Us Navy Ship Number Increase Goal Announced

[futon]

If US doesn't want Toyota warships then that's fine, better to leave that hornet's nest alone...  

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well perhaps its an isolated case, but I was interested to watch that documentary about HMS Queen Elizabeth, when the Chinese Navy suddenly lost sight of, and panicked, when Big Liz turned her radars off and did a flit into the night.

It supports the premise that wars are not won by big navies, but by good ones.

[Josh]

6 minutes ago, futon said:

https://spacenews.com/first-satellite-for-chinese-g60-megaconstellation-rolls-off-assembly-line/

I do not have the exact link, but the US is about to orbit almost a hundred satellites in the next year or two for missile defense. It also has a separate contract for a coupe hundred satellites for ground observation. It aims for 300-400 by 2030, and right now, the US has a huge advantage in the amount of shit it can put in orbit. IMO, China has the next few years to try to make its move, and after that, the US will be able to see all its shit and transmit that data anywhere.

[Josh]

3 minutes ago, futon said:

If US doesn't want Toyota warships then that's fine, better to leave that hornet's nest alone...  

I welcome any help Japan would give the US in the endeavor of keeping China from altering the status quo. No war needs to happen if they accept Taiwan as it is now...perhaps not explicitly independent, but also not under Communist rule.

[futon]

Just now, Josh said:

I do not have the exact link, but the US is about to orbit almost a hundred satellites in the next year or two for missile defense. It also has a separate contract for a coupe hundred satellites for ground observation. It aims for 300-400 by 2030, and right now, the US has a huge advantage in the amount of shit it can put in orbit. IMO, China has the next few years to try to make its move, and after that, the US will be able to see all its shit and transmit that data anywhere.

They'll watch their naval dominance fall from a billion different angles, great. 

[futon]

3 minutes ago, Josh said:

I welcome any help Japan would give the US in the endeavor of keeping China from altering the status quo. No war needs to happen if they accept Taiwan as it is now...perhaps not explicitly independent, but also not under Communist rule.

じゃ、手伝う。

[futon]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well perhaps its an isolated case, but I was interested to watch that documentary about HMS Queen Elizabeth, when the Chinese Navy suddenly lost sight of, and panicked, when Big Liz turned her radars off and did a flit into the night.

It supports the premise that wars are not won by big navies, but by good ones.

Fool 'em once, teach them to not be fooled again.

[shep854]

EMCON is one of the oldest tricks in the naval playbook.

Given the low birth-rate and ageing of the Chinese population, actually manning all those ships may be a real long-term problem.  One hopes they won't give into the temptation to use their military machine before it ages out.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, shep854 said:

EMCON is one of the oldest tricks in the naval playbook.

Given the low birth-rate and ageing of the Chinese population, actually manning all those ships may be a real long-term problem.  One hopes they won't give into the temptation to use their military machine before it ages out.

Yes. If they havent learned that one yet, they have a drubbing coming.

[Josh]

8 hours ago, futon said:

They'll watch their naval dominance fall from a billion different angles, great. 
 

 

There is value in providing continuous targeting information to your forces.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, shep854 said:

EMCON is one of the oldest tricks in the naval playbook.

Given the low birth-rate and ageing of the Chinese population, actually manning all those ships may be a real long-term problem.  One hopes they won't give into the temptation to use their military machine before it ages out.

China is always going to be a large enough country to man a navy of most any size it cares to have.

[Stuart Galbraith]

But you have to ask yourself, what is the value of the worlds largest navy, if without allies they are stuck to the South China sea? The US can get bases near anywhere it damn pleases. The Chinese dont really have as much to offer as they think they have.

For example, if Pakistan or even in the unlikely case, India, offered bases facing onto the Persian Gulf, the chinese navy would really have a most excellent grip on world trade, if it chose. But how likely is that, when they are so skilled at annoying the piss out of people that might actually like to ally with them?  Iran is a possiblity, but I think thats just a  little too close to the action, and its not as if the Chinese could trust them anyway.

Submarines I can see the point, but as far as seapower, for China its arguably a bit irrelevant for anything but Taiwan at this point.

[Burncycle360]

They're not ready yet, but they're going to have to do something soon if they're going to do it. Despite the narrative, they're falling apart domestically for a variety of reasons on all fronts (food, fuel, economic, trade surety, government cohesion, demographically, etc) and the classic way to distract from these problems at home is to do something super nationalistic, so a Falklands with Taiwan is going to be seen as just the ticket, and the idea is especially attractive post Afghanistan when the US is seen as tired of forever wars (hence Russia's timing on Ukraine) and fighting their own culture war at home.

