[280PLUS]

Newport News Daily Press
December 13, 2005
Pg. 1

Changing Course

Navy's plans for fighting terror call for smaller ships

By David Lerman

WASHINGTON -- Newport News and other shipyards that build big ships, such as aircraft carriers and subs, could be hurt.

A new Navy shipbuilding plan envisions a future fleet with one fewer aircraft carrier and six fewer attack submarines than exist today, posing a threat to jobs at Northrop Grumman Newport News in the next decade.

The draft plan, which was obtained by the Daily Press but won't be released until February, calls for a total combat force of 313 ships, a significant increase from today's fleet of about 281 ships.

But that total masks a proposed decline in the large -- and costly -- ships that sustain major shipyards like Newport News.

The overall increase in fleet size can be explained by the Navy's plan to buy 55 Littoral Combat Ships -- small, fast attack boats that can patrol waters close to shore. None of those ships exist today. Without them, the proposed future fleet would decline to 258 ships.

The Navy is considering two companies to build the new attack boats. Neither is located in Hampton Roads.

The shift in force structure, analysts said, signals a desire to reorient the Navy away from traditional deep-ocean battles toward ways to better engage in the war on terrorism -- mostly fought on land or close to shore.

"The fleet is being postured for irregular warfare and unconventional combat," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute. "It is not being postured for war against China in the future."

The new chief of naval operations, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, hinted at the new focus last week after visiting sailors in Pearl Harbor.

"We're in a long war," Mullen was quoted as saying. "It's a global war on terror. The Navy is incredibly relevant in that. We're changing mission sets for the future to get at that."

But the strategy shift, which has been evolving for years, could mean more economic pain in Newport News and other major shipbuilding cities.

By sticking to a proposal to mothball the John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier next year and maintain only 11 carriers, the Navy must decide how to preserve a work force at Newport News -- the nation's only carrier builder -- sometime in the next decade.

Without the need to replace the Kennedy, the carrier currently scheduled to get under construction in about 2012 might not need to be built until 2018, said Ronald O'Rourke, a naval analyst at the Congressional Research Service. The six-year gap in construction work "could also have large effects on employment levels at the yard," he said, unless there was other work available to offset the loss.

The fate of the Kennedy could be resolved this week, as congressional negotiators try to complete a final version of a defense authorization bill for the current fiscal year. The House bill has called for maintaining a 12-carrier fleet, which would preserve the Kennedy, while the Senate version would not.

The future of the Virginia-class submarine program likewise appears uncertain. The Navy's proposal would shrink its force of attack submarines from 54 to 48. But several analysts expressed skepticism that the Navy could maintain even 48 subs.

Sustaining a fleet of 48 submarines would require doubling submarine procurement to two boats per year instead of one, to keep up with replacing all the older submarines scheduled to be retired.

But the Navy has delayed for years the move to double submarine production. The current six-year shipbuilding plan would not begin buying two submarines a year until 2012. At that rate, O'Rourke said, the Navy would need to start buying three submarines a year for about eight years straight. And virtually no one considers a tripling of submarine production either realistic or affordable in a program already criticized for soaring costs.

"No one wants to put more money into the program," said Norman Polmar, a veteran naval analyst and author with close ties to Pentagon leaders. "We're not going to build three a year. I doubt we'll build two a year in the next decade. That means we go down to 35 or 40" submarines.

Despite such doubts, Northrop Grumman Newport News welcomed the plan, which comes after years of uncertainty over the desired size of the fleet.

"While we have yet to see the report, from a shipbuilder perspective, we are optimistic because a defined plan from the Navy is an important step toward industry stability," said shipyard spokeswoman Jerri Fuller Dickseski.

Industry officials have urged a doubling of submarine production for years to help cut overhead costs and stabilize the construction work. At a rate of one new submarine per year, the country's two submarine builders -- Newport News and General Dynamics Corp.'s Electric Boat yard in Connecticut -- effectively build half a boat each per year.

General Dynamics last week announced plans to lay off up to 2,400 submarine workers, saying it did not receive contracts for submarine repair work that had been expected.

Costs of the new Virginia-class submarines -- designed to be a cheaper alternative to the former Seawolf class -- is fast approaching $3 billion a copy, exceeding the cost of the Seawolf. The price tag of the submarine Texas, now under construction, has already reached $2.7 billion -- a 24 percent increase from original 1999 estimates.

"I can't be anything but skeptical about their ability to do this," said Christopher Hellman, a military policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "These things are expensive and their costs are growing. As they said in the movie, 'Show me the money.' "

The Navy declined to discuss its draft plan, saying it is still being revised and must await the release of President Bush's budget in February. But analysts said the plan hinges on appropriations of roughly $13.4 billion a year for shipbuilding -- a steady state of funding that Navy budgets have been sorely lacking.

It is not clear how -- or whether -- such significant funding will materialize at a time when defense budgets are expected to decline to help reduce the federal deficit.

This year's shipbuilding budget, for example, calls for spending only $6.2 billion to build four new ships. If refueling and repair work are included, the figure rises to about $8.7 billion. But under current plans, the Navy wouldn't hit the $13 billion figure until about 2009.

