Jump to content

U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Given Budget Priority


Recommended Posts

The drama called the US defense budget saga, can be likened to a poorly cast and predictably-plotted soap opera! Here's the source: http://defensenews.com/story.php?c=AME&amp...49668&s=SEA

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the US shipbuilding industry is getting a high priority in our national defense. What I'm saying is - its overrated. Two flavors of LCS (which are white elephants). The Danish experimented with "multi-purpose" warships and found they didn't work. The Virginia class SSN, while nice is not the best platform for the job. UW is shifting from the deep blue water of the oceans to the littoral. It's like taking a race horse and strapping it to a log wagon - sure it might get the job done, but it wasn't designed for it. A 7,000-ton SSN its meant to operate in coastal waters.

Last but not least - the USS Gerald Ford. US$1.1B over budget and the fancy dancy Zumalt destroyers. Their like a merunge on a pie. They sure look nice but there's not a lot of substance to them. An electromagnetic catapult system and eletrical rail guns. Way too much high tech in a sea environment. Salt water doesn't react well with it, it's likely going to need a lot more maintenance and in these tough economic times - basic tried and true technology should be used.

That's what the every other international shipbuilder is doing. Have you ever wondered why up and coming countries buy their ships from practically everyone elese but the US? Because our ships are too expensive to build! The defense industry in the US has become a huge lumbering levithan tied-up in red tape, while the shipbuilding industries of other countries is running circles around us.

I'd love to hear what everyone on the fourm thinks.

OKay, my rant is done. I got all this pent-up stress off my chest. I can enjoy my Sunday. Have a great rest of your weekend.

 

FWFS,

Greg Emerson, DM1(SW), USN-Retired

Renton, WA, USA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The drama called the US defense budget saga, can be likened to a poorly cast and predictably-plotted soap opera! Here's the source: http://defensenews.com/story.php?c=AME&amp...49668&s=SEA

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the US shipbuilding industry is getting a high priority in our national defense. What I'm saying is - its overrated. Two flavors of LCS (which are white elephants). The Danish experimented with "multi-purpose" warships and found they didn't work. The Virginia class SSN, while nice is not the best platform for the job. UW is shifting from the deep blue water of the oceans to the littoral. It's like taking a race horse and strapping it to a log wagon - sure it might get the job done, but it wasn't designed for it. A 7,000-ton SSN its meant to operate in coastal waters.

Last but not least - the USS Gerald Ford. US$1.1B over budget and the fancy dancy Zumalt destroyers. Their like a merunge on a pie. They sure look nice but there's not a lot of substance to them. An electromagnetic catapult system and eletrical rail guns. Way too much high tech in a sea environment. Salt water doesn't react well with it, it's likely going to need a lot more maintenance and in these tough economic times - basic tried and true technology should be used.

That's what the every other international shipbuilder is doing. Have you ever wondered why up and coming countries buy their ships from practically everyone elese but the US? Because our ships are too expensive to build! The defense industry in the US has become a huge lumbering levithan tied-up in red tape, while the shipbuilding industries of other countries is running circles around us.

I'd love to hear what everyone on the fourm thinks.

OKay, my rant is done. I got all this pent-up stress off my chest. I can enjoy my Sunday. Have a great rest of your weekend.

 

FWFS,

Greg Emerson, DM1(SW), USN-Retired

Renton, WA, USA

I have sided with you for the most part but I think you could be here for an hour typing your rant and you would barely scratch the surface of our Navy's (militarys) issues.

We seem to be slow in adjusting to naval combat requirements either because we are trying to build 22nd century platforms with 21st century knowledge or our government is trying to make the worlds greatest Navy on the cheap. I am one for a complete naval force and we seem to be drifting to having a complete naval platform i.e. the USS Gerald Ford, DD(X), LCS, F35 etc. With the cost of all of these projects we can't possibly have all of them at once. My personal preference would be to have the surface/sub-surface platforms that we have currently in service and with the brain power that we have design what sub-platform (BMD for example) that we need around them. If we continue on our dreamlike pace we'll have a stealth aircraft carrier that's 1500 ft long with SM3's and TLAM's at $50B a pop. (Insert big belly laugh here.)

 

I'm not sure if the US is trying to be in the business of being military supplier to the world. It's a nice little extra selling F16's or some AIM 9's to countries that don't have the needs to make their own but with the size of our government deciding what we have and what we need gets steamrolled into a quagmire and we seem to side on the "expensive is better" which countries like Taiwan, India and Australia can't afford or don't really need. So I am glad that we have Nimitz-class carriers and Ohio-class subs, SM2's and TLAM's and I think we're a great navy because of them but unforntunately we are way ahead of the technology curve and too big of a government to manage it with the domestic issues that we have as a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comment, Steven.

