Could it be another Armchair Admiral? That was what I could post in 3 minutes, below will be what i can crank out in 20 because dinner is almost ready and I have to work tonight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid
From the latest Naval shipbuilding fiscal plan (btw we're at 282)
In February 2006, the Navy presented to Congress a goal of achieving and maintaining a fleet of
313 ships, consisting of certain types and quantities of ships. On March 28, 2012, the Department
of Defense (DOD) submitted to Congress an FY2013 30-year (FY2013-FY2042) shipbuilding
plan that includes a new goal for a fleet of about 310-316 ships. The Navy is conducting a force
structure assessment, to be completed later this year, that could lead to a refinement of this 310-
316-ship plan.
So is another 30 too few?
I trust them more than I trust your assement.
Few more numbers, the 05 plan called for 260 ships, less than we have now.
06 was 313
11 continued the 313 number
These numbers may or may not change.
A few factors that are going to affect it, there's a new SSBN in development, which means current Ohios unless readily available, and in budget, will not be repaired.
We're going to be down a carrier as of next month until the Gerald Ford is launched in 2015.
Marines want 33 landing ships instead of 31 due to Marine Expeditionary Battalion needs. Something will have to get cut due to that.
So we already have a plan to increase the battleforce but its not an instant thing.
10 ships planned to launch next year, 7 in 2014, 8 in 2015, 9 in 2016, 7 in 2017.
There's some other stuff in there, but you should get the point now. That is, stop talking. 
Also according to the budget and previous budgets (back to 06) we're currently on track.
The fleet will drop to its low points in 2015 (276 ships) break 300 in 2019. Not currently projected due to obselence and retirement dates to ever reach their "we'd really like to see this but hey, its a nice dream" numbers. |
I trust my assessment more (and that of the CBO) than I trust them
and your 5 minute blurb - So in that light, a couple things numbers boy
313 Was the number of ships they felt would be necessary to do their current missions - not all Navy mission is killing other ships. The true "Battleforce" is somewhere around 125 ships Carriers, Cruisers / Destroyers, Frigates - oh, but the 25 frigates remaining are not really "battleforce" ships as they cannot much reach out and touch someone (see below). I'll debate you either way - with carriers or without.
The FY2013 shipbuilding plan which plans out the next 30 years assumes higher amounts per year (17-18% - CBO's numbers not the Navy's) in shipbuilding budget than what was spent in previous years.
You said yourself we were at 282 - and yes, 30 ships does make a difference. Especially as we "pivot" to the Pacific we actually need more hulls to make up for the tyranny of distance. Or we can keep doing what we are doing which is sending undermanned ships for longer and longer deployments, wearing out both man & machine faster in the process. This forces earlier retirement of ships (think 250 ships in 20 years the way we are going). "Saving money" forces other ships to retire early so "battleforce" ships retired last decade averaged 21 years old - not the hope for or "planned for" 30.
Part of why we are at 282
Ships retired last decade:
8 FFGs (and the rest were Neutered) - average ship life 21 years - ships were "planned" for a 30 year life
24 DD Spruance (VLS / Non VLS) - average life for the VLS ships? 21 years
These were ships that were retired early to save money to buy more ships. The 24 Spruance class? Will be replaced by 3 DDG-1000, and some Arleigh Burke DDGs (good ships)
313 ships under current "plans" is a function of PowerPoint and little more.
BTW - I actually believe that by "pivoting" to the Pacific means we'll just gut the forces
less there.
The ships being used to make up this 313 ship fleet will probably guarantee that we don't get there.
30
FFG FF (the
G was lost when the pulled the Standard Rail Launchers a mid-late 2000s?) Perry class frigates are being stricken / transferred foreign sale en mass. The newest being 20 something years old and the oldest still in active service was commissioned while you were wearing a bib ( I was a sophomore in HS). These ships are being replaced by "54" LCS ships, split between 2 designs, both with lots of issues. Trust me - they will not build 54 of these (replacing more than the just the 20 Perry FFs) - I'll bet you a bottle of Scotch on that.
LCS is not considered a "warship" and is not designed to be survivable in a combat situation. They would not likely survive a Stark / Sammy B type damage.
They are weaker, less survivable, and probably have a higher pukability factor than those FFG they replace. They have range issues and cannot do one of the frequent missions of the Perry - barely hanging on with a carrier Strike Group. Even if they had the ASW mission module which is not close to being ready.
On top of that they are riddled with issues - some resolved, some resolving, some ain't gonna happen
Off Course: Did Navy Underplay Steering Problem Before Awarding Ship Contract?
The Navy?s New Class of Warships: Big Bucks, Little Bang | TIME.com (to be fair, a Navy
Public Affairs chief of information offers a rebuttal
LCS: Let?s Talk Facts )
Here is an example of FY13 a recent announcement that several Crusiers will be decomm'd early: Anzio, Vicksburg, Port Royal, and Cowpens. Add to that 6 FF nee FFGs are to be decommissioned. These 10 are for next year, plus the Big E, for 11 ships.
They are being replaced by 4 ships, 1 LCS, 1LPD, 1 LHA - the first 2 have loads of issues in their class and the third is a semi-new class so expect issues and a Virgina SSN (great boats)
This is the trend. 2014 has 2 ships, a LCS and a SSN, 2015: 2 DDG1000 ( major first class issues and development / testing), The Ford CVN ( major first class issues and development / testing), and another LPD and a SSN.
DDG1000 is going to have massive issues that I don't want to even link to as it is still too early but it ain't looking good.
DDG Burke Restart won't see anything until who knows when and Burke FLT III ships are an enigma because they cannot stuff the power generation in those to support AMDR and such.
The Ohio replacement SSBNx will blow the Navy Shipbuilding budget. Just crush it. Each ship could cost 1/3 of the total shipbuilding budget (I actually believe SSBNs should be funded outside of Navy shipbuilding). The Virginia is too small to rework even though that has been suggested (Trident D5s are larger than the hull) and the Ohio is tooooooo old to restart production. It would take years to scan the drawings (yes, paper) and recreate in 3D intelligent CAD systems. Seawolf might be able to be reworked but we stopped those at 3 because they were too much $$$$
This is where our Navy is today and for the near future.
Put that in your 313 Horse & Bayonet pipe and smoke it