Monday, October 17, 2011

The POM Bomb


When you consider all that happy talk as Admiral Roughead was going out the door about making sure ships can make it 30, 35, 50, 75 years - this data point should provide the real Roughead legacy, in a fashion.

Via a forwarded email, Names removed to protect pretty much everyone involved. In part;
Based upon the ALT POM changes- the Department plans to inactivate the ships below:

CG (FY 13): 60, 68, 69, 71
CG (FY 14): 59, 63, 64, 65, 66
LSD (FY 14): 41, 43, 46

While there may be some further discussion with the CGs with respect to which ones in which year- these are the hull numbers (and OPNAV concurred).

Per 10 USC 2244A, any modernization (except safety modifications or modifications costing less than $100K) is not allowed within 5 years of retirement/disposal. NAVSEA (any SYSCOM) should not provide FY 12 (or remaining FY 11) procurement funds to any of the above platforms (except safety modifications). If funds are already spent on these platforms, that is okay given that these are recent changes. The key is to ensure no new money is being spent.
+/- a year or two, this is where we are:
- USS CAPE ST. GEORGE (CG-71) was commissioned in 1993. In FY13 she will be, yes Liberal Arts math here - 20 years old.
- USS PRINCETON (CG-59), commissioned in 1989 in FY14 will be 25 years old.
- USS WHIDBEY ISLAND (LSD-41) commissioned in 1985 will in FY14 be 29 years old;
- USS TORTUGA (LSD-46) will be 24 years old.

Please, let's build more 20-yr expected life LCS to tote around their 57mm gun and making waves instead of getting another decade out of an Amphib or Aegis Cruiser. There's your opportunity cost for the pig-headed desire to keep building a ship that is PPT deep and based on nothing but promises.

I've yet to run the numbers on where this curve leaves us if you need to do another run of early retirements (which you will unless things change drastically) - if you know someone who has drop me a line - but who was it that warned everyone the need to prepare for the low 200s while those who should have know better mindlessly bleated 313? We should have been working this problem four years ago - but we weren't. Good people have been working hard on these numbers this year - it looks like a solid plan to do what needs to be done.

When you build small run, highly expensive ships - and the coming budget trainwreck that some have seen coming for decades (one of my ECON Profs explained it to me in the mid-80s) is knocking at the door.... Well - there you go.

There will be more. The questions is - how do we match a Maritime Strategy to our future capabilities?

Yes I said that - as we do not have the money or political will to have the capabilities to match our Maritime Strategy.

74 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yikes! I pre-commed the Fort McHenry as an ensign. Now I fell really old.

Byron said...

They're gutting Mayport...we've got three FFGs up for decom this year, the Bradley, Hall and Groves. Now they're thinking about the Vicksburg and Hue City, one half of our CGs. By '14 we'll be down to 10 ships. Next you'll tell me Mayport is on the chopping block.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Predictable. Predicted. Once again we throw away real ships and capability for overpriced, time late, poorly designed "transformational" crap and vaporware/vapor hardware.

OrdAlts and ShipAlts are transformational. Lies and BS on powerpoint are not.

Two last ditches to fight for.

Mothball everything that goes out of commission at 25 years or less, and put the others in a strip ship fac with enough protection to allow what we have left to live by cannibilization the forty year point.  The dumbest thing we did was fail to mothball the ships prematurely let go in the lost decade. Ensure all the technical documentation is archived and sequester the spare and repair parts. I don't know how it is now, but as late as the early 90's there was one guy at SPCC with an action tickler to prevent the computer management software from selling off the antifreeze in the system around Labor Day (inadequate demand for last two quarters with rapid drop in reqs in the last quarter). Ditto on sequestering special tools and depot level stocks. Sell them for scrap after 20 years.

Let nothing go until 40 years, warehouses are cheap and ships self warehouse if you replace the zincs and keep the dehumidifiers running and provide sounding and security. Hire retired Navy for that, old men can roam and inspect and shoo off hippies looking for some place to spray paint, smoke dope and etc., and the exercise will cut down on medical costs for them. They already know what to look for.
Marad proved you can keep a ship for short notice breakout with a single skeleton crew of 10 percent of full manning per nest of 5 or so. Or hire retired and just pay them the difference between active duty base pay and retired pay (no other pays) and put them on tricare for life and dental, keep the skills and get cadre cheap.