I believe that had Russia been more successful it would have encouraged China to do the same while the getting's good, but conversely Russia's slow progress might be resulting in hesitancy. Any attempted invasion by China will fail no matter what, but if they go too soon not only will it be a quagmire, and their sea trade is done, which means the pace of their inevitable demise accelerates.  If they wait too long, then the US might sort out its domestic squabbles and might even rebuild capability, driven by the "Chinese threat" that is being honked about non-stop.  The layperson here still thinks China is on the rise and will dominate the world economically, but it's all Potemkin.

Barring anything crazy, I think the next election will be the go/no-go decision point, and from there the gears set in motion or not.  Xi gets to choose between a long, slow decay or ripping that bandaid off, but the result will be the same.  The next opportunity to expand their sphere of influence and assert dominance over the region won't occur until US economic collapse, if they're still around then... we can stretch it out for a realllly long time if we have to, easily long enough for them to implode first.

While they can't successfully invade Taiwan, they can certainly destroy what makes Taiwan valuable; the high end value added electronics infrastructure.  If they ever decide to do this (assuming conventional ballistic missiles, not nuclear), then then all they have to do is wait. The US will rebuild that infrastructure in Mexico, and the desire to "protect" Taiwan slowly evaporates over generations.  Xi's successors might get another shot at it, once they reunify the mainland.

Edited March 21, 2024 by Burncycle360

[futon]

5 hours ago, Josh said:

 

There is value in providing continuous targeting information to your forces.

It's one part. Everything else still matters. Starlink didn't save the Ukraine from the current meat grinder. They still need more of the century old tanks. If the US support is a Taiwan version of the current Ukraine situation that has Japanese killing Chinese once again, all because the US is complacent in other areas, then its not worth it. Why should it be a struggle to make a case for absolute superiority in naval forces? ...Now its ok that LCS project failed. That Zumwalt project failed. That Constillation frigate program too has delays. That nuke subs have delays.. be it shipyard issues or defense budget order shortage. 

Edited March 21, 2024 by futon

[Josh]

3 hours ago, futon said:

It's one part. Everything else still matters. Starlink didn't save the Ukraine from the current meat grinder. They still need more of the century old tanks. If the US support is a Taiwan version of the current Ukraine situation that has Japanese killing Chinese once again, all because the US is complacent in other areas, then its not worth it. Why should it be a struggle to make a case for absolute superiority in naval forces? ...Now its ok that LCS project failed. That Zumwalt project failed. That Constillation frigate program too has delays. That nuke subs have delays.. be it shipyard issues or defense budget order shortage. 

The U.S. has no shortage of long range weapons even now. And its numbers and platform options are growing. By the the end of the decade there will be a hundred ISR satellites linked to a couple hundred communications satellites. There also will be a small but ever growing fleet of B-21s, hypersonic weapons hanging off B-52s, and nearly a thousand Blk 5 tomahawks. Picture the damage that can be done if most large TELs can be reliably tracked or the location of every parked AEW aircraft was known.

[futon]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

The U.S. has no shortage of long range weapons even now. And its numbers and platform options are growing. By the the end of the decade there will be a hundred ISR satellites linked to a couple hundred communications satellites. There also will be a small but ever growing fleet of B-21s, hypersonic weapons hanging off B-52s, and nearly a thousand Blk 5 tomahawks. Picture the damage that can be done if most large TELs can be reliably tracked or the location of every parked AEW aircraft was known.

Well, for targeting TELs, this isn't DPRK or Ukraine. It's the PRC. Their air defenses are far more vast. And hypersonics from B-52s, or the use of B-21s is future stuff. Just like all the PRC military projects. It's not certain about when a certain quantity amount will be available. The B-21 was only just revealed and its first flight was just in November last year. It's not likely that a first production model will be combat ready any time soon. 

