The article ia a lot more optomistic than their title. :)
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-dangerous-nuclear-attack-submarine-shortage-16304?page=3
Quote
The U.S. Navy's Dangerous Nuclear Attack Submarine Shortage
The U.S. Navy hopes to continue to build two Virginia-class attack submarines per year while also building the Ohio Replacement Program ballistic missile submarine starting in 2021. But does the United States still have the industrial capacity to build more than two nuclear submarines at a time?
The increased build rate would help to alleviate a severe shortfall in the number of available attack submarines in the Navy's inventory—which is set to drip to 41 boats by 2029. But moreover, with the growing threat from a resurgent Russia and an increasingly hostile China, the service is recalibrating its stated requirement for 48 attack submarines.
It has become clear that the service needs more than 48 attack submarines. Even with 52 boats currently in service—four more than the stated requirement—the Navy is not able to meet the worldwide demand for submarine capability. "We have a compelling need for additional attack submarines," Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition told the Congress in late February. "Today, we have 52 boats, a requirement for 48, we have a valley of 41 boats in the 2030s, we start falling below the line in the late 2020s."
The Navy is working on reducing the costs of the Ohio Replacement Program to pay for an additional Virginia-class boat when the new ballistic missile submarine enters production in 2021. "We've got to nail down what it's going to cost to add a second Virginia in 2021 in POM 18. We've got to come to grips with that funding requirement, because it's going to come out of somewhere else," Stackley told the Senate on April 6. The service hopes to maintain a build rate of two Virginia-class boats thereafter until the future SSN(X) enters production in the mid-2030s.
The problem, however, is that one ORP and two Virginia-class boats is the equivalent of building four attack submarines—each boomer is more than twice the size of an SSN. Indeed, the question of if industry can handle the massive volume of work has come up. One also has to take into account the fact that the new Block V Virginia-class submarines are going to be fitted with a new module that increases their capacity to 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles. With the length of the boat increasing by 83-feet and displacement rising from 7,833-tons to 10,177-tons, the newer Virginia-class boats require much more work. That means the amount of throughput is essentially doubling. Can industry rise to the challenge?
The answer from both the Navy and industry is: Yes. The Navy is developing a plan called the Submarine Unified Build Strategy (SUBS) to spread the work between General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding intelligently. Once the Ohio Replacement Program starts being built, Electric Boat will deliver all twelve boomers while Newport News will deliver the majority of the Virginia-class boats. "We know with pretty high confidence they can handle two per year with Ohio Replacement," Capt. Michael Stevens, Naval Sea Systems Command's program manager for the Virginia-class told an audience at the Navy League's Sea, Air and Space symposium on May 17. "But we'll have to do some facilitization and, of course, hire people."
Industry is also confident that it can handle the workload. "We feel pretty comfortable that we'll be in a position to handle that," said Will Lennon, Electric Boat's vice president of engineering and design programs in an interview with The National Interest. However, both Electric Boat and Newport News will have to grow their facilities and hire more people to handle the enormous task—particularly during the 2020s. "We're looking at what it would take to scale up to be able to handle additional Virginias during the time of Ohio Replacement," Lennon said. "So adding the second ship in '21 is really not a big impact to us. It changes the phasing of our facility expansion, but it doesn't increase the number of facilities we have to have."
But what if the Navy revises its requirements to a level such that production must be further increased? It might be possible to increase production beyond even three submarines per year. Stevens pointed out that during the 1980s, the United States was producing four attack submarines and two Ohio-class boomers at one point. "There is history that suggests we could build a lot more," Stevens said. "But that would require more investment."
Indeed, for much of the 20th Century until the end of the Cold War, the United States would produce many more submarines per year than it does now. However, when the Cold War ended in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, submarine construction essentially came to a halt. The Navy had intended to replace its Los Angeles-class attack submarines with the powerful new Seawolf-class, which was designed specifically to hunt a new generation of advanced Soviet designs like the Project 941 Akula—which are better known by their NATO moniker as the Typhoon-class. But with the Soviet threat all but evaporating, the Navy terminated the Seawolf-class after only three boats in favor of the cheaper Virginia-class. But there was not an insignificant gap between the last Los Angeles-class boats, the three Seawolves and the new Virginia-class boats.
Effectively, the Navy took a holiday from building new submarines during the 1990s—only a handful of boats were built while many more submarines were retired. The result was not only a precipitous drop in the number of active submarines in the fleet but also in the industrial base that builds those vessels. "We shrank our footprint, we closed a lot of our manufacturing facilities, we shrunk down to a modest size," Lennon said. "Concurrently, the industrial base did contract. Where in the '70s and '80s we would have multiple suppliers for any given component or commodity, that industrial base contracted down to—in many cases—sole sources."
The diminished industrial base is one of the potential roadblocks to increasing production to three boats. Electric Boat is working with its vendor base to make sure that they can support the jump to one ORP and two Virginia-class boats per year. "Now as we look at this growth back up...we need to look at the industrial base to make sure they have the capacity necessary to support this increased production rate," Lennon said. "We're working very closely with the vendor base right now in doing assessments to determine where their capacity is, where we need to increase it—or—for just capacity's sake—where we want to increase it in order to promote competition again."
For the immediate future, Electric Boat is simply trying to make sure it can sustain building two Virginia-class boats per year during ORP construction. "To go beyond that we'd have to go do some additional research," Lennon said. "We may have to expand our facility some, but the capacity is there—it's a matter of understanding the need."
Electric Boat and Newport News would need some lead time to understand the problem, get their facilities into gear and train enough workers for the job—but there is enough industrial capacity to build more than three submarines in America's two nuclear-capable shipyards. The Rhode Island government has been very supportive in its efforts to develop a skilled talent pool for Electric Boat, Lennon said. They have also been very helpful in helping the company with extending its lease on its Quonset Point facility. Connecticut—which is where another Electric Boat facility is located—has also been very cooperative with establishing a training pipeline in the form of good trade schools. "They've been great," Lennon said—which means there is an available talent pool to draw upon. The real question is funding.
Congressman Joe Courtney (D-CT), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee's Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, said in an interview with The National Interest that the ORP will be built, but it has be built without wrecking the rest of the Navy's shipbuilding budget. "The Ohio Replacement Program—given where it stands in the food chain—I think it's going to be built no matter what," Courtney said. "It's pretty much chiseled in stone. The question is how can we do it in an affordable way and how can we do it without suffocating the rest of the shipbuilding account."
Courtney's solution—which he has pushed through working alongside Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee chairman Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)—is the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. "It's been on the books now for two years, it's withstood every legislative assault," Courtney said. "But the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service analysis was very positive in terms of the fund's authorities in terms of saving money—they calculated about $10 billion in savings because of the multiyear procurement."
Besides the fund, there is a possibility that the Congress will appropriate a larger share of the defense budget to the Navy as the maritime threat continues to grow. "The Navy is now doing a force assessment," Courtney said. "When that report comes out, we're not going to be looking at a 308-ship Navy, I think we're going to be looking at closer to a 350-ship Navy in terms of the recommendation. At the end of the day, I actually think the pie chart for the Pentagon's budget is going to have to enlarge the Navy's share of the spending."
Even with the Sea-Based Deterrence Fund, there is such an enormous demand for the Navy's forces from the Pentagon's combatant commanders around the globe, the service can't meet the requirement, Courtney said. Certainly, the revised requirement for attack submarines will be larger than 48 boats. "The fact that the Navy has decided to do this speaks volumes," Courtney said. "There is an acknowledgement that the number has to go up."
Given the potential savings and the growing requirements, there is a good chance that the Navy will get a second Virginia-class boat in addition to the ORP. The Navy needs it, but funding will be the key. Only time will tell if Congress and the executive branch properly fund the Navy's shipbuilding accounts.
I am trying to convince my son that a degree in nuclear engineering is probably a pretty good investment right now...
Whenever I read about these decade long extremely slow armament programs I wonder how they pulled off the much faster programs in WW2. Complexity of the systems was lower, but then so was industrial production sophistication...
Quote from: Zanza on May 24, 2016, 08:38:56 AM
Whenever I read about these decade long extremely slow armament programs I wonder how they pulled off the much faster programs in WW2. Complexity of the systems was lower, but then so was industrial production sophistication...
I am sure we would all be surprised how fast the US could put a Virginia into the water from nothing if we really, really wanted to do so and got out of our own way.
If so it makes me wonder how much of the effort spent on military procurement is just waste and only exists in peacetime to create jobs in bureaucracy and earn money for the contractors.
