Comments on: Navy Shipbuilding Gap Grows

By: BM@ Fields

BM@ Fields — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:24:37 +0000

We need to remember what the navy does and take back most of the MSC/ USNS dhips and have the Navy run them as well as bring back the Auxilaries, tenders oilers etc, etc, etc.

By: Galrahn

Galrahn — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:24:05 +0000

Shipbuilding is jobs.

By: RetiredLDO

RetiredLDO — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:01:07 +0000

I agree about the lifespan of the 68 Class carriers, but even they will start to reach a point of diminishing return in about 15 years. The problem comes up when the numbers go below 12 or 11 and it becomes difficult to cover all the areas we need to maintain a presence.
The WWII industrial base could support the buildup we needed at the time, after a few years of spinning it up. Now, there is only one shipyard capable of building and overhauling nuclear-powered carriers. The build process for the associated heavy components alone takes several years.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:26:34 +0000

First, the idea of a larger navy is just not feasible right now. What is feasible though is to get our greedy defense contractors under control with fixed price contracts. Also, what is wrong with a little international cooperation in developing ships. There are two classes of ships I would consider as replacements for the ffg; the absilon and the f100. These vessels are flexible enough to operate as integral parts of a CSG, provide protection to an ESG, provide ABM defense, and operate reasonably well in the littorals. The LCS should be procured in a much more limited number than the 40–50+ and use it as an minesweeper with additional capabilities. As for cruisers, I believe the ddg-51 hull could be enlarged and adapted with additional vls cells and technologies from the ddg-1000 far cheaper than developing a completely new class. In fact south Korea is doing this with the kdx-3 destroyers. The point is these hulls are starting points that are available from friendly nations. As for aircraft, I’m for a future caw of 18 super hornets, 24 jsf, 12 f-22N, and 18 ucav as a strike element. The f-22 was originally developed and selected for it’s adaptability to carrier operations and would return the air dominance capability lost with the tomcat/ Phoenix. The ucav will provide a standoff capability nescessary in any future Asian conflict to protect taiwan.

By: CharlesHouston

CharlesHouston — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:08:52 +0000

Byron — if we want you back we’ll send you an email.

By: TMB

TMB — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:56:33 +0000

You’ll be back when your standards have been met? You say that like your posts are required reading around here.

By: William C.

William C. — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:51:53 +0000

Yet there is simply no reason we shouldn’t have a 300 ship Navy. It is just shameful considering the 600 Navy we were aiming for not too long ago.

Numbers still count simply by the fact that a ship can’t be everywhere at once. There are few platforms these days that are limited to one mission. In fact since the retirement of the ASW focused Spruance class most of our ships have a wider array of capabilities.

The latest DDG-51 class destroyers are great ships that can serve as the backbone of our surface fleet for many years. Yet there are always reasons to continue developing new systems. Eventually we should move to building a new class entirely. DDG-1000 was supposed to be this, yet as we know this program did not go as planned. It appears that the three ships built will be little more than technology demonstrators. Among other things they will prove if their hull design is truly viable for future destroyers and cruisers.

Regarding cruisers, I don’t support Gate’s idea of one common hull. For some tasks you want a bigger ship, and if you are going to put an extremely advanced digital beam-forming phased array radar, you want to ensure you have the missiles to take advantage of that.

By: WarPony

WarPony — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:50:34 +0000

WE have a real problem when the steel we obtain comes from China (cheap), Brazil (cheap) and Germany (best around) and not the US (?). You aren’t going to have the metals at grade if we’re asking a potential adversary (eufrrprc) to sell US suplize.

I prefer the free market also, but don’t we have a strategic oil supply? How ’bout a strategic metal industry (now known as “the rust belt” — torn down)?

By: William C.

William C. — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:20:58 +0000

Considering what we did back in during WWII, there is a way, it just won’t happen these days.

However the early Nimitz class ships still have life in them, so more than 1 per yer probably isn’t needed.

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:00:28 +0000

Ken 854 — it’s not a question of loosing our sea power status but more about being able to get to a combat zone and put a hurting on the enemy. carriers lead the air attack most times during the initial conflict. support craft are just as important. they just need to buy smarter and no we dont need a 300 ship navy if we buy the right stuff.

