Us Navy Ship Number Increase Goal Announced

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, rmgill said:

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

Look at your own history, its the usual case Navies want to get the maximum use out of the hulls they have. In fact, the only reason you took the last of the WW2 build warships out of service in the 1970's was, according to Zumwalts memoirs, because they wanted to free up funds to get the next generation in place. There somes a point where retaining old warships becomes a burden.

I grant you 10, 15 years from now, the PRC havent got a problem, but its going to materialise sooner or later. They have no idea what kind of force they can sustain, so are launching into a huge shipbuilding project without any idea of what they actually need.

Instead of building lots of destroyers and carriers, they might do well to work on lots more underway replen vessels, ramp up production of SSN's. Those would cause real problems. Ive seen very little discussion of what they are getting towards that end.

[Josh]

China is never going to have a problem building or manning warships over our lifetimes, so long as it still has the political will to do so. If the U.S. wants to deter China, it will have to find another means. Fortunately I think that a rather achievable goal. That said, rebuilding US ship infrastructure is needed as well. 

[rmgill]

Usually you want a continuity between the old and the new. 

The RN didn't scrap every single wooden hull when the 1st ironclad was drafted for construction. 

Has anyone here been keeping up with Commander Salamander after his move to substack? 

Edited March 26, 2024 by rmgill

[Ol Paint]

Although ships aren't mentioned anywhere in this article, it is directly on point. 

Quote

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/boeing-corporate-america-manufacturing/678137/

Boeing and the Dark Age of American Manufacturing

Somewhere along the line, the plane maker lost interest in making its own planes. Can it rediscover its engineering soul?

By Jerry Useem

...At GE, which produced three of Boeing’s last four CEOs, manufacturing came to be seen as “grunt work,” as the former GE executive David Cote recently told Fortune’s Shawn Tully. Motorola—founded as Galvin Manufacturing and famed for its religious focus on quality—lost its lead in mobile-phone making after it leaned into software and services. Intel’s bunny-suited fab workers were the face of high-tech manufacturing prowess until the company ceded hardware leadership to Asian rivals. “Having once pioneered the development of this extraordinary technology,” the current Intel CEO, Pat Gelsinger, wrote recently, “we now find ourselves at the mercy of the most fragile global supply chain in the world...”

...Add all the capacity you want. It won’t reverse the country’s long decline as a manufacturing superpower if corporate America keeps gurgling its sad, tired story about the impossibility of making things on these shores anymore. It’s a story that helped pour a whole lot of wealth into the executive pockets peddling it. But half a century of self-inflicted damage is enough. The doors have fallen off, and it’s plain for all to see: The story was barely bolted together.

I'd recommend reading the whole article.

Doug

[Ol Paint]

SLEP program for the older DDG-51s.  The line is still running, buy more Flight IIA or Flight III.

https://www.twz.com/sea/oldest-arleigh-burke-destroyers-get-reprieve-service-extended-into-2030s

Doug

[Josh]

14 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

SLEP program for the older DDG-51s.  The line is still running, buy more Flight IIA or Flight III.

https://www.twz.com/sea/oldest-arleigh-burke-destroyers-get-reprieve-service-extended-into-2030s

Doug

Flight III is in production and running at capacity. There is also an effort to update some Flight II/IIa with SPY-6(4),SLQ-32(7), and Aegis Baseline 10 (virtualized system on commercial processors). This results in effectively a brand new ship, capability wise.

[futon]

One thing somewhat concerned with the continuance of the Burkes is about is fuel efficiency and crew size. As the years go by, a growing disadvantage in fuel economy and crew size could hurt overall fleet size and naval activity stamina. ISTR one Burke was modified with a fuel efficient engine, more for experimentation than anything else. Although it seems to be an area the PLAN hasn't reach the edge in yet either.

[Ol Paint]

Navy ship repair and modernization is backlogged and behind schedule, too.  New construction throughput is not inelastic.*

Burke Flight I/II do not have hangars. Flight IIA/III do.  Flight II and follow have more fuel tankage. 

