rickusn

Over the last nearly 9 years much has been been written and said about the USN fleet size.

I doubt if it would surprise many here that little has changed.

Lets start with the 1997 QDR gave a total of 300-310 Battle Force ships.

Total ships (302)

12 CV/N
18 SSBN(4 now SSGN)
50 SSN(Now 53)

27 CG 47(Now 22)
57 DDG 51(Now 48, 14 more building.)
32 DD-21(None yet but 30 OHP are in service.)
( 116 Total surface combatants. Spruance DD and OHP FFG fill in until built or alternatively the surface combatant total would temporarilly drop.)

16(14MCM/2MHC) Mine Warfare plus 10(MHC) others not in the Battle Force.

12 LHA/LHD(One short 1998-2001 and one or more short starting 2005)
12 LPD(have been one short 1992-2005 when it dropped to two short)
12 LSD(Three extra until 2003)

4 AOE
12 AKE(AO, AOE, AE & AFS ships fill in until class is built)
13 AO

(Logistic ship totals have been 30 or over in the early-middle of this decade with nominally 8 AOE, 16 AO, 6 AE & 6 AFS available for service. Some have been in reserve, ROS, prepo, other service or decommissioned during this time.)

4 Command Ships(Now only two.)
2 Submarine Tenders
4 ARS
7 ATF(Now dropped to four.)
8 AGOS(Did drop to four and now is five.)

The 2001 QDR had the following changes added to bring the number to 310/312:

5 SSN to 55
4 AOE
1 AO

In addition the 18 SSBN's would be reduced to 14 with either all or only two coverted to SSGNs. We now know all four are in that process.

From 2002-2004 the 375 ship fleet was contemplated. It was modified to reflect the below list. Which I thinkwas the final version.:

12 CVN
14 SSBN
4 SSGN
52 SSN
63 DDG 51
22 CG 47
24 DDX
56 LCS
16 MCM/MHC plus 10. (See above.)
12 LHD/A
12 LPD
12 LSD
18 MPF(F) ships(I have no break-down on types.These would have replaced all the existing 16 MPF(E) ships I believe.)
8 AOE
11 AKE
14 AO
4 Command ships
2 Submarine Tenders
4 ARS
7 ATF
8 AGOS

The modifications I know of from an interim list are a decrease of one AKE(14 to 13), one LHD/A(13 to 12), three SSN(55 to 52), 5 CG 47(27 to 22) with an increase of six DDG 51(57 to 63) and four DDX( 20 to 24).

Notice the drop from the earlier QDRs of DDX of 12 & 8 ships, the premature decommissioning of the first five CG 47s and the continuation of the DDG 51 program to 63 vice 57 hulls.

The additions to the 312 ship fleet were 56 LCS, 18 MPF(F), 6 DDG 51 and subtractions 5 CG 47 , 8 DDX, 3 SSN and 1 AO.

The initial composition before the modifications was:

12 CV/N
14 SSBN
4 SSGN
55 SSN
27 CG 47
57 DDG 51
20 DDX
56 LCS
26 MCM/MHC(The 10 MHC's that were not counted in the Battle Forece were added)
13 LHD/A
12 LPD
12 LSD
8 AOE
14 AO
20 AKE
4 Command Ships
2 Submarine Tenders
4 ARS
7 ATF
8 AGOS

End first installment.

The info above was gleaned from GAO,CBO,CRS,CSBA reports and HASC testimony in addition to private correspondence with Robert Work of CSBA.

Any errors of fact or other inaccuracies are are soley my responsibility and not that of my sources.

rickusn

Thanks for your patience I edited, added to an amended the original post.

The below is derived from the offerings of John Bretschneider of Defense News and Robert Work of CSBA from his HASC testimony.

Once again any errors or inaccuracies are soley my responsibility and not that of my sources.

We now come to 2005 and the 260 & 325 ship plans:

(260)
10 CVN
14 SSBN
4 SSGN
37 SSN
44 DDG 51 or future DDGX
8 DDX
15 CGX
63 LCS
8 LHA(R)
9 LPD 17
14 MPF(F)
2 HSS
3 HSC
7 AOE
8 AKE
9 AO
2 ARS
3 AGOS

(325)
11 CVN
14 SSBN
4 SSGN
41 SSN
62 DDG 51 or future DDG(X)
12 DDX
18 CGX
82 LCS
8 LHA(R)
8 LPD 17
20 MPF(F)
2 HSS
3 HSC
8 AOE
8 AKE
10 AO
1 Submarine Tender
2 ARS
3 AGOS

Now we come to the 2005/2006 QDR 313 ship fleet:

11 CVN
14 SSBN
4 SSGN
48 SSN
62 DDG
7 DDX
19 CGX
55 LCS
10 LHD/A
9 LPD
12 LSD
12 MPF(F) (consisting of 2 LHA(R), 1 LHD, 3 LSMR, 3 AKE, 3 MLP)
(There will also be retained 7 or 8 of the existing MPF(E) ships)
4 AOE
11 AKE
15 AO
2 Command Ships
2 Submarine Tenders
4 ARS
4 ATF
4 AGOS

All of the above plans fluctuate over the next 30 years.

