I don't know about you - but I feel dirty just reading it.
Via Chris Cavas,
The U.S. Navy's two command ships, each about 40 years old, are busy vessels. The Japan-based Blue Ridge, flagship of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, recently completed a cruise around the Far East and supported relief operations in Japan. The Mount Whitney, flagship of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, served as a headquarters ship for the initial coalition strikes in March against Libya.... or as I call it - failure in leadership and vision.
The ships are at a stage in their service lives where the Navy normally might be expected to plan for replacements. But in a recent update to the 30-year shipbuilding plans, the ships have been extended to serve another 28 years — until 2039.
That would mean the Blue Ridge, launched in January 1969, will have spent more than 70 years in the water. The Mount Whitney is one year younger.
We have covered the curse of the unsexy here, USNIBlog, and Midrats. We all know what is going on, and it is sad.
I guess we think we can fool others - but let's talk as adults to each other - isn't this really just a sham - and a shame? Who will stand up to this - or are we once again showing confusion between loyalty to personalities vs. loyalty to institutions?
We will have to wait longer for our Sims, Connolly, and Mitchells. We accept that CDR and CAPT should fall on their swords for failing standards - but with at greater than 1.0/ship Flag Officer presence in our Navy - there is no accountability for where we are going.
The Imperial Admiralty; indeed.
Hat tip JD.
107 comments:
<span>"Who will stand up to this - or are we once again showing confusion between loyalty to personalities vs. loyalty to institutions?" Admiral Harvey call your office...that is all. </span>
Sal,
Who dismisses the Imperial Admiralty when faith has been lost in their ability to lead? If not Harvey, then whom?
Fuss at me all you want about decorum...
This is emblematic of a navy that has totally lost its identity as an effective fighting organization.
Used to be flagships looked like this.
Proud ships that never gave up a fight.
And not like some geriatric charter bus....
Ok Fleet Flags...
This is how the world will see your navy .
Sid,
The only thing missing from the picture of that chicken bus are the guys bitching about a crappy cell signal and being oblivious to the goings on around them...
We have more chiefs than warriors, my tribe...
Slashing the flag officer numbers might not save up enough for more ships but definitely will improve things organizational.
Heck, even this old airdale has a Blue Ridge story. I was in boot camp at San Diego, summer of 1976. USS Blue Ridge was in the harbor. My company was just getting started in fire fighting instruction. We were outdoors, sitting on bleachers, listening to a 1st class and a chief talk about the basics, when the chief stopped talking and was staring out past the bleachers, He said something to the effect of "holy sh1t" and we all instinctively turned around to see what was going on.
Now, I had seen pics of Blue Ridge before I enlisted, and there she was, with this huge cloud of oily black smoke billowing up from the aft part of the ship. All sorts of whistles and horns were going off, and there was a serious commotion. We were that way for a few minutes, when the Chief orders us back to our places and we went back to the lessons.
Turns out that a fueld tank has burst and sent fuel into the engineering spaces, which caught fire and cuased the conflagration we were witnesses to. That, at least is what were told later on.
The Chief used the example as a warning to us about needing to know our fire fighting drills, and to always be prepared because you NEVER knew when something might happen and you'd be needed to help save your ship and your shipmates. We paid serious attention after that.
Off topic, slightly, but that always stuck with me and reminded me about complacency and how you could get killed real easy, even in port.
Crying Wolf ? Why bother, no one pays any attention to our country's prolonged fiscal insanity.
At the present rate of replacement, NAVSEA had best take exceptionally good care of all her existing AEGIS destroyers.
Because ? They will need to last around 60 years of service.
That's like keeping the 31 old Spruance tin cans deploying until the year 2040.
(The above can be argued to death and also can change, of course, if the will of the country and our Naval Leadership gets their acts in gear.)
Spent 4 years on COMSEVENTHFLT Staff onboard BLUE RIDGE in Yokosuka in the Late 80s/Early 90's. Ship was old back then. We were in constantly in drydock at SRF Yokosuka getting updated with the latest and greatest communcation equipment at the time.
You guys place too much faith in Harvey. He's not the solution-he's just another part of the problem. He should be sent home along with 100 other flags out of the 364+ we have.
Old flagships ?? Old was riding the USS Eldorado AGC11 in the 1960s. Most of the the comm suite still had WWII blown glass tubes with wires running back to the plate and grid circuits and that was the reliable stuff. The totally unreliable stuff was our half hearted attempts at modernization and minaturization.
You remember this stuff when the girls notice that your hair shifted from platinum to white.
Spent two years on USS BLUE RIDGE 95-97. She was in great shape then and fulfilled her role as C7F Flagship with no problems. Not being a 'ship of the line', she will likely make it to 2039 without too much difficulty.