Polmar said Navy leaders are betting that more money can be found for shipbuilding by reaping the cost savings of recent reductions in personnel. He said the plan also assumes that managers can begin doing what they have failed to do for years: controlling the cost growth of ships.

But with the next-generation aircraft carrier expected to cost $14 billion or more, he said, the challenge will be enormous.

Most members of Congress have not yet been briefed on the fleet size plan.

Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, "strongly endorses Adm. Mullen's greater emphasis on shipbuilding and fleet modernization," said Warner spokesman John Ullyot. But it was not clear whether Warner, who has fought to maintain the Kennedy carrier, will support reductions in the carrier and submarine fleets.

Virginia Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Gloucester, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said, "I absolutely don't support going down to 12 carriers. Dropping our subs down to 48 is absolutely wrong, given what China's doing."

Davis, who has not yet seen the plan, said she also has questions about the role of the new Littoral Combat Ship. "They may have their place, but to me they should not be the bulk of our Navy," she said.

[Jeff Timm]

Why is it the Navy just can not contol costs?

I think they should send NCIS fraud squads into the shipyards and see what we are getting for our tax dollars.

Geoff
Who is old grey and VERY cynical about unions, the Democrat party and ghost workers.

[Drizzt]

Didn't we decommission the BBs in part because of a de-emphasis on littoral warfare? Add to that the fact that we barely have enough carriers right now to meet the missions of the current Navy?

[nfl1990]

It sounds to me like Navy brass forgot that we have a branch of the military for close in shallow water ops, the USCG

[WT]

I am not satisfied with the plans. Our Navy is too big, by at least twice what we need.

Notice how they want to 'double' submarine production? Maybe 'triple' it. We don't need more than 30 submarines - 6 boomers and 24 attack boats should work just fine.

For every nuclear boat we build, we could buy 5 AIP subs from the Germans or Swedes.

Get rid of 6 of our super expensive super carriers and their associated cruisers and destroyers. What a savings!

Last week Congress was talking about plans to scrap the IOWA and WISCONSIN. Good! Maybe we will get a decent price for them from some scrap dealer.

Transfer half the Navy's manpower to the Coast Guard. Let them smell the sea instead of sitting in some office in Nebraska.

[Standing Wolf]

We need exactly one Air Force bomber and one bomb to bring the War on Terror to a successful conclusion. Well, actually, make that one Air Force bomber, one bomb, and a president bright enough to comprehend that we're in a world war.

[Jeff Timm]

We need exactly one Air Force bomber and one bomb to bring the War on Terror to a successful conclusion. Well, actually, make that one Air Force bomber, one bomb, and a president bright enough to comprehend that we're in a world war.

Sigh, and exactly where would you drop the bomb, and what would be the result?

Geoff
Who notes everyone has a simple solution to a complex problem, that will not work. :rolleyes:

[Tomcat1066]

This is stupid, at least in my mind. If we don't keep, at the least, our carriers and other big ships, then it WILL just be a matter of time before we end up screwed because of it. While terrorism should be dealt with, that's no reason to not keep a wary eye on other enemies.

I just hope the Navy doesn't get bit in the butt by this

Tom
former Navy man

[Old Dog]

I'd been wondering when you'd chime in on this thread, WT.
Get rid of 6 of our super expensive super carriers and their associated cruisers and destroyers. Yeah, be a heckuva savings all right. But this statement indicates you have no concept of how carriers deploy. At any given time, you've got got two, three, four carriers undergoing scheduled yard periods; these overhaul periods, depending on the type, can be anywhere from eleven months to more than two years (and can be even longer if it's a a nuclear re-fueling or "service-life extension" period) ... There will be four carriers on overlapping scheduled deployments, a couple more coming out of yard periods or engaged in work-ups and training, and a couple more on post-deployment standdown periods.... We've got one forward deployed in Yokosuka, Japan as well. The Navy requires at twelve carriers to maintain "surge" capability -- the capability to deploy a carrier strike group on short notice whenever needed in reponse to world events (one of the latest was the tsunami relief efforts by the ABRAHAM LINCOLN).

[benEzra]

For every nuclear boat we build, we could buy 5 AIP subs from the Germans or Swedes.
That'd be fine, if all we needed our subs to do was to lie silently on the bottom in U.S. coastal waters and interdict ships on our own coast.

AIP boats are great for very short range, low speed, close-to-home missions. They suck for patrolling shipping lanes on the other side of the world, or shadowing foreign missile subs.

[WT]

Change the carrier's mission which will change the deployment practice.

We use carriers against third world countries. That is not cost effective and it does not protect the USA.

Do we need a multi-billion dollar carrier and its protective force to provide relief missions? I doubt it. A single converted Maersk containership is better suited.

The REAGAN, BUSH and CLINTON are going to be our last carriers. Carriers are going the way of the BB.

Let's retune our military and provide a force that can protect the US coast and ports from sea attack.

[jeff-10]

Seems like the carriers are the Navy's most useful ships in the WOT. Other than being expensive ways to fire cruise missiles how useful have attack subs and destroyers been?

[Krenn]

The new Virginia class sub has all sorts of covert insertion abilities, and I imagine the older subs have similiar, if less advanced, abilities.