Quote from: Zanza on May 24, 2016, 08:38:56 AM
Whenever I read about these decade long extremely slow armament programs I wonder how they pulled off the much faster programs in WW2. Complexity of the systems was lower, but then so was industrial production sophistication...
I'm more surprised by stuff like the Apollo program. 8 years from first man in space to walking on the Moon. IIRC it will take the Orion 12 years just to make its first crewed flight.
Quote from: Zanza on May 24, 2016, 08:38:56 AM
Whenever I read about these decade long extremely slow armament programs I wonder how they pulled off the much faster programs in WW2. Complexity of the systems was lower, but then so was industrial production sophistication...
The moved their sliders from "civil production" to "military production" ;)
While joking, it's about what they did. GM stopped producing civilian vehicules and made almost exclusively army trucks. I suspect something similar happenned to all car manufacturers did it.
While the level of complexity has increased, we have better means of production, so, not really an issue.
What is an issue though, is the resources we need. Importing cell phones&batteries from China while we're at war with them over Taiwan?
Not that it's realistic, since President Trump will simply let China do what it wants and pull out the navy&troops from Asia.
Quote from: celedhring on May 24, 2016, 09:04:17 AM
Quote from: Zanza on May 24, 2016, 08:38:56 AM
Whenever I read about these decade long extremely slow armament programs I wonder how they pulled off the much faster programs in WW2. Complexity of the systems was lower, but then so was industrial production sophistication...
I'm more surprised by stuff like the Apollo program. 8 years from first man in space to walking on the Moon. IIRC it will take the Orion 12 years just to make its first crewed flight.
can be explained by the need to beat the Reds at all costs. And I do mean all costs. If Orion had something happen like Apollo 1 it would probably be game over for the project.
Well the Soviets managed to rebuild/relocate factories pretty quickly during WW2, so I guess that would solve the issue of finding alternative sources of manufactured stuff from a foe.
Put me down for one to be delivered in 2021.
Oh and what are the payment plans available? :bowler:
Quote from: Zanza on May 24, 2016, 08:58:09 AM
If so it makes me wonder how much of the effort spent on military procurement is just waste and only exists in peacetime to create jobs in bureaucracy and earn money for the contractors.
The Navy claims they can build up quickly just fine. We will see.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/01/13/navy-acquisition-chief-surge-355-ships-easily-done/
QuoteNavy Acquisition Chief: Surge to 355 Ships 'Easily Done'
Posted By: Hope Hodge Seck January 13, 2017
The Navy's production lines are hot and the work to prepare them for the possibility of building out a much larger fleet would be manageable, the service's head of acquisition said Thursday.
From a logistics perspective, building the fleet from its current 274 ships to 355, as recommended in the Navy's newest force structure assessment in December, would be straightforward, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition Sean Stackley told reporters at the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium.
"By virtue of maintaining these hot production lines, frankly, over the last eight years, our facilities are in pretty good shape," Stackley said. "In fact, if you talked to industry, they would say we're underutilizing the facilities that we have."
The areas where the Navy would likely have to adjust "tooling" to answer demand for a larger fleet would likely be in Virginia-class attack submarines and large surface combatants, the DDG-51 guided missile destroyers — two ship classes likely to surge if the Navy gets funding to build to 355 ships, he said.
"Industry's going to have to go out and procure special tooling associated with going from current production rates to a higher rate, but I would say that's easily done," he said.
Another key, Stackley said, is maintaining skilled workers — both the builders in the yards and the critical supply-chain vendors who provide major equipment needed for ship construction. And, he suggested, it would help to avoid budget cuts and other events that would force workforce layoffs.
"We're already prepared to ramp up," he said. "In certain cases, that means not laying off the skulled workforce we want to retain."
The Navy's current plan calls for 308 ships by 2021. Officials have said next year's shipbuilding plan will likely call for a larger fleet, but it's not yet clear if the Navy will receive funding for the 355 ships leaders believe they need to accomplish the service's missions.
Funny that the worry is about industrial capacity. How quaint.
In the UK the concern is far more about can we stretch out the order of a few ships enough to provide work for as many people and yards as Possible.
I know this is probably a non-starter, but....wouldn't it make sense for the UK to just buy a few Virginia class boats from the US, if they want some more attack subs?
Proven platform already in production where the US has paid all the development costs already....
Quotethe skulled workforce
Their workforce is dressed by Games Workshop?
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:53:31 AM
I know this is probably a non-starter, but....wouldn't it make sense for the UK to just buy a few Virginia class boats from the US, if they want some more attack subs?
Proven platform already in production where the US has paid all the development costs already....
Soon, the Russians will have detailed plans of the subs and know all about their weaknesses...
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:53:31 AM
I know this is probably a non-starter, but....wouldn't it make sense for the UK to just buy a few Virginia class boats from the US, if they want some more attack subs?
Proven platform already in production where the US has paid all the development costs already....
Then that's giving jobs to the US rather than where they're really needed at home.
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2017, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:53:31 AM
I know this is probably a non-starter, but....wouldn't it make sense for the UK to just buy a few Virginia class boats from the US, if they want some more attack subs?
Proven platform already in production where the US has paid all the development costs already....
Then that's giving jobs to the US rather than where they're really needed at home.
:bleeding:
Right, because the point of building multi-billion dollar weapons systems is to employ people.
Non-starter, like I said.
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 10:48:22 AM
Right, because the point of building multi-billion dollar weapons systems is to employ people.
To be fair that is what many members of Congress think.
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2017, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:53:31 AM
I know this is probably a non-starter, but....wouldn't it make sense for the UK to just buy a few Virginia class boats from the US, if they want some more attack subs?
Proven platform already in production where the US has paid all the development costs already....
Then that's giving jobs to the US rather than where they're really needed at home.
they could trade; let the Brits produce the light craft (1500 tons and less) that the US needs and Britain does well, and the US produces the subs that Britain needs and the US does well.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2017, 11:26:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2017, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:53:31 AM
I know this is probably a non-starter, but....wouldn't it make sense for the UK to just buy a few Virginia class boats from the US, if they want some more attack subs?
Proven platform already in production where the US has paid all the development costs already....
Then that's giving jobs to the US rather than where they're really needed at home.
they could trade; let the Brits produce the light craft (1500 tons and less) that the US needs and Britain does well, and the US produces the subs that Britain needs and the US does well.
Since when have basic economic principles done any good for anyone???
I am going to vent a little idealism here.
Spending a couple of billion dollars per boat on something like a nuclear attakc submarine is a terrible, terrible idea for any nation. It is such a fucking huge waste of an incredible amount of money and resources.
It should NEVER be done unless there is some incredibly compelling reason to do so. In this case, I would argue that there is such a compelling reason.
But don't lose sight of the fact that spending resources on weapons is a black hole of fucking waste. It is terrible that we have to do so at all.
So if we are going to do it, it should be done is as efficient a manner as possible, with little or no concern for ancillary variables. If you want to create jobs, saving a couple hundred million per sub and investing that money in rational, direct job creation policies is almost certainly the smartest way to go about it - the number of jobs created as a "happy side effect" of spending billions on weapons systems is almost certainly a terrible, terrible investment from the standpoint of doing things to stimulate job growth.
a strong military often leads to economic growth via indirect effects
ALl that being said, IIRC the latest and greatest Brit attack boats are supposed to be pretty damn good, right?
Maybe WE should buy some from them, instead of the other way around...
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 12:07:11 PM
I am going to vent a little idealism here.
Spending a couple of billion dollars per boat on something like a nuclear attakc submarine is a terrible, terrible idea for any nation. It is such a fucking huge waste of an incredible amount of money and resources.
It should NEVER be done unless there is some incredibly compelling reason to do so. In this case, I would argue that there is such a compelling reason.
But don't lose sight of the fact that spending resources on weapons is a black hole of fucking waste. It is terrible that we have to do so at all.
How Eisenhowerian of you :)
https://youtu.be/aHhe8T-HmyY?t=61
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2017, 11:26:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2017, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:53:31 AM
I know this is probably a non-starter, but....wouldn't it make sense for the UK to just buy a few Virginia class boats from the US, if they want some more attack subs?
Proven platform already in production where the US has paid all the development costs already....
Then that's giving jobs to the US rather than where they're really needed at home.
they could trade; let the Brits produce the light craft (1500 tons and less) that the US needs and Britain does well, and the US produces the subs that Britain needs and the US does well.
That sounds sensible.
The British electorate would never go for it.
Quote from: Zanza on May 24, 2016, 08:58:09 AM
If so it makes me wonder how much of the effort spent on military procurement is just waste and only exists in peacetime to create jobs in bureaucracy and earn money for the contractors.
You are onto something, here. :yes:
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 12:14:55 PM
ALl that being said, IIRC the latest and greatest Brit attack boats are supposed to be pretty damn good, right?
Maybe WE should buy some from them, instead of the other way around...
Their conventional subs are quite good (except the leaky ones they fobbed off on Canada).
No, I am talking about their Astute class that is only a couple years old. Supposed to be equivalent to the Virginia class, at least that is the claim. Maybe with a better sonar suite?
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 04:39:55 PM
No, I am talking about their Astute class that is only a couple years old. Supposed to be equivalent to the Virginia class, at least that is the claim. Maybe with a better sonar suite?
They are pretty much after my time. All I know of them is that they took forever to build.
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 12:07:11 PM
I am going to vent a little idealism here.
Spending a couple of billion dollars per boat on something like a nuclear attakc submarine is a terrible, terrible idea for any nation. It is such a fucking huge waste of an incredible amount of money and resources.
It should NEVER be done unless there is some incredibly compelling reason to do so. In this case, I would argue that there is such a compelling reason.
But don't lose sight of the fact that spending resources on weapons is a black hole of fucking waste. It is terrible that we have to do so at all.
So if we are going to do it, it should be done is as efficient a manner as possible, with little or no concern for ancillary variables. If you want to create jobs, saving a couple hundred million per sub and investing that money in rational, direct job creation policies is almost certainly the smartest way to go about it - the number of jobs created as a "happy side effect" of spending billions on weapons systems is almost certainly a terrible, terrible investment from the standpoint of doing things to stimulate job growth.
LOL, that wasn't venting, that was an emergency blow. Think you fucked up a Japanese whaler on that one, Skipper.
One ping only
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2017, 11:26:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2017, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:53:31 AM
I know this is probably a non-starter, but....wouldn't it make sense for the UK to just buy a few Virginia class boats from the US, if they want some more attack subs?
Proven platform already in production where the US has paid all the development costs already....
Then that's giving jobs to the US rather than where they're really needed at home.
they could trade; let the Brits produce the light craft (1500 tons and less) that the US needs and Britain does well, and the US produces the subs that Britain needs and the US does well.
If what Tyr says is true, and the British yards are just dicking around doing unproductive work anyway, then maybe let them build the excess ones EB and NN can't ramp up capacity for. Just, you know, give them some deadlines and contractual protections against tomfoolery and secrets leakage.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 18, 2017, 10:03:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2017, 11:26:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2017, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:53:31 AM
I know this is probably a non-starter, but....wouldn't it make sense for the UK to just buy a few Virginia class boats from the US, if they want some more attack subs?
Proven platform already in production where the US has paid all the development costs already....
Then that's giving jobs to the US rather than where they're really needed at home.
they could trade; let the Brits produce the light craft (1500 tons and less) that the US needs and Britain does well, and the US produces the subs that Britain needs and the US does well.
If what Tyr says is true, and the British yards are just dicking around doing unproductive work anyway, then maybe let them build the excess ones EB and NN can't ramp up capacity for. Just, you know, give them some deadlines and contractual protections against tomfoolery and secrets leakage.
I don't believe the Brits have the capacity to build more nuclear subs. They've got two classes of their own under construction.
The problem the Brits have is that they don't operate enough SSNs to support a domestic production capability. The seventh Astute class sub will enter service 24 years after the first one was laid down. There's no way that design won't be obsolete by then. But the RN can't afford to build smaller classes because designs cost so much these days.
A lot of people don't appreciate the extent to which the US and UK cooperated in R&D and production in WW2, or how vital that cooperation was to success. The proximity-fuzed AA shell, for instance, was invented by British boffins, but they couldn't figure out how to make it manufacturable on a large scale. They turned it oer to the American boffins, who changed the materials used and got it into production very quickly (and shells started pouring out in vast numbers). That development probably quadrupled the effectiveness of Allied AA. It was hugely important in naval successes during the war, including D-Day, as well as shooting down V-1s. No other nation or alliance could make such a thing.
I think that there are things the British military procurement system does well, and other things that the US procurement system does well. Standardizing and specializing would cost neither side jobs or money, and would get better kit to everyone. Maybe the Aussies could play a role, as well. Those countries wouldn't have any reason to fear being cut off from supplies from the others.
If stuff like the Eurofighter or Atlas programs is anything to go by, spreading military procurement between several countries is hell. Maybe you anglos can do it better, but dunno.
Buying overseas isn't a picknick either. Exhibit A: F-35.
Quote from: celedhring on January 19, 2017, 04:48:56 AM
If stuff like the Eurofighter or Atlas programs is anything to go by, spreading military procurement between several countries is hell. Maybe you anglos can do it better, but dunno.
That's not what i said. The Virginia class SSNs are not an example of "spreading military procurement between several countries." They are made in the US. If the US made an additional 6 Virginia-class SSNs at a cost of, say, $9 billion, and sold them to Britain, it would get $9 billion in credits to buy something that the British make well; say, the follow-ons to the 1500 ton patrol vessels in the RN, RAN, and RNZN inventories; the bloat in size and cost of the USN's "littoral combat ship" (now about 70% as expensive as the DDG-51 class destroyer) demonstrates that the US cannot do smaller ships.
What the UK should be doing is designing the military vehicles and equipment, and then licencing it out to the Americans to manufacture for both militaries. That way it's win-win.
Quote from: PJL on January 19, 2017, 02:16:30 PM
What the UK should be doing is designing the military vehicles and equipment, and then licencing it out to the Americans to manufacture for both militaries. That way it's win-win.
Where are the British jobs in that scheme?
Quote from: PJL on January 19, 2017, 02:16:30 PM
What the UK should be doing is designing the military vehicles and equipment, and then licencing it out to the Americans to manufacture for both militaries. That way it's win-win.
And subcontracting for assembly in Asia. Win-win-win.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 19, 2017, 07:48:58 PM
Quote from: PJL on January 19, 2017, 02:16:30 PM
What the UK should be doing is designing the military vehicles and equipment, and then licencing it out to the Americans to manufacture for both militaries. That way it's win-win.
And subcontracting for assembly in Asia. Win-win-win.
Japs would get in on that.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2017, 10:25:44 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 18, 2017, 10:03:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2017, 11:26:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2017, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:53:31 AM
I know this is probably a non-starter, but....wouldn't it make sense for the UK to just buy a few Virginia class boats from the US, if they want some more attack subs?
Proven platform already in production where the US has paid all the development costs already....
Then that's giving jobs to the US rather than where they're really needed at home.
they could trade; let the Brits produce the light craft (1500 tons and less) that the US needs and Britain does well, and the US produces the subs that Britain needs and the US does well.
If what Tyr says is true, and the British yards are just dicking around doing unproductive work anyway, then maybe let them build the excess ones EB and NN can't ramp up capacity for. Just, you know, give them some deadlines and contractual protections against tomfoolery and secrets leakage.
The problem the Brits have is that they don't operate enough SSNs to support a domestic production capability. The seventh Astute class sub will enter service 24 years after the first one was laid down. There's no way that design won't be obsolete by then. But the RN can't afford to build smaller classes because designs cost so much these days.
So, that would mean the US navy buying type 45s instead of Arleigh Burkes?
Quote from: Threviel on January 19, 2017, 11:30:55 PM
So, that would mean the US navy buying type 45s instead of Arleigh Burkes?
I don't think the USN could afford the greater cost and lesser capabilities. It would have made more sense for the RN to buy Arleigh Burkes.
"Why is the Navy naming ships after women? Arleigh Burke hasn't been in a movie in decades. Makes us look weak. So sad!"
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2017, 08:16:42 AM
Quote from: Threviel on January 19, 2017, 11:30:55 PM
So, that would mean the US navy buying type 45s instead of Arleigh Burkes?
I don't think the USN could afford the greater cost and lesser capabilities. It would have made more sense for the RN to buy Arleigh Burkes.
i was referring to the age of the design. Surely age, in and of it self, is not a sign of obsolescence. What would that say of the Los Angeles? Or the Nimitz class?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2017, 08:23:33 AM
"Why is the Navy naming ships after women? Arleigh Burke hasn't been in a movie in decades. Makes us look weak. So sad!"