And there you have it. Compare and Contrast.

rickusn

Correction:

The 104 Surface Combatants in the "initial composition" 375 ship fleet consisted of 16 DDX and 88 AEGIS ships consistiing of a combination of the existing 27 CG 47 and 63 DDG 51 existing, building or planned.

Later this number was increased to 109 by adding eight more DDX for a total of 24(Still less than the original 32)plus 22 CG 47 and 63 DDG 51.

The 63rd DDG 51 was never contracted for.

Over two or three years the 375 saw many modifications. Indeed the USN closely guarded the exact composition . And repeatedly stated that the 375 ship number was really only a planning target.

Anyway I hope all of the above was informative and helpful.

Galrahn

Nice job Rick.

It is hard to discuss it without breaking it down by type of ships.

Aircraft Carriers
Surface Combatants and Mine Vessels
Submarines
Combat Logistics Ships
Expeditionary Ships
Prepositioning Ships
Supprt Vessels

This was the graph used by Robert Work on March 30, 2006 in front of the HASC for the 313-plan and 1997 QDR comparison.

rickusn

Great Chart Galrahn!!!!!!!!!!

My PDF report doesnt have that chart of Col. Bob's testimony. RizimRockemRazim LOL

Its been awile since I talked with him. I better pick his brain again soon. LOL

http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/...kTestimony.pdf

You got a link for that?

How did You get it to translate to EZboard?

Thanks.
Rick

I copied it and pasted to my email. Worked great.

But I cant even copy and paste either your original or from my email back to EZboard why is that?

But then usually when I can it comes out all funky anyway.

Galrahn

He included it in the report of his testimony that was uploaded to the CSBA website .

I pulled the pic out and loaded it online via my free host space because I thought it was a very interesting graph, that way I could link to it as needed. Feel free to link to it anytime you need, just make sure you source Bob and not me, I don't want to be accused of stealing his hard (and great) work.

BTW, where did you find the sources for the breakdown in logistics and support ships for the 313 plan?

rickusn

"BTW, where did you find the sources for the breakdown in logistics and support ships for the 313 plan?"

In the PDF report I linked found on page three its also in the report at CSBA on page three.

The only difference in the two is different charts.

I dont know how I missed it at CSBA. I must not have been there for a week or so and didnt scroll down when I did. LOL

I swear Im getting senile.

I have a breakdown of the the 260-325 ships fleets in a pdf file if your interested.

Galrahn

haha, its on page 3 of a doc I link to, and you are the one getting senile?

I figured you found the fleet listings here? Or did you pull from other sources?

Either way, I don't like the idea of hull number measurements for Naval forces anyway, was it the 243-ship plan, the 260-ship plan, the 302-ship plan, the 313-ship plan, the 325-ship plan, or the 375-ship plan that was going to magically work? The number is never right. It has been nearly a decade since the Navy held a plan longer than 3 years in row so numbers barely matter in reality of the process at this point.

It already looks like the 313-ship plan is going to sink before it leaves port, so might as well start developing a new one.

rickusn

No actually I hadnt yet seen that one.

Thanks.

I have this one no longer available online AFAIK. But it gives a great break down on ship types by designation:

Attached Files

032805navy_30yr_fleetplan.pdf (130.4 KB, 7 views)

rickusn

Actually I do have a version of that CRS report. But like the Work testimony has some subtle differences.


Those two guys are great.

ORourke I have been reading for 20 years.
Work just the last few.
But Work is far more accessable.

And the people at CBO and GAO are execellent resources also.

rickusn

Here it is:

http://www.ndu.edu/library/docs/crs/...65_30mar05.pdf

Galrahn

Ya it is interesting, they are each unique in how they see the future too, which makes both interesting because you see the future Navy from two viewpoints. I have noticed ORourke is more focused on the future submarine and surface fleet due to a rising China while Work seems more focused on the GWOT, Sea Base concept, and fleet logistics.