Most vessels have Heli pads, which are always usefull...

Personally, I don't think we need a super-carrier for anything less than a medium sized war. 2-4 super carriers should be plenty.

on the other hand, SMALL carriers would be incredibly usefull... give them just enough fighters and fighter/bombers to keep themselves out of trouble and accomplish limited strike missions... and then add many, many helicopters.

what I'd like to see?

24 Virginias,
6 High-capacity Boomers,
4 super carriers
12 small carriers,
1 battle cruiser (complete with old fashioned navy rifles)
30 AEGIS cruisers
100 Shallow-draft destroyers with heli-pads and marine/SW crew quarters

several hundred assorted support vessels, with light arnament. (SAM, Fiddy Cal, Extended range TOW)

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Notice how they want to 'double' submarine production? Maybe 'triple' it. We don't need more than 30 submarines - 6 boomers and 24 attack boats should work just fine.

For every nuclear boat we build, we could buy 5 AIP subs from the Germans or Swedes.

benEzra already mentioned some of the problems with substituting AIP subs for nukes.

Here is another issue you might want to consider - the author of Red Star Rogue (http://www.redstarrogue.com/) claims that the Soviet Golf II that sank in the Pacific in 1968 and was later recovered by the Glomar Explorer was actually a nuclear missile submarine gone rogue and that the cause of the sinking was a failsafe explosion of the nuclear warhead as the sub attempted to launch a one-megaton warhead at Honolulu.

He goes on to say that the sub was attempting to mimic a Chinese Golf I in order to encourage a retaliatory strike on China from the U.S. The plan was doomed from the start because the U.S. tracked the sub as it left Kamchatka and would have known it was Soviet in origin.

At that time, there would have been only three possible origins of a nuclear strike from the sea on a U.S. city. Today, there are many nations with diesel-electric submarines (the same as the Golf II) and at least several of those have or may soon have nuclear weapons as well (Pakistan, Iran, North Korea). Even detecting the origin of such a strike would be difficult, preventing it - would be even more difficult.

The nice thing about a nuclear sub is you can conduct shadow and trail operations in THEIR backyard instead of yours. The other nice thing is when a sub from say Iran, makes a beeline for the United States, you can have plenty of warning if you caught it leaving port. You don't have to wait for it to show up on your doorstep to find out what is going on.

[RomanKnight]

Great! Reducing our Navy even more! I thought we were fighting a war, on top of different treaties commitments, on top of humanitarian rescue missions worldwide. It makes sense to at least maintain the same number and classes of ships we have now, and ADD whatever new class/type is politically convenient to find money for. I'm sure Chicoms are having a celebration party, before increasing their ocean-going navy.

[Bruce H]

All the hardware in the world won't accomplish a thing if you don't have one on one trained people. One or two person teams to kill the lone fanatics who want to do us harm. Without a charsmatic leader most endevors fail. Killing individual pains in the ass is a far better alternative to super expensive hardware and long drawn out conflicts. There is a need for said hardware to protect your own interests but why are we trying to protect the whole world?

[Lupinus]

Idiocy, plain and simple. We should be building the fleet we have. They forget terrorists can't send a navy anywhere at ass. China or other large country that gets ticked off at us can, or at least can if they want to commit to building one in Chinas case.

[Crosshair]

Actualy Nuke powerd subs are inferior in terms of stealth to diesel boats, though nukes do have longer range. While the Russian subs may sink on their maden voyage, at least they don't run into underwater mountains and sink Japanese fishing boats.

Is the US Navy Overrated? (http://www.g2mil.com/thompson.htm)

[jkswiss]

The mountain was uncharted. Do you even know how they drive submarines? Theres no "window" for us to steer the boat. We use charts, a gyro, and when surfaced, gps. We effectively drive around with our ears. As far as diesel boats being quieter than nuclear subs, yeah, until you have to surface to charge your batteries, which you have to do quite often. The charging of batteries requires the use of a fairly loud diesel generator. "Though nukes have a longer range", is an understatement. Quite a big one. The Virginia class cores are rated for a 30 year service life without refueling, IIRC.
If any of you guys ever served a day onboard a fast attack sub, you will know that reducing the number of fast attacks is not a good answer. The number of missions we have is insane. We are some sea going sons of $%^. The war on Terror has effectively made us broke. We scrounge around for parts and run around with broken gear. We sometimes even scavenged from other boats that were peirside just to be able to go to sea.
You have no idea of the stuff we do, and some of it is quite vital to national security. We've played around in some sensitive areas. Read blind man's bluff, that stuff ain't fiction. Submariners have some of the highest SRB's in the armed forces, especially nukes. The reason being its quite stressful keeping up with the demands placed on them. Letting the remainder of the submarine force pick up even more slack is a recipe for disaster IMO. You'll see people leaving left and right. I'm proud of my time as a nuke, but I'm glad its over. 6 and out, a saying quite common amongst us nukes.

[TonkinTwentyMil]

THEY WOULD?

And just exactly WHAT existing Fighter and Strike-Fighter aircraft would we be able to launch from your cute little "small carriers," sir?

