USN Prepares for Combat on the Budgetary Front

[rjmaz1]

US Military Prepares for Combat on the Budgetary front

Overall, the Navy’s shipbuilding plan is in serious jeopardy, and unless changes are made, future ships will have to be sacrificed to accommodate ever-increasing costs and delays.

Things do not look good for the US Navy.

The US Navy is often forced to continue buying regular large ships to keep ship building facilities open. Once an aircraft carrier is delivered to the Navy the next one is already begun being built.

The US Navy goals of reaching a certain number of ships looks unrealistic now. I think LCS will definitely get cancelled very soon. The current sub fleet may be sticking around for a while.

Where do you think the money will come from?

In my opinion the US Navy has to reduce the number of carrier battle groups it has. This then reduces the number of escorts required. The only way to reduce the number of carriers is to stop building new ones or retire a few of the current older ones. If they retire a few now they will free up enough money to maintain future aircraft carrier production. If they keep the current fleet and instead stop production of new carriers then they loose ship building capabilities that may be required in the future.

Automation should be improved dramatically. If you reduce the number of crew that control the boat from 100 to 50 then you also half the number of cooks, cleaners and other associated facilities required on the boat. This ripple effect also then allows for a smaller, cheaper boat not to mention the massive reduction in the wages paid to the crew.

What changes do you think will be made?

 

[harryriedl]

US Military Prepares for Combat on the Budgetary front


Things do not look good for the US Navy.

The US Navy is often forced to continue buying regular large ships to keep ship building facilities open. Once an aircraft carrier is delivered to the Navy the next one is already begun being built.

The US Navy goals of reaching a certain number of ships looks unrealistic now. I think LCS will definitely get cancelled very soon. The current sub fleet may be sticking around for a while.

Where do you think the money will come from?

In my opinion the US Navy has to reduce the number of carrier battle groups it has. This then reduces the number of escorts required. The only way to reduce the number of carriers is to stop building new ones or retire a few of the current older ones. If they retire a few now they will free up enough money to maintain future aircraft carrier production. If they keep the current fleet and instead stop production of new carriers then they loose ship building capabilities that may be required in the future.

Automation should be improved dramatically. If you reduce the number of crew that control the boat from 100 to 50 then you also half the number of cooks, cleaners and other associated facilities required on the boat. This ripple effect also then allows for a smaller, cheaper boat not to mention the massive reduction in the wages paid to the crew.

What changes do you think will be made?

the USN is under the most threat due to GWOT and they very limited involvement in the wars compared with the other services which means the Navy will have to have to do some serious lobbing to keep any idea of a 300 ship navy

 

[Systems Adict]

After 3 attempts to type this up & put in my point of view, I'm getting rather peeveed at my PC for crashing !¬!

So instead, I'm gonna insert some links to the World renowned RAND Corporation Website, to several articles that provide a wealth & depth of information that i would love to put in & claim as my own, but would probably get sued rotten for !!


Anyways, have a look, print them off / save them, (as long as they are for INDIVIDUAL USE !! / Not for sale !) & have a good old read, then you should understand how trying to manage this isn't the easiest thing on the planet !!

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG289.pdf

http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2006/RAND_CT259.pdf

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR480.pdf

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1743.pdf

Systems Adict

 

[Galrahn]

I'm going to wait and see the FY09 budget. The FY08 budget has future funding for 4 more ships and a submarine, I want to see the FY09 budget to see what is in store.

The fight is centered around future DDG-1000s, the first two will be built, the rest are yet to be seen. The LCS may also be in debate, but that is yet to be seen too.

The Analysis of Alternatives is due out anytime now, and will have more information regarding future plans.

 

[rjmaz1]

Reducing the number of new ships being purchased has many consequences. Not only does it reduce future ship building capabilities but also reduced the future strength of the Navy.

If the DDG-1000's are not built in high numbers then the Carrier Battle groups may not have enough escorts in the future.

Instead of thinly stretching everything between a certain number of carrier battle groups the USN could reduce the number of battle groups allowing sufficient escorts.

What is everyones opinion on less carrier battle groups?

The USN reduced the number after the cold war, another reduction may be coming?

 

[Pro'forma]

Reducing the number of new ships being purchased has many consequences. Not only does it reduce future ship building capabilities but also reduced the future strength of the Navy.

If the DDG-1000's are not built in high numbers then the Carrier Battle groups may not have enough escorts in the future.

Instead of thinly stretching everything between a certain number of carrier battle groups the USN could reduce the number of battle groups allowing sufficient escorts.

What is everyones opinion on less carrier battle groups?

The USN reduced the number after the cold war, another reduction may be coming?

