Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: US Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

  1. #1
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    885

    US Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

    There is a newly revised report dated January 24, 2020 at the following link.

    https://crsreports.congress.gov/prod...RL/RL32665/282


    Earlier versions (and current) are available at the following link. I expect that future revisions will eventually show there also.
    https://crsreports.congress.gov/prod...odcode=RL32665
    .
    .
    .

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by Defense_News

    Destroyers left behind: US Navy cancels plans to extend service lives of its workhorse DDGs

    By: David B. Larter
    08 March 2020

    WASHINGTON — In a move with sweeping consequences for the U.S. Navy’s battle force, the service is canceling plans to add 10 years to the expected service lives of its stalwart destroyer fleet, a cost-savings measure that would almost certainly hamper plans to grow the size of the fleet.

    In written testimony submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Navy’s Assistant Secretary for Research, Development and Acquisition James Geurts said performing service life extensions on Burkes designed to bring them up from 35-year hull lives to 45 years was not cost-effective.

    “Service life extensions can be targeted, physical changes to specific hulls to gain a few more years, or a class-wide extension based on engineering analysis,” the testimony read. “The Navy has evaluated the most effective balance between costs and capability to be removing the service life extension on the DDG 51 class.”

    The Navy’s destroyers are the workhorses of the fleet, with sailors spending an average of one in every four days underway, the highest rate in the fleet, according a recent report from Defense News’ sister publication Navy Times.

    The decision to ax the service life extensions for the Arleigh Burke class comes after years of assurances from Navy leaders that the destroyers would be modernized with an eye to growing the fleet over the coming decades. Navy leaders have offered assurances that the fiscal 2021 budget continues to grow the fleet despite its significant cuts to shipbuilding and existing force structure, but it is unclear how the fleet will continue to grow past the next five years if service life extensions on the earliest Burkes don’t go forward right away.

    It would also seem to have significant impact on the current push from acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly to grow the fleet to 355 ships in a decade.

    In its FY20 30-year shipbuilding plan, the Navy said extending the lives of the Arleigh Burkes was an imperative to growing the fleet to a battle force of 355 ships. Instead, the cancellation of the service life extensions means that between 2026 and 2034, the Navy is slated to lose 27 destroyers from its battle force.

    Those losses would compound the impact of cutting 10 ships from the five-year projections in the FY21 budget, including five of the 12 proposed Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers from the FY20 budget and a Virginia-class attack submarine.

    The Defense Department has yet to submit its FY21 30-year shipbuilding plan, which means that it’s impossible to tell how the Navy thinks these cuts would affect its total ship count in the years when it would lose Burkes at a rate of more than three per year. But the Burke retirements would begin in 2026 or 2027, years just after the service completed shedding 13 cruisers from its fleet, leaving just nine of the Navy’s largest combatants in the fleet.

    In a statement, Capt. Danny Hernandez, spokesman for Geurts, said there are a lot of variables in getting the fleet to its goal of 355 ships, but that the Navy’s top priority is keeping the recapitalization of its retiring Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines on track.

    “Like Navy leaders have stated during testimony, the tradeoffs were complex to get the right balance,” Hernandez said.

    Service lives

    According to a Naval Sea Systems Command document obtained by Defense News in 2018, the earliest Arleigh Burke destroyers — 27 so-called Flight I and early Flight II destroyers — have an expected hull life of 35 years. The lead ship, the Arleigh Burke, was commissioned in 1991, meaning its hull life is up in 2026.

    DDG-51 through DDG-78 — the Flight I destroyers — were commissioned between 1991 and 1999. Later models — Flight IIA — have 40-year hull lives.

    In 2018, then-Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems Vice Adm. Bill Merz told USNI News that there were distinct advantages to upgrading the entire class, and that instead of just a combat systems modernization aimed at boosting ballistic missile defense systems, the ships would get the full hull and mechanical upgrades that would extend the ships out to 45-year service lives.

    “This is an HM&E [hull, mechanical and electrical] extension, but every destroyer is already in the modernization pipeline, so every destroyer will be modernized,” Merz said. “The modernization they receive that’s already programmed may carry them through.

    “Obviously the threat’s going to get a vote on that, but one of the beauties is instead of doing an individual ship-by-ship extension and extending the entire class, now we have the visibility to actually plan for that. We can pace it, plan it, fund it efficiently instead of one-and-done, one-and-done, one-and-done. We can be a lot more deliberate about how we handle this class.”

    In testimony that year, Merz said ballistic missile defense was the biggest requirement driving the retention of the DDGs to 45 years. Compounded with cuts to the Flight III destroyers, it seems likely that the Navy by 2034 will have a significantly reduced ballistic missile defense capability with at least 32 fewer ballistic missile defense-capable destroyers in the fleet, if this budget is enacted.

    When asked during its FY21 budget rollout if cutting five Flight III DDGs corresponds to a reduction in demand for ballistic missile defense-capable ships, Navy budget director Rear Adm. Randy Crites told reporters it was a decision based “strictly [on] affordability.”

    The Navy has in recent years declared the Arleigh Burke hull design maxed out, with the Flight III being packed to the gunwales with power and cooling to support the inclusion of Raytheon’s SPY-6 air and missile defense radar. Future combatants will have to accommodate more power generations and storage to support systems such as laser weapons and rail guns.

    The excess electrical power capacity in the Ford-class aircraft carrier, for example, is one of the main reasons the Navy considers the new class valuable even as aircraft carriers become more vulnerable to high-speed, anti-ship missiles.

    Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said the cuts were a necessary step. Clark recently authored a study with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments that called for canceling the DDG service life extensions.

    “It’s crazy to throw good money after bad for a bunch of ships you say you don’t need,” Clark said. “I think the Navy is coming to grips with the fiscal realities; the unsustainable nature of their current plan; and the recognition it is going to have a need for fewer large surface combatants in the future and needs to husband its resources to build a larger fleet of smaller surface combatants. Those are going to be the bulk of the distributed force they intend to have.”

    .

    ...
    Last edited by JRT; 11 Mar 20, at 14:54.
    .
    .
    .

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    885
    As more is shut down to reduce transmission of COVID-19, have to wonder if shipyards will also be affected in a few days or weeks. The workers cannot phone in the actual building of those submarines.

    Electric Boat Employee Presumed Positive for COVID-19, Being Tested

    March 17, 2020
    NBC Connecticut

    An Electric Boat employee is quarantined at home while awaiting the results of a COVID-19 test, company officials said Tuesday.

    Liz Power, the director of communications for Electric Boat, said the New London-based employee started showing symptoms, has spoken to a healthcare provider, and is now staying home while awaiting the test results. Seven other employees who work closely with that person have been asked to self-quarantine as a precaution for the time being.

    So far, 68 people in Connecticut have tested positive for the coronavirus, though health experts believe the actual number of cases is significantly higher. Drive-through testing is being made available for those with a doctor's prescription for a test as the public is encouraged to practice social distancing to slow the spread of the virus.

    ...
    .
    .
    .

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    885
    There is a worsening shortage of SSNs.

    112 Congressmen Call for Second Virginia-Class Sub in 2021

    by Richard R. Burgess, Senior Editor
    Seapower Magazine
    March 18, 2020

    WASHINGTON — The congressional push for reinstatement of a second Virginia-class submarine in the 2021 defense budget has attracted the support of 112 congressmen.

    A letter from three congressmen on the Seapower subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee — sent to the House Appropriations Committee in support of the additional Virginia SSN as well as for the Columbia-class ballistic-missile submarine (SSBN) — was endorsed by an additional list of 109 congressmen.

    The letter to Defense Appropriations Chairman Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) and ranking member Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) was drafted by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), the Seapower subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), ranking member, and another member, Rep. James R. Langevin (D-R.I.). All three represent districts in states that host submarine builders. The 112 signers include 72 Democrats and 40 Republicans.

    “The 112 members that have joined this request represent 32 states, over 14,000 suppliers and over $10 billion in manufacturing and support activity in the submarine supply chain,” Neil McKiernan, a staffer for Courtney, said in a March 18 release.

    During recent hearings, the three drafters were critical of the Navy’s budget proposal that limited sub construction starting in fiscal 2021 to one Virginia SSN, together with the long-planned Columbia SSBN.

    The objections included the apparent retrogression regarding a 355-ship Navy and attaining a submarine force large enough to support the National Security Strategy, a force level currently set at 66 SSNs. Under current shipbuilding plans and planned retirements, the SSN force level will decline to 42 boats by 2027.

    The Navy has put the second Virginia SSN at the top of its 2021 unfunded priorities list. The service and its two sub builders, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding, succeeded in recent years in reducing the cost of a Virginia SSN to allow the Navy to afford two per year.

    The letter notes that then-Chief of Naval Operations John M. Richardson told Congress in 2019 that “with respect to the greatest gap between the warfighting requirement and current inventory, there’s no greater need than the attack submarine fleet. … It’s a wide gap and it’s getting wider. So, every submarine counts against closing that gap.”

    “The proposal to request one attack submarine is contrary to the National Defense Strategy, the needs of our combatant commanders, and a decade of congressional action in support of a steady two-a-year build rate,” the letter said. “Of note, the Navy recently ranked the restoration of the second 2021 Virginia-class submarine as its top unfunded requirement. To that end, we respectfully request your strong support for two Virginia-class submarines in [fiscal] 2021.”

    .

    ...
    Last edited by JRT; 19 Mar 20, at 15:18.
    .
    .
    .

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor HKDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 May 06
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    903
    The cynic in me thinks that the USN fully expects Congress to give them that second SSN in 2021.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Army’s M-4 Carbine: Background and Issues for Congress
    By Shek in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02 Jul 08,, 05:09
  2. Navy Changes 30 Year Shipbuilding Plan
    By Galrahn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01 Mar 07,, 07:38
  3. USN Force Structure
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 17 May 06,, 05:40
  4. RN Force Structure
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08 Aug 05,, 01:16
  5. Force Structure of the USN
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08 Sep 03,, 16:40

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •