Two US Navy articles pissing and moaning about the lack of ships.

[unhappycamper]

The Navy at a Tipping Point

I was passed along a really interesting brief from the influential Center for Naval Analyses that says the Navy must radically rethink strategy and force structure or its going to find itself on a slippery slope of fleet decline, a loss of combat power and then the ability to maintain forward presence. Apparently, the brief, “The Navy at a Tipping Point: Maritime Dominance at Stake?” has had quite an impact on the folks over at OPNAV.

The gist of CNA’s argument is that the grim federal budget outlook, rising personnel and operations expenses along with skyrocketing costs of building new ships, will all put the squeeze on future shipbuilding. The prospect that the Navy will “get well” in future budgets is a myth. Continuing on the current shipbuilding course of about six or seven ships per year, the battle fleet will steadily decline over the next two decades, going from today’s 286 ships to around 230–240 ships from 2025 and out. The Navy faces the dilemma of maintaining forward presence and meeting maritime security requirements in the face of a shrinking battle fleet, CNA says.

Pursuing the current strategy is not an option. Called the “2 hub” strategy, it is based on maintaining carrier strike groups in the western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf, to counter China and Iran, along with global presence patrols and patrolling the maritime commons. If the Navy sticks with the high end strategy of 2 hubs, it will have to give up many amphibs and smaller LCS vessels, along with many engagement and low end missions such as counter piracy.

Conversely, it can emphasize low end missions, buying lots of smaller LCS and corvette sized vessels to maintain a larger fleet, but it will be forced to give up high end carriers and other costly large surface warships. The option I thought sounded most plausible is called the “1 hub” strategy: maintaining strong carrier strike groups and other surface warfare ships forward in the western Pacific while drawing down the presence in the Gulf. This option would also allow lower end engagement missions and patrolling the global commons.


Article at: http://defensetech.org/2010/04/01/the-navy-at-a-tipping-point/






Navy Changes Or US Power Fades
By Greg Grant Wednesday, March 31st, 2010 3:28 pm
Posted in Naval, Policy

The Navy faces an operational “tipping point” where the demand for overseas presence will far exceed the number of ships, according to the influential Center for Naval Analyses.

CNA’s new report, “The Navy at a Tipping Point: Maritime Dominance at Stake?”, which was provided to DOD Buzz, is being used by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations to evaluate future force plans. It says that despite a 20 percent decrease in the size of the total battle fleet over the past 10 years, the number of ships deployed, around 100 at any given time, has remained constant.

The Navy has been able to pull this off with a smaller fleet by lengthening deployments and more frequent cruises. What has suffered is training, as the number of available training ships has declined. Now, however, the Navy faces a dilemma, that of maintaining forward presence and meeting maritime security requirements in the face of a shrinking battle fleet and declining resources, CNA says.

The military’s future unfolds in a world of constrained federal budgets and Navy budgets will not experience growth rates above inflation; “getting well” in future budgets is a myth, CNA says. Rising shipbuilding costs, ever increasing personnel and health care costs, and the need to fund ongoing operations will all exert serious downward pressure on ship numbers. If the Navy continues on the current shipbuilding course of about six or seven ships per year, the battle fleet will face a steady decline over the next two decades that will see it go from 286 ships today to around 230–240 ships from 2025 and out.

What to do? The Navy must change its strategy. CNA offers five strategic options for the future Navy: Two Hubs; One Plus Hub; Shaping; Surge; and Status Quo Shrinks. Each option involves either a significantly reduced force structure or a significant change in strategy.


Rest of article at: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/31/navy-changes-or-us-power-fades/#axzz0jrUPSyHy



unhappycamper comment: Let's take a look at some of the Deepwater program legacy:

1) $11.5 billion dollar Ford-class aircraft carriers
2) two $5+ billion dolllar DDG-1000 destroyers
3) after an original estimated cost of $200 million dollars each, one $504 million dollar LCS ship and another $704 million dollar LCS ship
4) USS San Antonio (LPD-17) was delivered $840 million over budget
5) first USCG National Security Cutter was delivered for $641 million dollars

In other Navy news, The price tag for a new Virginia-class submarine is $2.8 billion dollars.

[Zech Marquis The 2nd]

1. It doesn;t look like the mission itself is the cause

Look at the contractors building these ships--or should I say POORLY building these ships! Each of the brand new LPD ships had to get some of their welding redone after being inspected, and the other new ship classes hit their own series of delays and missed deadlines. Add it all up, and that's alot of money being wasted by the shipbuilders. They're simply not getting the job done on time and on budget! :-(

[Turbineguy]

2. They never have enough ships

and they never pay enough for them.

[DrDan]

3. that sounds like a lot of money - but it is only about 3 months of the war budget

[Captain Hilts]

4. GWBush severely cut the Navy. There's some validity to this argument. nt

[unhappycamper]

5. i don't know.... Deepwater got rolling under *.

Some of the clear winners were the $1.7 billion dollar LAPDs, the expensive National Security cutters, the two $5+ billion dollar DDG-1000 destroyers, T-AKEs, LSC ships, etc.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Supporting troops and the Iraq War have hurt the Navy's ability to monitor

China and Russia.

The Iraq War sucks on every level.

[krispos42]

16. I was just bemoaning the underpowered Perry-class frigates

in the thread about the pirates decided to attack one... with a speedboat.


I really don't see what's wrong with building more Ticonderoga cruisers and Burke destroyers, and making a new class of smallish but powerful multipurpose frigates for stuff like independent patrols.

Even without Aegis, a Perry-sized frigate with a 36-cell VLS and a Seahawk can pack some fairly serious offensive and defensive firepower. Asroc, Harpoon, Tomahawk, Standard, and quad-pack Sea Sparrow missiles are not inconsiderable. Add in a 3-inch or 5-inch gun forwards and a twin 40mm Bofors aft and you get something that can also be used for anti-piracy patrols, for example. And they shouldn't cost too much per unit.

I mean, I'm sure it will, but that's the current state of industry... :-(

[old mark]

6. The Navy professional Officers need more ships so that more of them can

have commands and enhance their careers. They have to punch that command spot on their ticket, and there is probably slow promotion and much competition for these slots- more ships equals more future Admirals and more well-paid retired Naval Officers.

We already have more warships than we would ever really need.

mark

[L0oniX]

12. +1

[frylock]

15. nailed it

[gratuitous]

17. Seems like an awfully expensive welfare program

But I suppose it's all worth it so some captains can become admirals someday. Far better than feeding our citizens or making sure they're healthy, clothed or housed.

[old mark]

22. Well, you also have to consider all those Marine Corps, Army and Air Force

Lt. Colonels who really want to become Generals-they need toys, too, although most of them are not so pricey as warships...

mark

[Bigmack]

8. We can't afford it! nt

[Ganja Ninja]

10. Exactly.

It's the answer we get every time we ask for money to help ordinary people live a decent life. How come it never seems to work for the military? Here's an idea, if we need more ships then get the money from hedge fund managers and CEO's.

[FarCenter]

9. We should buy them from Korea or China

There is no commercial ship-building industry in the United States. Hence, building ships in the US is extremely expensive.

We should buy the hulls from China or Korea, where there is a large ship-building industry.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Navies...

...are the backbone of imperialism.

Restrict navies and you restrict the power of nations to impose themselves on foreigners.

[Blue_Tires]

13. so going from 286 ships now to 240 in 15 years is cause for alarm??

FFS

[DailyGrind51]

14. Then why do they "decommission" so many? They used to have 15,000 warships!

Do they just want the new shiny ones? Are the old ones too unfashionable or what? Sounds like a big waste of money to me! I'm still driving a '97. I retro-fit where needed. A little touch-up paint and a coat of wax and it looks "good to go".

[Kaleva]

18. When did they have 15,000 warships?

[LeftinOH]

19. Maybe they could have a bake sale -or sell candy bars, or something .n/t

[Greyhound]

20. Yes! If we just further bankrupt ourselves we can be the preeminent power

of the 19th century!

One of the forbidden truths we are not allowed to discuss, the U.S. Navy as it exists and is used, is an anachronism. Not that this insanity is the sole province of the Navy, but it is the worst offender since it's irrelevant toys cost so much more than the other services irrelevant toys.

[Ikonoklast]

21. And an air-burst nuclear warhead can take out a battle group.

We are using force-projection for strictly economic purposes.


In a real shooting war, if it ain't a submarine, it will be useless.