This article is probably not news to anyone in this thread, but more stating the failures of American shipbuilding from a civilian-based perspective:
https://warontherocks.com/2024/09/u-...s-an-overhaul/
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
In the US Navy having a 1930s Moment?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
After the catastrophe of the LCS the Navy said they would use a proven off the shelf design. The they turn around and redesign 85% of the ship essentially starting from scratch. Just can't let big boys play with ships and planes. As for big boys with tanks it does look like they don't go overboard in wants...
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
I get some required changes on a design but 85%...yikes. With that many I think they should have gone with the British design...but I'm an Army guy so...
Leave a comment:
-
Seems one thing the Navy might never learn to control is the bad habit of wanting to change designs on the fly when the ship is well on it's way being built.
Seeing as how AR mentioned the Constellation Class.
Having been on the PM side of Acquisition for over 30 years the combat developers changing designs and requirements while we were in production is maddening. For hardware we solved by going to the Block method. Block 1 has X requirements built in. Block 2 has all new requirements that cropped up since Block 1. You can't continuously inject upgrades on the roll. Software has a different process but it is mind numbingly convoluted I won't go into it but will follow a similar path.
I get some required changes on a design but 85%...yikes. With that many I think they should have gone with the British design...but I'm an Army guy so...
Leave a comment:
-
Speaking of the Navy
The US Navy’s warship production is in its worst state in 25 years. What’s behind it?
The Navy’s ability to build lower-cost warships that can shoot down Houthi rebel missiles in the Red Sea depends in part on a 25-year-old laborer who previously made parts for garbage trucks.
Lucas Andreini, a welder at Fincantieri Marinette Marine, in Marinette, Wisconsin, is among thousands of young workers who’ve received employer-sponsored training nationwide as shipyards struggle to hire and retain employees.
The labor shortage is one of myriad challenges that have led to backlogs in ship production and maintenance at a time when the Navy faces expanding global threats. Combined with shifting defense priorities, last-minute design changes and cost overruns, it has put the U.S. behind China in the number of ships at its disposal — and the gap is widening.
Navy shipbuilding is currently in “a terrible state” — the worst in a quarter century, says Eric Labs, a longtime naval analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. “I feel alarmed,” he said. “I don’t see a fast, easy way to get out of this problem. It’s taken us a long time to get into it.”
Marinette Marine is under contract to build six guided-missile frigates — the Navy’s newest surface warships — with options to build four more. But it only has enough workers to produce one frigate a year, according to Labs.
Where have all the workers gone?
One of the industry’s chief problems is the struggle to hire and retain laborers for the challenging work of building new ships as graying veterans retire, taking decades of experience with them.
Shipyards across the country have created training academies and partnered with technical colleges to provide workers with the skills they need to construct high-tech warships. Submarine builders and the Navy formed an alliance to promote manufacturing careers, and shipyards are offering perks to retain workers once they’re hired.
Andreini trained for his job at Marinette through a program at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College. Prior to that, he spent several years as a production line welder, making components for garbage trucks. He said some of his buddies are held back by the stigma that shipbuilding is a “crappy work environment, and it’s unsafe.”
But that’s not the reality, he said. His health benefits are better than at his previous job, he’ll be getting a pension for the first time, and there’s an opportunity to acquire skills even more advanced than what he received during his initial training.
Plus, Andreini says, he feels like he’s serving his country.
“It makes me happy to be able to do my part, and possibly make sure sailors and some of my friends in the service come home safely,” said Andreini, whose father was in the Navy in Vietnam.
Alonie Lake, also a welder, fellow graduate of the technical college’s program and a single mom, is happy for a job with long-term stability — something Marinette’s backlog of Navy contracts virtually guarantees.
Lake, 32, said she thinks a lot of younger people are interested in jobs in the trades “and the satisfaction of working with their hands to create tangible results.”
Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro recently underscored the importance of training programs during commencement ceremonies at a community college in Maine. The college has partnered with nearby Portsmouth Naval Shipyard to teach workers the skills needed to repair nuclear submarines.
“It is incumbent upon all of us to consider how we can best lend our talents and, in the case of the graduates, their newly developed skills, to build up our great nation for all Americans, and defend against the threats and challenges of today,” he said.
Once workers are hired, will they stay?
The Navy is trying to help shipyards ensure that once new workers are trained and hired, they stick around in a tight labor market.
In Wisconsin, part of $100 million in Navy funding that’s being provided to Marinette Marine is being used for retention bonuses at the shipyard, whose past employee retention was described by Del Toro as “atrocious.”
The shipyard, which employs more than 2,000 workers, is providing bonuses of up to $10,000 to keep workers, said spokesperson Eric Dent. “The workforce shortage is definitely a problem and it’s a problem across the board for all shipyards,” he said.
Retention is a concern even for shipyards that have met their goals, including Huntington Ingalls Industries, which makes destroyers and amphibious warships in Mississippi and aircraft carriers and submarines in Virginia.
The company is creating training partnerships with colleges and public schools at all grade levels. Enhancements in Mississippi include more than a million square feet (92,900 square meters) of covered work area, cooldown and hydration stations, and a second dining area with a Chick-fil-A. Huntington Ingalls also collaborated with the Navy and the city of Newport News, Virginia, to build a new parking garage for workers and sailors.
A problem decades in the making
Much of the blame for U.S. shipbuilding’s current woes lies with the Navy, which frequently changes requirements, requests upgrades and tweaks designs after shipbuilders have begun construction.
That’s seen in cost overruns, technological challenges and delays in the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, the USS Ford; the spiking of a gun system for a stealth destroyer program after its rocket-assisted projectiles became too costly; and the early retirement of some of the Navy’s lightly armored littoral combat ships, which were prone to breaking down.
The Navy vowed to learn from those past lessons with the new frigates they are building at Marinette Marine. The frigates are prized because they’re less costly to produce than larger destroyers but have similar weapon systems.
The Navy chose a ship design already in use by navies in France and Italy instead of starting from scratch. The idea was that 15% of the vessel would be updated to meet U.S. Navy specifications, while 85% would remain unchanged, reducing costs and speeding construction.
Instead, the opposite happened: The Navy redesigned 85% of the ship, resulting in cost increases and construction delays, said Bryan Clark, an analyst at the Washington-based think tank Hudson Institute. Construction of the first-in-class Constellation warship, which began in August 2022, is now three years behind schedule, with delivery pushed back to 2029.
The final design still isn’t completed.
Shifting threats and changing plans
Complicating matters further is something out of the Navy’s control: the changing nature of global threats.
Throughout its history, the Navy has had to adapt to varying perils, whether it be the Cold War of past decades or current threats including war in the Middle East, growing competition from Chinese and Russian navies, piracy off the coast of Somalia and persistent attacks on commercial ships by Houthi rebels in Yemen.
And that’s not all. The consolidation of shipyards and funding uncertainties have disrupted the cadence of ship construction and stymied long-term investments and planning, says Matthew Paxton of the Shipbuilders Council of America, a national trade association.
“We’ve been dealing with inconsistent shipbuilding plans for years,” Paxton said. “When we finally start ramping up, the Navy is shocked that we lost members of our workforce.”
The Navy insists it’s taking the shipbuilding problems seriously.
“The Navy’s role in defending our nation and promoting peace has never been more expansive or mattered more,” said Lt. Kyle Hanton, a spokesperson for Del Toro’s office. “We continue to work with our industry partners to identify creative solutions to solving our common challenges.”
https://apnews.com/article/navy-frig...ddcf0c1fa2b353
Seems one thing the Navy might never learn to control is the bad habit of wanting to change designs on the fly when the ship is well on it's way being built.
Seeing as how AR mentioned the Constellation Class.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Monash View PostCountervailing some of those arguments is the fact that for decades now those in charge have seen larger hulls as (a) more versatile and (b) more survivable and they are probably correct, at least to some extent. Certainly most other western navies seem have followed their lead. But the US has definitely ignored small war-fighters to its own disadvantage particularly in terms of mine warfare and brown water/anti-submarine capabilities. You can certainly pack a reasonable amount of ASW capability into hulls in the 3000 ton range (just so long as you are prepared to accept and recognize some loss in versatility).
Leave a comment:
-
Countervailing some of those arguments is the fact that for decades now those in charge have seen larger hulls as (a) more versatile and (b) more survivable and they are probably correct, at least to some extent. Certainly most other western navies seem have followed their lead. But the US has definitely ignored small war-fighters to its own disadvantage particularly in terms of mine warfare and brown water/anti-submarine capabilities. You can certainly pack a reasonable amount of ASW capability into hulls in the 3000 ton range (just so long as you are prepared to accept and recognize some loss in versatility).Last edited by Monash; 11 Aug 24,, 23:13.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Maxor View PostA lot of the overall issue is systemic and related to other questionable moves within society.
Before world war 2 there was no question that General Electric and General Motors were "American" companies and that a huge portion of their productivity would/could go into emergency wartime production. What would you say about Intel, or Apple what does GM manufacture in the US these days outside of heavy Military Vechiles at Lima?
So a vastly different economy is a big part of this, and that same economy is also more geared towards service and intellectual design over production. Yes Honeywell is good in defense and electronics and they have a lot of their assembly in the Us but lots of their components are also imported.
