Jump to content


Photo

More Rotting Timbers In The Usn

Wheres the money?

  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#41 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,391 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 1738 PM

Meh, The Pentagon has plenty of money.  What it lacks is the will to prioritize/separate the must-have from the nice-to-have.  Congressional meddling doesn't help but emotions are so wrapped up in certain programs that you can't even discuss the problem...  For example, [puts on asbestos suit], Service Academies.  Average graduate costs 4 times more than ROTC graduate and something like 8 times more than OCS/OTS graduate.  Show me the business case that the extra cost has led to a commensurate increase in performance...  Cuing angry retorts in 3...2..1...

 

You build/operate your navy with the money you have, not the money you wish you had. Defense spending has seen a bump but the appetite of the DOD has increased even faster. Pretty standard to run too many programs and then dare Congress to kill some or come up with more money.

 

Defense_spending.png​


  • 0

#42 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,628 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 1821 PM

The A-6F Intruder II was canned to free up money for the A-12 program. Obviously a very non-stealthy design, but the A-6F would have given the fleet a decent long-range heavy hitter.


  • 0

#43 LouieD

LouieD

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 2047 PM

A good book on the subject is.....

Strike From the Sea: U.S. Navy Attack Aircraft from Skyraider to Super Hornet 1948-Present

Delves into the A-6F and the BombCat ...........

Just as an aside, whoever thought The Flying Dorito (A-12 Avenger II) was ever going to really fly or make it out to the Fleet was on something.

Edited by LouieD, 14 October 2019 - 2247 PM.

  • 0

#44 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,117 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 2133 PM

The name of that book alone says buy me in various ways.


  • 0

#45 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,175 posts

Posted 15 October 2019 - 0133 AM

The F model intruder suffered from the same problems the E model had. It was subsonic, it was non stealthy, it was vulnerable. When you listen to some of the accounts of the pilots whom were expecting to go to Iraq in 1991, they were not expecting to come back. The intruder was no way suited for penetration missions anymore.

 

At least the E model Hornet has SOME stealth features. And a stand off missile capability. The long range is a handicap, but there is probably a couple of ways around that if someone would fork out some money. The fleet defence role to me looks unfillable without a new design.

 

The A12 probably was overly ambitious. But its difficult not to see the shade of it in the X47.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 15 October 2019 - 0134 AM.

  • 0

#46 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,117 posts

Posted 17 October 2019 - 0842 AM


The USAF has realized the importance of a ready force of F15 aircraft. The Navy should have realized the same with the F14. Benefits to the USNs strike and air control mission needs aside, It would have made a superb export aircraft for nations seeking land based naval air capability.

What was the 5th year if I may ask?

The fifth year was a repeat of the 4th, a favor given midshipmen who failed a subject or failed to have a sufficient final grade average to graduate. They usually were dismissed from the academy, to serve off their obligated active duty as sailors in the fleet, unless they had come from the fleet, whence they resumed their previous grade in service. The criteria for their retention by the academy was obscure, based upon a vote by the Academic Board of officers and a few professors. Too many of the retained [called "turnbacks"] were sons of admirals or major ship commanders to escape our notice; a few were sports figures. Patton was a turnback from USMA, as I recall he had failed math.
 
[ETA:] Rick, I wouldn't touch that one on mustangs, nor would I generalize about regulars, reservists and so forth. They all run the gamut. Some wear it on their sleeve [e.g. the CNO who could not stop bragging about going "from sailor to admiral," that is, until he committed suicide.] Others, you never knew, such as my first military mentor, who never let it show, nor could you read in his official bio that he rose to Sgt before going to OCS.

Fascinating, had never heard of the turnback year or the criteria for being eligible for it. Overall, a good idea based on the amount of effort put into the process by the candidate and the institution in the previous 4.
  • 0

#47 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,929 posts

Posted 18 October 2019 - 1022 AM

I have been on the road lately and drove by Newport News and Norfolk.  I was astonished at the poor condition of the ships that I could see.  That much rust on the outside is a bad indicator of the conditions on the inside


  • 0

#48 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,778 posts

Posted 19 October 2019 - 0304 AM

Not necessarily Tim, but I share your chagrin. "A clean ship is a happy ship" and all that. 

 

If a ship is scheduled for upkeep or major overhaul, the time and materiel to repaint the ship is best reserved for when she comes out of maintenance or other non availability. Also, if the ship has returned from overseas deployment [usually six months or more], the immediate priority is crew leave, and thereafter receiving new personnel. Such turnovers don't work well with housekeeping. Those two DDGs that suffered collisions in WesPac were new deployers and showed good paintwork as I recall.

 

Fitzgerald:

 

170617-N-XN177-155_damaged_Arleigh_Burke


  • 0

#49 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,929 posts

Posted 19 October 2019 - 0823 AM

I was pretty shocked.  To me it looked like something from a mothball yard.

 

I also wondered if the Navy was using more environmentally friendly paint which didn't perform up to spec.

I believe that General Patton was on to something with his theory that a soldier needed to look like a soldier to feel like one.  Unit pride has to manifest itself in appearance to some degree.  It's surely difficult to keep the ships looking good when they are at full deployment and don't even have time for mechanical maintenance but there has to be a breaking point where Naval leadership goes to Congress and points out that we need more ships and crew to fulfill the duties that are expected of the Navy.  Part of that bargain will have to be that the Navy is more careful with the funds allocated and part of it is a more realistic duty cycle.

 

There is obviously a problem as after two collisions the top naval brass is still in place.  Sometimes I think we need our own Jackie Fisher.  After reading the Fitzgerald thread a person despairs...


  • 0

#50 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,213 posts

Posted 19 October 2019 - 0833 AM

I was pretty shocked.  To me it looked like something from a mothball yard.

 

I also wondered if the Navy was using more environmentally friendly paint which didn't perform up to spec.

 

Don't forget about optempo. The surface warfare fleet is pretty busy.

 

I would be looking at the impact of safety regs on fit and finish ops. I imagine the deck dept doesn't just drop an E2 over the side in a bosun's chair any time it feels like it; its probably a big production now.


  • 0

#51 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,117 posts

Posted 19 October 2019 - 1057 AM

The dirty uniform as a badge of honor might be a carryover from the baseball diamond and the football field, where it is considered a marker of status. A ship's pride may be in how much wear is showing after a deployment versus how little.


  • 0

#52 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,929 posts

Posted 19 October 2019 - 1219 PM

yes, yes

I know

"they're very pretty... but can they fight?"

 

and I am aware that a combat unit looks different from a parade ground unit but if we are running the force that hard that upkeep isn't possible then we need a bigger force because commitments are not going to decrease.


  • 0

#53 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,213 posts

Posted 19 October 2019 - 1501 PM


That's why you're not in Congress.
  • 0

#54 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,778 posts

Posted 20 October 2019 - 0133 AM

....

 

There is obviously a problem as after two collisions the top naval brass is still in place.  Sometimes I think we need our own Jackie Fisher.  After reading the Fitzgerald thread a person despairs...

Not quite.

 

As I remarked earlier, all the admirals in the chain of command of Fitzgerald were relieved or went into retirement, except the CNO, who was allowed for unknown reasons to serve out his tour of duty. Maybe he impressed Congress with how many he fired and thus saved himself. Non sibi sed patriae* is the slogun of the Naval Academy....oh well.

 

Under the admirals, the squadron commander of the DDGs probably disappeared as well.

 

* "Not for self, but for country."


Edited by Ken Estes, 20 October 2019 - 0954 AM.

  • 0

#55 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,117 posts

Posted 20 October 2019 - 1223 PM

If nothing else, morale down the chain of command probably rose afterward. 

 

It is never an enviable position to be held responsible for the incompetence of others.


  • 0

#56 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,130 posts

Posted 23 October 2019 - 0438 AM

PAC CVN-68 Nimitz...............................Able to deploy. Retires by 2022/23
LANT CVN-69 Dwight D. Eisenhower.....Able to deploy. Retires by 2029
PAC CVN-70 Carl Vinson.....................Cannot be deployed until July 2020 (Planned Incremental Availability)
PAC CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt.......Able to deploy. RCOH completed in 2013
LANT CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln............Able to deploy. RCOH completed in 2017.
 
LANT CVN-73 George Washington.......Cannot deploy, currently undergoing RCOH. Can deploy by mid 2021.
LANT CVN-74 John C. Stennis...........Cannot deploy but technically available until 2020ish. RCOH in 2021. Ready by 2025/26.
LANT CVN-75 Harry S. Truman.........Cannot deploy. Electric system problem. Needs RCOH but after CVN-74.
PAC CVN-76 Ronald Reagan...........Able to deploy until maybe late 2021. May need maintenance once relieved by CVN-73.
LANT CVN-77 George H.W. Bush...........Cannot deploy. Under maintenance. Available by mid/late 2021.
 
LANT CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford.................Cannot deploy until perhaps late 2023
--- CVN-79 John F. Kennedy.................Cannot deploy late 2024
--- CVN-80 Enterprise..........................Cannot deploy until 2029
 
[...]

 

Looks like CVN-78 is going to take some more time before being available for deployment, so changing the estimate from March 2020 to late 2023. Red or yellow...eh..kind of a toss up for calling it deploy within mid-term or late-term, probably deploys after CVN-68 retires, so I'll go red. And if CVN-78 doesn't deploy until the earliest of late 2023, its kind of hard to expect CVN-79 to maintain a deployment estimate by an earlier time of 2022 so would probably be sometime after CVN-78. So changing CVN-79's 2022 to late 2024. Will keep CVN-80 at its current 2029.

https://news.usni.or...vator-certified


Edited by JasonJ, 23 October 2019 - 0442 AM.

  • 0

#57 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,778 posts

Posted 25 October 2019 - 0730 AM

OK, so LANT goes down to a single deployer as stated in the OP, Eisenhower.

 

Good thing we only have the "bestmen that can be found"  in government.


  • 0

#58 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,130 posts

Posted 25 October 2019 - 0801 AM

Or good thing the UK made two QEs  :)


  • 0

#59 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,175 posts

Posted 26 October 2019 - 0114 AM

I think if we cancelled them now, the Americans would really start to twist our arm. They really need them, and the CDG, on the North Atlantic.


  • 0

#60 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,177 posts

Posted 28 October 2019 - 1025 AM

yes, yes

I know

"they're very pretty... but can they fight?"

 

and I am aware that a combat unit looks different from a parade ground unit but if we are running the force that hard that upkeep isn't possible then we need a bigger force because commitments are not going to decrease.

A proviso with that is that naval issues with appearance align with corrosion control. 


  • 0