A New US NAVY

OP here.
Personally, I would like to see a return of frigates and nuclear cruisers. So go from 12 to 5 or 6 super carriers and make up the difference in the budget with a new FG class that would cost not more than 1.2 billion each. Then I would eliminate conventional cruisers and replace them at about a 2/3's ratio with with updated modern nuclear powered cruisers (although, tonnage wise, it would be almost a 1 to 1 replacement) at a cost not to exceed 3.5 billion each. Then I would keep the rest of the surface fleet pretty well the same (I might consider doing something about LCS).

The sub force, I would do whatever it takes to cut the price of the Columbia class in half or replace it with something that costs about half of what they are projected to cost. I would also, immediately pursue a replacement and improvement to the Virginia class with something more in line with the Yasen class or similar firepower-wise.

No one asked you, you fucking faggot.

>>34766805
Thanks for the bump.

>>34766784
i want a girlfriend. do you think the us navy will help me get one?

>>34766824
If you joined the navy, sure.

Build as much of the current navy as I can on this budget.

>>34766784
Armchair ensign here. I wanted a pic of all the botes just the other day, so have a bump.

>>34766824
She has to be a thai ladyboi though

>>34766957

>Armchair ensign
You lack armchair ambition, anon.

Anyway, cut down the boomer fleet to almost nothing. I don't care about second strike. Give me another carrier and more destroyers instead.

>>34766957
Glad I could help. Although, keep in mind that the picture is a little out of date compared to the present day fleet but not too out of date.

>>34766784

The problem with the US Navy now is that instead of allowing someone else to bear the burden of R&D and process of testing a new tech/methodology, the US has decided to lead the way, or at least attempt to, and strike out it's own path forward. This is very different to the US Navy of history, including right up to Vietnam. Most of the US Navy's crucial technologies: Radar, Sonar, Aircraft Carriers, long range submarines, magnetically detonated torpedoes, Carrier Tactics, screening tactics, ASW, AAW, were all developed elsewhere initially. Refined, yes, by the US, but the initial, capital investment was burdened by someone else (historically, the British/German navies). That allowed either fully formed, or or at least understood technologies to be readily integrated into Naval Design, and use what funds would have gone into R&D, go into volume and rate of ship procurement. Also, since you weren't starting from scratch, the US Navy could vastly improve upon other nation's tech (surface search radar is a textbook example of this) with far less cost.

Now however, the desire to be the first on the cutting edge, and at the least, not rely on other nation's developments, leaves the burden of R&D on the US Navy. And that's *very* expensive, made worse now because major technology advancements no longer come from in-house R&D like they used to. Many technologies, especially in the realm of hydrodynamics, propulsion, coatings, materials, and especially computers/electronics are coming from the private sector, who work for profits, and as such will charge the Navy HUGE amounts of money to utilize and/or research these new technologies. This further inflates R&D.

Really it comes down to the old: quality vs. quality debate. America has been at it's best when it recognized it's ability to produce unrivaled quantities. Focusing on quality is both unnatural, and something the US sucks at.

>>34767062
I feel like the this opinion may be overly informed by the relatively recent problems with the Ford class. Granted that is my opinion.

Also, America isn't the king of industry like they used to be. Go look at Amerca's industry as a percentage of GDP. In 1990 industry accounted for more than 20% of GDP. Today, it is more like 10% or 9%. I feel like we would have a lot of difficulty repeating the massive expansion in military hardware that occurred in the run up to and during WW2.

50,000 Iowa class cuteships.

>>34767223
Hmm, cute and meme-able but not practicable or affordable.

Sorry, but no. It wouldn't work.

>>34767201
>industry as fraction of gdp declined

Industrial output has steadily increased since the 1980s, doubling since then. It's a smaller fraction of total gdp because other sectors expanded even faster.

>>34767298
True, but after adjusting for inflation, it does not account for the entire drop.

>>34767201

Well for one, no, it's not informed by the Ford class, at all. Actually if anything I was thinking of the DG1000 when I wrote it as an example of shouldering an R&D and field testing burden.