Now relating that more towards shipbuilding. The US has basically stopped building merchant shipping which has deeply effected various trades and also stopped mining the resources that lead to those. US steel production peaked in the 1970s and the US had already been an importer of steel for a decade at that point.
Now add in that the navy had a pair of major building projects basically fail in the early 2000s with the litoral combat ships and the Zumwalt classes and you have a navy with some issues on the capabilities front without the shipbuilding capabilities to easily overcome this.
We also have some issues of hull/class bloat in place. It would be pretty reasonable for a escort frigate in today's navy to have the hull tonnage of a Fletcher class. Heck the Perry class was larger. That's a huge difference, as well when you consider that a worlds largest destroyer at the time had a hull tonnage less than a small frigate today the total numbers of hulls goes way way down.
I am not exactly saying that we should go back to the living conditions aboard WW 2 ships for our modern Navy but I also can see revisiting the idea of the LCS without the modular crap and build hulls that can be outfitted differently on a normal small warship hull.
But yes, we need increases in our shipyards. Infrastructure means something!
Leave a comment:
-
A lot of the overall issue is systemic and related to other questionable moves within society.
Before world war 2 there was no question that General Electric and General Motors were "American" companies and that a huge portion of their productivity would/could go into emergency wartime production. What would you say about Intel, or Apple what does GM manufacture in the US these days outside of heavy Military Vechiles at Lima?
So a vastly different economy is a big part of this, and that same economy is also more geared towards service and intellectual design over production. Yes Honeywell is good in defense and electronics and they have a lot of their assembly in the Us but lots of their components are also imported.
Now relating that more towards shipbuilding. The US has basically stopped building merchant shipping which has deeply effected various trades and also stopped mining the resources that lead to those. US steel production peaked in the 1970s and the US had already been an importer of steel for a decade at that point.
Now add in that the navy had a pair of major building projects basically fail in the early 2000s with the litoral combat ships and the Zumwalt classes and you have a navy with some issues on the capabilities front without the shipbuilding capabilities to easily overcome this.
We also have some issues of hull/class bloat in place. It would be pretty reasonable for a escort frigate in today's navy to have the hull tonnage of a Fletcher class. Heck the Perry class was larger. That's a huge difference, as well when you consider that a worlds largest destroyer at the time had a hull tonnage less than a small frigate today the total numbers of hulls goes way way down.
I am not exactly saying that we should go back to the living conditions aboard WW 2 ships for our modern Navy but I also can see revisiting the idea of the LCS without the modular crap and build hulls that can be outfitted differently on a normal small warship hull.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Monash View Post'It's another arrow in tbe quiver'. Assuming the USN pursues a policy going forward of equipping it's DDs and FGs with both systems and I was under the impression the Harpoon was going to be phased out/replaced.
Regardless perhaps the USN should start mounting 3 inch ordinance rifles on it's warfighters.
Henry Jackson Hunt - Wikipedia
Leave a comment:
-
'It's another arrow in tbe quiver'. Assuming the USN pursues a policy going forward of equipping it's DDs and FGs with both systems and I was under the impression the Harpoon was going to be phased out/replaced.
Regardless perhaps the USN should start mounting 3 inch ordinance rifles on it's warfighters.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Monash View PostThe published stats for the NSM certainly makes it look like an impressive system, stealthier than the harpoon with better targeting systems and a longer range. My only concern? It appears to have a much smaller explosive payload than the harpoon. So the test sort of becomes how much damage would one AB (or equivalently sized warship) suffer if it was hit by an NSM fired at it by another AB vs the damage caused by a single Harpoon hit.
If on average it takes two NSMs hits to inflict as much damage as a single Harpoon hit would do?
I look at it this was using Gettysburg & Civil War artillery. During Pickett's Charge, the 3 divisions had to cover 1.25 miles at open ground. As the Confederates emerged from the woods and commenced their fateful attack they came under fire by US 3-inch ordnance rifles. They were not as effective antipersonnel weapons as the smoothbore M1857 12 pound Napoleons. At 1.25 against massed Infantry the 3 inch shells produced 3-6 casualties...at a range the 12 pounder couldn't reach accurately. 12 pounder stated hitting 65% at a mile. So for a 1/4 mile the Confederates started taking casualties before they came within a 65% of the 12 pounders.
It causes casualties at ranges well beyond the Harpoon. And what will it do against a frigate?
It's another arrow in the quiver.
