Jump to content
tanknet.org

More Rotting Timbers In The Usn


Recommended Posts

Wasn't Truman the one the 'leaders' wanted to drop from scheduled refueling and decommission in favor of new construction? Maybe they knew something?

 

I didn't notice the disestablishment of Second Fleet, supposedly done by SecDef Gates to ease funding for new ships.

 

"Second Fleet was scheduled to resume operations officially on 1 July 2018, initially with a staff of 15 personnel (11 officers and four enlisted personnel), although plans call for its work force to expand to 256 (85 officers, 164 enlisted personnel, and seven civilians). [Wiki]"

 

---That'l make a heap of difference!

 

USS Harry S. Truman Suffers Major Electrical Malfunction, Raising Questions About Upcoming Deployment

Aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) is experiencing a malfunction of the ship’s electrical distribution system ahead of an expected deployment this fall, USNI News has learned.

The carrier is supposed to go out for a second deployment, after operating in U.S. 6th Fleet and U.S. 2nd Fleet from April to December last year. In early July the Truman Carrier Strike Group began its Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX) to re-certify as being ready to deploy. The predeployment training was, and the deployment was expected to be, overseen by 2nd Fleet for the first time since it was reestablished and reached initial operational capability this spring.

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) has experienced an electrical malfunction within the ship’s electrical distribution system requiring analysis and repair. The ship is working closely with technicians from Norfolk Naval Shipyard to determine the cause and scope of the issue. The safety of the ship’s crew and reactor plants are not affected,” U.S. Fleet Forces Command spokesman Capt. Scott Miller told USNI News Friday night.

....

https://news.usni.org/2019/08/31/uss-harry-s-truman-suffers-major-electrical-malfunction-raising-questions-about-upcoming-deployment

 

 

 

Read on for more depressing news, such as CVN availability in the Atlantic will soon drop to 1 ship [Eisenhower]

 

 

We can be proud of our current leaders and congressional oversight!

Edited by Ken Estes
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, but consider how much the US has to do. It has to fix the problems on the Ford, it has to replace LCS with a new class of Frigate, it has to increase the size of air wings, the USMC has to buy into more F35's (its recently reviewing how many of which type to build), and it somehow has to turn around the declining numbers of Submarines and Carriers as older Cold War platforms are phased out of service. On top of that it has to do R and D to develop the next generation of systems to combat China, including a new Long Range AA missile, developing new Carrier capable drones (in which China now appears to be developing a lead) and the EM gun, much less get them into service.

 

You could double that and you would still not end up with any change left over. The problems the USN faces are perhaps comparable to where they were in the late 1970's, which took a massive cash injection and some aggressive thinking to turn around. One has to doubt either will be forthcoming this time. There is no John Lehman waiting in the wings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but consider how much the US has to do. It has to fix the problems on the Ford, it has to replace LCS with a new class of Frigate, it has to increase the size of air wings, the USMC has to buy into more F35's (its recently reviewing how many of which type to build), and it somehow has to turn around the declining numbers of Submarines and Carriers as older Cold War platforms are phased out of service. On top of that it has to do R and D to develop the next generation of systems to combat China, including a new Long Range AA missile, developing new Carrier capable drones (in which China now appears to be developing a lead) and the EM gun, much less get them into service.

 

You could double that and you would still not end up with any change left over. The problems the USN faces are perhaps comparable to where they were in the late 1970's, which took a massive cash injection and some aggressive thinking to turn around. One has to doubt either will be forthcoming this time. There is no John Lehman waiting in the wings.

I cannot disagree with what you have said except I would add mine warfare. However, no military will ever have all the money, or stuff, they want. Getting back to Ken's original post, the Navy has the money. It appears though, that it does not have the leadership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PAC CVN-68 Nimitz...............................Able to deploy. Retires by 2022/23
LANT CVN-69 Dwight D. Eisenhower.....Able to deploy. Retires by 2029
PAC CVN-70 Carl Vinson.....................Cannot be deployed until July 2020 (Planned Incremental Availability)
PAC CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt.......Able to deploy. RCOH completed in 2013
LANT CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln............Able to deploy. RCOH completed in 2017.

