tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (06/30/90)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU
Here are some items of interest from the following two articles in
USNI Proceedings:
"The US Navy: A (Much) Smaller Fleet" by Norman Polomar (April 1990)
"Tommorrow's Fleet" by Scott C. Truver (July 1990)
The Navy publication "Highlights of the FY1991 Budget" describes the
USN and USMC budget request as the "first year of transition to the
new realities". The goal of a 600 ship navy is "gone forever"
according to Navy budget official Charles Nemfakos.
In FY90 and FY91, 54 ships will be retired including these ships:
1 USS Coral Sea (CV-43)
2 Iowa class BBs
22 DDGs in Charles F. Adams and Coontz classes
14 SSNs in Skipjack, Permit, Sturgeon and Glenard P. Lipscomb classes
In FY92, USS Midway (CV-41) will be retired.
In FY92 and FY94, the CGNs Bainbridge and Truxtun will be retired.
In January, the DoD budget request included the following shipbuilding
plan. No doubt it will have to be modified when the final budget is
approved.
Type Actual ----------Proposed----------
FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio class SSBN (Trident) 1 1 1 1 1
Improved LA class SSN 1 - - - -
Seawolf SSN - 2 - 6 -
Arleigh Burke class DDG (Aegis) 5 5 10 - 10
Wasp class LHD - 1 - 1 -
LSD-41 class 1 1 1 1 1
Avenger class MCM 3 - - - -
Osprey class MHC (Coastal Minesweeper) 2 3 4 5 -
AE (Ammunition Ship) - - - 1 2
Supply class AOE (Fast Combat Supply) 1 1 - 3 -
T-AGOS (Towed Array Surveillance) 1 - 2 3 -
AGOS (Ocean Surveillance) - - 1 - 2
AGOR (Oceanographic Research) 3 1 2 1 2
AR (Repair Ship) - - - - 1
ARS (Salvage Ship) - - - - 2
LCAC (Landing Craft, Air Cushion) 12 12 12 12 12
Special Operations Craft 9 - - - -
Constellation (CV-64) SLEP 1 - - - -
Enterprise (CVN-65) RF/COH 1 - - - -
CV-66 or CV-67 SLEP - - - 1 -
AO (Jumbo) (Oiler will be Lengthened) 1 - - - -
An average of 3 Seawolf and 5 Arleigh Burke will be ordered per year.
But starting in FY91, alternating purchases will be made every two
years with double the yearly number. The Enterprise upgrade is
essentially a big SLEP.
-ted
Ted Kim
UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu
3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek
Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696zrra07@uunet.UU.NET (Randall R. Appleton) (07/02/90)
From: apctrc!crx34!zrra07@uunet.UU.NET (Randall R. Appleton) In article <1990Jun30.053848.4400@cbnews.att.com> tek@CS.UCLA.EDU writes: > >In FY90 and FY91, 54 ships will be retired including these ships: >22 DDGs in Charles F. Adams and Coontz classes >14 SSNs in Skipjack, Permit, Sturgeon and Glenard P. Lipscomb classes > >In January, the DoD budget request included the following shipbuilding >plan. No doubt it will have to be modified when the final budget is >approved. > > Type Actual ----------Proposed---------- > FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Improved LA class SSN 1 - - - - >Seawolf SSN - 2 - 6 - >Arleigh Burke class DDG (Aegis) 5 5 10 - 10 > >An average of 3 Seawolf and 5 Arleigh Burke will be ordered per year. >But starting in FY91, alternating purchases will be made every two >years with double the yearly number. This seems pretty odd to me. I understand that the Seawolf SSN is a better ship than the SkipJack or Lipscomb class SSN's, yet if I were in a money- saving mood I would wonder if this were a good deal. I guess my thinking is something like the following. Assuming I have a fixed amount of money, I could either.... 1) Scrap many older ships; buy a few newer ships 2) Keep many older ships. It seems pretty clear to me that alothoug quality is important, quatitity is not, nor are industrial support programs for the Electric Boat people. It could very well be there are things here I don't know about... Any opinions?????? Randy
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (07/03/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <1990Jul2.031011.8780@cbnews.att.com> apctrc!crx34!zrra07@uunet.UU.NET (Randall R. Appleton) writes: > > >This seems pretty odd to me. I understand that the Seawolf SSN is a better >ship than the SkipJack or Lipscomb class SSN's, yet if I were in a money- >saving mood I would wonder if this were a good deal. > >I guess my thinking is something like the following. Assuming I have >a fixed amount of money, I could either.... >1) Scrap many older ships; buy a few newer ships >2) Keep many older ships. > >It seems pretty clear to me that alothoug quality is important, >quatitity is not, nor are industrial support programs for the Electric Boat >people. > >It could very well be there are things here I don't know about... > There are other factors to consider. The cost of keeping a vessel in commission is more than the cost of the hull. There are platform specific maintenance and training requirements. As a class gets older, there are fewer vessels with similar equipment. This is caused by newer equipment getting added to the navy inventory, and unique modifications made to only a few vessels. For example the Brooke and Garcia class frigates had pressurized fireboxes on their boilers. these ships were the only such ships in the navy. These boilers required special training programs. The engineering evaluation process had to maitain separate qualifications for these boilers. About the time a BT became good at working with these boilers, they were transferred to vessels that didn't have them. They obviously has very high platform specific costs. Old submarines have simliar problems. In addition there is the availablity of room for future growth.Many older ships and subs simply cannot accomodate the newer equipment (yes I am aware of the argument that the new equipment may not be [good, necessary, ...]). The Spruance class DD is almost twice as large as previous DD types, mainly because of the increase in size of the new version of the SQS-26 sonar system. In the csae of older sub classes, and the Seawolf class, these factors rule against keeping theolder boats in service. If for no other reason than the effective life of their reactors is almost over. The disscussion has been to continue building modified versions of the Los Angeles class, or to start the Seawolf class. Considering that the Los Angeles class has pretty much reached the limits of it expansion this is a difficult choice. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) (07/03/90)
From: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove)
Which battleships does the Navy plan to retire?
Thanks,
Dr. Strangelovesysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (07/03/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1990Jul2.031011.8780@cbnews.att.com>, apctrc!crx34!zrra07@uunet.UU.NET (Randall R. Appleton) writes: >>In FY90 and FY91, 54 ships will be retired including these ships: >>14 SSNs in Skipjack, Permit, Sturgeon and Glenard P. Lipscomb classes >> >This seems pretty odd to me. I understand that the Seawolf SSN is a better >ship than the SkipJack or Lipscomb class SSN's, yet if I were in a money- >saving mood I would wonder if this were a good deal. > >I guess my thinking is something like the following. Assuming I have >a fixed amount of money, I could either.... >1) Scrap many older ships; buy a few newer ships >2) Keep many older ships. I'm confused. Are you advocating #2? If so, let me give you a few reasons why policy #1 makes sense: A) Ship age: Older ships are harder to keep on-line, between repair times and major overhauls. Spare parts are more difficult to keep around, and I'm not sure if you'd want to keep 20+ year reactors running around the deep blue sea. B) Weapons systems: The Seawolf carries around more tubes, and has better electronics. MUCH better electronics than you'll get through an upgrade, due to the way the ship is designed. C) Crewing: Fewer subs means fewer personnel to keep around. Each sailor on the Navy's payroll will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of his enlistment, including such mundane things as PX privs and health care. And the longer they're in, the more money you'll have to pay out in pensions in future years.