Leave a comment:
-
The published stats for the NSM certainly makes it look like an impressive system, stealthier than the harpoon with better targeting systems and a longer range. My only concern? It appears to have a much smaller explosive payload than the harpoon. So the test sort of becomes how much damage would one AB (or equivalently sized warship) suffer if it was hit by an NSM fired at it by another AB vs the damage caused by a single Harpoon hit.
If on average it takes two NSMs hits to inflict as much damage as a single Harpoon hit would do?Last edited by Monash; 30 Jun 24,, 02:19.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
I am placing this story here as I see it as similar to what the US Navy went through in the 1930s. In the 1930s we saw the new South Dakotas go to 16 inch guns and move away from 5"/51 & 5"/25 caliber secondaries and settle on the 5"/38 as the standard secondary BB/CA/CL and DD main armament. It also saw an expansion in the types of weapons used from carriers.
The NSM greatly enhances the long range SS strike capabilities of surface combatants. It is also good to see our Allies being equipped with the NSM as well!
US and Australian Navy Destroyers Spotted with Naval Strike Missiles – Defense Archives
US and Australian Navy Destroyers Spotted with Naval Strike Missiles
The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) seen here equipped with Naval Strike Missile canisters (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jordan Jennings)
USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62), one of the 40 surface ships participating in the 29th Iteration of Exercise Rim of the Pacific, was spotted equipped with Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace’s Naval Strike Missile.
The Royal Australian Navy’s Hobart-class destroyer, HMAS Sydney, was also spotted with a full load of four NSMs aboard. Marking the first instance where vessels of both classes were seen equipped with Naval Strike Missiles.
HMAS Sydney seen here coming into Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam equipped with Naval Strike Missiles (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Gavin Arnoldhendershot)
The NSM, which is designated as the RGM-184A by the US Navy, is currently scheduled to be fielded aboard the Navy’s Freedom and Independence classes of Littoral Combat Ships as well as the Constellation class guided missile frigates.
The Navy picked the NSM as the winner of its Over The Horizon Weapon System (OTH WS) competition which sought a new missile to equip the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships and future guided-missile frigate which became the Constellation class.
USS Gabrielle Gifford was the first US Navy vessel to get the missile back in 2019, which also carried out the first test firing of the missile that same year.
Ever since then the Navy has been equipping more Independence class ships with the missile. The first Freedom class ship to be equipped with the missile will be the USS Nantucket (LCS-27).
Alongside the Navy, the Marine Corps also operates the NSM, which makes up the missile component of the Navy/Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS). This system combines the NSM with Oshkosh Defense’s Remotely Operated Ground Unit for Expeditionary (ROGUE) Fires vehicle.
The Naval Strike Missile:
The NSM is a modern multi-mission cruise missile that is meant to strike defended maritime and land targets. It has a range of 100-nmi (185 km) when flying in a Lo-Lo flight path aided by its onboard inertial and terrain-following guidance setup, which is complemented by GPS.
The missile incorporates an S-ducted serrated inlet, with flush mounted panels and mid-body chines; these design characteristics reduce the missile’s signature aiding its survivability.
The missile also incorporates a passive dual-band infrared seeker for terminal homing instead of an active radar seeker that would set off any electronic support systems (ESM) aboard enemy ships.
The Naval Strike Missile is produced by Raytheon Missile & Defense in the United States in partnership with Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace. Raytheon also produces the Joint Strike Missile, which is an air-launched variant of the missile.
Author Comments:
For the US Navy, it currently remains unclear whether this is a one-off test for RIMPAC or else the beginning of something much wider. Although the NSM is currently scheduled to go on the LCS-1, 2, and FFG-62 classes, the Navy has also touted putting the missile on the San Antonio class amphibious landing dock ships in the past. However, any mention of this in the budget documents have since disappeared.
Furthermore, the Navy’s yearly buys for the NSM continue to be minuscule with the service only requesting 12 missiles this fiscal year and 13 last year. The Navy’s budget documents also state that Raytheon’s current NSM production line can produce a maximum of 125 missiles a year.
If the Navy plans to equip its Arleigh-Burke class destroyers with NSM, a substantial increase in production is needed unless production is outsourced to Kongsberg. The company currently has two production lines that can produce a maximum of about 350 missiles each, with the company recently standing up a third line in Australia.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by tmasi View PostFair -- I have a tendency to be too negative, perhaps. I'm not a military member or a defense contractor, so what I know is only what I read in the papers and my criticism falls more on frustrations I have with the President and Congress for the lack of proper requests & adequate funding for items we know will be needed to create a credible deterrent against so-called "pacing" threats. The lack of timely and full replacements for the cruisers and the SSGNs which were obviously aging out, for example. A lot of wasted years -- BUT I'll concede to NOT knowing the intricacies and totality of these projects & their problems.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: