(06-28-2021 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 10:35 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I was just reading an article that said we have half as many shipbuilding facilities as we used to because the others went out of business.
In other words, the problem was a lack of orders for new ships. If the Aussies ordered 12 new ships, I'm sure we could open up a new factory sometime in the next decade.

Shipyard capacity is a huge problem. We currently have just two yards that can build nuke submarines--General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, CT, and HII Newport News, VA--both on the east coast. That limits us to a maximum of three subs a year--1 SSBN and 2 SSNs. Until we build out the new Columbia SSBNs, we have no way to replace the 4 Ohio SSGNs, probably our best naval strike asset, which are nearing the ends of their useful lives.

We no longer have the capability to build nuke subs at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, now a badly backlogged repair and maintenance facility, also on the east coat. And we no longer have Mare Island Naval Shipyard or any other west coast submarine building capability. We need a west coast sub construction facility to generate more new subs faster, and a west coast sub maintenance facility to ease the backlog at Portsmouth.

Another problem I have is price. The Columbias are going to come in around $8-9B each, the Columbia-based SSGNs at around $8B each, and the replacement for the Virginias at around $5.5B each. That's going to mandate a very small sub force, and indeed a very small Navy. I think we are stuck with the Columbias, but I would try to base the SSGNs on the Ohios, which should come in around $5 billion, so we could afford maybe 20 of them, and build out the SSNs as Virginias or something cheaper. The Navy plans to build 12 SSBNs ($108B), 5 SSGNs ($40B), 33 more Virginias ($93B), and 28 Virginia replacements ($154B), total 78 subs for $395B. I would propose the 12 SSBNs ($108B), 20 SSGNs ($100B), 30 Virginia VPMs ($93B), and 30 smaller SSNs ($60B), total 92 subs for $361B. I would also build 30 AIP SSKs for coastal, littoral, and choke point use, to free up the nukes for blue water missions, at about $750MM each, total $23B, for a total force of 122 subs for $384B.

One thought I have had is license-buying a number of the French Barracudas, which come in at about $2 billion each, and try to get Naval Group to build or reopen a facility on the west coast, like they have done with Brazil and are supposedly doing in Australia. There are some obvious issues there, particularly with technology transfer, but if we committed to a run of 30 boats or so, we could probably make it happen. One problem is that I don't know how quiet the Barracudas are--their predecessors, the Rubis were pretty noisy--and there would be awkward issues handling the technology around that. Another problem would that it would put our smaller subs being built on the west coast, were we really need our biggest ones because of distances, but there are Panama Canals and polar submerged transits to deal with that.

Now see---a new shipyard is the kind of thing that would make a ton of sense in a real well considered "national infrastructure" spending plan that was about getting us ready for the next century. Im sure its nowhere to be found in the current bloated idiocy being proposed on the Hill.

If the Aussies gave us $3 billion each for 12 new Virginia-class subs, that's $36 billion. The profits on that sale would easily pay for a new shipyard.

There's plenty of good sites for shipyards - we used to have twice as many as we do now. The biggest limiting factor for keeping shipyards open has been a lack of orders for new ships.