LANT CVN-73 George Washington.......Cannot deploy, currently undergoing RCOH. Can deploy by mid 2021.
LANT CVN-74 John C. Stennis...........Cannot deploy but technically available until 2020ish. RCOH in 2021. Ready by 2025/26.
LANT CVN-75 Harry S. Truman.........Cannot deploy. Electric system problem. Needs RCOH but after CVN-74.
PAC CVN-76 Ronald Reagan...........Able to deploy until maybe late 2021. May need maintenance once relieved by CVN-73.
LANT CVN-77 George H.W. Bush...........Cannot deploy. Under maintenance. Available by mid/late 2021.

LANT CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford.................Cannot deploy until around maybe March 2020
--- CVN-79 John F. Kennedy.................Cannot deploy until 2022
--- CVN-80 Enterprise..........................Cannot deploy until 2029

When and which carriers can be deployed from what I can gather. Teal and Dark green are available now but Teal will become unavailable not long from now whereas Dark Green should be available for quite a while if no extended maintenance is required later down the road. Orange is not available now but should be available not too long from now. Red is unavailable and will be unavailable for a long period of time.

So there are 5 out and about right now.

In the 2022-2026 time frame, 5 fresh ones should be out and about and plus one or two on their last legs until requiring maintenance or retiring.

2027 and later, three fresh ones should be out and about. So maybe at least three others on the last legs until requiring maintenance or retiring.

Although this estimate of mine from gathering info on the ships probably doesn't include ready rates for their aircraft. Also, probably 1 or 2 of the total "able to deploy" are probably going to be taking cycles for resting or certifying training. So it really is probably 1 or 2 less for being ready for actual combat on short notice. But from the way it looks, availability quantity should be higher by the mid-20s.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Truman the one the 'leaders' wanted to drop from scheduled refueling and decommission in favor of new construction? Maybe they knew something?

 

I didn't notice the disestablishment of Second Fleet, supposedly done by SecDef Gates to ease funding for new ships.

 

"Second Fleet was scheduled to resume operations officially on 1 July 2018, initially with a staff of 15 personnel (11 officers and four enlisted personnel), although plans call for its work force to expand to 256 (85 officers, 164 enlisted personnel, and seven civilians). [Wiki]"

 

---That'l make a heap of difference!

 

USS Harry S. Truman Suffers Major Electrical Malfunction, Raising Questions About Upcoming Deployment

Aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) is experiencing a malfunction of the ship’s electrical distribution system ahead of an expected deployment this fall, USNI News has learned.

The carrier is supposed to go out for a second deployment, after operating in U.S. 6th Fleet and U.S. 2nd Fleet from April to December last year. In early July the Truman Carrier Strike Group began its Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX) to re-certify as being ready to deploy. The predeployment training was, and the deployment was expected to be, overseen by 2nd Fleet for the first time since it was reestablished and reached initial operational capability this spring.

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) has experienced an electrical malfunction within the ship’s electrical distribution system requiring analysis and repair. The ship is working closely with technicians from Norfolk Naval Shipyard to determine the cause and scope of the issue. The safety of the ship’s crew and reactor plants are not affected,” U.S. Fleet Forces Command spokesman Capt. Scott Miller told USNI News Friday night.

....

https://news.usni.org/2019/08/31/uss-harry-s-truman-suffers-major-electrical-malfunction-raising-questions-about-upcoming-deployment

 

 

 

Read on for more depressing news, such as CVN availability in the Atlantic will soon drop to 1 ship [Eisenhower]

 

 

We can be proud of our current leaders and congressional oversight!

 

Looks like the next administration will have serious work to do in order to solidify Washington's global security committments. The good news is that there will be flag-rank promotions in store for those under it to look forward to.

 

2 future Ford-class CVs for the Japanese Navy would help in this regard as well (once the bugs are shaken out of them).

 

As Tyler Rogoway over at The Drive would put it, the research and development for that task will be taken care of on America's dime in various ways.

Edited by Nobu
Link to post
Share on other sites

CVN-68 Nimitz.................................Able to deploy. Retires by 2022/23

CVN-69 Dwight D. Eisenhower.......Able to deploy. Retires by 2029

CVN-70 Carl Vinson.......................Cannot be deployed until July 2020 due to Planned Incremental Availability.

CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt.........Able to deploy. RCOH completed in 2013

CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln..............Able to deploy. RCOH completed in 2017.