Build new classes in short production runs and hold down the change orders. Keep track of the problems very aggressively and put the fix into the next class (with a shipalt/ordalt/A & I for backfit designed and prototyped and ready for immediate issue when it hits the fan, as it must, eventually).

Anonymous said...

Actually, USS Boone and not USS Bradley will be decomm.  Maybe one CVN goes to Mayport earlyer, in 2016. 

Surfcaster said...

Gramps - would never work. Consultants / Corps / Lobbyists ? Politicians can't make money off it.

Spruance, Early Ticos, Perry's, now VLS Ticos & LSDs.

Time for Occupy Washington NY?

e ringer said...

you forgot about gw going away too.  oh, and mayport is the next charleston unless rubio changes job titles next january. 

Anonymous said...

And in FY15 you will be down to 6 ships.  Better hope LCS gets moving towards MPT or there wont be one.

On  a positive note, they should be really well maintained with the new MPT SIMA and all the SERMC capabilities!

Byron said...

My bad on Bradley, knew it, just got a brain fart. SERMC and SIMA by themselves? Monkee, meet Mr. Football.

Byron said...

Ya'll can keep the birdfarm in Naw-folk, we'll take a couple of amphibs and three destroyers instead.... and yes, I'm dead serious.

Adversus Omnes Dissident said...

You have to consider the 2nd and 3rd order effects.  The Ao (Operational Availability) of the existing fleet is around 80% right now.  Within two years, it will drop to 60%.  Why? 
- Fewer ships
- Same missions (greater time spend underway / deployed)
- Same amount (if not less) in maintenance / training PER SHIP
- Savings from decom'ing the ships was taken by Treasury, not harvested by DON or DoD for reallocation to sustaining remaining fleet.

xformed said...

This happens when "politicians gone wild" becomes SOP.  It's all about shifting money, quickly to buy the votes, since they are out of ideas, and only can speack in sound bites and hurl epithets at each other via the MFM anymore.  #occupycongress with real people...and make "career politician" a term so bad the diversity police have to ban it's use....

The Usual Suspect said...

Swords into plowshares...something about ending up working for those who kept their swords.  The primary responsibility of any government, and why they are instituted among men, is to provide for the protection of the citizenry.  Our government is failing in a major way in regard to its primary responsibility.

We don't have to have the latest, greatest bells and whistles.  We just have to have ships and systems that work and are effective.  We have to have the number of hulls avaialable to match our mission and if that means that we don't get to have the giant jet boat (LCS) so be it.  Let's refit the existing 20 year old hulls with up-to-date technology.  Let's focus on what we need, what works, and get rid of the wants and the PPT pipe dreams.  There are proven systems and platforms out there that perform their duties day in and day out.  We have to stop re-inventing the wheel.

sid said...

No worries...

The LCS's will take up the slack.

Anonymous said...

Just some perspective on this as well:
USS Nevada BB-39 Launched 1914 struck from inventory 1948. 34 years with 5 of that being hard work during a global war and as a nuclear test subject.
USS Texas, BB-35, Launched 1911 struck from inventory 1948, 38 years of service in two world wars.
USS Saratoga, CV-3, Launcehd 1925 struck fron inventory 1946. Just over 21 years of active service. Again in a global war and nuclear test subject.
USS Midway and the USS Coral Sea exceed the current trend of only keeping ships around for the 20-30 year cycle. with thier respective time in service from launch to decommissioned being 47 and 44 years respectively.
The USS Enterprise CVN-65 will when she decommissions in two years will have served for 52 years.

If you go into train ships, we have had some auxillaries that were still serving well into the early 80's that were initially commissioned just as WW2 had started. Like the USS Dixie, AD-19 was launched in 1940 and served until 1982, she served the fleet as part of the sea basing portion of the WW2 battle plan and later against the threat of Communists for well over 42 years.

Those ships are the oddities though. Realistically if you look at most of our fleet from the end of WW2 till the building boom of Zumwalt to Watkins, you will see that a 30 year life span was the max planned for. However, as the CDR has beaten up on numerous times; we had evolutionary designs not transformational or revoultionary designs in ship building. So as an older generation of ships started to be phased out there was a new generation being phased in in almost a 1:1 ration or 1:2 ratio.

Adversus Omnes Dissident said...

Xformed, I like that... "#OccupyCongress with real people."  You should set that up on Twitter, Shipmate!

Adversus Omnes Dissident said...

Unidentified poster with good historical perspective off my port bow, this is AOD.  Request that you identify yourself and establish contact with the Front Porch Flotilla, over.

James said...

The reason those Battleships were decomed was that naval warfare had changed drasticly. Naval air and the fleet carrier had taken over not to mention the advent of the nuke. The new carriers were to fast for the battlships to keep up with.

Now we have weakly built, designed, and fundamentaly flawed ships replacing the proven combat vessels we have, And over all Navy is ignoring and downright suppressing any negative news on this.

Of course thewy will never pay for it. They will get jobs after retirement where they will make the money of kings and live like them to.

And people wonder where movements like the tea party and the dorks in the ocuppy wall street are coming from.

kmadams85 said...

I think I'll start a research project to update the old blip-enhance system.

Anonymous said...

History will judge adm Roughead as the CNO who "sunk" the Navy (when the Russians, Germans and Japaneses couldn't)

tvljr said...

You also have to throw in the Continuing Resolution problem often overlooked outside DoD.  Scheduled maintenance is considered a "new start" by Congress which means you can't spend money to start an overhaul until a budget is passed.  Well over 25 ships missed entire yard periods last fiscal year because of the CR and will, of course, never get that period back.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Guest,

You are mostly correct with the 30 year service life of most ships, but not entirely.  The classic example of that is with the Sumners and Gearings, many of which served more than thirty years in the US Navy, were extensively modernized mid-life, and served as the most powerful units of a number of foreign navies into the 2000s.  Another example would be the CAGs and CLGs that were rebuilt, staying in service for thirty plus years, and could have been modernized again, but were not due to budget considerations, and not lack of viability as capital units.   CVs and CVNs routinely serve 40+ years, with Kennedy, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Forrestal, and Saratoga also pushing or exceeding the 40 year mark.

The tradition of building tough, powerful, handy ships that can be modernized and maintained as effective combatants is long gone.  The decommissioning of the Virginias and South Carolinas, the Spruances, and the first five Ticos, and their subsequent disposal, was inexcusable.

Steel City said...

One bone of contention with an otherwise very good post.  Warehouses are anything but cheap especially when you consider the energy aspect which is now a fitrep determinant.  Also warehouses are paid by the Navy landowners (CNIC) who don't have a fighting interest in the benefit achieved by keeping the contents available to the fleet.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Steel City,

All of the things you mention here are self-inflicted wounds.  Warehousing, especially self-warehousing, should be cheap.  The fact that our own stupidity and PC horse sh*t makes it otherwise, is an indication of a badly flawed philosophy and not any particular issue with a warehousing concept.

Anonymous said...

If Obama gets another term, we will be lucky to be left with USS Constitution as our sole warship.

Even our currently projected fleet strenth is perilously weak, but any further cuts will make it totally ineffective.  Unless the enemy is something like Libya or Uganda.

Thanks, Roughhead.   Your legacy is written and indelible.

John said...

This was me.  Sorry- cleared history and lost the auto fill.

Adversus Omnes Dissident said...

CDR S, your parting shot says it all:  re-write the Maritime Strategy.

leesea said...

that will be a nother FIVE years I think

leesea said...

<span>AND the politicos keep selling the fantasy that a CVN will come sometime later maybe 2019?  
 
Jacksonville (Dem cost cutting mayor) had better go after an ARG and more escorts for Mayport, and yes even the LCS which won't come for years yet.  IF the Navy wants MYPT to remain operationally viable. that is?  
 
The stranglehold of Virginia's congressional delegation is NOT in the country's interest IMHO</span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

In this climate of strategic self-delusion, there is NO WAY that the USN or DoD will re-write The Maritime Strategy to reflect current or future capabilities.  The document would be about five pages long, including the cover page and table of contents. 

No, we will continue with the grandiose proclamations about American maritime power, and fill the document with political buzzwords, phrases, and slogans, such as "do more with less" and "think outside the box" and "innovative strategies in this time of fiscal austerity".  All of which are so much bunk.

Spade said...

I like the quick change from "we have to keep and upgrade these ships if we want to support everything we are tasked to do, especially BMD requirements!" to "Eh, whatever."

MDA still has on their website that they'll have 32 BMD ships in the next two years.  Also from their website: "In response to the combatant commanders' (European, Central and Pacific Commands) increased demand for Aegis BMD capability and the president’s PAA for missile defense of Europe, the number of Aegis BMD ships need to increase."

lol, guess not.

SouthernAP said...

Sorry that was me. STUPID GOSH DARN STUPID NON-MISSION CRITICAL/CAPABLE INTERNET system deleted all my preferences.

Adversus Omnes Dissident said...

Disagree, URR. I'm seeing things on the OPNAV staff that lead me to believe that the CNO is planning a rendez-vous with reality between the Navy and POTUS/Congres/American People.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Long way from CNO insisting on reality and that public statement of reality getting through SECNAV and SECDEF.  Let alone POTUS.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

NMCI. 

The sea services' version of the information age.  Like the high and tight is their version of hair style.  And the blueberry suit their version of fashion.

Steel City said...

I'll restate my contention.  Warehouses are cheap if you want to throw a bunch of crap indoors from the elements.  However if you want to keep the material in some form of usable condition it takes energy to run the warehouse and people to keep the warehouse in a state of readiness that you know what is in there and can locate it in usable condition once needed.  I've been in charge of several warehouses and similar storage facilities...much more detail to do it right than maintaining it like the tool shed out back.

MR T's Haircut said...

Big E was supposed to only serve for 20 -25 years... amazing the difference in Craftsmanship from the 50-60's and today...

MR T's Haircut said...

We all know what happens to "reserve" ships...

I think we should consider the recall to active duty for the purpose of Court of Inquiry for Natter, Clark, Roughhead and Mullen...   Just saying....

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Steel City,

Nobody is talking about a tool shed.  The USMC used to have the CRISP program, that allowed for climate-controlled storage of major end items for which Victor units did not have the manpower or maintenance personnel to keep in operation.  The cost was not insignificant, but would have been more than offset by the operational loss of even a few of those end items. 

Again, show me warehousing costs for expensive SECREP and other components versus scrapping those components before their service lives were met, and the building of new or replacement components. 

The "not cost effective" meme is getting increasingly expensive (and tiresome), because it is clear that those who mouth those words haven't any real idea about the TRUE costs of such idiotic decisions, or if they do, aren't going to say.

SouthernAP said...

URR,

I would suggest you take a seriously hard look at the facts again. For example the USS Little Rock was commissioned in 1945 and then decommissioned in 1975. For a total time of what? 30 years or if you dig a little bit deeper and actually look at her time in active service it was really only four years as a all gun light cruiser then another sixteen as a guided missile cruiser. She spent 11 years of her time either in the yards being refitted or in the Ready Reserve Fleet.

The same is true of a number of the Summner and Gearing class destroyers. They only served for 30 years and yes a number of them went through FRAM I or FRAM II or both. Still only thirty years, but again as those ships were being phased out newer classes like the Garcias, Knox, C.F. Adams, Coontz, etc where coming in to replace these ships.

If you want to talk about some of the ships that were sold overseas. Yes a number of them have done Yeoman's duty. Like the two Tench class D/E subs in ROC Navy service. They have been on active duty for well over 60 years now. Realistically, though they aren't much better then a mobile minefield. Going to some place like off the an expected beach head or port to put as many torpedos out there to sink the bad guys before either a torpedo comes thier way to end their service or some other improved ASW weapon. Look at the life of the USS Phoneix, she did major war time service in the US Navy only to meet her fate at the hands of a Mk8 British Torpedo during the question of ownership of the Falklands while in Argentine service.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

My point is that they were modified to have been viable ships for 30+ years after original commissioning. In roles never envisioned by the builders.  They weren't simply discarded.

Certainly the Gearings, originally designed for 20 years, served well beyond that.   More than 30+ years in most cases. 

If USS Phoenix had had modern ASW escorts, would she still have been sunk?  Under similar circumstances, would a Ticonderoga or Burke have fared any better against  Conqueror?  In the company of a modern task force, could a vessel like that, modified to meet modern electronics and AAW requirements, have been of very great value on Five-inch Friday?  Or off Libya?  The irony of the CAG/CLG conversions was that their main batteries of 8" and 6" rifles proved the most valuable contributors to their usefulness in shore bombardment in their time off Vietnam.

SouthernAP said...

As to the Carriers, it is a shame that after we spent billions SLEP'ing all the convetional super carriers, the Navy decided to decomissioned them left and right. Even though they were supposed to last until just about now in the service cycle. That was even with the GAO, CBO and even GreenPeace all saying that there was no difference between the conventional carriers and nuclear carriers as it came from range, time on the line and even sortie generation rates. Yet, the Navy didn't listen to any of these outside sources and started to decommission the conventional carriers because of the Peace Dividend. The idea that we wouldn't need them is now seriously being called into question within some of the think tanks because we have ridden the nucs pretty hard and they are taking a longer time to turn around during the RCOH periods. RCOH = Refueling and Complex Over Haul process.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, all too true.

Aubrey said...

Let's be honest URR, the BHO admin has firmly cemented it's policy and mission for not just the USN, but the entirety of the US military:

"We now suck, and we are sorry for those times when we did not suck."

Mike M. said...

You know, if we just wanted a few guns at sea, take the CGs, strip out the Aegis hardware, and use them as gunboats.

It would be a damn sight cheaper than LCS.

Aubrey said...

John,

I wish His Majesty would leave the USS Constitution - but that should hip could single-handedly sink all 12 planned/appropriated LCSs. Can't have a ship tht can sink another one, that would not be in keeping with the primary mission of a diverse, politically court Navy.

How do you feel about commanding a Bayliner with a blind 12-year-old with an airsoft gun? That is Barry's dream of a true capital ship...

Aubrey said...

Err...."should hip" equals "ship", gotta turn off the damn spell correct on this thing...

Aubrey said...

Err...."should hip" equals "ship", gotta turn off the damn spell correct on this thing...

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Warehouses are dirt cheap compared to going back to the original equipment manufacturer and opening a production line for ones and twos. The overpriced toilet seat of yore was the custom stressed structural aluminum top for a P3 sanitary holding tank that the toilet seat attaches to. Production line closed, reopened for a one off so as not to junk the plane for a crack in the poop tank top. Many bucks. Did the press report it? Yes, and got it wrong wrong wrong.

The spares and repair parts are ALREADY in a warehouse, just don't sell the parts as scrap and raze the warehouse. Yes they require a CADRE, but not a full staff, it's not like you are issuing to support high optempo across a large class.

In 92-93 a SERB'ed Cdr reportedly located a handful of SSTG's for steam plants at DRMO, crated as battle damage spares and never issued, about 25 years old, and brand spanking new.

Bought them for about the price of new Lincoln after he confirmed GE would buy 'em back where is, as is, for about a million bucks, plus the cost of new Lincoln. Sold them back for a cool million. Beat the hell out of his IRA balance and made the kids college plans MUCH more secure. The figures are non exact but you get the point.

Might have been better for the Navy to keep them and use them to SLEP some remaining steam plants at next ROH.

We saved the propulsion plants (4) of the half built Iowa class Kentucky and used them for 4 AOR's construction about 15 to 20 years later.

When you know you are the piggie who is going to get the hindmost teat, plan ahead and get to dinner early.  Waste not,want not.

Thought of a third ditch. Screw overseas vessel loan and sales. Save them for a rainy day. Call in the loans as appropriate.

Did you know the Norwegians wanted to know if we wanted their SSK's because they were being retired early? Seems like we paid for them (Foreign aid).

That's a lot of cheap ping time and training we're not getting.

pk said...

Guest:

i believe that Princeton was heavily damaged by a mine over in the middle east. if this is that ship and even though it was repaired by the best shipyard in the world i am suprised that it has lasted this long.

C

pk said...

blue water: yes the same bunch deleted snow shovels in the philidelphia area for the same reason back in the 80's.

the bunch you are talking about has a considerable body of regulation that is supposed to do what you want in effect, and has had it for many, many years. civilian shipyard people argued about that with them for years and it was a brick wall thing.

the only point that seemed to sink in was that if they removed all of that stuff from inventory then they would have to layoff warehousemen and knock down warehouses. that was the only thing that seemed to get their attention.