Seventy year old warships, 80 year old bombers...lack of vision and leadership, indeed.
Plenty of "Hope and Change" (aka "panem et circenses") for the masses, though. All is well, I'm sure... =-O
Dude, if I ever take over the Moran's gig at NAVSTA Norfolk, I'm going to name all of my tugboats ANON...because you, my friend, are always towing the line!
Seriously you should be careful, you spend too much time on your knees you will develop arthritis!
Reporter: "Mr President, can you please explain the poor state of shipbuilding in the USN, and what your plan is?"
Obama: "Hey, we gave them new tires!"
Ahh, why worry? When the fleet is half LCSs, we'll just procure a "Command Ship" mission package.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Check out this vintage photo of an afloat staff...
Caption here.
Don't have the time at the moment to chronicle all I've found out about those gents, but even a quick and cursory google will let you know they were a right exemplary bunch.
I doubt they would be satisfied with riding an 80 year old camioneta.
I know...I know.
Things are different now...etc etc
However, contrast and compare titles, ranks, and resumes between them and a contemporary afloat staff.
Who would you rather follow into war?
Well, you know, naval architecture and ship engineering design are not the most natural subjects in the world, and sometimes people can be far better operators than engineers. I count myself among that number.
Of course, there was a time when to be a naval officer meant you were a fair naval architect in your own right.
Yikes. I did engineering MTT visits on those two in...1991-ish and the plants and hulls were ugly then. Also 7th Fleet briefs in the later 90s...cripes. With all the hoo-ha about improvemnts in comms and computers, seems like a FLT CINC (whups, still can't say CINC) should be able to do what he/she need to on a friggin' smart phone from the commodores cabin on a DDG. I think the Blue Ridge and Mt Whitney also went to CIVMAR engineering and nav crews a while back also, since regular Navy could keep them going...
Dude you were on her 14 years ago......and you think you know what her materiel condition is today? Sheesh...that's like saying "oh we did a boiler BSOI on her about 15 years ago, I expect that everything is still running well. oh wait, we're supposed to do that ever 5????"
<span>Of course, there was a time when to be a naval officer meant you were a fair naval architect in your own right.</span>
Doc. Check out the gent first row second from right in the photo I linked below...
Commander Allan R. McCann, Damage Control Officer
Here is what he was up to a year later...
But that was some years after he accomplsihed this:
During 1929-31, Lieutenant Commander McCann was assigned to the Bureau of Construction and Repair, where he was responsible for final development of a submarine rescue diving bell, which came to be called the "McCann Rescue Chamber".
Today, such a program would require 10 years of powerpoints, several billion dollars in cost overruns, and at least one Congressional hearing to get it done...
And then it still wouldn't work worth a damn.
Now this is funny!
Well, this sounds like a genius move. In fact, it's so brilliant why don't we just do this with the enitre fleet? Think how much money we'd save.
I keep reading about all these ships that will retire in the 2020s. And it sounds like a huge, expensive problem. But this looks like a solution -- just require them to stay in service to 2040. Boom! Problem solved.
If there's any lingering doubt you could even pass a law that all ships will last 70 years. Take that rust!
A lot of people don't realize that the laws of physics can be repealed with a very firmly written statement. You have to be really firm, though. Ya got to mean it. It's all about willpower.
Rust is for wussies! If you are man enough then sheer force of will will keep the ship in perfect working order indefinitely. Saltwater is a state of mind. You just gotta want it. Give 110%.
Same thing works for holding back the tide. If you are a true kung fu 11th level naval black belt then you can become literally immune to the tides.
No, they think if you are a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt you can hold back the tides and rust.
Pretty much what I was thinking.
You forgot the part where the inventor would be a terminal LCDR with an MP ranking.
Wasn't there an attempt about five or six years ago as an attempt to keep some Pascagoula yard open for the Navy to buy at like 10x the going price a pair of unfinished cruise liners and have them converted into command ships? Of which this deal was being brokered by the Trent Lott at the time? With deals like that and deals like this it is no wonder why ship building is screwed up here in the US.
Somewhat off subject, but I do hope the enemy has been notified that future battles at sea will be decided by comparative FITREP rankings and won't attempt anything as uncouth as to determine the contest via old and worn-out kinetic effects...
Problem there is they would then have to clean their own heads....
That will require a multi-billion dollar solution.
We should start planning now the Command Celebration marking the first time a Grandfather, a Father, and a son have all served onboard the same active Naval vessel.
This was mildly amusing when I would read about father-son baseball players talking about how neither one could get a hit off Nolan Ryan....not so funny when Naval ships and operational commitments are on the line...
All you have to do is...
RESPECT THE PROCESS!
and you will win.
Thats what our Lean Six Sigma Black Belt gurus tell us.
Did two tours on AGF-3 out of Gaeta.
