new vessel constructed would be faster and/or less expensive while having a longer service life.

 

[Systems Adict]

@ John Fedup/Hauritz/Todjager

You all make valid points of discussion & they are probably the same comments that are being considered by the navy & the pentagon.

Capital ships (such as LHD / Carriers) are a different breed, due to the physical size & their construction. The 'open box' internals for Landing dock / vehicle storage/hangar bays, etc means that there is a whole big area of deck footprint space, with 'little' towards the sides of the ship, in comparison to frigates & destroyers, which apart from the intake/uptakes areas, are packed from side to side with compartments.

Looking at Western navies since 2000, most of the ships that have been damaged have been 'workhorse' ships (i.e. destroyers & frigates), so it makes some sense to keep these ships going for as long as possible, although the cost of repairs may be a hard & bitter pill to swallow. These activities are well documented across the internet, so looking at The UK Type 42 Destroyer, HMS Nottingham, seeing the tasking, the repairs conducted & the length of service post repair will be looked at by statisticians, to help drive the repair/new build line of thought.

I'm sure that the USN already has a wealth of data to use as a baseball bat to drive this in the 'correct direction', even though having the repair skills will pay dividends in the decades to come as the current workforce globally seems to be dwindling in the engineering sector, with the large end of the wedge at the area where most are over 55 years of age, a large gap & the other next largest area being under 35 with 'limited' experience, due to the cyclic nature / boom & bust / staying in a job for 5 years max routines that are plaguing the younger generation.

THAT however, is as they say, 'off-topic'....

SA

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

The first four of the produced LCSs are planned to be retired and scrapped in 2021, after 11 years of service, but the production of new ones still continue.

The Future USS Savannah (LCS 28) Christened at Austal USA - Naval News

A small audience of dignitaries celebrated the christening of the future USS Savannah (LCS 28) today at Austal’s advanced ship manufacturing facility. Savannah is the 14th of 19 small surface combatants Austal USA has under contract with the U.S. Navy.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Around two weeks ago photos from a cute little tiny smol US Navy boat appeared on the internet. Well, its a real one, and the USN seems to have multiple vessels of this class..

This Little Baby Boat May Be the Smallest Ship in the Navy

At just 19 feet long, it's used to deploy underwater fences. D'awww.

www.popularmechanics.com

 

[John Fedup]

The first four of the produced LCSs are planned to be retired and scrapped in 2021, after 11 years of service, but the production of new ones still continue.

The Future USS Savannah (LCS 28) Christened at Austal USA - Naval News

A small audience of dignitaries celebrated the christening of the future USS Savannah (LCS 28) today at Austal’s advanced ship manufacturing facility. Savannah is the 14th of 19 small surface combatants Austal USA has under contract with the U.S. Navy.

www.navalnews.com

I recall reading somewhere that the first four ships were more or less considered as engineering prototypes and this was the “excuse” for retiring them after only 11 years service. Can’t imagine the first block III AB or the upcoming first new frigate would be written off after 11 years.

 

[oldsig127]

I recall reading somewhere that the first four ships were more or less considered as engineering prototypes and this was the “excuse” for retiring them after only 11 years service. Can’t imagine the first block III AB or the upcoming first new frigate would be written off after 11 years.

This news is now many months old and has been discussed here previously at length. They're being retired because they are so different from the succeeding ships that sustainment is more expensive than replacing them. I'd imagine that would be a valid reason to get rid of any equipment.

oldsig

 

[Flexson]

On 3 Aug the USNI News, Fleet and Marine Tracker reported a Battle Force count of 301.
On 10 Aug that had dropped to 298.
Now it has dropped to 295 I assume due to the 3 recently decommissioned MCM vessels; Champion, Scout and Ardent.
Does anyone know what caused the earlier drop from 301 to 298?

 

[Blackshoe]

The retrofit of new steel to the upper two tiers will be a hard task, but 2 - 4 years of work (with no hard charging to get the ship back into the fleet), they should be able to manage it. From a cost perspective if the have to spend 30 - 55% of what the ship originally cost, then it will be worth it, as they will effectively be saving 45 - 70% of the cost of a complete new ship.

I appreciate that it will be an uphill battle, with many from our modern 'throw-away' society questioning the logic, but as long as the surveyors / structural engineers & Naval Architects believe it is possible & the Navy/Administration are prepared to fund it, it will be a totally worth while exercise...

One other factor that must be discussed in this proposal is the sacrificing dry dock space to accomplish this. Going forth on this projects means [however long it takes] worth of precious dry dock is not available, and that realistically means sacrificing a lot of yard periods for West Coast-based ships. And there is no way it's worth that.

 

[John Fedup]

Looks like the Zumwalt class may yet have a use for their AGS. The recent testing of HVPs in power guns to down a cruise missile may see application of these rounds with the AGS. At $75k a round, a 10 times reduction from the AGS’s previous ammo! Also downing cruise missiles seems more useful than shore bombardment with $800k rounds.

Testing Points To Relevance Of Hyper Velocity Projectile For Zumwalt Destroyer's Dormant Guns

A version of the Zumwalt's beleaguered Advanced Gun System shot down a cruise missile with a Hyper Velocity Projectile during a major land-based test.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Volkodav]

Looks like the Zumwalt class may yet have a use for their AGS. The recent testing of HVPs in power guns to down a cruise missile may see application of these rounds with the AGS. At $75k a round, a 10 times reduction from the AGS’s previous ammo! Also downing cruise missiles seems more useful than shore bombardment with $800k rounds.

Testing Points To Relevance Of Hyper Velocity Projectile For Zumwalt Destroyer's Dormant Guns

A version of the Zumwalt's beleaguered Advanced Gun System shot down a cruise missile with a Hyper Velocity Projectile during a major land-based test.

www.thedrive.com

Been reading a little on the HVP and found myself wondering if it could be developed into a viable counter for Chinas DF21 etc. Hyper velocity kinetic impacts may be more viable than missile proximity hits, aim to physically smash the incoming warhead.

 

[Systems Adict]

More 'comment' on USS Bonhomme Richard...

For the fire-ravaged ship Bonhomme Richard, the US Navy has no good options

 

[John Fedup]

More 'comment' on USS Bonhomme Richard...

For the fire-ravaged ship Bonhomme Richard, the US Navy has no good options

For sure, a difficult decision. IMHO, whatever option is decided upon, it must not impede the Columbia program ( or Virginia). Probably a new build with special Congressional funding is the preferred outcome.

 

[Volkodav]

For sure, a difficult decision. IMHO, whatever option is decided upon, it must not impede the Columbia program ( or Virginia). Probably a new build with special Congressional funding is the preferred outcome.

Maybe redirect funding from "the wall".

Apologies, I couldn't help myself.

 

[John Fedup]

Maybe redirect funding from "the wall".

Apologies, I couldn't help myself.

Damn, can’t believe I didn’t think of that!

 

[StobieWan]

I suspect the decision will be post-January either way - no sense in making decisions that may be OBE (overtaken by elections)

 

[spoz]

Interesting article on the USNI news page: SECDEF Esper Calls for 500-Ship Fleet by 2045, With 3 SSNs a Year and Light Carriers Supplementing CVNs - USNI News. Not only does SECDEF want a 500+ ship Navy he has actually slaughtered a sacred cow and proposed CVs as a supplement to CVNs. Must be causing a bit of apoplexy in USN and Congress. But is clearly pushing for a more lethal and less vulnerable Navy; more submarines and frigates; and a considerable investment in USVs and UUVs of various sorts.

Also from the USNI institute news, although not the same story, SECNAV has named the first FFG(X) Constellation. Been onboard both the CV and the sailing frigate which is a memorial in Baltimore harbour; good to see that name revived although it is causing a bit of heartburn on a number of USN related sites where it is seen to be a name more appropriate for a CV - can't really argue with that.

 

[ngatimozart]

The CV idea is good especially if they can use an existing LHD design as the template. Some with angled flight deck and CATOBAR, with others as straight through decks for the F-35B and have the USMC flying off them. That would be a good mix. But the question is going to be numbers and how many they can afford, along with the aviation assets to equip them with and the people to crew them. Finally where are they going to build them? From what I have been reading their shipyards are running out of capacity because they just don't have the qualified workforce like they used to.

 

[vonnoobie]

Wanting to increase navy size when they really don't even have the capacity to meet current size. Needs less of an investment in growing the navy and more into rebuilding their shipbuilding industry. Trying to get such a fleet size just going to see some extending the lives of existing ships to get the 500 ship navy on paper though in real world it will be aged and maintenance heavy.