Replacing Flight I with Flight IIA/III new production has negligible effect on manning levels and arguably better utilizes the sailors we do have by putting them on a new ship that should require less upkeep of aging systems than refurbishing 35-year-old systems and steel, ideally resulting in better operational rates.

If we were all that concerned with fuel efficiency, we'd rebuild the Ticonderogas as they come out of service.** 

Doug

*Neither is repair/modernization capacity, but the long-term benefit of building new likely outweighs the SLEP.  The DoD decision makers aren't famous for long-term thinking. 

**Or put that hullform back into production. 😉 

Edited November 1, 2024 by Ol Paint

[sunday]

USN regretting the deletion of reloading gear for VLS cells?

Quote

Slowly…a bit too slowly…Big Navy has decided that those people in the 1970s (who still remembered fighting a contested war at sea) might have been right all along. With SECNAV Del Toro’s encouragement, we continue to try to find a way to get the surface force a capability to reload forward.

There is plenty of room on the bandwagon and we’re glad to hoist everyone onboard the reload/rearm party-bus. If you need to catch up, the issue continues to break above the background noise, and WSJ has a very well produced article on it that requires your attention.

In the linked WSJ article there is a brief overview of the new TRAM system for underway reloading of cells.

[KV7]

On 3/26/2024 at 7:41 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Look at your own history, its the usual case Navies want to get the maximum use out of the hulls they have. In fact, the only reason you took the last of the WW2 build warships out of service in the 1970's was, according to Zumwalts memoirs, because they wanted to free up funds to get the next generation in place. There somes a point where retaining old warships becomes a burden.

I grant you 10, 15 years from now, the PRC havent got a problem, but its going to materialise sooner or later. They have no idea what kind of force they can sustain, so are launching into a huge shipbuilding project without any idea of what they actually need.

Instead of building lots of destroyers and carriers, they might do well to work on lots more underway replen vessels, ramp up production of SSN's. Those would cause real problems. Ive seen very little discussion of what they are getting towards that end.

Chinese naval expenditures on procurement are not such a big deal for them that they have to get the mix exactly right for decades ahead, it is more a case of expanding shipbuilding capacity and getting an appreciable capacity now. If it turns out that new technology makes surface fleets less useful than expected then that is hardly a problem for them as the U.S. will be hit harder by that, and by then they will have by far greater capacity to build new craft of the suitable types. 

Total expenditure on new naval ships is still almost a rounding error, by my napkin maths seemingly less than 0.10 % of GDP.

[Ol Paint]

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) announced the "SHIPS" act to try to revitalize the US marine industry.

Quote

https://news.usni.org/2024/12/19/new-ships-act-legislation-aims-to-revamp-u-s-shipbuilding-industry

Lawmakers on Thursday unveiled bipartisan legislation to reform the commercial maritime and shipbuilding sectors so the U.S. can better compete with China.

The Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security for America Act, also known as the SHIPS Act, would stipulate the creation of a national maritime strategy and a maritime security advisor who would sit on the White House National Security Council.

SNIP

The legislation calls for the U.S. to add 250 ships within the decade to the international fleet of U.S.-flagged vessels by establishing a Strategic Commercial Fleet Program, according to a summary of the bill from Garamendi’s office.

Quote

https://www.kelly.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-kelly-sen-young-rep-garamendi-rep-kelly-introduce-ships-for-america-act-to-revitalize-us-shipbuilding-and-commercial-maritime-industries/

Establish a national goal of expanding the U.S.-flag international fleet by 250 ships in 10 years by creating the Strategic Commercial Fleet Program, which would facilitate the development of a fleet of commercially operated, U.S.-flagged, American crewed, and domestically built merchant vessels that can operate competitively in international commerce.  

Enhance the competitiveness of U.S.-flagged vessels in international commerce by establishing a Rulemaking Committee on Commercial Maritime Regulations and Standards to cut through the U.S. Coast Guard’s bureaucracy and red tape that limits the international competitiveness of U.S.-flagged vessels, requiring that government-funded cargo move aboard U.S.-flag vessels, and requiring a portion of commercial goods imported from China to move aboard U.S.-flag vessels starting in 2029. 

