I'm just not sure the LCSs can be patched into anything useful in a deployed state.

I've bee kind of dropping hints around, so here is my proposed structure.

12 2-carrier carrier battle groups (CVBG) which can be merged into 6 of Marc Mitscher's WWII carrier task forces (CT?F)--Fords ($14B) are too expensive for these numbers, so make each CVBG 1 Nimitz CVN ($9B) and 1 updated Kitty Hawk CV ($6B); until the Kittys start coming in (about 2035) convert the exiting LHAs/LHDs to interim Lightning Carriers ($1.5B), with service lives to expire as Kittys come in--total cost $198B.

8 surface action/hunter-killer (SAG/HUK) groups, each consisting of a battleship ($4.5B) and an ASW helicopter cruiser ($1.5B).--Total cost $48B.

20 escort squadrons (CortRons), one for each CVBG and each SAG/HUK, consisting of 1 cruiser (larger Tico, $3.5B), 2 AAW destroyers (Burkes, $1.8B), 3 GP FREMMs ($1.0B), and 4 ASW frigates ($500MM)--Total cost $12.1B/CortRon or $242B total.

10 amphibious squadrons/ampibious ready groups (PibRons/ARGs), each consisting of one smaller LHA/LHD (like SP Juan Carlos/AU Canberra, $1.5B), 1 LPH (like FR Mistral, $800MM), 1 LPD/LST (like RN Albion, $600MM), 1 LST (conventional LST beaching bow, $500MM), 1 LPA/LKA (could be modified merchant, $500MM), and 1 NGFS gun/rocket land attack ship ($500MM)--Total cost $4.4B/PhibRon (about cost of one current Navy LHA/LHD) or $44B total.

12 SSBNs (Columbia, $7.9B), 20 SSGNs (Ohios, $5.5B), 30 SSNs (Virginia VPMs, $3B), 30 smaller SSNs (maybe FR Barracuda, $2B)--Total cost $354.8B.

Coastal/Littoral force consisting of 30 Corvettes ($350MM), 30 missile patrol boats ($250MM), 30 mine countermeasures ships ($200MM), and 30 SSKs ($800MM)--Total cost $48B.

Convert 12 of the current LPDs to the HII proposed ABM/BMD ships ($1.5B)--Total cost $18B.

That's a total combat fleet of 524 ships at a total cost of $956.8B. or to build by 2050, over 30 years, $32B/year. Of course there are a number of legacy ships that would still be around in 2050--5 CVNs ($45B), 20 Burkes ($36B), and possibly others, and we'd only be about halfway to building the CVs by 2050, so that's another $36B tat we wouldn't spend by then, making the new construction cost about about $840B, or $28B/year over 30 years. Recent Navy shipbuilding budgets are running $22B/year, so the money would have to come from somewhere. Or perhaps stretch out the construction period to 40 years and spend the current $21B/year. Of course, we would also need to add some auxiliaries, probably about 80 oilers, supply ships, tenders, tugs, survey ships and the like, at about $500MM a pop, or $40B, so add another billion a year to those numbers.

The CVNs would just be continuing current production, and replacing 1-for-1 with new ones as old ones reach the ends of their service lives. The Lightning Carriers could come over in some form immediately, and be upgraded over the next 10-15 years. The CVs would probably start coming in around 2035, and about 1 every 3 years, so by 2050, there would be about 6 of them and 6 Lightning Carriers remaining. The battleships could probably start coming in around 2030 and one every 2 years until 2046. Same for the ASW helo carriers. The new cruisers could probably start coming in around 2030, and one a year thereafter, each one replacing a Tico. The Burkes are basically here. The FREMMs could come in starting in 2025 or so, and about 2/year, with 4/year LCSs rolling off. The ASW frigates could probably be a short term design and production effort, with maybe 3/year coming in starting around 2028. The subs would require a new sub manufacturing yard. If we did the Barracudas, perhaps we could talk Naval Group into building or buying a US yard, preferably on the west coast, to build them, just as they did with Brazil. We would probably hit a minimum of about 60 subs by 2030 or so, and then grow about 1 a year until we got back to 90. The amphibs and coastal/littoral ships would probably require bringing additional yards into play. Fortunately the coastal/littoral ships could be build by a bunch of smaller yards that don't presently build naval ships. HII could probably build the smaller amphibs fairly easily. For the bigger ones, perhaps we could do like for the Barracudas and get Naval Group and Navantia to build or buy USA yards to build them here. Obviously these timetables don't get us to the full 524 by 2050, probably somewhere around 450 or so. And there would be a dip between 2025 and 2030 until some of the new designs start rolling off, but that's pretty much already baked into the cake, and this plan would get us over it ASAP.

If we had a two-front war with a rogue nation in the Mideast (worst case scenario), I would send two 4-carrier CTFs to WestPac--one outside the range of China's A2/AD systems, to launch aircraft with sufficient range and/or tanking to fly combat sorties as far as the first island chain) and one down south by Malacca and Sunda to interdict Chinese shipping--one CTF to the Mideast, and two CTFs to Europe--one Med and one North Sea--with 2 CVBGs in reserve/surge mode in CONUS. I would have two SAG/HUK groups in the Pacific, two in the Indian Ocean, one in the GIUK gap, one in the mid-Atlantic, and two stateside in reserve/surge mode. I would have 2-3 ARGs in WestPac, 2-3 in the Indian Ocean (to do port seizures of China's String of Pearls ports), 2-3 in Europe, and 2 in reserve/surge in CONUS. And the CortRons would escort those groups as appropriate.

Anyway, that's kind of my full plan.

(06-15-2021 10:54 AM)Todor Wrote:  When we're spending money dont have to send a fleet of ships half way around the world to China's doorstep, into waters we know are contested, to try to taunt or scare them, and saying they are the ones who would be doing the provoking is a stretch.

We're a bankrupt country. Things like this are a big part of the reason why.

The waters are not seriously contested. Everyone but China considers them international waters free to traverse by anyone.

(06-23-2021 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we need IMO is to build a bunch of cheap ASW frigates. The Knoxes and Perrys were very limited ships, but they contributed greatly to winning Cold War I. Then we forgot about ASW. I'd build 80 or so of something like this:

- 3500-4000T
- Stealth profile
- CODLAG or IEP propulsion for quiet running, 2 shafts, 30 knots
- 1x 76 mm Super Rapid STRALES/DART
- 1-2 Phalanx CIWS
- 4 fixed reloadable torpedo tubes (2-12.75" and 2-21", one of each to each side, like Knox layout)
- 2 ASW rocket depth charge launchers similar to Russian RBUs
- 32-cell VLS for 32 quad-packed ESSM, 12 VL-ASROC, and 12 NSM
- VDS
- Bow mounted multi-frequency sonar
- SQR-20 Multi-function towed array
- Wide aperture lightweight fiber optic passive sonar array (like Virginia class side arrays)
- 2 helos (or at minimum, 1 helo and 1 drone)
- TRS-3D/4D radar

This would be an ASW specialist, with self-defense ASuW and AAW. The Knox hull could be a starting point, modified to accommodate 2 shafts.

That is what the FREMM FFG's are supposed to be. It's not what we will get, but it is the plan in theory

(06-23-2021 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Perhaps---but that would be a bargain compared to the 7.6 billion we spent on modules that dont work. For far less than 7.6 billion you can convert 35 essentially useless hulls into a fleet of low end escorts. If the goal is a 350 ship Navy---you cant get there dumping a decade of ship building. I guess my view is if you have a 350 ship Navy---every vessel doesnt have to be tops in its class. lol...for the money we paid I agree that they should be tops in their class....but we are where we are.

If we can get these to be reasonably capable low end escorts for the next 10 to 20 years while we build the new frigate and replace aging Burkes and Ticons---then in my view---thats a win.

And I would agree to that if I felt the USN could keep within that cost window. I think the Freedom class would make a good replacement for the cyclone and the Independence would be the missile boat option if you delete the flight deck.

(06-23-2021 03:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Suppose $100MM per ship is the cost to fix the engines. Would the USCG take 35 cutters that their cost was $100MM each for the engine fix? I think they would. Rather than try to make it fit Navy needs, I'd rather build the 80 or so ASW frigates that I proposed, and for each two ASW frigates, turn one LCS over to the USCG. Do that, hang on to the Ticos and Burkes for AAW until their full service lives (another 10 years or so), come up with a true cruiser to replace the Ticos by then, and build the FFG(X)s more to a FREMM GP standard than the baby Burkes that we seem to be going for. By 2050, we could have 20 true cruisers, 40 legacy Burkes still in service, 60 FREMM GPs, and 80 ASW frigates. I think that would form a very competent surface escort force.

Outside of a federal mandate, why would the Coast Guard take the Navy's Charlie Foxtrot? They actually have a shipbuiding plan that works for them.

(06-24-2021 06:15 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  That is what the FREMM FFG's are supposed to be. It's not what we will get, but it is the plan in theory

The original FREMMs are not nearly as specialized ASW platforms as I am envisioning. And with what we took off to get AEGIS on the FFGs, they are nowhere close.

Quote:Outside of a federal mandate, why would the Coast Guard take the Navy's Charlie Foxtrot? They actually have a shipbuiding plan that works for them.

If they could get 35 cutters for $3.5B to fix the engines, they might. Then again they might not. If I offered you a Maserati for free but you had to replace the generator, would you take it? What about a Ford?

(06-24-2021 08:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 06:15 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  That is what the FREMM FFG's are supposed to be. It's not what we will get, but it is the plan in theory

The original FREMMs are not nearly as specialized ASW platforms as I am envisioning. And with what we took off to get AEGIS on the FFGs, they are nowhere close.

Quote:Outside of a federal mandate, why would the Coast Guard take the Navy's Charlie Foxtrot? They actually have a shipbuiding plan that works for them.

If they could get 35 cutters for $3.5B to fix the engines, they might. Then again they might not. If I offered you a Maserati for free but you had to replace the generator, would you take it? What about a Ford?

Comparing a Maserati to the LCS is apt given both are notoriously unreliable. That said, I know I can LS swap the car, the engine change out ship on the other hand will be more of a challenge considering the entire drive train probably needs to go as well.

I think I've told you this before, but I was an ASWO in my Navy life. IMO it doesn't matter if you had the ASW ship you detailed, Big Navy doesn't prioritize the subsurface mission. And that is reflective in the attitude of the officers and the capital spending of the flag staff.

(06-24-2021 08:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Comparing a Maserati to the LCS is apt given both are notoriously unreliable. That said, I know I can LS swap the car, the engine change out ship on the other hand will be more of a challenge considering the entire drive train probably needs to go as well.

I struggled to find a proper analogy. I thought of a Trabant, but wasn't sure this crowd would know what that was.

Quote:I think I've told you this before, but I was an ASWO in my Navy life. IMO it doesn't matter if you had the ASW ship you detailed, Big Navy doesn't prioritize the subsurface mission. And that is reflective in the attitude of the officers and the capital spending of the flag staff.

We did prioritize the ASW mission in the 1980s. And our ability to track Russian submarines was one of the factors that brought down the Evil Empire. But when the Berlin Wall fell, somebody decided that we didn't need to worry about submarines any more. Right now the ships we have to perform ASW are Burkes, and you aren't going to send a Burke chasing a submarine. The ship I am describing would only happen if the Navy decided to prioritize ASW again. That message needs to be driven down the throats of CNO and his lackeys. We need 80-100 surface ships that can serve as exceptional ASW platforms, like we had with the Knoxes and the Perrys.

We also need more subs on our side, particularly IMO more SSGNs, which I see as the primary strike platforms (with better missiles) in an A2/AD environment. The Navy is proposing a variant of the Columbia, which will probably come in somewhere between $7B-9B. The Ohio conversions seemed like perfectly good ships for the purpose, and considerably cheaper, so I don't see why we can't just build more of them. We also need more SSNs, but with the cost of the Virginia replacement being estimated by CBO as over $5B apiece, that's just not affordable. The French are building Barracudas for $1.7B apiece, and if they have solved their noise problems, that seems like a much better option. I actually don't understand why we are building the Columbias instead of just more Ohios with possible incremental improvements.

(06-23-2021 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If we can get these to be reasonably capable low end escorts for the next 10 to 20 years while we build the new frigate and replace aging Burkes and Ticons---then in my view---thats a win.

"If ...."

We can't.

(06-24-2021 10:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If we can get these to be reasonably capable low end escorts for the next 10 to 20 years while we build the new frigate and replace aging Burkes and Ticons---then in my view---thats a win.

"If ...."

We can't.

Perhaps this is true, but my sense is you are conflating "below average" with "nothing". They are not the same. Even with all its faults, a LCS with 32 VLS cells, two 4-cell NSM boxes, and a long range drone like the Bell-247---would be a heck of a lot better than a empty spot on the ocean. I absolutely agree that after putting additional money in them they dont stack up well against a peer or their planned replacement---but to me---they are what we have until their replacements arrive. I would point out that we havent even STARTED to build their replacements (and--knowing us---we probably are still years away from STARTING to build them---forget how far away we are from having any substantial number of replacement ships actually entering operation). Realistically---best case scenario is we are a decade away from having any replacement in numbers that matter (and it easily could be longer than that). Thats where my concern lies. What happens between now and then as China continues to aggressively close the gap with respect to combat vessels?

Check this out:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper...ssion=true

Our Navy is basically getting out of the navy business if that is true.

(06-24-2021 11:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Perhaps this is true, but my sense is you are conflating "below average" with "nothing". They are not the same. Even with all its faults, a LCS with 32 VLS cells, two 4-cell NSM boxes, and a long range drone like the Bell-247---would be a heck of a lot better than a empty spot on the ocean.

Well, for one thing, you don't have to send a tug out to tow an empty spot in the ocean back home. For another, deceiving yourself into believing you have something useful, when in fact you have an LCS, is the way to shattering strategic and tactical defeats.

(06-24-2021 11:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Check this out:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper...ssion=true

Our Navy is basically getting out of the navy business if that is true.

It is true and is the result of poor strategic planning. The Navy's obsession with minimum manning and drones is driving the surface fleet to an early grave.

(06-24-2021 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 11:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Perhaps this is true, but my sense is you are conflating "below average" with "nothing". They are not the same. Even with all its faults, a LCS with 32 VLS cells, two 4-cell NSM boxes, and a long range drone like the Bell-247---would be a heck of a lot better than a empty spot on the ocean.

Well, for one thing, you don't have to send a tug out to tow an empty spot in the ocean back home. For another, deceiving yourself into believing you have something useful, when in fact you have an LCS, is the way to shattering strategic and tactical defeats.

lol. Good points. The assumption, of course, is the engines get fixed---that was the cost we were all discussing earlier. And obviously your correct---you still just have a crappy upgunned LCS when your finished---I agree. But when an enemy ship is hit by a missile---does it matter whether a LCS launched it or the most sophisticated ship in the navy? If distributed lethality is still a goal---then even a lowly LCS with VLS and NSM launchers is better than an empty spot on the ocean. All Im saying is if you fix the engines and replace the modules with 24 to 32 VLS cells---it can at least contribute to that distributed lethality equation where as an empty spot on the ocean cannot. I guess it just depends on what you mean by "useful". I think anyone would stipulate its certainly never going to be as effective as its coming replacement or an existing destroyer. I just keep going back to---its what we have. Nothing else is going to be available to us for a long time. One thing I'd add---anyone who had anything to do with the LCS fiasco should NOT be within a thousand miles of the planning for the frigate replacement.

(06-24-2021 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 11:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Perhaps this is true, but my sense is you are conflating "below average" with "nothing". They are not the same. Even with all its faults, a LCS with 32 VLS cells, two 4-cell NSM boxes, and a long range drone like the Bell-247---would be a heck of a lot better than a empty spot on the ocean.

Well, for one thing, you don't have to send a tug out to tow an empty spot in the ocean back home. For another, deceiving yourself into believing you have something useful, when in fact you have an LCS, is the way to shattering strategic and tactical defeats.

The assumption, of course, is the engines get fixed---that was the cost we were all discussing earlier. And obviously your correct---you still just have a crappy upgunned LCS when your finished---I agree. But when an enemy ship is hit by a missile---does it matter whether a LCS launched it or the most sophisticated ship in the navy? If distributed lethality is still a goal---then even a lowly LCS with VLS and NSM launchers is better than an empty spot on the ocean. All Im saying is if your fix the engines and replace the modules with 24 to 32 VLS cells---it can at least contribute to that distributed lethality equation where as an empty spot on the ocean cannot.

It's better than a drone, but that's about the limit I'm willing to go.

Here's the Navy issue in a nutshell. CBO (1) says the Navy and Marines combined (it doesn't break them out separately) have 234,000 combat support personnel, 94,000 combat support personnel, and 204,000 admin/overhead personnel, total 532,000 active duty personnel, plus 97,000 reserves, grand total 629,000. The Navy claims they have a personnel shortage. But suppose they got rid of half of those admin/overhead slots, put 1/3 of them into combat, 1/6 into combat support, and the rest into the reserves, as part of doubling the reserves. Then you have something like 268,000 combat, 111,000 combat support 102,000 admin/overhead total 481,000 active, plus 194,000 reserves, grand total 675,000. And since you pay reservists for 60 days a year instead of 365, a reservist should be about 1/6 of a full-time equivalent (FTE). So with those changes the Navy would go from 548,000 FTEs (532,000 plus 97,000/6) to 513,000 FTEs (481,000 plus 194,000/6), which should save something on the order of 6% personnel costs.

Now if we split the changes pro rata between Navy and Marines, Navy would get about 22,000 more combat and 11,000 more combat support personnel out of the deal. That's where they cover their current manpower shortages. I have my own thoughts about the Marines, but that is another subject.

So what kinds of admin/overhead does the Navy give up? For one thing, we currently have about 285 admirals for 290 ships. That is not more admirals than ships, but it is simply unreasonable beyond any shadow of a doubt. Not a lot of money there (suppose each admiral has a staff of 20, at an average personnel cost of $150K/year, that's $3MM/staff, so if you cut the number of staffs in half, that saves less than half a billion), but it does set a very different tone. We have more people working in and around the Pentagon today than it took to win WWII, despite the fact that many of the tasks performed there have been greatly streamlined with IT. We have an incredibly inordinate number of contractors, which could easily been cut to half, or less. Those would be starters.

The other branches have similar problems, at similar scale.

If I were president, I would call the joint chiefs into my office and say, here is what you are going to do. You are going to cut admin/overhead in half. You are going to distribute the personnel and savings 1/3 to combat, 1/6 to combat support, enough of the rest to the reserves to double the size of the reserve forces, and the rest we will give back to the taxpayers. Be back here in a week with your plan to do so. That is an order. That is all.

(1) https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57088

(06-24-2021 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 11:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Perhaps this is true, but my sense is you are conflating "below average" with "nothing". They are not the same. Even with all its faults, a LCS with 32 VLS cells, two 4-cell NSM boxes, and a long range drone like the Bell-247---would be a heck of a lot better than a empty spot on the ocean.

Well, for one thing, you don't have to send a tug out to tow an empty spot in the ocean back home. For another, deceiving yourself into believing you have something useful, when in fact you have an LCS, is the way to shattering strategic and tactical defeats.

The assumption, of course, is the engines get fixed---that was the cost we were all discussing earlier. And obviously your correct---you still just have a crappy upgunned LCS when your finished---I agree. But when an enemy ship is hit by a missile---does it matter whether a LCS launched it or the most sophisticated ship in the navy? If distributed lethality is still a goal---then even a lowly LCS with VLS and NSM launchers is better than an empty spot on the ocean. All Im saying is if your fix the engines and replace the modules with 24 to 32 VLS cells---it can at least contribute to that distributed lethality equation where as an empty spot on the ocean cannot.

It's better than a drone, but that's about the limit I'm willing to go.

Here's the Navy issue in a nutshell. CBO (1) says the Navy and Marines combined (it doesn't break them out separately) have 234,000 combat support personnel, 94,000 combat support personnel, and 204,000 admin/overhead personnel, total 532,000 active duty personnel, plus 97,000 reserves, grand total 629,000. The Navy claims they have a personnel shortage. But suppose they got rid of half of those admin/overhead slots, put 1/3 of them into combat, 1/6 into combat support, and the rest into the reserves, as part of doubling the reserves. Then you have something like 268,000 combat, 111,000 combat support 102,000 admin/overhead total 481,000 active, plus 194,000 reserves, grand total 675,000. And since you pay reservists for 60 days a year instead of 365, a reservist should be about 1/6 of a full-time equivalent (FTE). So with those changes the Navy would go from 548,000 FTEs (532,000 plus 97,000/6) to 513,000 FTEs (481,000 plus 194,000/6), which should save something on the order of 6% personnel costs.

Now if we split the changes pro rata between Navy and Marines, Navy would get about 22,000 more combat and 11,000 more combat support personnel out of the deal. That's where they cover their current manpower shortages. I have my own thoughts about the Marines, but that is another subject.

So what kinds of admin/overhead does the Navy give up? For one thing, we currently have about 285 admirals for 290 ships. That is not more admirals than ships, but it is simply unreasonable beyond any shadow of a doubt. Not a lot of money there (suppose each admiral has a staff of 20, at an average personnel cost of $150K/year, that's $3MM/staff, so if you cut the number of staffs in half, that saves less than half a billion), but it does set a very different tone. We have more people working in and around the Pentagon today than it took to win WWII, despite the fact that many of the tasks performed there have been greatly streamlined with IT. We have an incredibly inordinate number of contractors, which could easily been cut to half, or less. Those would be starters.

The other branches have similar problems, at similar scale.

If I were president, I would call the joint chiefs into my office and say, here is what you are going to do. You are going to cut admin/overhead in half. You are going to distribute the personnel and savings 1/3 to combat, 1/6 to combat support, enough of the rest to the reserves to double the size of the reserve forces, and the rest we will give back to the taxpayers. Be back here in a week with your plan to do so. That is an order. That is all.

(1) https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57088

I can tell you right now. No layman knows that absolutely shocking fact. I tend to be a nerd about national defense topics and I had zero clue that we had so many admirals. That tells me why we are so top heavy and why decisions get made that dont make sense. That kind of top heavy echo chamber environment probably has a lot to do with why it took us over 20 to 30 years to build an entire class of 35 "combat" vessels that dont work and serve no real purpose as designed.

(06-24-2021 01:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I can tell you right now. No layman knows that absolutely shocking fact. I tend to be a nerd about national defense topics and I had zero clue that we had so many admirals.

A lot of it has to do with NATO. NATO was set up with all these subsidiary commands to cater to all the parochial interests, and we wanted our guy to be in charge of every one of them. That meant if Belgium had a rear admiral, then our guy had to be at least a rear admiral and preferably a vice admiral. So we created all these flag billets tied to the NATO command structure, to make sure our guy was always in charge.

The one place we didn't really do that was mine warfare, because we really didn't give a damn about mine warfare. And the parochial interests around the mouths of the Rhine are simply incredible. The Germans think they should be in charge because the Rhine is essential to their economy. The Dutch think they should be in charge because Rotterdam and the main mouths are Dutch. The Belgians think they should be in charge because there is one old abandoned channel that runs through Belgium. The French think they should be in charge of everything on the continental side of the Channel. My boss (a CDR) used to serve on the NATO mine warfare committee, which was chaired by a Royal Navy Commodore. During one meeting, the Belgian representative kept objecting to every single proposal advanced, apparently deriving his credibility from the fact that the meeting was taking place in Brussels. After everyone had gotten thoroughly exasperated, the senior Brit inquired, "Jean-Francois, please refresh my memory. How many wars have Belgium won?"

The Navy is planning to decommission 15 ships (14 warships) this year:

- 7 Ticonderoga cruisers at ages ranging from 28-34 years, design life 35 years, no replacement
- 4 LCSs at ages ranging from 5-10 years, good riddance
- 1 LSD at age 37, design life 40
- 2 SSNs at ages 34 and 37, design life 35
- 1 fleet tug at 41 years

The Navy is building 8 ships (4 warships) this year:

- 2 Virginia-class submarines
- 1 Burke-class destroyer
- 1 Constellation-class frigate
- 1 John Lewis-class oiler
- 1 ocean surveillance ship
- 2 Navajo class towing, salvage, and rescue ships

Net decreases of 7 ships and 10 warships. I am beginning to think the Navy doesn't want to be a navy any more.

