rickusn

The USN now has 287 ships(1APRIL05), 283 ships(31DEC05) and 289 ships(30SEPT06).

In 2008 it is projected to have 297 ships. A close look at this reveals that of the 297 ships 14 will be in ROS**(12 AE/AFS, 1 AGF, 1 AO) vice the 287 ships with 4 in ROS(2 AE/AFS, 1 AGF, 1 AO). For more realistic fleet totals of 283!!!!

All those ROS ships are operated by the MSC.

**Reduced Operating Status(takes at least 30 days to become fully operational ships have a small caretaker crew)

The fleet will change its structure somewhat:
+10 DDG
+8 AKE(the nominal replacement for the AE/AFS with one AKE doing the job of two ships[1 AE plus 1 AFS])
+2 LCS
-1 CV
-2 CG
-2 DD
-1 AGF
-1 AOE
-3 MHC

So the fleet will actually remain relatively static the most striking combat trade-off is the gaining of 6 DDG(10-4[2CG,2DD]) but losing a carrier.

The fleet will be at its lowest ebb in many, many decades circa 31DEC05. Many of theses ships will be operated by the MSC with civilian mariners augmented by small contingents of USN personnel with the exceptions of the AGOS surveillance ships no USN people and the Command ship Mt Whitney with about 460 USN presonnel expandable to 860.

The fleet structure as it will probably look on 31DEC2005 with #s in brackets[]showing increases to be accomplished by 30SEPT06 :

USN operated:

11 CV/CVN(Could be all CVN by 30SEPT08)
48 DDG[50]
22 CG
30 FF
14 SSBN
4 SSGN
54 SSN
33 LHA/LPD/LSD[35]
4 ARS(Salvage/Repair ships that could soon be MSC operated)
17 MHC/MCM
2 AS(Submarine Tenders one each fwd deployed in Italy and Guam)
1 LCC(Command ship Blue Ridge fwd deployed in Japan)

240 Sub- Total

MSC operated:

12 AE/AFS(2 in ROS)(all to be ROS in the next 2-3 years)
1 AKE[3]
15 AO(1 in ROS)
4 AOE
2 AGF/LCC( AGF Coronado in ROS at San Diego/ LCC Mt. Whitney fwd deployed in Italy)
5 ATF
4 AGOS

43 Sub-Total

283 Grand-Total
279 less the four ships in ROS

Ships not included in ANY of the totals above 8 PC-1 class soon to be in CG service with composite USN/CG crews and operational expenses paid for by the USN apparently. Five of 14 already transferred with one in service in the Phillipine Navy.

And 9 MHC soon to be retired in addition to the 3 listed above also slated for retirement.

TopHatter

Disturbing figures to say the least.
One bright point is the large numbers of Arleigh Burke-class DDGs

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

rickusn

Yes. Thanks for making part of my point. Which I dont think I was quite clear on. maybe on purpose. LOL

The other part of the point is that the USN for the next 10 years or so depends on shoring up #s by keeping older and less capable ships as part of the Official Battle Force structure. At first its logistic ships and soon it will be the OHP class frigates.

Then it will be the incusion of the new MPF(Seabasing) ships combined with a massive investment in LCS. Both programs may or may not bear that much fruit and the true capabilities of both classes remains to be seen.

Another note is that the USN has touted (even recently) the High Speed and HS connector ships but only have a handful projected in their new force structure plan. Although they seem to really be pushing up the #s on LCS and the program in general.

rickusn

In the April issue of USNIs Proceedings Magazine. Norman Polmar has an article titled "The Navy is in Criisis".

I mentioned the MPF(F) ships above being used by the USN to bolster fleet #s.of its Battle Force.
Heres what he says:

"These ships, not part of the "battle force" could provide a major advance in U.S. capabilities for overseas operations, far beyond current amphibious and prepositioning forces. However, MPF(F) ships undoubtedly will take money away from conventional forces"


Other interesting tidbits:

Poland has deployed a submarine(ex-Norwegian Type 207) into the Med for the first time since WWII.

Singapore has launched its 3rd of 6 Formidable class frigate for commissiioning in 2006.

The first of four Greek Type 214 SSK underwent sea trials in February.

Also two excellent articles:

One by Norman Friedman on N. Korea.

Another by a retired USN Commander on "Russian Sub Casualties " during and post Cold War.

Also on another board a discussion is being engaged on OHP class frigate capabilities. This has concerned me for a coupla years now and while the USN has redone their decommissioning schedule retarded some and accelerated others in its 30-year Plan. I remain convinced that because of their combat shortcomings that this new schedule will be accelerated when discussion of the FY 2007 budget starts.

rickusn

The NVR site has just been updated. These are the Fleet #s you see quoted in the media whether updated or not. This list isnt updated until it receives the appropriate official paperwork from the proper source. Thats why it usually lags(sometimes many months) behind the actual events.

Two surprises for me:

1) AGF 11 USS Coronado has been removed from the Ship Battle Forces List
2) AO 188 USNS Joshua Humphries has been reactivated. Some reports say it isnt/wasnt to be reactivated until June. My understanding from USN planning was October.

Below is my slighly edited version:

Class/# of Hulls
Ship totals in ()

Ship Battle Forces - (287)
Aircraft Carriers(12)
CV 63/ 1
CV 67/ 1
CVN 65/ 1
CVN 68/ 9
Ballistic Missile Submarines(14)
SSBN 726/ 14
Guided Missile Submarines(4)
SSGN 726/ 4
Surface Combatants(101)
CG 47/ 24
DD 963/ 2
DDG 51/ 45
FFG 7/ 30 (8 NRF)
Nuclear Attack Submarines(54)
SSN 21/ 3
SSN 688/ 50
SSN 774/ 1
Amphibious Warfare Ships(35)
LHA 1/ 5
LHD 1/ 7
LPD 4/ 11
LSD 41/ 8
LSD 49/ 4
Combat Logistics Ships(32)
AE 26/ 6
AFS 1/ 3
AFS 8/ 3
AO 187/ 15
AOE 1/ 1
AOE 6/ 4
Support Ships(18)
LCC 19/ 2
AGF 3/ 1
AGOS 19/ 3
AGOS 23/ 1
ARS 50/ 4
AS 39/ 2
ATF 166/ 5
Mine warfare Shiips(17)
MCM 1/ 14 (5 NRF)
MHC 51/ 3 (1 NRF plus 9 others NRF but considered non-deployable and not assigned to the Ships Battle Force List)





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TopHatter

I like that format Rick, detailing the class of each ship type.
If I get the time, and with your permission, I'll fool around with italics and such and see how it looks

dalem

Are all the Spruance's gone already?

-dale

rickusn

Tophatter:

No probs. I copied it off the NVR site, pasted it and then edited it abit. I didnt have time to do anything more with it. Although I wanted to. Do your thing. Then Email me a copy. Which will make it easier for me to update. Thanks.

Heres the page I copied and edited:

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/sbf/fleet.htm

Dale:

Those would be the DD 963 class. There are 2 left in the Battle Force. And one other being used in Ships Self-Defense Trials and designated EDD. Plus a couple in CAT B.

All of these ships are in reserve CAT B:

Class Hull Name UIC Category
AD 37 AD 38 PUGET SOUND 05837 B
AD 41 AD 42 ACADIA 21047 B
AGOS 19 AGOS 20 ABLE 21866 B
AO 187 AO 190 ANDREW J. HIGGINS 21469 B
AS 33 AS 33 SIMON LAKE 04697 B
AS 39 AS 41 MCKEE 21118 B
BB 61 BB 61 IOWA 03061 B
BB 61 BB 64 WISCONSIN 03064 B
DD 963 DD 980 MOOSBRUGGER 20612 B
DD 963 DD 981 JOHN HANCOCK 20613 B
LKA 113 LKA 113 CHARLESTON 05844 B
LKA 113 LKA 114 DURHAM 05845 B
LKA 113 LKA 115 MOBILE 05846 B
LKA 113 LKA 116 ST. LOUIS 05847 B
LKA 113 LKA 117 EL PASO 20004 B
LST 1179 LST 1182 FRESNO 20021 B
LST 1179 LST 1187 TUSCALOOSA 20026 B
LST 1179 LST 1190 BOULDER 20029 B
LST 1179 LST 1191 RACINE 20030 B

rickusn

Tophatter:

No probs. I copied it off the NVR site, pasted it and then edited it abit. I didnt have time to do anything more with it. Although I wanted to. Do your thing. Then Email me a copy. Which will make it easier for me to update. Thanks.

The last AOE 1 class ship will be decommissioned early next fiscal year which starts Oct. 1.

The USS Lasalle AGF 3 will be decommissioned in May.

The last two Spruances will be decommissioned in September.

The last two non-vls CG-47 class ships will be decommissioned one in July the otherearly next fiscal year which starts Oct. 1.

Heres the page I copied and edited:

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/sbf/fleet.htm

Dale:

Those would be the DD 963 class. There are 2 left in the Battle Force. And one other being used in Ships Self-Defense Trials and re-designated EDD and is in commission but not on the Battle Forces List. Plus a couple in CAT B.

All of these ships are in reserve CAT B:

Class Hull Name UIC Category
AD 37 AD 38 PUGET SOUND 05837 B
AD 41 AD 42 ACADIA 21047 B
AGOS 19 AGOS 20 ABLE 21866 B
AO 187 AO 190 ANDREW J. HIGGINS 21469 B
AS 33 AS 33 SIMON LAKE 04697 B
AS 39 AS 41 MCKEE 21118 B
BB 61 BB 61 IOWA 03061 B
BB 61 BB 64 WISCONSIN 03064 B
DD 963 DD 980 MOOSBRUGGER 20612 B
DD 963 DD 981 JOHN HANCOCK 20613 B
LKA 113 LKA 113 CHARLESTON 05844 B
LKA 113 LKA 114 DURHAM 05845 B
LKA 113 LKA 115 MOBILE 05846 B
LKA 113 LKA 116 ST. LOUIS 05847 B
LKA 113 LKA 117 EL PASO 20004 B
LST 1179 LST 1182 FRESNO 20021 B
LST 1179 LST 1187 TUSCALOOSA 20026 B
LST 1179 LST 1190 BOULDER 20029 B
LST 1179 LST 1191 RACINE 20030 B

TopHatter

Man, they dropkicked those Spru-can destroyers out of the Navy pretty damn quick.
I wonder what that's all about? I know a least a handful have also been expended in SINKEXs recently. Did the Navy just get an itch to start blasting it's older ships out of the water?

Attached Images

untitled.bmp (578.7 KB, 203 views)

rickusn

They were bult for blue-water ASW. That mission basically no longer exists.

There are more than enough VLS cells in the fleet for land-attack Tomahawk so no over-riding reason there.

Relatively expensive to man, maintain and operate than the OHP frigates for low-intensity missions.

Have no area AAW capability.

Ergo the decision was made to keep the OHPs in service and decommissioning the Spruances.

Saving also one or two major overhauls and continued spiral modernizations.

The class had many varying configurations and capabiliies from ship to ship .

Among those:

Some had two helos, some one.
Some had RAM, some didnt.
Some had ELINT equpment, some didnt.
Some had updated EW euipment, some didnt.

CAT B isnt particularly cheap and transfer to other nations problematic due to their operating expense and manning requirements.

Plus shoot em up is relatively cheaper than scrapping.

TopHatter

True enough. If I would have thought about it for more than 30 seconds I probably would have come to the same conclusion.
On the other hand, I like your presentation of the facts better

(Nice shot of that LPH getting it right in the bread basket eh? )

sw55

Ok but don't we need some "blue-water ASW"? Russians still have some good subs, relative to the rest of the world (except the USN and Royal navy of course).
Having them in reserve at least is better than trying to reproduce them. And don't battle groups spend all their time in "blue-water" away from littorals for their defense???
I'm interested. Humor me...

TopHatter

If I may butt in, uninvited

Blue water ASW is all well good and fine, unless that's the only trick in your bag.
OK, you can do blue water ASW and launch 60+ TLAMs. Great.
Except that every DDG and CG in the fleet can do those things and a whole lot more.
What the Navy needs right now is multi-mission ships like the Burkes and VLS Ticos.
You can make a glaring exception out of the Perry-class figs but I'd say they cost a good deal less to operate than a Spruance.

sw55

Sounds good, but don't we need the numbers right now? What, are we down to about 100 surface combattants right now??? I don't care how capable each individual ship is, it can't be in two places at the same time. After a certain point, quantity is a quality, as the Sovs have been quoted as saying...
Thank you for your informative answer though,