In some ways we could benefit by selling to other nations; however, we automatically excude ourselves and are not invited to submit an (Request for Proposal) because just to build the darn thing cost so much. That's why Damen Schelde is JV'ing (joint venture) with the Vietnamese, Austal bouth a yard in the Philippines and Singapore and Korea's shipbuilding is racking in money hand-over-fist. They make a quality product at an inexpensive price.

The Chinese are learning their lesson - they were making junk on the cheap. Thailand and bangladesh took them to task in the world court and now they are even turning things around.

India has apirations of greatness, but their yards ar overworked and antiquated. Russia makes some darn good platforms, but their system is more corrupt than ours (however, they don't have unions to deal with).

There's a saying I remember fromthe Right Stuff - No bucks, no Buck Rogers. We want Buck Rogers and our budget can't support it. In other words - we are spending ourselves out of existence the way we forced the Sovits to, during the Cold War.

Cuts are going to have to be made, but they shouldn't start with defense. Stop building all these golly-gee white elephants and construct a navy to fit the times - not bluewater engagements, but assymetrical ones in the littoral.

 

FWFS,

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warhorse, Even if we go to toe-to-toes with the ChiComs, I don't personally see the engagements being the big bluewater battles of WWII or those envisioned by strategists during the Cold War. They will move toward the continental shelf of the Western Pacific. If you look at their "String of Pearl" bastion defense diagram you'll see this. They don't have a true power projecting force that would warrant bluewater tactics. Neither do the Russian or Indians for that matter. During the Cold War, Russia did, but no longer. They are a shadow of their former selves. At the same time, all three aspire to his dream but I don't see it in the next 20 to 30-years.

You're right - the US does need a navy to fit the times - Power projection into the littorals. Have a force to hold the SLOC open in the blue water, but be effective in the shallower continental shelf. Currently, that's what we are lacking. Although we currently have allies developing this capability, we shouldn't rely on them - whose to say they won't turn on us (wow, there's a thought for a possible scenario, a hostile ASEAN against the US and Australia - hmmmm, that has possibilities).

 

FWFS,

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble land based opinion for china and Russia (and to some extent everybody else that doesn't like us) most of their projected power seems to be more dependent on limiting the united states from operating in their back yard then actually going out and doing any real hunting. The only notable exceptions would be their continued want of using more capable ssn's to go on fishing expedition and hopefully land themselves a nice juice carrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warhorse, Even if we go to toe-to-toes with the ChiComs, I don't personally see the engagements being the big bluewater battles of WWII or those envisioned by strategists during the Cold War. They will move toward the continental shelf of the Western Pacific. If you look at their "String of Pearl" bastion defense diagram you'll see this. They don't have a true power projecting force that would warrant bluewater tactics. Neither do the Russian or Indians for that matter. During the Cold War, Russia did, but no longer. They are a shadow of their former selves. At the same time, all three aspire to his dream but I don't see it in the next 20 to 30-years.

You're right - the US does need a navy to fit the times - Power projection into the littorals. Have a force to hold the SLOC open in the blue water, but be effective in the shallower continental shelf. Currently, that's what we are lacking. Although we currently have allies developing this capability, we shouldn't rely on them - whose to say they won't turn on us (wow, there's a thought for a possible scenario, a hostile ASEAN against the US and Australia - hmmmm, that has possibilities).

 

FWFS,

Greg

 

Greg, if the US goes toe-to-toe with the PRC, and the war lasts for any length of time (which it just about has to, given the distances involved) there's going to have to be one heck of a fight in the IO over the tanker routes, isn't there? That's a long way from the PRC's major bases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble land based opinion for china and Russia (and to some extent everybody else that doesn't like us) most of their projected power seems to be more dependent on limiting the united states from operating in their back yard then actually going out and doing any real hunting. The only notable exceptions would be their continued want of using more capable ssn's to go on fishing expedition and hopefully land themselves a nice juice carrier.

 

This is pretty much how I see it.

 

The PLAN is looking to solidify its hold on regional control, i.e. within that string of pearls.

 

I rather doubt anything beyond the nuke sub force would venture beyond that, and up till now, even the subs have stayed close to home.

 

When it comes to overseas interventions in, say, the Malacca Strait or elsewhere, I expect the Chinese would be looking to exploit "other means" or tools at their disposal (e.g. asymmetric, etc) rather than sail a warship(s) that far from home with expectations of it accomplishing any given mission and/or surviving to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion has given me some things to think about for the BRICS campaign I am putting together. I'm putting the finishing touches on the lead in - A Strange Way to Start a War, right now. Hopefully it will be ready by next week. I want to playtest it, before I write the orders.

 

FWFS,

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...