So doing the quick math, does that mean that next year we'll have more admirals than ships?

I have a hard time believing they'll shrink the number of admirals. That's not the type of thing a bureaucracy does.

(06-25-2021 08:28 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  So doing the quick math, does that mean that next year we'll have more admirals than ships?
I have a hard time believing they'll shrink the number of admirals. That's not the type of thing a bureaucracy does.

It'll be close. Actually the number of new ships is the number they are starting this year, and they will have some entering the fleet from the last few years of construction when the numbers were higher, so ships will probably still lead, but not by much.

(06-25-2021 07:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Navy is planning to decommission 15 ships (14 warships) this year:

- 7 Ticonderoga cruisers at ages ranging from 28-34 years, design life 35 years, no replacement
- 4 LCSs at ages ranging from 5-10 years, good riddance
- 1 LSD at age 37, design life 40
- 2 SSNs at ages 34 and 37, design life 35
- 1 fleet tug at 41 years

The Navy is building 8 ships (4 warships) this year:

- 2 Virginia-class submarines
- 1 Burke-class destroyer
- 1 Constellation-class frigate
- 1 John Lewis-class oiler
- 1 ocean surveillance ship
- 2 Navajo class towing, salvage, and rescue ships

Net decreases of 7 ships and 10 warships. I am beginning to think the Navy doesn't want to be a navy any more.

FWIW---this is why I keep thinking we need to figure out how to make the LCS useful for our current world landscape. On a minimally related topic---I've been amused watching videos on YouTube discussing the absolute mess the Aussie's have made of trying to procure submarines to replace their 6 aging front line subs from the 1980's. lol---They might have made a bigger mess of it than we did with the LCS. At least we arent alone in doing dumb crap.

I kinda wish we'd just agree to build them some Virginia class boats. Seems like that would be a win if we have a dozen more Virginia's in the South China Sea that we didnt have to pay for. Wouldnt hurt if we also made them upgrade their Canberra's to handle the F-35 as a mandatory part of the deal. That would give China 3 more light carriers to worry about at no expense to ourselves. Problem is, even if we wanted to, we dont really have the ship building capacity that would allow us build excess production to sell off while meeting our own needs.

(06-26-2021 10:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 07:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Navy is planning to decommission 15 ships (14 warships) this year:

- 7 Ticonderoga cruisers at ages ranging from 28-34 years, design life 35 years, no replacement
- 4 LCSs at ages ranging from 5-10 years, good riddance
- 1 LSD at age 37, design life 40
- 2 SSNs at ages 34 and 37, design life 35
- 1 fleet tug at 41 years

The Navy is building 8 ships (4 warships) this year:

- 2 Virginia-class submarines
- 1 Burke-class destroyer
- 1 Constellation-class frigate
- 1 John Lewis-class oiler
- 1 ocean surveillance ship
- 2 Navajo class towing, salvage, and rescue ships

Net decreases of 7 ships and 10 warships. I am beginning to think the Navy doesn't want to be a navy any more.

FWIW---this is why I keep thinking we need to figure out how to make the LCS useful for our current world landscape. On a minimally related topic---I've been amused watching videos on YouTube discussing the absolute mess the Aussie's have made of trying to procure submarines to replace their 6 aging front line subs from the 1980's. lol---They might have made a bigger mess of it than we did with the LCS. At least we arent alone in doing dumb crap.

I kinda wish we'd just agree to build them some Virginia class boats. Seems like that would be a win if we have a dozen more Virginia's in the South China Sea that we didnt have to pay for. Wouldnt hurt is we also made them upgrading their Canberra's to handle the F-35 a mandatory part of the deal. That would give China 3 more light carriers to worry about at no expense to ourselves. Problem is, even if we wanted to, we dont really have the ship building capacity that would allow us build excess production to sell off while meeting our own needs.

I wouldn't give any country our front line sub technology, even our allies. If you think the US is chocked full of Chinese spies you'd be really impressed with how they have infultrated the Aussies.