 

CVN-73 George Washington.......Cannot deploy, currently undergoing RCOH. Can deploy by early/mid 2021.

CVN-74 John C. Stennis.............Cannot deploy but technically available until 2020ish. RCOH starts in 2021. Ready by 2025/26.

CVN-75 Harry S. Truman.............Cannot deploy. Electric system problem. Will need RCOH but after CVN-74.

CVN-76 Ronald Reagan...............Able to deploy until maybe late 2021. May need maintenance once relieved by CVN-73.

CVN-77 George H.W. Bush...........Cannot deploy. Under going maintenance. To be available by mid/late 2021.

 

CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford....................Cannot deploy until around maybe March 2020

CVN-79 John F. Kennedy..................Cannot deploy until 2022

CVN-80 Enterprise..............................Cannot deploy until 2029

 

When and which carriers can be deployed from what I can gather. Teal and Dark green are available now but Teal will become unavailable not long from now whereas Dark Green should be available for quite a while if no extended maintenance is required later down the road. Orange is not available now but should be available not too long from now. Red is unavailable and will be unavailable for a long period of time.

 

So there are 5 out and about right now.

 

In the 2022-2026 time frame, 5 fresh ones should be out and about and plus one or two on their last legs until requiring maintenance or retiring.

 

2027 and later, three fresh ones should be out and about. So maybe at least three others on the last legs until requiring maintenance or retiring.

 

Although this estimate of mine from gathering info on the ships probably doesn't include ready rates for their aircraft. Also, probably 1 or 2 of the total "able to deploy" are probably going to be taking cycles for resting or certifying training. So it really is probably 1 or 2 less for being ready for actual combat on short notice. But from the way it looks, availability quantity should be higher by the mid-20s.

Sorry, but homeports count also. LANT or PAC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, The Pentagon has plenty of money. What it lacks is the will to prioritize/separate the must-have from the nice-to-have. Congressional meddling doesn't help but emotions are so wrapped up in certain programs that you can't even discuss the problem... For example, [puts on asbestos suit], Service Academies. Average graduate costs 4 times more than ROTC graduate and something like 8 times more than OCS/OTS graduate. Show me the business case that the extra cost has led to a commensurate increase in performance... Cuing angry retorts in 3...2..1...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, The Pentagon has plenty of money. What it lacks is the will to prioritize/separate the must-have from the nice-to-have. Congressional meddling doesn't help but emotions are so wrapped up in certain programs that you can't even discuss the problem... For example, [puts on asbestos suit], Service Academies. Average graduate costs 4 times more than ROTC graduate and something like 8 times more than OCS/OTS graduate. Show me the business case that the extra cost has led to a commensurate increase in performance... Cuing angry retorts in 3...2..1.

Pentagon is drunk on money but has no leadersleep.

 

Funny but I have never seen this pop up on TkNet, as all officers here remain suspect, regardless of source. But I'll bite. I'm attending my USNA class of '69 50th reunion at Annapolis at the end of this month. It's a nice ritual for those of us who sucked up a 4-yr program of confinement and BS in order to go to work as commissioned officers. I later was an instructor there for four years and later still the Marine Officer Instructor at Duke Univ NROTC. I can say without exception that the men and women I commissioned at Duke were every bit as good [often better] officer material as the students I had and the entering 4/c I oversaw as drill officer for the Plebe Summer of the Class of 1979, otherwise known as the Last Class with Balls [go figure]. The so called cost-effectiveness used to be well in favor of the service academies for longevity, measured then as reaching ten years' active duty. But there was always manipulation of the numbers, for instance the cost of fuel oil for two summers of at-sea training, flight school introduction and so forth, plus the YP craft used for NavSci courses in navigation and tactics at USNA. Much jealousy resulted from academy grads commissioning as regulars, whereas all other sources had to compete on active duty for the coveted regular commissions from their reserve entries.

 

I'd like to see some real evidence, just as you would, I gather. Were there USNA grad officers on board the two DDGs that were so out of control they collided with merchantmen in WestPac? There are also problems in aviation and subs to boot. You see, I valued my USNA training and education, but there is nothing wrong with USNA that is not also wrong with the USN and conceivably the USMC. It's just one of these things. I'll wager the USAF has similar problems, eh?