The first tour was when we relieved Belknap, and the second was after her disastrous yard period in Toulon. One thing I learned about "Staff" is that a Flag Staff follows the gas laws. It expands to fill the container in which it is in. And oddly enough, when compressed into a smaller volume, tempers....I mean temperatures rise.
In other words, you can't design a Flagship with enough space to happily house the Staff.
So, why don't we just go for the gusto, admit that no current Naval hull can be modified to meet the needs or wants, and do a follow-on to the Hospital Ship concept?
There is more then enough room for comms antennas topside, the flight deck gives ample room for helo ops, and there is plenty of room in the hull for everything from battle spaces to a gym, with a sauna/hot tub. And yes, during my time on LaSalle, there was honest discussion as to why there couldn't be a sauna, or hot tub for Staff.
Now this makes a great rationale for NAVSEA to take over the Olympia!!!!
She is only just now reaching old age according to this new math.
Heck. Slap a commissioning pennant on her quick!
Well, part of the reason we are in this mess is that we decommissioned and scrapped a load of ships far too early. Of the DD-963s, only Spruance herself (and EDD-964) reached 30 years, and a large number were retired at or before the 20-year mark. Worse, ALL of the Virginias were retired with fewer than 20 years in commission. The Californias both went out of service with plenty of life left in the hulls. None were retained in reserve. The first 5 Ticonderogas were decommissioned rather than modified, only one with more than 20 years' service. Forty-one modern ships decommissioned and scrapped. And we wonder why we have a Navy headed for 150 ships?
Imagine the CGNs as a dedicated 8" gun platform?
At least we didn't give them to the Goddamned Pakistanis.
Plenty of Air Force pilots have flown in their father's B-52s. Does that mean they are obsolete and not needed in today's military?
Plenty of Air Force pilots have flown in their father's B-52s. Does that mean they are obsolete and not needed in today's military?
A ship with a 70 year working service life is not entirely unprecedented for auxiliaries. See here:
http://uglyships.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/kommuna/
Just a thought.
some things never change the newer they get the older they are.
C
It is a bit of a scandal the B-52s are so old and still in service, but thank goodness we still have something like them.
Ticonderoga herself was built on the lower missississsipi.
i supplied a small amount of "Government Furnished Material". the stuff was returned as being unacceptable several times even though it was factory new. it became obvious that it was not the quality of the material, it was the delay that was the thing. (i would supply/return the material in hours they would declare it unacceptable in months). when i advised the item manager at spcc that it appeared as though there was an attempt to blame a late launching on gfm the problem went away in a day.
it used to be a rule of thumb that the first ship of a class was a clunker to be and that the third was the real stuff. but remember that a tico is a spruance with a different set of upper decks.
its a shame that the first five tico's were decommissioned that early.
C
Perhaps NAVAL flagships should not resemble broken down tramp freighters operated by contract crew...
Just a thought.
"Not a ship of the line" - well maybe, but just where is the front line, and is there such a thing as a non-combatant ship (or servicemeber for that matter) today?
Don't forget about USMC CH-46's....
The very youngest are 21 years old...And many were in Vietnam.
my yard had blue ridge in dry dock in the late seventies. we had to do some very heavy underwater work (stuff that should not have needed to be done until 25 yrs of age in her service).
the ship was not built to navy standards but commercial.
i would speculate that the electronics are whats keeping the ship afloat now. because i would bet that the hull is 99% clad welding.
C
...70 year old USN "warships", 80 year old USAF bombers & NO replacement for the US Space Shuttle (1982-2011)...
I remember when AMERICA was a Technical Powerhouse and could do or build anything on The Sea, In The Air, or Space :'(
The first five cruisers had to go because they could not economically be converted to VLS. Older variant (non VLS) SM2 was non supportable as well as the Mk 26 launching system.
Thats the story anyway...
Funny how 80 years before, these massive ships could be "economically" converted from coal to oil....
The trashcanning of the early Tico's and the Spruances was a harbinger of things to come.
After living through more than one BLR EDSRA and SRA I can tell you that ship has more crap stuffed inside it than you could wildly imagine. My favorite modification, by far, had to be the flag briefing theater. We were having a grand old time trying to stuff EDG's through holes cut in the hull and patching up the HP/LP turbine and the staff regularly whipped us as to when the theater seats would be installed. So it goes on the death star. Yes, the plant is tired. If it wasn't for SRF that plant might not be to make steam - they make a number of parts to keep the boilers, pumps and turbines going. She needs to go to an old folks home - now.
"<span>they could not economically be converted to VLS"</span>
Not buying it for a second. A virtually intact warship save the area to be converted? Propulsion system, Aegis system, all other weapons systems not needing to be touched?