As for current long range weapons, some are low observable. But that doesn't mean they can't be defended against. Type 52Ds have 5 tools of defense. 1st, electronic countermwasures. 2nd, decoy smoke screen. 3rd, HHQ-9 SAM, 4th, HQ-10. And 5th, Type 730 or 1130 CWIS. And then, even when an anti-ship missile gets through all those defensive layers, how much damage is one really going to cause? Most cases likely won't be a sunk ship. Most likely, some aspect of the ship becomes disabled and then the ship has to be towed back or may even be able to return to port on its own power. Or maybe some cases in which it'll still be able to stay on mission with just a secondary capabilty unavailable. So all the sub-sonic anti-ship missiles out there, the later ones include a feature in which they can arrive on target at the same time with other missiles of the same type. Likely in order to increase the chance of getting through those defenses. So I once asked the question about a yrar ago, and got no response. On average, how many sub-sonic cruise missiles will need to be expended before mission killing, for example, a Type 52D? Are the ship defenses going to be good at knocking down missile after missile if they come in serially with plenty of time in between each missile? Maybe it'll take a single group salvo of 5 to have a high chance of a hit. Whereas serial attack may take 20 missiles before exhausting all defenses. Perhaps better for low obserable ones as they pass by HHQ-9 SAM coverage. Back to a salvo attack, maybe a single group salvo can be thoroughly countered with the decoy smoke. 

[Josh]

9 hours ago, futon said:

Well, for targeting TELs, this isn't DPRK or Ukraine. It's the PRC. Their air defenses are far more vast. And hypersonics from B-52s, or the use of B-21s is future stuff. Just like all the PRC military projects. It's not certain about when a certain quantity amount will be available. The B-21 was only just revealed and its first flight was just in November last year. It's not likely that a first production model will be combat ready any time soon.

B-21 and HACM initial operational capability is before the end of the decade (both projected ~2027). By the time these constellations are half way installed (say, several hundred satellites out >600 planned), there will be platforms to take advantage of the information. Subsonic cruise missiles that have a satellite datalink also likely are perfectly effective against relocatable targets. Next year AGM-158 production will switch to the D version with weapon datalink. Tomahawk Blk 5 is being updated at a hundred per year since 2021, and the Blk 4 has an existing (but more vulnerable) satellite link.

The air defense sites themselves are likely part of the high priority targets - if the majority of HQ-9 sites are known ahead of time, even just over a single region of interest, how effective will that defense be? Ukraine seems to have little problem engaging Crimea despite using handfuls of NATO cast off ordnance strapped to Soviet aircraft.

 

9 hours ago, futon said:

As for current long range weapons, some are low observable. But that doesn't mean they can't be defended against. Type 52Ds have 5 tools of defense. 1st, electronic countermwasures. 2nd, decoy smoke screen. 3rd, HHQ-9 SAM, 4th, HQ-10. And 5th, Type 730 or 1130 CWIS. And then, even when an anti-ship missile gets through all those defensive layers, how much damage is one really going to cause? Most cases likely won't be a sunk ship. Most likely, some aspect of the ship becomes disabled and then the ship has to be towed back or may even be able to return to port on its own power. Or maybe some cases in which it'll still be able to stay on mission with just a secondary capabilty unavailable. So all the sub-sonic anti-ship missiles out there, the later ones include a feature in which they can arrive on target at the same time with other missiles of the same type. Likely in order to increase the chance of getting through those defenses. So I once asked the question about a yrar ago, and got no response. On average, how many sub-sonic cruise missiles will need to be expended before mission killing, for example, a Type 52D? Are the ship defenses going to be good at knocking down missile after missile if they come in serially with plenty of time in between each missile? Maybe it'll take a single group salvo of 5 to have a high chance of a hit. Whereas serial attack may take 20 missiles before exhausting all defenses. Perhaps better for low obserable ones as they pass by HHQ-9 SAM coverage. Back to a salvo attack, maybe a single group salvo can be thoroughly countered with the decoy smoke. 

I was actually addressing mainland defenses, not ships. I do not think the U.S. will need satellites to track ships nor hypersonic weapons to engage them (though those would help). Modern AShMs with EO/IR terminal guidance pick their aim point on the ship: if you watch most any LRASM or NSM test, they hit the ship in the forward superstructure right where the CIC and combat system would be, just below the bridge. This would lobotomize the ship and kill the majority of officers.

tomahawk Blk 3 was capable of achieving time on target attacks against land targets. I would be very surprised if Blk 5 did not have such a capability against ship targets. In addition to LRASM and Tomahawk, the USN has purchased a new version of ADM-160 called MALD-N. This decoy/penetration aid has a datalink, a radar altimeter for sea skimming, and a hot swap payload. An F-18 should be able to carry ten of these (only 300 lb). They will look like an AShM on radar, regardless of what EW payload they might be fitted with.

I envision anti strikes involving >100 missiles and decoys, be they USN or USAF based.

[futon]

Ok, thank you for the responses.

[Ol Paint]

On 3/20/2024 at 10:59 PM, Burncycle360 said:

 

Nonsense.