What is Going on with Shipping has a video on this:

It's a good start.

Doug

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 12/4/2024 at 6:59 PM, KV7 said:

Chinese naval expenditures on procurement are not such a big deal for them that they have to get the mix exactly right for decades ahead, it is more a case of expanding shipbuilding capacity and getting an appreciable capacity now. If it turns out that new technology makes surface fleets less useful than expected then that is hardly a problem for them as the U.S. will be hit harder by that, and by then they will have by far greater capacity to build new craft of the suitable types. 

Total expenditure on new naval ships is still almost a rounding error, by my napkin maths seemingly less than 0.10 % of GDP.

If the West has an appreciable increase in hypersonic antiship weapons, quite a lot of the investment they are making right now will be obsolete overnight.

IMHO of course.

[Olof Larsson]

On 3/25/2024 at 1:07 AM, sunday said:

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.

And Japan and South Korea. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, UK, Canada, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Greece, Turkey, Taiwan have also made ships with US systems on board. Even more nations operates US systems, and have access to them.

[Olof Larsson]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If the West has an appreciable increase in hypersonic antiship weapons, quite a lot of the investment they are making right now will be obsolete overnight.

IMHO of course.

To the extent that hypersonics will be useful vs. ships at sea (that plasma bubble works both ways) it will still take time to develop and field different hypersonic systems. And interceptors that can shoot down hypersonics could potentially be built and fielded faster then the hypersonic missiles, as that might come in the form of updates of existing sensors and missiles.

[KV7]

19 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If the West has an appreciable increase in hypersonic antiship weapons, quite a lot of the investment they are making right now will be obsolete overnight.

IMHO of course.

I don't think so, even if new missiles are a game changer it arguably makes sense for them to have a fleet for reasons other than fighting the U.S. or some other major power in a big missile flinging contest. As above it is just not such a big expenditure that getting some general purpose naval capability even if there are more cost effective ways to fight a big war is exorbitant.

 

[lucklucky]

 

Edited December 31, 2024 by lucklucky

[Ol Paint]

So, what does that X post have to do with "Us Navy Ship Number Increase Goal Announced?"

Doug

[futon]

US ship building in straits.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ive said it before, about time they started leveraging European or Asian construction, particularly for frigates.

[futon]

They'll have to redevelop their own shipbuilding whether or not they leverage foreign ship builders as a stop gap. 

[Ol Paint]

Ships For America Act reintroduced.

https://gcaptain.com/whats-in-the-ships-for-america-act-key-provisions-to-restore-u-s-maritime-power/

https://www.young.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/young-kelly-introduce-legislation-to-make-american-ships-again/

https://www.young.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/SHIPS-for-America-Act_Section-by-Section_4.30.25_pdf.pdf

Doug

[Ol Paint]

Incidentally, the reconciliation bill also has significant shipbuilding & procurement items in the HASC/SASC amendment.

https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hasc_reconciliation_overview.pdf

Quote

$34 billion for Shipbuilding and the Maritime Industrial Base. Expands the size and enhances the capability of our naval fleet. Invests in autonomous surface and subsurface technology. Builds capacity and improves infrastructure in the maritime industrial base

From the amendment text:

Quote

SEC. 20002 [Log 10019]. ENHANCEMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESOURCES FOR SHIPBUILDING.
In addition to amounts otherwise available, there are appropriated to the Secretary of Defense for fiscal year 2025, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to remain available until September 30, 2029—
(1) $250,000,000 for the expansion of accelerated Training in Defense Manufacturing program;
(2) $250,000,000 for United States production of turbine generators for shipbuilding industrial base;
(3) $450,000,000 for United States additive manufacturing for wire production and machining capacity for shipbuilding industrial base;
(4) $492,000,000 for next-generation shipbuilding techniques;
(5) $85,000,000 for United States-made steel plate for shipbuilding industrial base;
(6) $50,000,000 for machining capacity for naval propellers for shipbuilding industrial base;
(7) $110,000,000 for rolled steel and fabrication facility for shipbuilding industrial base;
(8) $400,000,000 for expansion of collaborative campus for naval shipbuilding;