 

Cheers!

 

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to totally derail the threat but I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with the Sandhurst model given our budget woes, which are only to get worse and worse as the entitlement bills skyrocket.

 

As to the original topic of this thread, if the AF or Army are all jacked up, the Republic can survive more or less but given how much our economy depends on freedom of navigation on the high seas, if the Navy doesn't have its act together... And it's a damn shame that the only service whose primary mission is defense of the homeland, the Coast Guard, is also the most chronically underfunded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Entitlement bills lie at the heart of our constitution and democratic system, as my two quotes on my posts remind us. We are nothing without a healthy and motivated population, as spoken by Ike in his regime.

 

I'm surprised to see you take up the Entitlement hobbling our budget line. That's a knownothing view we have in the forces as a cover for waste fraud and abuse that normally is the case for Defense spending deficiencies. The service chiefs are the CEOs but rarely is one called on the carpet for errors*, and the so-called oversight by Congress pales since the days of Carl Vinson, Mendel Rivers, Sam Nunn, Les Aspen, Sen. Scoop Jackson [my USNA sponsor], Sen. John Stennis, and so forth.

 

We also used to have presidents who sought knowledge in defense management vice being showboats. None seen in this century.

 

* It's still a puzzle to me how every admiral in the chain of command of those two destroyers in collision was axed or forced into retirement, except the service chief. Go figure.

 

Nobu, There is no elite coming out of the service academies, just well trained and educated survivors who can and do go on to greater responsibilities, usually well. No service today is an elite and the need for expensive and sometimes fragile elite units remains quite limited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats your thoughts on the shrinking airwing on US Carriers Ken? When the QE's have the full airwing, they will have the same fixed airwing complement of a Nimitz or Ford Class. Which strikes me as absurd.

Probably a product of budget shortfalls and competing programs within the services. After all, Stuart, there are four US Navies: namely the aviation, submarine, surface and shore navies, maybe the last one the most costly.... We have fewer carrier air wings than ships for them, but we cutely point to maintenance nonavailability as our excuse. Talk about letting it hang out....

 

Actually, I shudder not over the smaller numbers of fighterbombers, but rather the absolute lack of ASW aircraft in the USN carrier air groups. We are set up for another Courageous embarrassment, but who knows history in our armed forces?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For various reasons ive been reading up on the F14 lately, and it was something of a shock to see how little was done with it before it left service. Most of them remained F14A's, and they only ever fixed the engine surge problem by putting in a digital flight control system they got from the Typhoon barely 8years before it left service. The B and D versions they only bought in trivial amounts compared to the rest, and the vast majority had no improvement in the HUD or the cockpit they shipped with. So it seems to me as if, even back then, the naval aviation community was getting the sticky finger in resources, compared to the ships they were landing on. After all, that was the premier fleet defence aircraft. I can forgive them for starving it of resources post 1992, but even before then it doesnt seem they wanted to spend a brass farthing on it.

 

Yeah, it was a shock to hear of the Viking being withdrawn, but in truth they havent used them for ASW for years. Which was a mistake, considering there are still Oscars in the ocean. I idly wonder if you could use something like X47 to do it now.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Elite is a matter of perception. It is ethereal, but it is also real to those who might aspire to be. You and your academy colleagues may not consider yourselves as such, but many others likely do. Units may not be elite, but in a professional military, some officers need to carry that perception.

 

I would actually extend the academy training cycle to 5 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was another flaw with the F-14,as it was completely dependent upon the Navy E-2s and the latter did not operate effectively over land until the advent of the E-2C with successor radars. We leaned this in the abortive USN 'strike' on Syrian forces in Lebanon in Dec83, where we lost 3 aircraft and an NFO became a POW of Assad and had to be more or less ransomed by Jesse Jackson.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dartmouth seems to give good value, though its interesting they shut ALL the other naval colleges (including the well known one at Greenwich) to keep it open.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Royal_Naval_College

 

They had an interesting discussion about this on the fighter pilot podcast, where the host didnt go to an academy, and his co host did. They seemingly admit there isnt much difference in the end result produced, other than perhaps academy guys have a slightly different mindset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was another flaw with the F-14,as it was completely dependent upon the Navy E-2s and the latter did not operate effectively over land until the advent of the E-2C with successor radars. We leaned this in the abortive USN 'strike' on Syrian forces in Lebanon in Dec83, where we lost 3 aircraft and an NFO became a POW of Assad and had to be more or less ransomed by Jesse Jackson.

 

Well the land thing might be another reason. From what ive read the F14 community initially had a mindset 'we will not operate over land, the Jammers we have are not good enough'. Apparently when Grumman designed the F14 they were, due to their size, slated to have 2 jammers, but penny pinching meant they only put in one, which for its size was wholly inadequate. The only times they envisaged operating over land were with TARPS I guess. Of course later when they had the more forward deployed role under the Lehman naval strategy, I suppose they must have rethought this. But it would perhaps have been preferred to have had an EA6 along with them. I think I vaguely recall they got a new jammer in the 1990's IIRC, but it was still a weak point for its size. Again, it points to a significant under-investment in an aircraft that was really rushed into service.

 

Ive not personally read about radar problems over land, but that doesn't mean anything. It was 1970's tech, and it really shows when you read up on the rio's position and the stuff he had to do to get a decent return. I imagine a lot would depend on operator skillset. Again, I cant comment about the E2 enough to comment, other than it seems the C model was quite a step up.

 

Have you read the Osprey book on the A6 squadrons? There is an account in there that the reason for the 1983 Lebanon fiasco was because the plan was rushed,. Washington mandated the operation would be undertaken by such and such a time, and didnt bother to figure out they had miscalculated the time zones by a couple of hours. The Navy supposedly only had a few hours to coordinate an operation they would have profited a whole day figuring out. Apparently they even sent A6's off half bombed up because they didnt have time to fully arm them. Thankfully Washington seemed to learn from that by 1986.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dartmouth seems to give good value, though its interesting they shut ALL the other naval colleges (including the well known one at Greenwich) to keep it open.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Royal_Naval_College

Greenwich served a different function to BRNC, mid and higher level training that was merged into what is now the tri-service Defence Academy.

 

BRNC is and was the sole route to a commission in the RN, whether Regular or Reserve, direct or from the ranks, full course, short course or modular course. Same as RMAS for the Army.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There was another flaw with the F-14,as it was completely dependent upon the Navy E-2s and the latter did not operate effectively over land until the advent of the E-2C with successor radars. We leaned this in the abortive USN 'strike' on Syrian forces in Lebanon in Dec83, where we lost 3 aircraft and an NFO became a POW of Assad and had to be more or less ransomed by Jesse Jackson.

 

Well the land thing might be another reason. From what ive read the F14 community initially had a mindset 'we will not operate over land, the Jammers we have are not good enough'. Apparently when Grumman designed the F14 they were, due to their size, slated to have 2 jammers, but penny pinching meant they only put in one, which for its size was wholly inadequate. The only times they envisaged operating over land were with TARPS I guess. Of course later when they had the more forward deployed role under the Lehman naval strategy, I suppose they must have rethought this. But it would perhaps have been preferred to have had an EA6 along with them. I think I vaguely recall they got a new jammer in the 1990's IIRC, but it was still a weak point for its size. Again, it points to a significant under-investment in an aircraft that was really rushed into service.

 

Ive not personally read about radar problems over land, but that doesn't mean anything. It was 1970's tech, and it really shows when you read up on the rio's position and the stuff he had to do to get a decent return. I imagine a lot would depend on operator skillset. Again, I cant comment about the E2 enough to comment, other than it seems the C model was quite a step up.

 

Have you read the Osprey book on the A6 squadrons? There is an account in there that the reason for the 1983 Lebanon fiasco was because the plan was rushed,. Washington mandated the operation would be undertaken by such and such a time, and didnt bother to figure out they had miscalculated the time zones by a couple of hours. The Navy supposedly only had a few hours to coordinate an operation they would have profited a whole day figuring out. Apparently they even sent A6's off half bombed up because they didnt have time to fully arm them. Thankfully Washington seemed to learn from that by 1986.

 

 

Re the F-14 I think the fact that the F-18 offered a better multi-role capability already in place, plus lower maintenance cost offset the perceived issue about lack of range. When the USSR went away, the need for big, long range AAMs went away and with that, the need for F-14s. If push ever comes to shove, you can't get around the fact that more F-18s will fit a carrier than F-14s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...