The F-18 Hornets and Super-Hornets? (Right.) Have you ever (a) planned aircraft carrier fighter and bomber missions -- in a real war? (b) launched from or landed on an aircraft carrier... in pi$$ poor weather?

I've done both.

Modern super-carrriers are built around the aircraft their air-wings fly. Smaller carriers? That worked in WWII when the Navy flew small propeller planes that carried only a thousand lbs. or so of ordnance. Today, F-18 variants with a full ordnance load weigh 25 tons plus! Ya see, the laws of physics do come into play here, barring Immaculate Repeal by the Party Of Naive Pacifist Donkeys/Utopian Dreamers/Chappaquiddick-Olympics Swimmers.

Aside from the little problem of generating sufficient catapault thrust to launch those loaded F-18 behemoths from a shorter flight-deck, your proposed cutesy-carriers couldn't even begin to safely recover ("get 'em back aboard" to barnicle-deficient metrosexuals) those pricey winged toys. During the Vietnam era, I lost a handful of squadron mates to jet-fighter landing accidents on old (small) carriers that were 30% SHORTER than today's super carriers.

Another big problem: the smaller the carrier, the more unstable it becomes (for launch and recovery) in bad weather and rough seas... and especially dangerous for night operations. But then, maybe you think that real-world combat operations only take place in perfect, laboratory-like conditions hosted by Carnival Cruises.

You want to build carriers for aircraft that don't even exist? New, costly, but downsized aircraft that can't fill today's/tomorrow's multi-mission roles? You wanta see the accident/pilot attrition rates skyrocket? Ya wanta waste the taxpayer dollars that fund 2 years of training per pilot? Go ahead and build those micro flat-tops.

And then get a raincoat for your wet-dream... on your way to writing speeches for John Kerry-Chirac, Dick-The-Turban Durbin, and Cyndy Sheehan's Troops-Are-Invented-To-Be-Brought-Home crowd.

[TonkinTwentyMil]

I'd been wondering when you'd chime in on this thread, WT.
Yeah, be a heckuva savings all right. But this statement indicates you have no concept of how carriers deploy. At any given time, you've got got two, three, four carriers undergoing scheduled yard periods; these overhaul periods, depending on the type, can be anywhere from eleven months to more than two years (and can be even longer if it's a a nuclear re-fueling or "service-life extension" period) ... There will be four carriers on overlapping scheduled deployments, a couple more coming out of yard periods or engaged in work-ups and training, and a couple more on post-deployment standdown periods.... We've got one forward deployed in Yokosuka, Japan as well. The Navy requires at twelve carriers to maintain "surge" capability -- the capability to deploy a carrier strike group on short notice whenever needed in reponse to world events (one of the latest was the tsunami relief efforts by the ABRAHAM LINCOLN).

Bingo!

+10, Old Dog.

Anchors aweigh.

[Drizzt]

Something else to consider with the carriers is that there are still plans floating around (no pun intended) to use some carriers as mobile Army bases with helos instead of an embarked air wing. It was done once before and the Army liked it.

[fiVe]

How does the USS San Antonio(LPD 17) and the San Antonio class of ships fit into this new navy? It would appear that these ships will be built in Pascagoula, MS.

For more info, see USS San Antonio (http://www.usssanantonio.org/)

[LAK]

The shift in force structure, analysts said, signals a desire to reorient the Navy away from traditional deep-ocean battles toward ways to better engage in the war on terrorism -- mostly fought on land or close to shore
Interesting; whose land - and close to whose shore?

Seems to me that aside from the absurdity of the use, and continued use of the phrase, "war on terrorism", major changes such as this one revolve around the idea and acceptance that we will not find ourselves at odds with one or more nations in any major actual war.
----------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Interesting; whose land - and close to whose shore?

Seems to me that aside from the absurdity of the use, and continued use of the phrase, "war on terrorism", major changes such as this one revolve around the idea and acceptance that we will not find ourselves at odds with one or more nations in any major actual war.
----------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Good point, LAK.

However, haven't you heard that War is bad-bad? War is so, like, yucky. And violent! War involves, eeek... GUNS! We should really just Bring The Troops Home and turn 'em into thumb-sucking vegetarian social workers. I mean, Troops are invented primarily to be Brought Home, anyway.

Besides, avoiding conflict is exactly what the U.N. is for -- eliminating war through, umm, Sophisticated, Corruption-Free Political Negotiation (yielding ground via appeasement, i.e., bending over).

And more besides: if we used half the money we spend on the Army and yucky tanks and guns and ships and planes... and then just gave it to the Chinese and Islamic terrorist states/groups -- why then they'd really LIKE us and we could all sing Kumbaya around the campfire and be one peaceful universe forever!

[Tomcat1066]

I'm curious. How many folks who are ok with the Navy's "shift" are former or current Navy themselves?

Looks like all of us who were in Uncle Sam's Yacht Club think it's a bad idea. Wonder why? ;)

Tom

[VMI 1991]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I'm on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer (those of us who run the ship) with 14.5 years of service. I've served as Operations Officer on a SPRUANCE class destroyer and an TICONDEROGA ("Aegis") cruiser and currently serve on a "big deck" amphibious ship.