If we couldn't "economically" convert to VLS, how the hell did we manage FRAM I and II on the Gearings? They soldiered on for as long after their FRAM conversions as the first five Ticos spent in commission!
The fab five did not have suffficient strength in the forward section of the hull for VLS. Would have required much strengthening around the launchers. I am not sure which SPRU you were on and when but I rode DD 985 in 97 / 98 she was bone tired. Some say that was a Hawaii thing but OBN, HEW and FIF were not in better shape and they had a dedicated shipyard right around the corner. Uncle Sugar had driven the crap out of the SPRU's. FFG's are sure not much better. Symptom of lack of clear vision for ship building more than retirement of platforms before their time. The SPS 40 was crap for AAW too. I loved CUSHING though. She was a beauty but she had a mile or two on her.
You will have to show me how strengthening the hull forward to accomodate VLS was not economically feasible to a modern and lethal capital ship barely halfway through designed service life.
Well, you think the fleet of the '80s was rode hard and put up wet...
You ain't seen nuthin yet!
The SPS 40 was crap for AAW too.
Yes it was...
A 70's econo measure.
Anyway.
Welcome back to that sad future.
SPY 1 A also has its issues for upgradeability. I'm just saying they could not be upgraded economically. You also have to figure in they'd have needed the electric mod to replace the waste heat boilers as well and that is just too much money for the life left in those hulls.
We will have to disagree on that last sentence. The alternative was the full recapitalization cost of a new vessel, or an empty spot in the ocean. We got the latter.
Lastly, there was cracking and corrsion issues where the beer can meets the green bean can. That was on both the CG and the DD. Lots and lots of cracks and lots and lots of bi-metallic corrosion. That ain't cheap to fix either.
LCS's will make a mighty fine "economical" replacement.
Not doubting that way of thinking W2.
Just sayin' I think that the numbers were a bit skewed for a foregone conclusion.
And now hulls are supposed to last 4 decades and better.
What kind of shape do you think a 30 year old LCS-2 will be in?
OK, let's agree to disagree. I was on VCN's from 99 - 2001 and she was constrained due to SPY1A as well as Mk26 and WHB - plus no tail so ASW was pretty limited if both helo's weren't up in the air. I agree of course that something is better than nothing but that something should be a Flt2 DDG and not an older version non VLS SPY1A cruiser with a AAW weapon (missile) that is no longer supported and a bunch of miles on the plant.
SPRU's and TYCO's were getting very difficult, and costly, to maintain so they got killed off. Of course what the Navy was supposed to do was bring like ships online as the old gals left the fleet. That is where the Navy failed in my small mind. We didn't build new ones, just first got rid of the maintenance for the older more maintenance intensive ones (after we abused the cr@p out of them) to save some money, decommissioned them and then declared victory. As to your question of what shape will LCS be in 30 years? Well, we have a lot of experience with 4k ton ships made with aluminum so I would say it'll be a POS that will have cracks in every weld, joint, seam and in other places where there is the twisting stress the seas put on a very brittle metal, not to mention major corrosion issues.
(sniff...)
I listed each one...and it came to more than 3000 characters ...which made jskit puke it all away...
(sniff)
Why did they become difficult and costly to maintain? (Looking for solid reasons, not high-level hand-waving stuff)
I would like to know how these vessels "wore out" with far fewer than thirty years of service, yet we had Gearings converted mid-life (after 17-18 years and two wars, one of them the greatest war at sea ever) and still got useful service from them as they approached 40, and some of them well-past that mark.
Serious answer. I think it is wrapped up in capability based requirements generation. The cost to upgrade those ships to the "required" perceived capability was too high given the budget environment of the '90s. I also believe that there needs to be some balance against the capability based requirements and I believe that needs to be capacity based requirements. LCS sacrificed capacity (on an individual platform level) for the capability based speed requirement. This was a poor choice on the USN's part IMO. The trick will be aligning capacity requirements with fiscally sustainable supply chains. W2 is speaking with big medicine in the sense of individual platforms being unsustainable because of required upgrade/mod costs. The USN should be figuring out a way of divorcing the individual platform from the unknowable required future capabilities since they are building at least 25 year ships (the design service life of LCS). That probably falls into your category of "high-level hand-waving stuff," but it fits the facts from my admittedly limited perspecitve.
Don't forget all those that are the front end of one aircraft and the back end of another, when the corresponding other ends were not economically repairable. Cut on dotted line, some reassembly required.
If you can't, it's lack of leadership ability on your part, unable to lead metal fatigue out of the metal in the hull.
Look down one block and find "Swede" Momsen. More story there. Way more.