Adversus Omnes Dissident said...

SECNAV is a multiverse away from reality.  He always has been.  Did you read his birthday message?!  Holy dog$hit!  It focused on energy efficiency!  As for POTUS....well.....zeros drive everything.  POTUS could care less about the Navy, so he will have no problem with a change in MARSTRAT.  SECDEF will care.  I want to be more fair with Panetta than I was with Gates.  Gates really did a good job all things considered.  I think that Panetta doesn't just want to live up to his nickname of "the knife..." he actually is really serious about wanting to do the right thing (who knew that democrats were capable of that?!).

But, when you look at the last MARSTRAT, SECNAV did NOT sign it.  Lehman signed the Reagan era MARSTRAT.  But Winter did not sign the last one.  It was just the CNO, CMC, and CUSCG.  Why?  Because service secretaries don't matter anymore.  I just wrote a Naval War College paper about this...when you look at the history of the standup of JCS and DoD from the NME / War & Navy Departments it is really quite amazing.

Adversus Omnes Dissident said...

SECNAV is a multiverse away from reality.  He always has been.  Did you read his birthday message?!  Holy dog$hit!  It focused on energy efficiency!  As for POTUS....well.....zeros drive everything.  POTUS could care less about the Navy, so he will have no problem with a change in MARSTRAT.  SECDEF will care.  I want to be more fair with Panetta than I was with Gates.  Gates really did a good job all things considered.  I think that Panetta doesn't just want to live up to his nickname of "the knife..." he actually is really serious about wanting to do the right thing (who knew that democrats were capable of that?!).

But, when you look at the last MARSTRAT, SECNAV did NOT sign it.  Lehman signed the Reagan era MARSTRAT.  But Winter did not sign the last one.  It was just the CNO, CMC, and CUSCG.  Why?  Because service secretaries don't matter anymore.  I just wrote a Naval War College paper about this...when you look at the history of the standup of JCS and DoD from the NME / War & Navy Departments it is really quite amazing.

G-man said...

Color me a little less appalled than the rest of the readers.  I think the budgetary battles will require far more to be cut from the federal budget than the notional 1 trillion over the next decade.   when we hear things like DoD couldn't survive on 500 billion or less we are kidding ourselves.  De-com them, put them in a concrete tub in major seaports and turn them into tourist attractions, paint ball saloons, floating detention centers or whatever.  But I don't see us building new construction to get us to 313 or whatever the magic number is for today.  
We'd be money ahead to scrap the entire LCS syndicate and use that for REAL ships.

Adversus Omnes Dissident said...

"when we hear things like DoD couldn't survive on 500 billion or less we are kidding ourselves."  DoD as it stands today could not survive on that much money.  You would need to completely restructure, gut the civilian workforce (except for me of course), reduce the mission sets, and prepare yourself for a smaller role in global affairs.  In essence, rewrite the National Security Strategy and all subordinate strategem / doctrine / budget plans.
Agree with you on scrapping LCS though.  While we're at it, let's get rid of Navy BMD.

FDNF Squid said...

These cuts are signs of an extremely dire time. What happened to CG Mod and the 40 year old Ticos? Is that program only going to be half baked? LSD's are good ships with relatively simple and inexpensive combat systems, why are they getting axed early?

I think the answer probably boiled down to the crew sizes. The bean counters saw the 4,000 Sailors that could be 'utilized' in other areas on these 'decades old' ships and made their choice.

I am interested to find out where the sacred cows are in all of these cuts, if any at all.

SouthernAP said...

PK:

The Stark and Sammy B were both heavily damaged. Then there was the Oriskany, Enterprise, Forrestall, Belknap and even a couple of submarines from the 688 Hulls and 693 Hulls that were heavily damaged in either military action or through major accidents and they still served for 20+ years.

James said...

You could also prioritize in service power. For instance the US can get by with a small army, airforce, and marine corps (yea i know its already small-see no problem) IF it has a Very powerful Navy.

We are in effect a large island realise that and we're good.

Cut the LCS. In total agreement.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

I would submit that, for a nation of 310 million, we already have a small army, air force, and Marine Corps.  Very small.  

SouthernAP said...