Critical infrastructure and skill surety doesn't require the Jones Act, regular subsidies will work just fine if it's a national security priority... and I agree maintaining a baseline of capability critical to national defense is a priority and worthy of subsidies despite being non-competitive, just not to the exclusion of outside options if our defense needs require a surge of production that our industry cannot handle.  I also agree with you that it's a shame we've let our industry get in this bad of shape, but note that it occurred despite the Jones Act, it didn't just swoop in as if to save what was left just in the nick of time, it's been around since 1920.  The current sad state of our industry is a direct result of the incentive structures policymakers have put into place, to include the Jones Act. It's emergently optimized for turning taxpayer dollars into contractor profits, not delivering goods. So year after year, we get less and less at greater and greater cost, and that might be cute when we weren't $34 trillion in debt, but it ain't now.

But let's play devils advocate and say you're right.  How does my reform suggestion above ("As long as US shipyards are working to capacity...") in ANY way compromise the rump that remains, precisely?

It doesn't. And it sounds like you'd rather we go without than get the ships in a way you detest.  Frankly, if how items are procured is more important than actually procuring them when there are alternative options on the table that could be pursued with the stroke of a pen, then what that tells me is that China isn't really the threat they say it is, it's merely a pretense for opportunistic taxpayer milking, and they can sod off with the fearmongering.

And if China IS the threat they say it is, then our options are to spend trillions of dollars and decades to expand infrastructure (which they claim there's no time for), or swallow our pride, tap into available resources that are our allies, and actually get some ships delivered in numbers, in time, and for a fraction of the price.  Meantime, US shipyards still have all the low-rate production makework welfare they can stomach, rump intact. There's no reason not to acknowledge this avenue would represent some rare progress in defense procurement.

 

You mean this "reform" suggestion?

On 3/20/2024 at 3:38 PM, Burncycle360 said:

Yep. The jones act was supposed to protect US industry and to maintain a robust merchant marine.

What does our industry and merchant marine look like today? 

Did the jones act work, as intended?  Self evidently not.  The answer is simple, on the military side the no brainer reform is this: As long as US shipyards are working to capacity, permit contracting out to allied shipyards overseas. Allow them to compete with each other for the contracts, with US inspectors ensuring compliance with regards to QA at every step.

In the time the constellation here at home is done building, you can have 3-4 delivered for the price of 2.  Not only does it save taxpayer money, it reduces the shortfall of hulls rapidly.  Of course GFE with regards to combat systems is going to still be overpriced because that has to be sourced here at home, but everything else can be had at a fraction of the time and price.

On the commercial side, the only downside is that the demand for truck driving careers is going to drop significantly. But the industry only became that large because of the jones act, so it was artificial to begin with, this is a corrective action and they'll adapt.  It's like ethanol subsidies -- it never panned out how the good idea fairies thought it would, and yet an entire industry sprung up around it... so now if you suggest getting rid of it, people will clamor and squeal.

Let them. When the dust settles we'll be better off, leaner, more capable... and all for less money.

 

The 5 year shipbuilding plan allocates an average of $11.7B/yr to buy an average of 8.8 ships/yr.  It appears your suggestion to take a portion of that money to buy ships overseas.  So exactly how many ships are you cutting out of the domestic construction to pay for the foreign-built ships?  All of them?  That's one way to get leaner, I suppose, but certainly not more capable for the long term.

FFG62 is planned for 1.4 ships/year at 1 yard.  DDG-51 is 2/yr in two yards.  LPD17 is 0.5/yr in 1 yard.    What do you think happens to the cost when you cut production in half, but keep all the overhead?

And how are you going to handle the security aspects of integrating USN systems on ships built in Japan or South Korea?  There's no reform suggestion, just idle daydreaming.

 

 

-------

 

And you still don't have a clue about the Jones Act, its purpose, or its effect.

 

Doug

Edited March 24, 2024 by Ol Paint
Punctuation. Delete near duplicate sentence

[Burncycle360]

"It appears your suggestion to take a portion of that money to buy ships overseas."

No, my suggestion is to allocate additional funding for vessels built overseas in parallel to the ones being constructed here so we reach the desired total force size at a fraction of the time and cost compared to building them exclusively here.

The overhead is getting paid for regardless, that's part of the surety.

What security aspects are showstoppers to the concept, to you? 

 

You didn't address anything I said, as usual. The Jones Act isn't required to subsidize uncompetitive national production to maintain a baseline of capabilities and skills, and elimination or at the very least reform as described is absolutely necessary if we are being serious about the gap with China. If we aren't serious about actually closing that gap, and are just trying to wield it to milk taxpayers like climate change and carbon footprint, then it's perfect the way it is.  