Make that a hundred and eighty two...Odd lineal numbers. Be sure and wait til Christmas.
i agree with you: the gearings were built and their machinery was made of steels that corroded and warped with service. then there was the hatches. every hatch in those old beasts was narrow and tight. if you were taking something out (up to and including forced draft blower roters) it was not a question of cutting water tight door knife edges but how many. they had about 1100 valves in each engine and fire room.......
the spruances were made of metal that the engineers had thirty years more experience with. the hatches were/are large and now days there is no question of cutting knife edges. their pumps were made to last thirty-forty years. THEY DIDN'T HAVE FIRE ROOMS. the main engines could be REPLACED in ~80 hours. (replaceing a steam turbine was a 5 month job on a steamer).
as far as VLS. my yard put three spruances in dry dock 1 in serial fashion, right under my window, and installed vls. YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH OF THE GUTS WE RIPPED OUT OF THOSE SHIPS AND REPLACED.
i think that the problem was navsea thinking that it might be hard, we might have to put some effort into it, we might have problems that we will need to work through........ with COMCRUDESPAC wondering whether "that bunch" would miss schedule or not. Remember "We Make Our Dates"
and all the time the private yards are whispering in the congresscritters ears "we can do it cheaper". yeah bid it at 10, navy yard bids 16, private comes in with "growth" and pushes the total to 18.....
rant, rant, rant,
scream, scream, scream,
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
C
they dragged one of the agc's into kaosuing harbor in the middle sixties with burned out boilers. supposedly had the casualty during a hurricane. we went aboard and it was a marine meuseum.
reciprocating engines with gallon sized lubricators hither thithere and yon. the snipes were proud that they would ride the main rods (they were a foot in diameter) without stopping the engine when filling the lubricators.
one of them said that full speed was 45 turns.
C
its not the cost of the admiral and his staff.......
they get the idea that they have to DO things.
thats where the money goes down the hole.
C
BW,
Fair enough. "<span>The cost to upgrade those ships to the "required" perceived capability was too high given the budget environment of the '90s." Such is a euphemism for penny-wise and pound-foolish by an administration that loathed our military. </span>
Methinks you hit on the supply chain issue, as shutting down component supply is the surreptitious way to drive up maintenance cost artificially, and then claim those costs to be too high, offering the solution of eliminating the end-item. Using a trumped-up situation with deliberately generated cost figures. Which was challenged not one iota by the guys with the wide stripes on their sleeves.
Two decades and counting, they have failed the Navy and this nation. But they at least didn't tell a ghey joke or make a tasteless video...
<span>"Lastly, there was cracking and corrsion issues where the beer can meets the green bean can. That was on both the CG and the DD. Lots and lots of cracks and lots and lots of bi-metallic corrosion. That ain't cheap to fix either."</span>
<span></span>
<span>Don't forget ventilation plenums where you have that hideous gas just rushing by the aluminum in huge volumes...oxygen, which just loves to eat the crap out of aluminum.</span>
<span></span>
<span>I didn't know that two old CnC ships had steam plants! In that case, forget the damn SLEP, razor blade them! </span>
<span></span>
<span>pk: Yes, we bid "X"...and end up with "Y". It's called "conditions found" that you can't possibly know about when you receive the package. Stuff you wont even know about until you start cutting things out or pulling them out of the ship. NAVSEA doesn't play games with us anymore...they just don't have the money. They're "NAR"ing (No Action Required) work now that I KNOW needs to be done. BTW, does that answer the question, "Why are ships wearing out sooner than they should?"?</span>
So it goes on the death star.n - LOL!
The Buffs are fine. MAny more would be running but we had to take down ours so the russians would feel happy sense most of there bombers were in so poor condition they couldnt fly. The buffs are just upgraded again and again.
The shuttle was to expensive. It was 1,000,000,000 every time it launched. SpaceX Falcon 9H will launch more mass into orbit for a far less cost like 10% of a shuttle launch and do it over and over again.
Some things work great. Some just need a little bit of love and attention for upgrades and they would make great command ships................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)
Just saying LOTS of room Lots of armor and with the instelation of a couple nuke plants LOTS of power and speed.....
Well, you don't do or defer maintenance due to funding and then you don't train Sailors to do maintenance up to the depot level. These ships also had issues with tanks, superstructure cracking, generators and waste heat boilers that regularly ate the souls of Snipes foolish enough to enter the spaces and older technology (yes SPY1A was old) that just wasn't practical to upgrade. I hear you on all fronts and there's plenty of blame to go around but those fab five had to go.
"<span>Well, you don't do or defer maintenance due to funding and then you don't train Sailors to do maintenance up to the depot level. "</span>
That, along with my little missive about deliberate closing of SECREP and parts production, is shooting your own toes off. For the price of a well-maintained 18-year old capital ship, older technology can be replaced.
If the first Ticos had to go, it is because the US Navy ruined them with stupidity, mismanagement, and neglect. And for that, nobody is held accountable. How did decomming those five vessels at 18-20 years affect:
Forward presence
Combat power
TCO for each unit
?
With all I mention, the Spruances, the Virginias, the Californias, and the five Ticonderogas, the Navy should be ashamed. Pissing away the treasure of the Republic.
Recapping
Of course, before they were pressed into service as fleet flagships, the Blue Ridge and Mt Whitney were built as AGC replacements...
They were to be amphibs (gives you a sense of how "big" the '60s USN still was).
At the time, fleet flagships were still cruisers.
LCS-2? Pretty good shape, considering it will all be pierside.
I hear you. I can only speak from watching work packages grow and grow, funding for the avail being cut and then trying to sort through what absoultely has to be done just to meet mission requirements. We had many issues as I have discussed but things like tanks and tank tops were neglected so long they alone could have eaten up the majority of funding for avails in the lean years. Weeping fuel tanks are not conducive to good SWO days. Ships are capital intensive machines and must be maintained and unfortunately they weren't. There was the modernization expense as well and that was a really large cost. There is plenty of blame and people should be held accountable no doubt. Trust me nobody is more sad to see these gals scrapped or shot full of holes and sunk than me. 23 years of active duty time went into keeping them underway and fit to fight.
We are in agreement. If you tried the Navy maintenance philosophy with a trucking fleet, the owner of the place would brain you with an 1 5/8 box wrench. And you would have earned it.
thats funny...
Except that NAVSEA would likely screw that up as well...
The military receives approval ratings in the high percentiles. Will the American populace ever become aware of these shortcomings regarding the age of Navy ships? The main press will cover this? Doubtful.
Not to mention, they all had legible signatures... That's it, the nuns were right!
I served on both DD-989, 987, and CG-51 prior to going to CNSL as CG-47 Type Desk and then DD-963 Type Desk and I can tell you it was very frustrating to see the backlog of HM&E Maint (as well as other areas) that was not funded during sked CNO avails. What made the task more sickening was seeing the volumes and volumes of NAVSEA HM&E K-alts that were never funded for the Sprucan's and the Baseline 1 CG-47's. Had NAVSEA ever funded these alt's rather then "kicking the can down the road" many of the HM&E ill's of these ships could have been fixed. Many of these K-alts were in the books for many...many years....as money was spent to install VLS, and other Combat system improvements during year long ROH's the HM&E systems were patched and band aid'ed at the expense of these ships.
Inspite of the lack of funding provided to maintain the Sprucan's as well as the Basline 1 CG's, these ships were in very good shape when they were sent to the scape heaps.......it was sickening to see some of these ships being sent to the bottom because in my view the DC folks wanted to fund new ships at the expense of maintaining/modernizing the older ships.
It's a testament to those sailors who sailed and maintained those ships until the end, they all did there best with those fine ships..........oh what could have been.
The ONLY thing keeping her afloat is SRF Yoko, and it's become an increasing challenge given that she's now the only Yoko-based steam plant (discounting GW). Yard has to custom make beaucoup parts to keep her sailing. Main plant is an anachronism...just to support the C4I requirements NAVSEA had to have a slew of SSDGs installed because the load exceeded the capacity of the SSTGs. I suspect electrical plant stability was another factor.
It helps that Pier 19 usually just goes point to point on Staff-directed shopping trips, avoids typhoons and rarely goes long distances (aside from jaunts down to Singapore, Phuket and Australia). Don't think she's been west of the Nicobars, or at least Dondra Head, since Gulf #1.
Keep 'em or decom them, just do long as we don't try using another AD as a flagship (PUGET SOUND aka Pubic Mound @ C6F).
Nobody asked me, but...with today's C4ISR architecture, do we really need dedicated flagships? If you want to show the flag, embark on a combatant. If you want to fight the war, do it from the shore-based bunker. Otherwise, explain why C5F no longer has the Great White Ghost of the Arabian Coast etc...
Fast forward to 2010-2011-2012: the oldest of the TICO class cruisers, beginning with CG-52,53 have been receiving "mid-life" overhauls, so that these old AEGIS cruisers will serve many more years. A great idea (on paper).
For those AEGIS CG ships homeported in San Diego, much of this overhaul work is done while the ships remain docked at their homeport: 32 nd St. Naval Station, not inside some shipyard. By today's (low) standards, these mid-life CRUISER "extended" overhauls are funded with about all the $$$$ the Navy can realistically obtain/justify. Which is really inadequate funding, compared to years already steamed, vs. years expected to steam in the future for all the remaining 22 CG-47 class warships. And this is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of even just one (1) of those DDG-1000 make-work projects for Raytheon.