In Trump's naval expansion plans: MAGA-class Battleships.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 21, 2017, 03:46:53 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2017, 08:23:33 AM
"Why is the Navy naming ships after women? Arleigh Burke hasn't been in a movie in decades. Makes us look weak. So sad!"
In Trump's naval expansion plans: MAGA-class Battleships.
Myself, I can't wait for the eventual USS Donald J. Trump supercarrier. I hope they goldplate it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.snopes.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F11%2FTrump-to-repurpose-USS-Enterprise-into-floating-hotel-and-casino.jpg&hash=679f47ed9b8981393689e5801a2ccc15541f0a85)
Trump's hue of gold is patented, via Sherwin Williams. You have to pay royalties to use that paint color.
Quote from: Threviel on January 20, 2017, 09:51:20 AM
i was referring to the age of the design. Surely age, in and of it self, is not a sign of obsolescence. What would that say of the Los Angeles? Or the Nimitz class?
Older designs are less up-to-date than newer designs. The current Arleigh Burke design is far different than the original design (different rader, different main battery, different propulsion, different aviation facilities). Even with that, the USN would have preferred to move on to a new design, except that the new design didn't work out.
The LA class is obsolescent and those ships are being replaced, so I'm not sure what your point is, there. Ditto the Nimitz class, likewise no longer in production and replacements planned.
Warship designs do become obsolete over time. That's just the nature of technology.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 21, 2017, 05:23:20 AM
Trump's hue of gold is patented, via Sherwin Williams. You have to pay royalties to use that paint color.
You cannot patent a color. You can only copyright it, and, even then, only for specific commercial uses.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2017, 07:12:49 AM
Quote from: Threviel on January 20, 2017, 09:51:20 AM
i was referring to the age of the design. Surely age, in and of it self, is not a sign of obsolescence. What would that say of the Los Angeles? Or the Nimitz class?
Older designs are less up-to-date than newer designs. The current Arleigh Burke design is far different than the original design (different rader, different main battery, different propulsion, different aviation facilities). Even with that, the USN would have preferred to move on to a new design, except that the new design didn't work out.
The LA class is obsolescent and those ships are being replaced, so I'm not sure what your point is, there. Ditto the Nimitz class, likewise no longer in production and replacements planned.
Warship designs do become obsolete over time. That's just the nature of technology.
My point is that modern ship classes are often built over a considerable amount of time. The Astutes are not particularly obsolete and the British are not alone in not affording new designs all the time.
Quote from: Threviel on January 22, 2017, 01:19:53 AM
My point is that modern ship classes are often built over a considerable amount of time. The Astutes are not particularly obsolete and the British are not alone in not affording new designs all the time.
So, your argument is that the Astutes and Nimitzes are typical, and that virtually all of the other ship classes we can think of are atypical? Okay. :lol:
Looks like US shipyards are death traps
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/us-navy-ship-builders-deadly-security-military-214760
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2017, 07:14:03 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 21, 2017, 05:23:20 AM
Trump's hue of gold is patented, via Sherwin Williams. You have to pay royalties to use that paint color.
You cannot patent a color. You can only copyright it, and, even then, only for specific commercial uses.
So we can all have tacky golden man-caves?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 11, 2017, 08:44:35 PM
So we can all have tacky golden man-caves?
If you are that insecure in your manhood, sure. Make sure you grab your women by the pussy, too, so they can sense your manly aura.
Navy is ramping up
https://news.usni.org/2017/06/20/houses-2018-defense-bill-increase-ddg-ssn-production-rates-buy-carriers-every-3-years#more-26353
QuoteHouse's 2018 Defense Bill Would Increase DDG, SSN Production Rates; Buy Carriers Every 3 Years
By: Megan Eckstein
June 20, 2017 6:44 PM
CAPITOL HILL – The House Armed Services Committee's defense bill for 2018 would allow the Navy to buy 15 Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers and 13 Virginia-class attack submarines over the next five years instead of the 10 each the Navy wanted, would urge the Navy to buy aircraft carriers every three years, and would force the destroyer shipbuilders to make quicker progress upgrading to the Flight III ship design that boasts a more impressive radar, HASC aides told reporters today.
The Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act will be debated in the HASC next week, but the subcommittee-specific sections were released today and explained to reporters by committee staff members.