The subject of building smaller ships has been discussed for a long time. When I was doing my exchange tour with the German Navy, I spent some time on their missile patrol boats. Smaller, more manueverable, ships (boats) have some distinct advantages. The ability to operate close to the coastline, high speed, small size give them some distinct advantages over larger ships.

Currently, we do not face a major "blue water" threat. However, due to the amount of time required to design and build ships, we have to be planning on tomorrow's conflicts today. While many of our ships and weapon systems seem to have less than a definite purpose today, they may very well be what we need in the near future.

I will post more later. I am at work, so I can't spend more time here! The XO is out and about...

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Welcome aboard, VMI 1991!

Your insights are appreciated. Keep the faith.

[Jeff Timm]

There is much to be said for a Brown Water Navy, but as an old Doggie, I still like having carriers around. Especially since the US Army spells Air Defense, USN or USAF. :eek:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1400&ct=4

Swift did duty transferring supplies at high speed during the Hurricane relief efforts.

Geoff
Who notes you canna dig a foxhole in the ocean.

[Preacherman]

An interesting article in Popular Mechanics on the littoral combat idea may be viewed here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281496.html).

[VMI 1991]

I wrote my masters thesis on the influence of maritime theorists on German Naval strategy prior to WWII. Two of the basic schools of thought are:

Mahan - The outcome of a maritime conflict will be decided by a large scale battle between opposing fleets

Corbett - The outcome of combat at sea should be viewed as it relates to land warfare. Thus, your maritime strategyu should be geared to, what he called, "Commerce raiding".

These are certainly paired down definitions. However, I am fairly certain that no one here wants all the details that I went into last year. Why bring this up?

The US Navy is trying to plan its weapons systems based on the percieved threat. Once that threat is identified, then the question becomes how do we defeat it? The Carrier Strike Group (formerly known as the Carrier Battle Group), with all of its associated escorts, represents, as many people here have noted, a capability to conduct a large scale open wated naval battle. That said, it also has a significant ability to impact the fight ashore. (TACAIR, TLAMs, and Naval Surface Fire Support ).

How do you address the area of combat close to the coast? Dealing with it from the air is a very difficult problem because identifying small vessels as fishing boats or terrorist boats, or small patrol boats is a time consuming process. The operate in water that is shallow enough that the CSG escorts can not get close enough to ID them, and the CSG aircraft, while very capable and limited in number. Having smaller ships that can operate in very shallow water using UAVs adds a significant capability to any naval force.

How does this tie into strategy? A nation's maritime strategy determines how that nation allocates its resources. So, how are we, that is the US, going to allocate our resources? The naval threat today exists predominantly close to the coast. But, if we change our entire industrial base and gear it in that direction, it would still take years for the first of those vessels to appear in the fleet. And what happens with the treat that comes five years from now? If we exeret alll of our resources in that direction, then we will find ourselves grossly unprepared if the future naval threat is a blue water navy.

So, what is the answer? IN MY OPINION (and it is the opinion of one O-4 only), we try to develop a mix that develops the technology to support both areas.

[oneshooter]

Sounds to me like we need to bring back the PT boat, in the later "gunboat"version. 80'-85'long, 25'wide, fiberglass/kevlar hull, ceramic armour at vital places, 20mm on bow, twin 40mm Bofers on the stern and the two twin 50cal mounts. :evil: Deisel powered, with up to date radar and radio. Speed would be 30-35k. :D

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Tomcat1066]

I like the idea of adding TO the fleet, with the brown water Navy patroling not only our shores and rivers, but any others we deem necessary to patrol.

I don't like the idea of the Navy focusing on one war while turning it's back on another threat. Sounds like a good way to get bit in the butt.

Tom

[280PLUS]

I still vote for a small ship designed around a single 16" gun barrel that would be multi propellant / multi projectile capable. Then, as someone else suggested around here, you put a bunch of them on a larger "mother ship" with blue water capabilities.

I mentioned the idea to my naval architect friend, he shook his head and chuckled...

:)

[Kharn]

I am not satisfied with the plans. Our Navy is too big, by at least twice what we need.
etc etcThat's not a very good plan considering China's ambitions.

Kharn

[WT]

oneshooter - good idea! It could also use some torpedoes to stop a common containership. We have nothing available in our area with the ability to stop a ship.

Sounds like an ideal boat for the Coast Guard.


PS: if we lose the current war against Islamic terrorists, a future war with China will be irrelevant.

[VMI 1991]

There have been sevderal attempts to come up with a smaller, faster, and adequately armed "patrol" boat for some time. There were several different ideas reagarding armament and sensors. The LCS is what came from those discussions.

I think that a 16" gun mounted on a patrol boat may be a little much...

[Igloodude]

You want coastal patrol with a punch? They had a half-dozen Pegasus-class hydrofoils (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/phm-1.htm) homeported in Florida for a while, I'm still wondering why they did away with them.

[VMI 1991]

Maintenance costs killed the hydrofoils. Very fast, 76mm, Harpoon missiles, but very expensive to maintain.

[Igloodude]

Maintenance costs killed the hydrofoils. Very fast, 76mm, Harpoon missiles, but very expensive to maintain.