URR,

I am fully with you that we should be saving these ships for the future and not shredding them. That being said, my major point is that we have traditionally retained some ships for 20-30 years depending on its use. However, for some ships we spent the money to retain the younger ships for war emgergancy purposes instead of sinking them or shredding them.

James said...

OH believe me i agree the US should have a active or reserve army of no less than 10mil BUT that isn't going to happen for that to happen several things would be nessesary:

Congress to raise the amount of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines. This would also require more money but most terrible of all it would require the DoD, congress an the politicans to wake up and realise.

1) An Army is basicly this-A massive amount of Helicopters for both transport, logistics and air support, followed by legions of tanks, trucks, and all the other goodies to support the oldest most powerful weapon on the planet....the infantrymen. Not drones, uber-tanks (didnt work well for the Nazies wont work well for us when we meet a superpower), or Transformational technologies.

2)The Navy to realise that it is supposed to win in the ocean not play buddy, buddy or diversity caddets. That includes what most hear have said. Real ships capable of doing real missions and alot of them.

But that would require what we cant get. So we go for what we can get. ONE superpowered force that Can deliever the most for the $$$. The Navy.

Unless your worried about those evil cannucks up North!!!! Dont worry they are to buisy playing hockey most of the time and we outnumber them over 100-1.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need a huge military.  The original projections of Cheney and Powell, et al, that were recommended to the incoming Clinton Admin would have allowed us to fight two MRCs simultaneously.

14 Divisions.  Not 10.  3 full USMC divisions and air wings.  Not 2.25.  A Navy of 410 ships, though not all the high-end tiffanies we have today.  Of that number, amphibious lift for three MEBs.  Approximately 46 ships, though many of smaller size than the LPD-17 ilk. 

Not huge, but certainly not a shrunken rump either.

Wharf Rat said...

The problem is, and always has been, domestic spending.

The success of our nation?  How about the fact that never before in our history has so many people depended on government assistance.  No question - that's a designed play by the Democrats.  Cutting the Navy because of it?  Another designed play.

James said...

Yep that basicly what i've heard the idea is.

Guest said...

Why do you think the LPD-17's are "large" ships ?    They only carry 700 troops !   And when you are underway on various oceans of this big world,  these so-called "large" LPD's seem extremely small.   Especially tiny when an inbound helo is attempting to locate them.    

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Why do I consider the LPD-17s to be large amphibs?  At 25,000 tons, they are many times larger than the old LSD-28 class (about 9,000 tons), or the Newport LSTs (about 8,700 tons), and quite a bit larger than the Austins (18,000 tons) they are replacing.  They are much larger than the Whidbey Island-class LSDs, more than a hundred feet longer than the Austins, and almost 200 feet longer than the Thomastons (LSD-28).  They are, in fact, next to the big-deck LHD/LHAs, the largest amphibs we have ever built. 

That's why.

leesea said...

I thought those plants went into AOEs?
Did you know the Norwegians offered their whole SKJOLD FAC program lock stock and 76mm gun to the USN who refused it?

Kevin said...

The LSD-41's weigh in at about 15 ktons and 600'

Anonymous said...

yes i walked the oriskanys' forward hanger deck when she pulled into Cubi Point with smoke still pouring out of the side ports.

C

pk said...

why doesn't someone get it across to the festered rectums in washington that if they "grew" the economy of the united states of america they would have the money that they need/want  for military and other things without "cuts".

C

UltimaRatioRegis said...

You are taking it on faith that they want to grow the economy and refrain from cutting the military.  The actions of this Administration and its appointees increasingly leads one to conclude that the destruction of Capitalism, forcible redistribution of wealth, evisceration of America's military (morally and materially), and the perpetuation of power through massive dependence may indeed be the goals. 

In those terms, much of what has occurred under Democratic administrations, especially the last 2.5 years, makes much more sense.

James said...

Its all in how you look at it URR.

You and most of humanity including our enemy see it as america becoming weak, But to a progressive its a opertunity.

NOW america is to weak to do things by itself it must rely on the help of the UN and the world comunity and especialy our European betters-i mean allies.

If america is to weak to fight you can effectively force it to behave the way you want.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

That is certainly the view from the UN, a college podium, and, unfortunately, Foggy Bottom and the WH.....

pk said...

thank you Sir.

C

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Probably was AOE's, senior moment, thanks for the correction. Point stands.