What Elections Mean for the US Navy

[Galrahn]

While there are plenty of political forums that focus on the general politics regarding what the election result will be, this thread is a non-partisan attempt to take a realistic look at what to expect in terms of changes or effect on the US Navy as a result of the elections.

1) CVN-21 will continue, but the total CVN number will likely be discussed to reduce the total from 11 to 10. This has been a long time recommendation by progressive strategic research organizations going back to 2004. Progressives have argued in the past that by creating a separate account for aircraft carriers, an account the Navy cannot dip into, a steady build rate of 1 carrier every 5 years could be established to provide stability for the shipbuilding industry. This leaves an 8 month gap between building a carrier every 5 years, which Congress would have to address with the yard.

2) The DD(X) is DOA. There will not be follow on DD(X), the first 2 will be the last 2. There isn't a single progressive or liberal strategic study that has found anything favorable about the DD(X) program. The funding for this program will dry up after the first 2.

3) The MV-22 program is about to hit a wall just as it is getting started. Marine Corp tilt rotor aviation will be changed to utilize cheaper alternatives.

4) The LCS program will move forward.

5) It is now unlikely the Navy will build more than 1 SSN per year. Lower cost alternatives, including AIP, are now more likely to be discussed, although still unlikely.

6) Force total target numbers have traditionally been 300 ships by progressive strategic researchers, including 10 carriers.

7) The F-35 program is unlikely to be changed in terms of numbers, but I would expect more cost oversight.

It is unlikely the Rumsfeld resignation will mean anything for Naval shipbuilding for FY08. Rumsfeld failed to use a future years plan all 6 of his 6 years in office, in other words, not a single year was the same as the previous years planned acquisitions. With that kind of planning, or lack thereof, it really isn't a surprise shipbuilding in the US had inflation higher than any other major defense industry.

Sources include various publications and congressional statements by Lawrence J Korb, Caroline P. Wadhams, and Andrew J. Grotto.

[HKDan]

Galrahn,
Im interested in what you think about the future of DDX. Im no fan of the program even though i will admit that the final product will be pretty impressive. I just dont see it as a good use of money in today's world. In my mind the block IIA Burke's(or possibly a block III further down the road) are more than good enough for the forseeable future. As for the MV-22, again I see it as far too expensive for what it delivers. I think that the Marines would better served with more CH-53Ks. With the exception of fewer subs, I dont really see that any of this is such a tragedy. The Navy needs to get its act together in the procurement department, and a bit of fiscal austerity might be a decent motivator for them to start thinking about what is really important and how much its worth.

[Bill]

3) The MV-22 program is about to hit a wall just as it is getting started. Marine Corp tilt rotor aviation will be changed to utilize cheaper alternatives.

Oh good God i hope so!

[BenRoethig]

What I'm hoping:

1. DDG-100 canceled. Hobart class hull used for new Land attack/ASW destroyer
2. F-35B/C canceled.
3. V-22 dropped in favor of CH-71 (EH101). Marine Corps order helps royal navy receive HC.3+ Merlins to replace transport sea kings.
4. Someone realizes a SH-71 would be a much better carrier helo than the escort sized MH-60R
5. Cheaper alternatives to full size CVNs such as maybe looking at an enlarged version of the RN's CVF to maintain carrier force levels.
6. Brown water assets such as SSKs and FACs/Corvettes for costal defense missions.

[SnowLeopard]

......6. Brown water assets such as SSKs and FACs/Corvettes for costal defense missions.......

This last one might be somewhat difficult. The US doesn't do diesals. Last diesals combat subs built for the US were the Barbel class, built right at the end of the 50's. Last export, not hand me downs nor other submarines built to US design, diesals were before even that, mid 50's, Barracuda class for Peru (Abato class).

First of all, the US doesn't do diesals. It has been nukes, combat wise, all the way, in construction for the last 40 years. Secondly, there hasn't been a combat diesal sub in the US since the 1990, which might be translated to mean there isn't a supply system to support it even if they did come back. Third of all, where to build them, what US shipyard knows how to build them? It will almost never be an overseas shipyard.

Finally, SSK's, to hide at chokepoints, brown water, have not been that successful from the US's standpoint. The Barracuda's were SSK's and don't have that much of an operational history, such as 5-7 years. Tullibee was an SSNK, but similar sort of story. Be small, be quiet, hit at the choke point.

But in being like that, it loses something in the capabilty to do other things. Further, in Tullibee's case, there is a loss of shaft horsepower in being turbo-electric drive (the reactor feeds a turbo generator and the prop is run off an electric motol). It's quiet, but there isn't as much speed, and seeing how we have only built 2 subs (I think) of that type, Tullibee and Narwhal (I think), it's not an accepted design.