(9) $450,000,000 for application of autonomy and artificial intelligence to naval shipbuilding;
(10) $500,000,000 for the adoption of advanced manufacturing techniques in the maritime industrial base;
(11) $500,000,000 for additional dry-dock capability;
(12) $50,000,000 for the expansion of coldspray repair technologies;
(13) $450,000,000 for additional maritime industrial workforce development programs;
(14) $750,000,000 for additional supplier development across the naval shipbuilding industrial base;
(15) $250,000,000 for additional advanced
manufacturing processes across the naval shipbuilding industrial base;
(16) $4,600,000,000 for a second Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2027;
(17) $5,400,000,000 for two additional Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG) ships;
(18) $160,000,000 for advanced procurement for Landing Ship Medium;
(19) $1,803,941,000 for procurement of Landing Ship Medium;

(20) $295,000,000 for development of a second Landing Craft Utility shipyard and production of additional Landing Craft Utility;
(21) $100,000,000 for the procurement of commercial logistics ships;
(22) $600,000,000 for the lease or purchase of new ships through the National Defense Sealift Fund;
(23) $2,725,000,000 for the procurement of T-AO oilers;
(24) $500,000,000 for cost-to-complete for rescue and salvage ships;
(25) $300,000,000 for production of ship-to-shore connectors;
(26) $695,000,000 for the implementation of a multi-ship amphibious warship contract;
(27) $80,000,000 for accelerated development of vertical launch system reloading at sea;
(28) $250,000,000 for expansion of Navy corrosion control programs;
(29) $159,000,000 for leasing of ships for Marine Corps operations;
(30) $1,534,000,000 for expansion of small unmanned surface vessel production;

(31) $1,800,000,000 for expansion of medium unmanned surface vessel production;
(32) $1,300,000,000 for expansion of unmanned underwater vehicle production;
(33) $188,360,000 for the development and testing of maritime robotic autonomous systems and enabling technologies;
(34) $174,000,000 for the development of a Test Resource Management Center robotic autonomous systems proving ground;
(35) $250,000,000 for the development, production, and integration of wave-powered unmanned underwater vehicles;
(36) $2,100,000,000 for San Antonio-class Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD); and
(37) $3,700,000,000 for America-class Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA)

--SNIP--

SEC. 20003 ø10020¿. ENHANCEMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESOURCES FOR INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE.

(5) $530,000,000 for the design and construction of Missile Defense Agency missile instrumentation range safety ship

--SNIP--

SEC. 20004 [Log 10021]. ENHANCEMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESOURCES FOR MUNITIONS AND DEFENSE SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCY.

(20) $400,000,000 for the production of heavyweight torpedoes;
(21) $200,000,000 for the development, procurement, and integration of commercial heavyweight torpedoes;
(22) $70,000,000 for the improvement of heavyweight torpedo maintenance activities;
(23) $200,000,000 for the production of lightweight torpedoes;

25) $50,000,000 for the development, procurement, and integration of new underwater explosives;
(26) $55,000,000 for the development, procurement, and integration of lightweight multi-mission
torpedoes;

 

(32) $3,500,000,000 for grants made pursuant to the Industrial Base Fund established under section 4817 of title 10, United States Code;
(33) $1,000,000,000 for grants and purchase commitments made pursuant to the Industrial Base Fund established under section 4817 of title 10, United States Code;

We'll see how much makes it out of conference.

Doug

[PCallahan]

Should be interesting, but my guess is that this makes it into the final bill...  there appears to be an absolutely shit-ton of bipartisan support for it (yeah, that won't help, since Dems are unlikely to back overall bill, but it might help pick off a few)

[Yama]

US Navy ship number target is like middle-aged person trying to lose weight: "Yeah, my target is 300. I'll start the diet tomorrow. This time, honest!"

[Burncycle360]

I'm still fascinated that number of ships minus context matters one little bit.