This year's bill would take several steps to pave the way to a larger fleet, staffers explained, to include making it national policy to get to a 355-ship Navy as soon as possible. It would also require the Navy to maintain a 12-aircraft carrier fleet beginning in 2023, when the future John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) is set to deliver, and it would lay the groundwork for the Navy to buy more ships and submarines through its two upcoming multiyear procurement contracts.
In an effort to increase attack submarine production, ahead of an upcoming dip in the size of the SSN fleet, the bill would have the Navy buy 13 submarines in the next five years – beyond the two a year the Navy wanted to buy, it would add a third submarine in 2020, 2022 and 2023. The first two Columbia-class ballistic-missile submarines (SSBN-826) will be bought in 2021 and 2024, and the HASC aides said the committee believes the industrial base has the capacity to build a third SSN in years the Navy is not procuring a SSBN.
That massive increase in work, though, does not take into account the added manpower and shipyard facilities it would take to build the Virginia Payload Module, an extra segment inserted into the body of the sub that adds 28 missile tubes. VPM was meant to be the heart of the Block V design, but the Navy has hesitated to say it could put VPM on all the boats in the Block V multiyear procurement contract.
The NDAA language does not weigh in on when the VPM would be introduced or how many a year the multiyear contract should include, but the HASC staffer told USNI News that, "if in fact we are going to add additional attack submarines in 2020 and 2022 and 2023, we think there may be merit with regards to delaying VPM introduction" due to industrial base capacity.
The other multiyear procurement contract in the shipbuilding budget is for destroyers, for which the Navy currently plans to buy two a year but the NDAA would have them buy three a year.
Upgrading from the Flight IIA configuration to the Flight III design with a AN/SPY-6(v) Air and Missile Defense Radar has tripped up the destroyer program in FY 2016 and 2017, though, and the NDAA seeks to force the builders' hands a bit. The committee aide said the Navy has already purchased three AMDRs for three destroyers – one from FY 2016 and two from 2017. The bill would mandate that at least two of those three ships be built to the Flight III design with AMDR. Ingalls Shipbuilding has said it is ready to begin Flight III construction, while General Dynamics Bath Iron Works has not reached that same agreement with the Navy.
Acting Navy acquisition chief Allison Stiller told HASC in a hearing last month that "we have a handshake agreement with Huntington Ingalls to introduce the Flight III capability on their FY '17 ship," but she told USNI News after the hearing that "we're also in negotiations with BIW to try and get a Flight III configuration on their FY 2017 ship, but we haven't gotten to that point yet." The NDAA would force BIW to reach this agreement.
In a series of efforts to boost the aircraft carrier fleet, the bill would require the Navy to maintain a dozen carriers, would note a "sense of Congress" that building carriers every three years is preferable, and allow the Navy to follow its original plans to put first-in-class Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) out for training and deployments and wait until the second ship in the class to conduct shock trials.
The Navy had intended on sending Ford on its maiden deployment as soon as it completed post-delivery testing and maintenance, but then-Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall directed the Navy in 2015 to conduct shock trials on Ford instead of Kennedy. Navy officials told USNI News that, due to how the Navy plans its deployment cycles, the six-month shock trials and subsequent ship repair work could actually delay Ford's maiden deployment by as much as two years. The Navy would still have to work out the shock trial timing with Pentagon leadership, but this legislative language would remove any potential legislative issues and allow shock trials on Kennedy if the Pentagon agrees to it.
Regarding the three-year carrier centers, the aides were restricted in what they could say due to the full NDAA language and its funding tables not being released yet. But the aide said that the committee could show support for more rapid carrier construction through allowing economic order quantity authority for CVNs 80 and 81, and it could begin advance procurement funds a year early for CVN-81, which would put it into this FY 2018 NDAA. The bill does, in fact, include economic order quantity authority, and the funding tables will be made available closer to next week's full committee markup.
The bill also advocates buying material for the remaining Refueling and Complex Overhauls, for CVNs 74 through 77, in a long-term block buy strategy as a cost-saving measure.
HASC could not comment yet on the quantity of Littoral Combat Ships it hopes to buy in 2018. The Navy asked for just one, but the day after the budget request went to the Hill the Trump Administration clarified it actually supported buying two. The administration has still not told lawmakers how it would pay for the second one, and HASC still does not have clarity on its topline for the 2018 NDAA, all of which means the NDAA bill rolled out next week could potentially include one, two or three LCSs, the aide said.