Sounds nice on paper, but the mechanics aren't there.
-----------------------------------------------------
("Ask me any 3 requests and I shall grant them."--Count Iblis
"Including the return of our missing pilots?"--Starbuck
"There may be a slight logistical problem there. I can affect affairs from this point on, not what has happened in the past.", (wtte), Battlestar Galactica: "War of the Gods")

[Galrahn]

What I'm hoping:

1. DDG-100 canceled. Hobart class hull used for new Land attack/ASW destroyer
2. F-35B/C canceled.
3. V-22 dropped in favor of CH-71 (EH101). Marine Corps order helps royal navy receive HC.3+ Merlins to replace transport sea kings.
4. Someone realizes a SH-71 would be a much better carrier helo than the escort sized MH-60R
5. Cheaper alternatives to full size CVNs such as maybe looking at an enlarged version of the RN's CVF to maintain carrier force levels.
6. Brown water assets such as SSKs and FACs/Corvettes for costal defense missions.

1) I would not expect any replacement, Flight III ABs are the 'most' likely scenario, but the build rate would be limited. The enormous DOD budget is about to be cut into, and it won't leave much room for new big ideas.

2) Won't happen, or is very, very unlikely. It would be really stupid at this point anyway because almost all of the R&D cost has already been sunk into the project. To get nothing at this point would be to throw away over 46 billion dollars, and piss off the closest allies of the US in the process.

3) Much more likely to happen. The MV-22 was once cancelled by Dick Chaney, some may or may not know that, and tidbits like that are sure to surface. What is likely to happen with the MV-22 is it will become a 'nitch' platform probably for LPD-17s and LHA(R)s, not a standard on all L class ships the way the USMC currently envisions.

4) Very, very unlikely. the H-60 program is one of the few Naval projects actually under budget and on schedule, and Congress is very unlikely to stop halfway through the project and change directions, the cost of a new logistics line outweighs any potential gains in paper capability.

5) There are no cheaper options for CVNs, all cost estimates done by budget researchers of virtually all political spectrums have consistantly pointed out that smaller carriers cost more for less capability, and not a single design has ever been produced that shows otherwise. In the carrier world, big is best for cost and capability. This reality is something the MOD is learning the hard way in Britain, the CVF costs are climbing very fast, and in the end the CVF project is in real danger of being one a super mess.

6) FACs won't happen in the Navy unless they are deployable from L class ships, like M class hulls for example. FACs are far more likely to be something discussed for the Homeland Security Dept. for the coast guard. Homeland Security has been one of the most wasteful Depts. in the US government, and the coast guard is a popular choice for security spenders among US Democrats. Keep in mind, coast guard isn't only a security organization, they are also one of the most advanced environmental protection organizations in the US government, and the environmental lobby as a whole is a 2 billion dollar liberal lobby in the US.

Bill Clinton pointed out during a speech in late 2004 at his presidential library that one of his biggest regrets as president was not to focus more on improving the coast guard. Somewhere along the way during the Bush administration, and it could have been Katrina, or could be a reflection of the greater progressive movement strategy, the coast guard became a major asset in the Democratic Party security strategy.

HKDan,

I have said from the beginning the US needs to build one DD(X) of 2 different classes with a 3.5 billion dollar cost cap per ship, for a total of two different designs. These two ships would be the modern day versions of the USS Long Beach and USS Bainbridge.

If you look back at the time frame, in the last 50s when the USN build the USS Long Beach and USS Bainbridge, each represented a single ship class of revolutionary design and purpose, not only as prototypes for the advancement of new (nuclear) propulsion systems, but additionally the first two ships built from the ground up as missile warships instead of gun warships.

There is no better example today than the DD(X), a platform designed to incorporate future propulsion, weapon systems, electronics, and a large number of new shipboard technologies for crew reduction, stealth, fire control, unmanned vehicle deployment, etc... Basically, the DD(X) is playing a role that can be found in history by looking at what the USS Long Beach and USS Bainbridge proved to be in the end.

The Knox class, Perry class, Spruance class, Ticondaroga class, and Arleigh Burke class were all built based upon the lessons learned from the Bainbridge and Long Beach in the 50s, meaning two very expensive single ship class prototypes gave the USN 50 years worth of warships.

Build two DD(X)s each of unique design, and let them perform the same role. With their size, they should be more than adiquate to test virtually any technology that comes out over the next 40 years for surface combatants, and can be utilized as large test and development ships for proving new shipboard technologies without having to build a new hull.