By: ken854

ken854 — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:02:32 +0000

With our current number of carriers at 11 and the closest country in number of full sized carriers is France with 1, we’re hardly in danger of becoming a second rate naval power.

If we keep spending money on our military (and social security) and don’t concentrate on getting jobs created in the U.S. and bring down the debt, we certainly will be forced to sell the rest of our country to China.

By: R. Benson

R. Benson — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:27:49 +0000

i have to agree with falcone as well

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:44:07 +0000

Good Morning Folks,

Just a bunch of silly mindless postings. When somebody who has an opinion worth discussing, I’ll be back.

It is doubtful that other then in the case of Global War such as the World Wars of the 20th. Century were, the USN will ever have a fleet of 300 ships again.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:18:43 +0000

At the current rate at which the government is nationalizing industries/companies, what you suggest is not that improbable (though as a supporter of the free market, I sincerely hope that never happens)

By: jack

jack — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:25:25 +0000

maybe we can get china to help us.….….……we are selling them everything else.……

By: Robber

Robber — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:56:55 +0000

In the early 70’s, New Idea, a farm equipment start-up tried to sell a multi-function tractor system that plowed, seeded, cut and baled hay; and harvested, etc all using interchangeable “snap on” parts. The only part that remained the same was the engine, frame and drivers cab. It failed miserably.
The lesson learned is that one platform cannot effectively perform all tasks or missions. The failure was also the result of not understanding the process and the requirements of farmers. I am dismayed that the US Navy is attempting to do the same with the LCS essentially snapping on parts and pieces depending upon the mission.
We use to build ships and weapon systems based upon the current and projected threat posed by potential adversaries. This seems to have been tossed out the window with the fall of the Soviet Union. With the shift away from threat based fleet development and future missions our focus appears to be driving toward multi-functional farm tractors.
With regard to the fleet inventory at large: we might want to revisit the Battle Group concept of concentric rings of protection and power projection using the SSN-DS, CAP, FFG, Destroyer, Cruiser, CV concept. Granted, smaller platforms in greater numbers than Hi-value ones, but effective none-the less. With smaller FFG or similar type platforms, rearmed with more fire-power the littoral concept of operations can still be completed while not dragging the ship building budget down. For those of you who like to throw around the Asymmetrical Warfare concept, consider this: (1) are we better prepared to fight at sea now, or 20 years ago (2) have we improved our mine warfare capabilities or decreased them, and (3) have we developed a significantly better gun or missile compared to 30 years ago.…

By: Danny L. Turner

Danny L. Turner — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:27:34 +0000

It is a shame, but the U.S. military seems to shrinking in to a second rate power. Does anybody in Washington care? It doesn’t seem like to me.

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:05:26 +0000

They need to take a step back and refocus. The DDX is junk, the virginia class is junk, and the LCS is junk. all have too many gadgets and are too hard to work on. Need to stop building new ships period till they go back to the drawing board and lay out the blue prints and identify what they missed such as port to starboard cross connect systems, double valve isolations on the supply and return side of every system, electrical by passes, reduce the amount of electronicly controlled valves, etc. The way these craft are being put out these days doesnt allow for them to remain fully combat ready while repairing a major system. The best submarine ever built was the 637 class, they were still out performing 688 class submarines on a daily basis but this embarassed the brass so they pushed to get them gone before they really needed to be. The same is true with many frigates, DD’s, cruisers, support ships and so on sitting on the back side of Ford island and in PA waiting to be given away or sunk, they are still operational and in good shape but the brass cant get new toys if congress knows this.

By: RetiredLDO

RetiredLDO — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:27:09 +0000

There is simply NO WAY to deliver two Ford-Class carriers per year, now or ever. Even if (BIG IF) we had the money to throw at them it could not be done. Do you have any idea how ships are built and what it takes to deliver a CVN? If you did I doubt you’d make a statement like that .

By: R. Benson

R. Benson — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:30:58 +0000

I’m with Lord Falcone on this one.