 

Otherwise, elimination or reform would result in gains of up to $15 billion annually, not per me who "doesn't understand" but per the ITC, which also drives down the cost to build ships domestically (steel sourcing), drives down the cost of shipping and drives down the cost of living for people not part of the contiguous US. Some can go back into subsidizing domestic production and we still come out ahead due to reduced raw material cost and transportation, some can go to funding additional warships. 

 

Just admit you're a union guy and you'd rather we go without than to solve the problem in a way you detest, even if it negatively impacts national security. It's okay to feel that way. Just understand not everyone agrees.

Edited March 24, 2024 by Burncycle360

[sunday]

Spain built a series of AAW frigates with AEGIS, the design was exported to Australia in the form of the Hobart-class of AAW destroyers.

So it is seems possible to build American warships in foreign countries and fit them with American systems.

[Ol Paint]

21 minutes ago, Burncycle360 said:

"It appears your suggestion to take a portion of that money to buy ships overseas."

No, my suggestion is to allocate additional funding for vessels built overseas in parallel to the ones being constructed here so we reach the desired total force size at a fraction of the time and cost compared to building them exclusively here.

The overhead is getting paid for regardless, that's part of the surety.

What security aspects are showstoppers to the concept, to you? 

 

You didn't address anything I said, as usual. The Jones Act isn't required to subsidize uncompetitive national production to maintain a baseline of capabilities and skills, and elimination or at the very least reform as described is absolutely necessary if we are being serious about the gap with China. If we aren't serious about actually closing that gap, and are just trying to wield it to milk taxpayers like climate change and carbon footprint, then it's perfect the way it is.  

 

Otherwise, elimination or reform would result in gains of up to $15 billion annually, not per me who "doesn't understand" but per the ITC, which also drives down the cost to build ships domestically (steel sourcing), drives down the cost of shipping and drives down the cost of living for people not part of the contiguous US. Some can go back into subsidizing domestic production and we still come out ahead due to reduced raw material cost and transportation, some can go to funding additional warships. 

 

Just admit you're a union guy and you'd rather we go without than to solve the problem in a way you detest, even if it negatively impacts national security. It's okay to feel that way. Just understand not everyone agrees.

I keep pointing out that you don't understand the Jones Act, because you do not seem to realize that it only affects vessels operating in the domestic trades.  Inland barges.  ATBs & ships trading between CONUS and Puerto Rico/Hawaii/Alaska/etc.  It does NOT affect any of the merchant shipping between foreign countries and the US.  This thread is about a US naval fleet buildup and the industrial base necessary to both construct and support that fleet.  The Jones Act does and has provided some assistance to that base, but only on a limited basis, due to its limited oceanic reach.

You keep saying 'reform the Jones Act' while implying you want to do away with the US build provisions.  So, how exactly do you propose to build up an industry that's subject to a distorted playing field by cutting out one of the few pillars remaining? 

Please provide a source for the International Trade Commission's contention that it would result in a gain in US tax revenue (and therefore funds available to be spent on shipbuilding) of $15 billion, annually.  The articles I've seen reference old studies from the late 1990s and mid 2000s that indicate a burden to the US economy (not tax revenue) on the order of 1/10th that value, which is disputed by other governmental and industry groups.  I may not be looking at the same information that you intended to cite. 

Do you know what the supply chain looks like for the commercial oceanic ships being built in the US?  Hint, it's more than steel plate. 

BTW, wrong about the "union guy" bit, too. 

Doug

[rmgill]

On 3/21/2024 at 4:13 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is an inherent problem with the Chinese building a fleet so fast, the same on the Americans are encountering. It looks good now, wait till 30 years down the line when entire batches of ships are going out of service at the same time. The Americans faced that problem themselves twice, both in the 1970's and Today. Cause no end of turmoil, particularly if for whatever reasons some shipyards have converted over to civilian production, or just went out of business.

Ok. What about 15 years from now? Or 10? 

[rmgill]

On 3/21/2024 at 4:21 AM, futon said:

If US doesn't want Toyota warships then that's fine, better to leave that hornet's nest alone...  

I'd rather have Honda Jets. 

But more seriously, it's probably Mitsubishi Heavy Industries no? 

[sunday]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Ok. What about 15 years from now? Or 10? 

I think the US Navy found themselves in a bit of an obsolescence bother when all the ships built during WWII arrived to the end of their useful lives. Technology changes also contributed to that.

But I think that was of little relief to the leadership of the Imperial Japanese Navy that had ceased to exist, suddenly, in 1945.