At least it is a valid reason rather than a political one, but man, I would have killed to get to conn one of those.

[280PLUS]

I think that a 16" gun mounted on a patrol boat may be a little much... No, actually I was thinking more like IN a small boat as opposed to on. Like the old "dynamite" boats. Elevation is done in the normal way but windage is done by aiming the whole boat. Think of it as a floating artillery piece. Besides, I'm easy. How about an 8 incher instead?

:p

[Bob41081]

The 1st LCS:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Freedom_%28LCS-1%29
Personally I'd like a little more permanent armament than just 1 57mm gun.

Bob

[RomanKnight]

Old "dynamite boats" have proven a failure. Flexibility is key, and they don't have that.
One thing to consider: US is the only country with the technical expertise and know-how to build capable nuclear subs AND nuclear supercarriers. From design to welding to machinery to weapons, no other country can do that. We MUST preserve this ability for the long run. OTOH, many countries build small coastal and fast attack ships, some of them darn good. We could, and should, swallow our pride and buy some of those ships and even a few diesel subs, if we decide we really need them. The "Not invented here syndrome" needs to go away. Period. US Navy cannot continue to play world-wide armed enforcer for a New World Order AND suffer continuous reduction in ships and manpower.

[VMI 1991]

Igloodude - I never conned a PHM, however, I did have the chance to be on the the bridge of a German FPB (Fast Missile Patrol Boat) doing 45 KTS. OBTW, they still have open bridges. Going 45 KTS in the Baltic in February was an amazing experience

280PLUS - If I understand your post correctly, you would prefer a gun mounted internal to the hull? The problems would be, in my opinion, the weight of a gun system that size (16") in something the size of LCS, and in order to aim the gun, you have to manuever the boat.

[280PLUS]

280PLUS - If I understand your post correctly, you would prefer a gun mounted internal to the hull? The problems would be, in my opinion, the weight of a gun system that size (16") in something the size of LCS, and in order to aim the gun, you have to manuever the boat.Yea, that's it. But I wasn't thinking LCS in size, just whatever minimal size necessary to house and operate the gun and a minimum of crew. Imagine if you could sneak up a river with a couple of 8" or 5" guns tagging along. I could see where a 16" might be a little much. :D

There's a great story I read once where the Union Navy lashed those huge chowderpot mortars to the bows of schooners, took them up the Mississippi and used them for bombarding forts. The CAPTAIN directed the fire from the crows nest some 70 ft above the water. The mast would whip around every time they fired the things. They would berth in rows each one firing over the bow of the next in line. Way up on the mast the Captain(s) could feel the rush of air as the shells went screaming by. I thought you might appreciate that picture... for when you're Captain of your own ship ;)

[VMI 1991]

280PLUS - An officer's record gets reviewed three times once you qualify for command. I just had my first review and did not get it, so I have two left. I'll be finished here in Norfolk shortly and will probably be heading to the Pentagon to try to stay competitive up there. I would thoroughly enjoy the chance to command a ship, but competition is fierce. I told my wife that if I actually screen for command, I'd probably get myself a Porsche Boxster and a to be named pistol/rifle. We'll see...

[280PLUS]

Well good luck to you, I never knew competition for command was so fierce. I thought it was just a normal step in every officer's moving up the ranks.

Now, not trying to beat the dead horse or anything but I thought all the whiz bang technology you guys have would do the manuvering for aiming.

Unless you really WANT to climb up the mast...

:D

[WT]

FWIW, as of Oct. 31, 2005 the USN has 52,668 officers and 303,784 EM. (Reservists excluded).


Talk about overhead ............

[Preacherman]

WT, while I disagree with you on the makeup of the Navy's fleet, I have to agree that their manpower figures are very, very lopsided. They should have a whole bunch fewer officers for that many enlisted men. I'd say the officer corps is overstaffed by at least 30%, probably closer to 40%, given the number of "real" Navy jobs available. Instead of an officer for every 6 enlisted men, the ratio should be no more than 1 to 10, and probably rather less than that...

[VMI 1991]

One of the biggest initiatives the Navy is pushing with the new classes of ships is minimum manning. The most expensive aspect of a ship through its life are the people who man it. So instead of 280-290 on a DDG, the DDX is supposed to be manned by about 100 people, give or take.

Think the 1:6 ratio is bad? We are almost at the point where the Navy has more Admirals than ships!

[Old Dog]

WT, finally something I agree with you on ... after 26 years in this canoe club, I also believe the Navy has far too many officers ...

[280PLUS]

Oh, I don't know, I don't think you could EVER have enough Ensigns running around... :evil:

I'd tell a couple Ensign stories but I don't want to get in trouble with the LCDR...

:D

[Preacherman]

Heh. Once, in a previous life, I was an Ensign... oh, the shame of it! :D

[MillCreek]

Oh, I don't know, I don't think you could EVER have enough Ensigns running around...

My wife, the retired CPO always said that she just loved a fresh new Ensign. Preferably deep-fried and served with a side of ranch dressing.....:uhoh:

[Igloodude]

WT, finally something I agree with you on ... after 26 years in this canoe club, I also believe the Navy has far too many officers ...