At any rate, if you look at the big picture of these mid-life "extended" overhauls, the majority of the Navsea PR releases, as well as the money, is going into almost gutting the Combat system suite and replacing it. Sure, there are the absolutely essential non-sexy HM & E work. But if your surf the Navsea Navy web site and look at these cruiser mid life upgrades, it is mostly radar, displays, software, combat weapons computers, etc. items in these modernized AEGIS cruisers work packages.
One of these San Diego based "modernized" cruisers that already received her "major mid-life upgrade" (sic), recently failed (miserably) her most recent INSURV board inspection. And it wasn't the combat system items that gave INSURV so many trial cards. It was that basic old, non-sexy, HME equipments that really failed INSURV so badly.
I'm sure Bath and Ingalls would rather construct some brand new AEGIS warships vice having other "down river" yards perform extensive mid-life overhauls. Might as well bite the bullet and just continue to reduce the country's ability to even do mid-life upgrades at sites other than Bath, Ingalls and the Naval Shipyards. Let's just kill off all the other commercial yards in locations like Norfolk, Mayport, San Diego, Seattle, etc. With all the downsizing to Navy related maintenance since the end of the Cold War, soon, we won't have the abilities to do mid life extensive overhauls anyway. Our Navy is decaying both at sea and on the shore support establishments.
byron: we bid the package based on experience with several hulls before. the private bunch "bought the job" then boosted the package with "discovery" "growth".....
the package to remanufacture a fire pump was to rering, balance, resleave and install new seals and bearings. if more than two of the studs were "Jimmied" then we had to submit growth paperwork to cover that. growth like that was where the private gang made their money and the cost overruns were terrible.
besides what happened to the preoverhaul surveys, they're supposed to cut growth and discovery down. did those guys do their work in the ward room in the middle of the night or at the chiefs club between 2000 and 0200.
C
you're right there's lost of room for a couple of reactors if you take the boilers out.
C
here's a link to one of the newly overhauled AEGIS cruisers that failed INSURV after her extensive mid-life overhaul:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/04/navy-mobile-bay-fails-insurv-041811w/
Over $50 million dollars and 10 months in overhaul.
86 posts on such a mundane subject. What's the big deal about a ship having to last 70 years? ... Oh, you want the ship to get underway in some form of operational condition? Never mind.
Eighty year old bombers are not necessarily obsolete -- but they are sure as hell expensive to operate when the only available source of spare parts is the fleet getting a suntan in Arizona. Ask any maintenance officer (I wasn't one, but I knew a couple) about the wisdom of cannibalization as a primary maintenance technique.
On top of that, I'm not certain we completely understand (despite quite a few studies and simulations on the subject) the long term effects of metal fatigue and the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of corrosion control on airframes and hulls, especially those subjected to the stresses of combat and training for combat.
I was hoping that someone had the technical data! Well done, Squidly! Running SSDGs on a steam ship is no small feat either, you gotta get that fuel from somewhere.
Well you need to rebuild much of the insideof the vessel anyways New wireing, systems, etc
Also you could maybe remove the #3 turret then you would have more room for maybe a small air contengient. A real flagship either way.
Speaking of upgrading with the additional SSTGs.
And it should be considered as well on any follow-on Command Ship design.
When AGF-3 went through the Toulon experience, the one thing that eventually, painfully but eventually was the addition of two APDGs (Assured Power Diesel Generators)
The were added in spaces that were previously used ballast tanks that were no longer needed when ROC and POE was modified to remove requirements for wet well operations.
Both were COTS Cat Diesels that were totally isolated from the ships electrical system, and dedicated purely to C6F electronics. Both had auto-monitoring with the ability to auto-start and parallel without human intervention if one of them developed issues.
By doing that, C6F was able to remain fully operational even if the main engineering plant went dark and dirty.
An unplanned benefit was that prior to the installation, as engineers, we would have so many constraints placed on us when running any type of Casualty Control drills that in many cases the drills were unrealistic, or pre-disclosed while shifting generators in preparation for another drill.
Once we received the APDGs, drilling became more realistic, and actual casualty response increased tremendously.
We are setting ourselves up for a repeat of the Asiatic Fleeet's DEC71-MAY42 experience, only worse.
Just maybe if we got rid of some Admirals. Do we really need more Admirals than we have ships in commission?
james:
those ships already have a hanger built into the stern. a panel in the fantail moves aside and there is storage space for float planes that could be used for helicopters already.
if you look at the pictures it is directly under the boat and aircraft crane when it is facing forward.
might have been plated over in the reactivations.
C
if there weren't a real life need for a C2 platform I would say it would be fitting considering the quality of flags out there.
Yes i knew about the hanger for the float planes but wasnt sure weather they would be big enough for the needed equipment for a hanger for say CH-53/V-22 and such. Plus the Missouri has been turned into a museum and memorial. Not sure what changes have been made from the Rebuild in the 80's. Or partial rebuild rather.
