User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/27/2023 1:24:53 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds about right One in the fleet. One in the yard. One doing work ups that could get pulled forward into the mix in a real national emergency. AF is moving to copy the navy model (afforgen) and has 1/4 of capacity presented, 1/4 in advanced workups available in extremis, 1/4 in local/unit training, and 1/4 reconstituting. You could go to a blue/gold crew model to accelerate readiness out of the yard but skilled manpower is expensive. And while it is ok for some platforms we also see how well automation, small crews and modular packages worked out with LCS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2023 1:37:47 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: <snip> - The Navy (sailors) don't do a great job maintaining their ships between availabilities. I'm not sure if it's lack of effort, lack of knowledge, lack of time due to how much random BS training they have to do, or the combination of all 3. I suspect it's the latter and for varying reasons and in varying degrees. I've had very expensive LRU parts that my onboard 2M tech could absolutely have fixed for a few dollars worth of electronic components, but he wasn't allowed to crack the case open because it was a Mandatory Turn In item and SPAWAR would have had a hissy fit if we tried. OTOH I've had a 3-star tell my entire Department Head class "fuck those guys - if you can fix it onboard, do it." I didn't count on him being around to cover me if and when that happened. I've also had very, very expensive replacement parts that failed as soon as they were installed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2023 4:10:43 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Navy has been its own worst enemy as far as going to Congress to build the fleet. Congressional Research Service says the Navy's at around a 1:3 ratio now, with aging ships (1 in port or overhaul while the others are at sea, training, preparing, or recovering). CRS says an ideal ratio is closer to 1:5 -- but the Navy cannot man them. The reserve mothball fleet is in even worse condition. The Army has been slashing its ship fleet even faster than the Navy. The problem for Transportation Command is everything needed to fight a war on the other side of the planet (food, fuel, bullets, troops, and vehicles) needs to go by ship. The old saying, "If you want peace, prepare for war" is quaint -- but the United States has NEVER been ready for a major war. Strategy is spelled with dollar signs. And all money and equipment has gone to Ukraine recently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2023 5:48:09 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They are different colors of money. Ship construction is SCN. It is programmed by Congress and the appropriation is very specific on what it is for. In effect the money is fenced off so big Navy cannot really mess with it all that much. Ships sustainment and upkeep is OMN. Congress does program for specific OMN items, but the money is not fenced and the Navy can to an extent control its usage. The aviators have been able to get their ship major upkeep ( also known as availabilities, aka yard periods) into SCN as “complex reactor, overhauls” and the money is fenced from other programs. N95 tried to do the same with big deck sustainment but big Navy fought it and ACOH proposal was killed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Simple: DoD is underfunded, and Congress (and this administration) sucks. They're not underfunded. They're horribly managed. Maintenance isn't sexy and puts very little money back in the congressional districts (with a few exceptions). DoD has always like shiny new things. They don't do well with old, worn out things. Combat power in the USMC is shrinking because there’s no growth planned for so no, it’s not properly funded as Peter is robbed to pay Paul. I don’t think the DoD budget even keeps up with inflation. Maintenance for ships and other big end-user items does in fact produce jobs, so not sure why you think those contracts would be ignored by Congress. The physical making of ships and their physical repair is relatively cheap, it’s the software, comm, combat systems and weapons that make ships expensive. Take for example the PULLER class ESBs, they have the largest displacement of any convention warship in the Navy, and they are also the cheapest to build because they have an off they lack sophisticated weapon systems and have a very basic comm and combat/ships management systems. So, the USN is squeezing every drop of blood from procurement dollars at the expense of maintenance / readiness then? Sort of makes sense (as an explanation) if that’s the case, but it should never have come to this point obviously. They are different colors of money. Ship construction is SCN. It is programmed by Congress and the appropriation is very specific on what it is for. In effect the money is fenced off so big Navy cannot really mess with it all that much. Ships sustainment and upkeep is OMN. Congress does program for specific OMN items, but the money is not fenced and the Navy can to an extent control its usage. The aviators have been able to get their ship major upkeep ( also known as availabilities, aka yard periods) into SCN as “complex reactor, overhauls” and the money is fenced from other programs. N95 tried to do the same with big deck sustainment but big Navy fought it and ACOH proposal was killed. There’s usually only one major reactor overhaul programmed for a CVN in its lifetime - at the 25 year mid point. It’s called RCOH. Are you saying all CVN availabilities are classed as reactor overhauls? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2023 5:53:18 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lhd's are in a weird spot. They don't get the funding that carriers get, and they need way more logistics than ddg's and cg's get. Why would you ever prioritize a lhd funding and logistics over a carrier? Carriers nearly do everything better. And are more of an asset. Big problem is quantity over quality. Literally too many ships. Another is funding. Another is contracting work to lowest bidder Another is material procurement Last but most importantly, the navy isn't taking care of their sailors. The navy has a massive retention and recruitment issue right now. They just erased fitness standards to retain 1500 sailors. They are extending billots at sea. Nobody wants to stay in because sailors are always getting shit on. The boxer is doing an investigation for suspect of sailors literally sabatoging the ship to stop It from getting underway. In the past 2 years the boxer has been underway for 7 days. On my current ship, ddg type, I've been underway for around 700 days the past 2 years -ET1. 13 years and current AD There’s so much wrong with this post I’m not even sure where to start. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2023 7:57:32 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There’s usually only one major reactor overhaul programmed for a CVN in its lifetime - at the 25 year mid point. It’s called RCOH. Are you saying all CVN availabilities are classed as reactor overhauls? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Simple: DoD is underfunded, and Congress (and this administration) sucks. They're not underfunded. They're horribly managed. Maintenance isn't sexy and puts very little money back in the congressional districts (with a few exceptions). DoD has always like shiny new things. They don't do well with old, worn out things. Combat power in the USMC is shrinking because there’s no growth planned for so no, it’s not properly funded as Peter is robbed to pay Paul. I don’t think the DoD budget even keeps up with inflation. Maintenance for ships and other big end-user items does in fact produce jobs, so not sure why you think those contracts would be ignored by Congress. The physical making of ships and their physical repair is relatively cheap, it’s the software, comm, combat systems and weapons that make ships expensive. Take for example the PULLER class ESBs, they have the largest displacement of any convention warship in the Navy, and they are also the cheapest to build because they have an off they lack sophisticated weapon systems and have a very basic comm and combat/ships management systems. So, the USN is squeezing every drop of blood from procurement dollars at the expense of maintenance / readiness then? Sort of makes sense (as an explanation) if that’s the case, but it should never have come to this point obviously. They are different colors of money. Ship construction is SCN. It is programmed by Congress and the appropriation is very specific on what it is for. In effect the money is fenced off so big Navy cannot really mess with it all that much. Ships sustainment and upkeep is OMN. Congress does program for specific OMN items, but the money is not fenced and the Navy can to an extent control its usage. The aviators have been able to get their ship major upkeep ( also known as availabilities, aka yard periods) into SCN as “complex reactor, overhauls” and the money is fenced from other programs. N95 tried to do the same with big deck sustainment but big Navy fought it and ACOH proposal was killed. There’s usually only one major reactor overhaul programmed for a CVN in its lifetime - at the 25 year mid point. It’s called RCOH. Are you saying all CVN availabilities are classed as reactor overhauls? No I am saying the the expo warfare tribe tried to put Big Deck Amphibs on the same type of program and it was killed, because it moved the money for that avialability from OMN to SCN and that money being fenced preventing it from being the bill payer for other programs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2023 11:19:26 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Flt 2 LPDs are really simplified and replacement for LSDs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Marines ask for amphibious warship in unfunded priorities list By Megan Eckstein, Defense News, Mar 21, 10:19 AM https://www.defensenews.com/resizer/KjQ1AuTpCBKLmtF_DOGAnXUknx0=/1024x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/IBDMW4MDQVBX3LVSDDIVVKO2SY.jpg USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28) is moored in Port Everglades, in its name-sake city Fort Lauderdale, Fla., ahead of its July 30, 2022, commissioning ceremony. (Sgt. Gavin Shelton/US Marine Corps) WASHINGTON — The U.S. Marine Corps is asking lawmakers to compel the Navy to keep building amphibious warships, as the sea service wants to truncate San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock production and take a “strategic pause” to reconsider future amphib ships. The Marine Corps’ fiscal 2024 unfunded priorities list, a copy of which was obtained by Defense News, asks for $1.71 billion to finish buying LPD-33, the next San Antonio ship in the class. In last year’s FY23 budget request, the Navy asked for $1.67 billion to buy LPD-32 but also announced its plans to end the ship class there. The Marines pushed back by including in their FY23 unfunded priorities list $250 million in advance procurement funding for LPD-33 — essentially a down payment on the next ship in the production line — which Congress gave them. This was an unusual move because ships must be funded through the Navy’s shipbuilding account, something the Marines wouldn’t formally opine on. They have now done that two years in a row, as Marine Corps leaders grow more urgent in their pleas for the Navy to refrain from decommissioning older amphibious ships without investing in their replacements. This funding for LPD-33 is actually earlier than needed: To keep HII Ingalls Shipbuilding’s production line on track, LPD-33 should be purchased in FY25, since the ships are bought on two-year intervals. Its inclusion in the unfunded priorities list this year appears to be more about messaging than the actual need for this money right now, amid a fight over the narrative surrounding the amphibious ship production line and requirement. Last week Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said the production line is running behind schedule and that he expects the cost of LPD-32, which is still being negotiated between the Navy and HII, to increase as much as 25% compared to a few ships ago. Commandant of the Marine Corps General David Berger explained it differently, saying the hot production line is at peak efficiency and that the yard itself is on a good cost curve in constant-year dollars, not accounting for inflation. He added that buying the LPDs in a multiyear procurement contract, like the Navy does for all its other major ship programs, would alleviate some of the inflationary pressure. The services and combatant commands send unfunded priorities lists to Congress to outline items they wanted to include in their budget request that didn’t make it through the revision process with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. While lawmakers don’t have to consider the lists, they’ve often been supportive of Marine Corps and Navy priorities here, especially when it comes to shipbuilding. This year, Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Sen. Roger Wicker (R) and House Armed Services Committee seapower and projection forces subcommittee chairman Rep. Trent Kelly (R) both hail from Mississippi, where Ingalls Shipbuilding is located. Flt 2 LPDs are really simplified and replacement for LSDs. I thought it was in that article, but I saw that the LPDs actually increased in cost as they built more. That seems criminal as costs should go down as you build more. Are the fast transports being used with the ARGs or are they just tooling around by themselves? I know they turned one into a hospital ship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2023 11:26:36 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought it was in that article, but I saw that the LPDs actually increased in cost as they built more. That seems criminal as costs should go down as you build more. Are the fast transports being used with the ARGs or are they just tooling around by themselves? I know they turned one into a hospital ship. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Marines ask for amphibious warship in unfunded priorities list By Megan Eckstein, Defense News, Mar 21, 10:19 AM https://www.defensenews.com/resizer/KjQ1AuTpCBKLmtF_DOGAnXUknx0=/1024x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/IBDMW4MDQVBX3LVSDDIVVKO2SY.jpg USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28) is moored in Port Everglades, in its name-sake city Fort Lauderdale, Fla., ahead of its July 30, 2022, commissioning ceremony. (Sgt. Gavin Shelton/US Marine Corps) WASHINGTON — The U.S. Marine Corps is asking lawmakers to compel the Navy to keep building amphibious warships, as the sea service wants to truncate San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock production and take a “strategic pause” to reconsider future amphib ships. The Marine Corps’ fiscal 2024 unfunded priorities list, a copy of which was obtained by Defense News, asks for $1.71 billion to finish buying LPD-33, the next San Antonio ship in the class. In last year’s FY23 budget request, the Navy asked for $1.67 billion to buy LPD-32 but also announced its plans to end the ship class there. The Marines pushed back by including in their FY23 unfunded priorities list $250 million in advance procurement funding for LPD-33 — essentially a down payment on the next ship in the production line — which Congress gave them. This was an unusual move because ships must be funded through the Navy’s shipbuilding account, something the Marines wouldn’t formally opine on. They have now done that two years in a row, as Marine Corps leaders grow more urgent in their pleas for the Navy to refrain from decommissioning older amphibious ships without investing in their replacements. This funding for LPD-33 is actually earlier than needed: To keep HII Ingalls Shipbuilding’s production line on track, LPD-33 should be purchased in FY25, since the ships are bought on two-year intervals. Its inclusion in the unfunded priorities list this year appears to be more about messaging than the actual need for this money right now, amid a fight over the narrative surrounding the amphibious ship production line and requirement. Last week Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said the production line is running behind schedule and that he expects the cost of LPD-32, which is still being negotiated between the Navy and HII, to increase as much as 25% compared to a few ships ago. Commandant of the Marine Corps General David Berger explained it differently, saying the hot production line is at peak efficiency and that the yard itself is on a good cost curve in constant-year dollars, not accounting for inflation. He added that buying the LPDs in a multiyear procurement contract, like the Navy does for all its other major ship programs, would alleviate some of the inflationary pressure. The services and combatant commands send unfunded priorities lists to Congress to outline items they wanted to include in their budget request that didn’t make it through the revision process with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. While lawmakers don’t have to consider the lists, they’ve often been supportive of Marine Corps and Navy priorities here, especially when it comes to shipbuilding. This year, Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Sen. Roger Wicker (R) and House Armed Services Committee seapower and projection forces subcommittee chairman Rep. Trent Kelly (R) both hail from Mississippi, where Ingalls Shipbuilding is located. Flt 2 LPDs are really simplified and replacement for LSDs. I thought it was in that article, but I saw that the LPDs actually increased in cost as they built more. That seems criminal as costs should go down as you build more. Are the fast transports being used with the ARGs or are they just tooling around by themselves? I know they turned one into a hospital ship. The increase in cost is mostly caused by both inflationary effects and the Navy not signed a multi-unit procurement contract. The actual ships have reduced capability in them than the Flight 1s, even the low observation radar masts have been removed and replaced with a simple steel mast. The ships are general purpose ships, although the ARG-MEU composite to deploy is seen as important, nothing perverts tasking as single ship deployers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2023 9:13:48 AM EDT
[#9]
Damn! Feel for those sailors, deployment extended with unknown date for returning home.
USS George H.W. Bush Deployment Extended; Return Of More Than 5,000 Sailors Delayed During this extension, Buccino confirmed the Bush strike group will be under the U.S. European Command, which includes the Baltic and Mediterranean seas. According to Marine Vessel Traffic, three days the Bush was reportedly in the Ionian Sea, off the coast of Italy, heading south to the Mediterranean Sea. It is unclear how long the Bush’s return will be delayed. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/04/03/uss-george-hw-bush-deployment-extended-return-of-more-5000-sailors-delayed.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2023 9:14:39 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Damn! Feel for those sailors, deployment extended with unknown date for returning home. USS George H.W. Bush Deployment Extended; Return Of More Than 5,000 Sailors Delayed During this extension, Buccino confirmed the Bush strike group will be under the U.S. European Command, which includes the Baltic and Mediterranean seas. According to Marine Vessel Traffic, three days the Bush was reportedly in the Ionian Sea, off the coast of Italy, heading south to the Mediterranean Sea. It is unclear how long the Bush’s return will be delayed. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/04/03/uss-george-hw-bush-deployment-extended-return-of-more-5000-sailors-delayed.html In unrelated news, retention is down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2023 11:36:08 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In unrelated news, retention is down. But Delta, American and United recruiters panties just got a little wetter. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