After all, the US Navy deploys ships all the time with new technologies, so there would be nothing stopping them from deploying the DD(X) regardless of its status as a commissioned development platform.

[SnowLeopard]

..........
I have said from the beginning the US needs to build one DD(X) of 2 different classes with a 3.5 billion dollar cost cap per ship, for a total of two different designs. These two ships would be the modern day versions of the USS Long Beach and USS Bainbridge.

If you look back at the time frame, in the last 50s when the USN build the USS Long Beach and USS Bainbridge, each represented a single ship class of revolutionary design and purpose, not only as prototypes for the advancement of new (nuclear) propulsion systems, but additionally the first two ships built from the ground up as missile warships instead of gun warships.

There is no better example today than the DD(X), a platform designed to incorporate future propulsion, weapon systems, electronics, and a large number of new shipboard technologies for crew reduction, stealth, fire control, unmanned vehicle deployment, etc... Basically, the DD(X) is playing a role that can be found in history by looking at what the USS Long Beach and USS Bainbridge proved to be in the end.
................

BITE YOUR TONGUE, SIR!

The Long Beach was NEVER a DD(X). It was a CRUISER, thru and thru, from the keel up!
--------------------------------
("If anyone is going to stab my sister with sword, they will have to go thru me first!"--Phoebe, (wtte), "Charmed")

[Galrahn]

BITE YOUR TONGUE, SIR!

The Long Beach was NEVER a DD(X). It was a CRUISER, thru and thru, from the keel up!

The DD(X) will be larger than any cruiser build since the USS Long Beach.

In 40 years, I'm willing to bet people will look at the DD(X) the same way people look at the USS Long Beach today, as a brilliant ship, and all the contraversy will be long forgotten.

After all, the USS Long Beach is the most contraversal ship build since WWII, at least until the DD(X), but most people don't know that, but Congress burned more midnight oil on that ship than any other built warship during the cold war.

[Gun Grape]

3) Much more likely to happen. The MV-22 was once cancelled by Dick Chaney, some may or may not know that, and tidbits like that are sure to surface. What is likely to happen with the MV-22 is it will become a 'nitch' platform probably for LPD-17s and LHA(R)s, not a standard on all L class ships the way the USMC currently envisions.

This is the only one I disagree with you.53s or EH-101s will never be a replacment for MV-22s. Both the MC and the AF have MV-22 squadrons. A training program in place....

And those AF ones are SOC birds. They will continue to get funded. Maybe faster to cut cost.

It was never suppose to be a standard on all ships. Just like the 46.

[Ray]

Too early to call.

[HKDan]

Galrahn,
That makes a lot of sense. Maybe the best idea I have heard for DD(X).

[Galrahn]

It was never suppose to be a standard on all ships. Just like the 46.

Yes it is. The MV-22 under current plans is intended to be not only the primary medium lift aircraft for the USMC, it is the only medium lift aircraft being purchased. The current plan calls for 370 total MV-22s.

Replacement funded CH-46s are being purchased as MV-22s.

I have no idea what would take the place of the MV-22 if it is scaled back, someone else mentioned specific platforms. I agree with you though, I don't see 53s taking their place, even though I personally think they would be a good choice. A 53K is only slightly cheaper than a MV-22, so savings would be minimal.

[HKDan]

While I agree that the probability of the MV-22 being outright cancelled is about zero, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the numbers were curtailed. This is a program that is disliked by so many people and is an easy target for cutbacks with stormclouds on the horizon. I cant see the Corps getting as many as they want. Just too expensive and with too strong of an opposition. The 53K cant be a replacement, but I wouldnt mind seeing a smaller fleet of Ospreys and a larger fleet of 53Ks.

[RustyBattleship]

Perhaps I can put all this for all armed Services in the proper perspective.

Since the Democrats have taken the majority of the House and the Democrats have taken the majority of the Senate:
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ WE ARE DOOMED!

[Shadowsided]

Perhaps I can put all this for all armed Services in the proper perspective.

Since the Democrats have taken the majority of the House and the Democrats have taken the majority of the Senate:
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ WE ARE DOOMED!

Ithink you're jumping to conclusions there . A good number of the demcrats aren't liberal, a lot of them are conservative and a fir number of them are moderate so i expect the US so I expect some US navy programs to be scaled back and most will probably be left the way they are.I pretty much agree with Galhran's 1st post there.Don't worry most of these dems aint the tree hugging,anti defense,left wing democrats we're all scared of so don't worry.LOL congress didn't change much pretty much only in party.