I do have to wonder how many of the Iowa's could have been completely overhauled and rebuilt for the price of the partial abortion that is the DDG-1000 class...
<span>If you want to fight the war, do it from the shore-based bunker. Otherwise, explain why C5F no longer has the Great White Ghost of the Arabian Coast etc...</span>
<span><span> – </span>Flag</span><span><span> Remember this?</span></span>
Just a c[] hair over and it would've been Right Ugly...
Besides, there is likley to be a day when the <span>awesome NETWORK</span> becomes so degraded that you have to live with UHF and HF again...
WHEN you can radiate at all without being killed....
Oh yeah...
Wanna take odds on how long Bahrain will be tenable anyway?
Or, for that matter, Diego Garcia.
IMHO Bahrain needs to be quietly evacuated, just to avoid the fallout when local Sheikh cant sit anymore on Saudi bayonnets...
DG is just too far from the Gulf OTOH.
Mumbai is imho a thing to try in the future, if not only because India shares 2 problems with US: Pakistan and China.
"...the cost of even just one (1) of those DDG-1000 make-work projects for Raytheon."
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=23064
Ironic how back in 2006 the Navy actually wanted a new class of ships based on the DDG 1000 platform and now that the program has basically been cancelled, the fleet is rotting away while the magic budget wand is waved breathing new life in aging warships...
Like we'll really see 40 years out of CG/DDG ships that been neglected for years...right!
case in point:
the lords of the sea and sky decided to change out all of the firemain ball valves on one of the lha's because the company that built the ones in place had gone out of business and we couldn't get seats. (we had been making our own seats for several years) so they bought about six truckloads of "high performance ball valves" from a socially accepatable company. (the quantity was somewhere around 250) then on installation they found that the face to face distance for the new valves was different from the old ones so they had to cut one of the flanges off and make a new joint to the new (thank god thicker) configuration on every one of the installations.
then we went through a protest goat f^&% because the supplier alledged that we had rejected some of their valves (we had returned and demanded replacement of about 5% of the buy because of leakage on the test stand on reciept with a company rep. within ten feet) unfairly.
(yes i know there are leakage criteria but these were way beyond that).
then we had to make adaptor plates for the operators because..........
and the band played on and on and on.
but it wasn't as bad as when someone hooked the cht system up backwards and pumped the head in the island four feet full of sh** when they turned it to automatic..
C
Ewok - I haven't looked in the pas month, but last I saw the ships based there (mostly minesweepers) had quietly put out to see for "manouvers" without an end date specified.
replacing the steam stuff with gas turbines is the modern thing. there's a couple of things to consider.
first the primary work of demolition and replacement will have to be done in drydock on double or triple height blocks through the bottom (nothing goes through vertical or horizontal acesses because of the armor and the torpedo defense systems) however the pumps, generators (in pieces)........ can come out broadway through the normal repair acess system.
there is another matter, if you want to install the system where gasturbine modules are taken out by going up through the uptakes you have to negotiate the two 18 " thick armor plates that are "honycomb drilled" and placed in layers in each uptake. these were built into the ship to protect against the "down the stack" bomb paths and are a major part of the ship.
during activation the spark jockies replaced hundreds of miles of cable because the old stuff had bad insulation. by murphys law they did it just before "no smoke cable" came to the fleet.
C
Of course it was just before they came out. As you said Murphy...and he's a.
I still think the ships could be rebuilt and modernized for the same cost as the DDG1K program.
missoura left the yard and sailed the ocean blue.
bout 14 months later they were swinging at the hook in sandiego.
the skipper engaged a COMMERCIAL diving firm to do the underwater survey.
when it was over the skipper asked the question "By the way what kind of shape is the sacrificial anode protection system in?"
diver gives him the OK sign and says "just great captain just great. looks brand new as a matter of fact."
another year or so down the road another inspection but this time by a NAVY diver. same question. answer "Captain it looks like the system is not sacrificing at all the anodes are still shiny and most of them are still 100%.
ship came back to long beach and went in dry dock immediately. they sandblasted the hull and painted it pink. one bunch sounded all of the rivets and painted circles around them all. tight ones were green. loose ones were red... all in all there were about 4 colors. quite a site, about a thousand feet of hull about 60 feet high bright pink with all of those circles.
maybe sid can find a COLOR picture of it.
chippers grinding and welders cladwelding day an night for a couple of months.
turned out that the stud welders that they used to install the studs for the zincs didn't make electrical contact AND the foundry that cast the zincs poured it to hot and it crystallized and wouldn't conduct electricity.
and so thats a really good reason to leave one of those boats sitting under a really big flag.
C
Glide path is looking like USN folds into the Coast Guard circa 2025 with what's still floating. Of course there will still be the same # of Admirals, staffs, SES, and contractors.
Post a Comment