Me too, that's why I got out - now they have one less to worry about. :)

[VMI 1991]

Oh, I don't know, I don't think you could EVER have enough Ensigns running around... :evil:

I'd tell a couple Ensign stories but I don't want to get in trouble with the LCDR...

:D

That's OK, I could tell just as many chief stories.:p

Seriously though, today's ensigns become tomorrow's admirals. All those officers who enlisted sailors think are fools start off as a blank slate. It is our job, experienced officers and CPOs, to mold them into the kind of officers who will lead the Navy into the future.

[280PLUS]

Seriously though, today's ensigns become tomorrow's admirals. Very true. I went to my ship's reunion a few years back and was amazed at how some of the junior officers I knew way back when were now sporting Eagles and stars. My XO had 3 stars the last time I saw him and had the title COMNAVSURFPAC. He's retired now.

Probably the scariest thing I recall is doing a visit ship on the USS Caron once and all the chiefs looking like kids to me. :eek:

:D

Now that I think about it, I could come up with a few chief stories too.

But, gonig back to the subject of numbers. Given the Navy's role from a global standpoint. Does 350,000really sound like too many? I mean, we are at war pretty much everywhere, it doesn't make sense to me to talk about cutting numbers.

[Old NFO]

Sounds to me like we need to bring back the PT boat, in the later "gunboat"version. 80'-85'long, 25'wide, fiberglass/kevlar hull, ceramic armour at vital places, 20mm on bow, twin 40mm Bofers on the stern and the two twin 50cal mounts. :evil: Diesel powered, with up to date radar and radio. Speed would be 30-35k. :D

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
We already have... SBU's use em to deploy SEALS...

[Old NFO]

WT, while I disagree with you on the makeup of the Navy's fleet, I have to agree that their manpower figures are very, very lopsided. They should have a whole bunch fewer officers for that many enlisted men. I'd say the officer corps is overstaffed by at least 30%, probably closer to 40%, given the number of "real" Navy jobs available. Instead of an officer for every 6 enlisted men, the ratio should be no more than 1 to 10, and probably rather less than that...
FYI folks, in 1991-1992 SECDEF conducted a review of manning levels and formalized it under a program called Defense Officer Planned Manpower Act (DOPMA). They realigned ALL of the services officer manning levels and reduced the Air Force, left the Navy levels alone and the Army and Marines were increased. While manning for planned ships is reduced by factor of 50% as 1991 says, it will be 8-10 years before those ships actually hit the fleet in any numbers. Also, remember manning levels are predicated on COMBAT losses also. The Navy is currently understrength in a number of areas, along with not enough ships/airplanes/helo's to get all the tasking completed. I'm not going to go into detail, but suffice to say, we are stretched pretty thin just trying to maintain OPTEMO/PERSTEMPO. The other thing you are forgetting is the training pipeline, which is nominally 18 months, add in education for up to 2 years (both Officer and Enlisted), shore support requirements, logistics tails, etc. and the Navy is hurting for personnel. I work with all three communities on a routine basis, and as a former Mustang, I talk to both the O's and the E's. NO ONE I've talked to says they are overmanned...

[280PLUS]

Hi NFO...

Nice to "see" you!

:D

[VMI 1991]

Old NFO - Sir, nice to hear from you.

ADM Clark, the former CNO, stated that he wanted to cut 30,000 people from the Navy's overall endstrength.

In the ship I am serving on now, we are wondering where those people are going to come from... We have divisions on the ship that are undermanned by up to 35%

[Old Dog]

Well, Old NFO ... I know a little about what you're saying here ...
I work with all three communities on a routine basis, and as a former Mustang, I talk to both the O's and the E's. NO ONE I've talked to says they are overmanned...The reality is, though, it's all just a bunch of numbers ... Of course, NO ONE is gonna say they're overmanned ... and, according to the methods we use to figure out manning -- here's a shocker -- we're ALL undermanned. But one of our dirty little secrets is, most of our billet requirements are all generous figments of someone's imagination. Many manpower authorization documents today still are based on equipment, technology and assets most commands were using twenty years ago. A huge problem is that we're not keeping up with our technology, compounded by the fact that no one understands our manning process ...

So yeah, if a command is gonna go by its ship or squadron manning document, manpower authorization or EDVR, the command's manning levels are definitely going to look pretty grim. One of the problems today is that many of the community managers at BUPERS have been asleep at the switch so long, the numbers are all screwed up. Today's latest fad of merging every rating in sight is hosing things up even worse ...

I always judged the state of my departmental and divisional manning by whether or not we were getting all the jobs done, not by how much under BA or NMP we were ...

[obmax1212]

Why is it a bad thing to reduce the size of the Navy? Where is this fictional super force that we are going to be threatened by if we do reduce the size of the Navy? And since when is the military good at combating terrorism...other than physically pulling the trigger? I always thought that was an intelligence community problem, seeing as how terrorists don't operate like a conventional military.

[280PLUS]

I always thought that was an intelligence community problemNaval Intelligence? (NIS IIRC). That's pretty much what I meant when I said the Navy's global role. One of the biggest jobs the Navy does is gather information. There is more to the job than just sailing ships around and keeping them working and looking pretty...

[Old NFO]

Well, Old NFO ... I know a little about what you're saying here ...
The reality is, though, it's all just a bunch of numbers ... <snip>

So yeah, if a command is gonna go by its ship or squadron manning document, manpower authorization or EDVR, the command's manning levels are definitely going to look pretty grim. One of the problems today is that many of the community managers at BUPERS have been asleep at the switch so long, the numbers are all screwed up. Today's latest fad of merging every rating in sight is hosing things up even worse ...

I always judged the state of my departmental and divisional manning by whether or not we were getting all the jobs done, not by how much under BA or NMP we were ...

Too True Old Dog- You're right, 205 has been asleep at the wheel for at least 30 years (that I know of). I'm waiting for an IT rater to try to do a plain old message the old fashioned way (e.g. not with the computer) and select the correct freqs manually... Ain't gonna happen....

Good point too on the D&D manning:D My last deployment as a Div "O", I had an EDVR for 105, we left with 95, went down to 89, and by working 24/7 managed to clear about 90% of the gripes. BUT I was lucky in that I had a good shop, good Chiefs and LPO's and the Old Man's backing to get things done. Honestly, I'm glad to see this discussion, as it shows I'm not the only one wondering where we're going.:evil:

[Jeff Timm]

You have to remember, the USAF and the USN make pilots officers and gentlemen, by requiring 4 years of schooling, then spending years making them officers and pilots. Skews the data.

I prefer the Pilot Officer system, similar to the Army Helicopter pilots, taking everyone in as enlisted, training them to fight and fly, then taking the best pilots and keeping them in cockpits, while taking the leaders into the Officer ranks.

Geoff
Who has been de-target-ranked as a DoD Civilian to save money. :D

[VMI 1991]

Most of what I have read follows the vein of "Advances in technology will let save money by needing less people"

Nice, but who will be left to paint?

A great deal of this technology depends on connectivity to the internet. What happens when it breaks or you are trying to avoid being detected electronically?

What happens when your ship is hit? Every single person in USS COLE was involved in damage control. The crew was at the point of physical exhaustion when US help arrived. They had 280+ people. What happens to a ship that has a crew of 100?

[obmax1212]

Naval Intelligence? (NIS IIRC). That's pretty much what I meant when I said the Navy's global role. One of the biggest jobs the Navy does is gather information. There is more to the job than just sailing ships around and keeping them working and looking pretty...


Well, I can appreciate they have their own intelligence. But it seems duplicative when we have an agency dedicated specifically to intelligence gathering. And considering how the arguments being made for maintaining or expanding the Navy's fleet have little to do with intelligence gathering, I dont see it as being necessary. No question we should have a standing Navy, and definately with the best available equipment and training (as we do). But, we have to realize we are so far beyond every other military in the world on just about every level that the "need" for more carrier battlegroups doesn't seem real.

[Jeff Timm]

obmax1212 opined: "Well, I can appreciate they have their own intelligence. But it seems duplicative when we have an agency dedicated specifically to intelligence gathering. And considering how the arguments being made for maintaining or expanding the Navy's fleet have little to do with intelligence gathering, I dont see it as being necessary."

It is a different kind of intelligence. The big carriers and carrier battle groups can do things NOW or real fast on the other side of the world. The exact nature of the systems is not easily available, but the US Navy can get you pictures of almost anyplace on earth, "up close and personal" with a recon pod on a fighter. Then they can take action.

Sometimes a little action NOW is a whole lot better than a LOT OF ACTION later. Example, Bratislavia and Kartoffleslavia have been arguing about the Bier Provence for 150 years. The new liberal government of Bratislavia takes a sh*t load of surplus Warpac AFVs and rolls across the border. While the Kartoffleslavians are trying to get their militiamen out of the rathskellers the Brats armored column suddenly has acute engine trouble, caused by the sudden impact of an IR homing shaped charge blowing up the engine compartment. The Brat Air Force is suddenly grounded by airfield debris problems, small metalic objects which go BOOM! when you try to move them, and since their supply of jet fuel is currently entaining the locals by burning merrily, it's tough to work up enthusiasm for removing the mines.

In Bratislavia city, the US Ambassador sez to the Premire, "As I said, the US will enforce the UN agreement, Sir. Wattsamatta, you didn't believe me?"

Now, in the "War on Terror" the mission is not so easily defined, but having the ability to SUDDENLY deliver overwhelming force, or a level of force down to a two man sniper team anywhere in the world has a certain value. The Navy can stand ready to do this, just over the horizon.

The question is, when, and the will in the Political Arena to act.

Geoff
Who believes actions speak louder than words.

[WT]

So we need an entire carrier battle group to take a picture? 10,000 sailors to support a pilot with a Kodak Brownie camera?

The other day I saw a report where a 500# JDAM was used to take out a single Iraqi sniper. Hit the wrong building. 17 civilians dead. OOPS!

Pilots are obsolete. I would think a couple of cheap UAV's launched from a small patrol craft would do better, taking pictures or dropping bombs.

Meanwhile, the 400 harbors in the US are unprotected.