The volume in fact should not be solely reducing. And less and less goes
nowhere. And what are carrier battle groups at for ?
Everyone knows bad tanks are reduced. Then, if not bad, what keeps
carriers effectively for tomorrow.
We are not loving reduced cold war. Who throws the points of peace ?

 

[rjmaz1]

The volume in fact should not be solely reducing. And less and less goes
nowhere. And what are carrier battle groups at for ?
Everyone knows bad tanks are reduced. Then, if not bad, what keeps
carriers effectively for tomorrow.
We are not loving reduced cold war. Who throws the points of peace ?

The money has to come from somewhere though. If they want to keep the US ship building industry afloat then they must continue procuring new ships. If they keep buying new ships they need to find money. The only option left to get money is to retire some of the current ships.

However it may turn out that they will have to retire multiple older ships for only 1 new ship. This will result in a significant reduction in the number of ships. Though they will be newer and more advanced. Keeping the current fleet is good for the short term, but retiring a lot of ships now will be better in the long run. You cant have both.

 

[RubiconNZ]

If the DDG-1000's are not built in high numbers then the Carrier Battle groups may not have enough escorts in the future.

I was unaware of Carrier escort being in the 1000's mission brief in fact cause I like procrastinating heres some sources
NGGS lists the DDG's Core mission

No mention Carrier escort there or in Naval Tech
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21/
or from PEOS

The Zummawalt to the best of my knowledge is greared towards littoral combat strikes, LO for working independently for Carrier protection, there is still 62 AB's and 22 Tico to look after that for a good 20+ years, so its unrelated to escort capability the DDG is about Naval shore support for the USMC provinding a 24/7 all weather fire support option.

The current sub fleet may be sticking around for a while.

Interesting information on the USN Sub plans here.
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/SPEF030807/ORourke_Testimony030807.pdf

This is also a good read keeping in mind requirements and what the Navy says it wants/needs.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans:
Background and Issues for Congress

 

[RubiconNZ]

Automation should be improved dramatically. If you reduce the number of crew that control the boat from 100 to 50 then you also half the number of cooks, cleaners and other associated facilities required on the boat. This ripple effect also then allows for a smaller, cheaper boat not to mention the massive reduction in the wages paid to the crew.

What changes do you think will be made?

Automation is all well and good but when talking about Surface Combatants as has been mentioned here before, once crews start getting to small capability is lost, the pool of availible crew for watch, sending a boarding party of 10 removes 1/5 of the ships crew, to my understanding most damage control is still performed by crew, in which you need numbers,
How many people are involved in putting a fire out on a ship? Maybe some in the know could comment?

I'm not against manpower reductions but it must be looked at in improving effieceny while retaining capability

If reducing sizes of boats, then range, weapon load out, electronics suites are reduced good capability comes at a cost. I even wonder about the effectiveness of the DDG 1000 crewed at such a low rate we will see how that turns out I suppose, they are the experts so they must think it can be done.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[RubiconNZ]

Talks of demise of this and that are premature. Budgets have been discussed rigorously and the main points centre on that navy estimates of costs are generally optimistic compared to reality.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8342&type=0

pdf version:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=7903&type=1

Here are some of the options discussed.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=7232&type=1

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6985&type=1

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/72xx/doc7232/05-31-Navy.pdf

The latest proposals to maximise fleet usage being discussed:

Crew rotation
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8771&type=1

Great links, very good information indeed
Cheers
Rob

 

[Galrahn]

One final point.

We should all realize the surface fleet is in fine shape. Between the CGs and DDGs that exist, your talking 84 ships over 9K tons until 2022.

If the DDG-1000 and Sea Base ideas get scraped, that is $42 billion in shipbuilding. The total LCS program at 55 ships even at the enormous cost increase is less than 20 billion, meaning with those funds alone the Navy could buy 110 more LCS above the 55 planned.

Serves the point that while there are issues, they are certainly managable with time on the side of the US Navy. If you want to see a surface fleet badly in need of warship replacements, check out the Royal Navy as they strive just to maintain 20 total surface combatants.

 

[Pro'forma]

The money has to come from somewhere though. If they want to keep the US ship building industry afloat then they must continue procuring new ships. If they keep buying new ships they need to find money. The only option left to get money is to retire some of the current ships.

However it may turn out that they will have to retire multiple older ships for only 1 new ship. This will result in a significant reduction in the number of ships. Though they will be newer and more advanced. Keeping the current fleet is good for the short term, but retiring a lot of ships now will be better in the long run. You cant have both.

Will be always money. In fact, to get the money, effectively got to be from
our selves. Should we save few days from proceedings, and spend a day
sitting as group, while not waisting allround rehearsal.

Long term we must go newer and more advanced saving working ethic.
Technological infrastructure is no to get heavier and incite to wasting.
With money you cant have both, we all must find our money to our
future work.

 

[contedicavour]

One final point.

We should all realize the surface fleet is in fine shape. Between the CGs and DDGs that exist, your talking 84 ships over 9K tons until 2022.

If the DDG-1000 and Sea Base ideas get scraped, that is $42 billion in shipbuilding. The total LCS program at 55 ships even at the enormous cost increase is less than 20 billion, meaning with those funds alone the Navy could buy 110 more LCS above the 55 planned.

Serves the point that while there are issues, they are certainly managable with time on the side of the US Navy. If you want to see a surface fleet badly in need of warship replacements, check out the Royal Navy as they strive just to maintain 20 total surface combatants.

Very interesting comments. DDG-1000 and Sea Base are worth almost 3 times the total LCS budget... :shudder
Since (as Galrahn mentions) there are enough modern CGs and DDGs around, I would expect funding to focus on building a decent class of patrol ships to replace the OHPs, not on building a small number of huge battleships...
By the way, LCS has a huge export potential which DDG-1000 obviously doesn't have. This could help the industry increase the weight of LCS programme vs DDG-1000.

cheers

 

[Galrahn]

By the way, LCS has a huge export potential which DDG-1000 obviously doesn't have. This could help the industry increase the weight of LCS programme vs DDG-1000.

Yep, with interest from India, Saudi Arabia, and Israel before the first is completed. With AEGIS and MK41 the variants are really impressive if you ask me, almost making me wish the US would buy a few of the export versions.

 

[metro]

Yep, with interest from India, Saudi Arabia, and Israel before the first is completed. With AEGIS and MK41 the variants are really impressive if you ask me, almost making me wish the US would buy a few of the export versions.

Yeah, I was going to mention this; with SA and Israel already asking or accounting for a total of 17 LCS's (don't know what India has asked for), and the systems that are being tested/integrated with them, doesn't that give the LCS a pretty good chance of being put into larger scale production for us/USN... also assuming the probability of other export orders?
Although I'm not sure what the final variants will include, I agree, what's being tested sounds impressive.

 

[Galrahn]

Although I'm not sure what the final variants will include, I agree, what's being tested sounds impressive.

No word yet on the Israeli version, but the Saudi version proposed comes with the remainer of space utilized for a MIW command center. (source stratfor)

 

[metro]

No word yet on the Israeli version, but the Saudi version proposed comes with the remainer of space utilized for a MIW command center. (source stratfor)

Interesting. I've been looking for an article I read that was pretty detailed about the LCS export program going forward for the two said countries (LOL, I think I read it anyway). In the meantime here's one link that talks about an "Israeli version being proposed/tested for order" (I believe it mentions the Saudi order as well... I think the only thing possibly holding that up is Congress, which is anything but "fast tracking" their arms order. If they don't approve it before the Holidays, I'm sure that it will be put through when they're on vacation--when Gov't is always most efficient )
In general the following site is pretty credible (IMO), but there definitely isn't a P.O# so I'd just take it for what is. I'll keep looking for the other article though...
link:
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/1107/news/141107_lcsi.htm

Peace

 

[Sea Toby]

The US Navy is a navy of numbers. You need two carriers to operate 24-7, as there is only one deck crew aboard the carriers. One deck crew cannot operate all day and then all night.

With two carriers in the Atlantic, and two carriers in the Pacific operating, with ship and crew rotation of one in three the US Navy needs 12 carriers. If the US Navy was willing to cut that to one carrier in each ocean operating, it could be cut to 6 carriers. Unfortunately, not many admirals wish to operate one carrier with only a 12 hour availability every day.

The US Navy had plans for 15 carriers in the Reagan 600 ship navy, adding a carrier in the Indian Ocean with help from a swing carrier from either oceans. That is gone.

We are currently operating two swing carriers, one from each ocean in the Indian Ocean. Thus leaving one operating carrier in both oceans. By masking the proper rotation during peacetime we are overcoming the number problems currently, but would you wish to do so with a wartime navy? I mean a war with Russia or China?

America don''t forget the lessons learned at Samoa during the late 1880s. All three Pacific ship assets sunk during a typhoon versus German and British naval assets. We don't need another debacle.

Of course, we could double the flight deck crews, but then we end up with double bunking and reenlistment problems. There is a reason why we built a two ocean navy during WWII. There is a reason why we have maintained a two ocean navy since. There is a reason why we are in the Indian Ocean today, with no assets planned for this ocean.

There is a reason why carriers are built in Newport News. There is a reason why our amphibious assault ships such as the Wasp are built in Mississippi. Look at the size of their engraving docks.