For two, industry was not what built 20 some-odd Essexes in WWII. Only about 15% of all warships used in WWII were built at Civilian ship yards (Specifically, all at just 1, Newport News), the others built in NY or elsewhere were built in Navy yards. That's kinda the problem I was talking about involving the private sector in R&D, it's WAY more costly. Building things in house is always preferred, but that doesn't happen much anymore. Is that a symptom of Eisenhower's fear of the MiC? Yes, yes it is. The reason MiC started it's huge push in Post WWII was because it recognized a potential gold mine for making money, as up to that point, pretty much all things were produced DIRECTLY by the government, on government land, with government tools, and by either directly, or sub-contracted, labor. And contrary to what businesses say, history and economics prove time and time again, governments accomplish the same quality and innovation as private industry at a fraction of the cost. Why? Well the simplest answer is advertising (lack thereof) but the real answer is far more detailed and unneeded here. All that needs to be said is that if you even changed one thing: Cut out all private industry in weapons/ship design/procurement, you would cut costs DRAMATICALLY and allow right off the back, for higher amounts and faster rates of development.

If you add in sacrificing cutting edge advantage for coming in second place, you would turn expenditure for R&D into a fraction of what it is now and be at nearly the same place you are now, but you can then pour that money saved BACK in and produce double or triple the amount of assets you can now.

Simply put, private enterprise and the desire to be FIRST, has left the USN in a position where it has half the numbers.

>>34767423

Cont'

I shouldn't have said, 'all' for civilain shipyards, there were a few others, but the vast majority of ships were made at Naval Yards, and the majority of civilian produced ships came from NNSD. A few came from Bath, and FRSY, but the majority of ships, especially SS's and BB's, came from Navy Yards.

>>34767474

Cont'

For example, all 6 of the Iowa class laid down (4 completed) were at Naval Yards, both of the NC's came from Naval Yards, and although 3 of the 4 SD's were built *at* civilian yards, two of those three had been 'taken' by the Navy for exlusive use and had so much oversight/cost control from the BuOrd that they might as well be considered Navy Yards.

>>34767423
>>34767474
>>34767510
Although, I will acknowledge that a significant amount of the navy in ww2 was built by government operated shipyard, the problem I see right now is, the public yards are a shadow of what they were 50 years ago. The technical capability and facilities just aren't there anymore. The public yards that survived have been relegated to the status of maintenance activity, for the most part.

It would take a national emergency on the scale of WW2 to bring public yards back up again.

As for "cut the private sector out and go for second place tech", I am not sure that is a winnable strategy because it seems like that is what every other navy is doing. To my knowledge, there isn't that much innovation in naval fields of research outside of the US navy's efforts. There is some, such as all of the AIP sub stuff that numerous other countries are pursuing. China's conventional ballistic missiles. Various countries research into hypersonic cruise missiles. But not much of that is directly applicable to the problems that the US navy faces of projecting power across the globe. Much of the research is in stuff that is defensive in nature or regional. Everyone else plays catch-up to the US navy's power projection tech which would probably stagnate if the US navy stopped investing in it.

I also think you are over-estimate the the increase in force count by cutting out R&D. You might, maybe, achieve a +50% increase in forces in your scenario and with that I feel I am being generous.

>>34767608
>Although, I will acknowledge that a significant amount of the navy in ww2 was built by government operated shipyard, the problem I see right now is, the public yards are a shadow of what they were 50 years ago. The technical capability and facilities just aren't there anymore. The public yards that survived have been relegated to the status of maintenance activity, for the most part.

That's because the MiC killed them. Put it in business terms: I'm NNSD. I want to make 100%, or as close to 100% of the ships procured by BuOrd. Whose my biggest competitor? Naval Yards. So I operate at a loss for a decade or so, so that I can just VASTLY undercut Naval Yards (and borrow against my losses to maintain the company). In the meantime, a full 'generation' of new Senators/Congresmen, or more specifically, a new set of same-saids sitting on procurement and budgetary committees, see that there is 'no point' of funding Naval Yards, sprinkle in the Red Scare (2nd Red Scare to be accurate) and a 'fear' of government run 'business' and you create a narrative where pouring money into and thus maintaining shipbuilding industries run by the government disappear. So 20-30 years later, Private Enterprise has completely dominated the field and is very hard to return to.

And example from history: the British Navy in the lead up to WW*I* The reality was, the RN has *more* than enough numbers to maintain superiority over he German Fleet, but Jackie Fisher was afraid of the Government owned and operated ship yards falling to disuse and getting their budget's cut, he 'concocted' a fear on the German Navy in order to convince Parliament they needed more BB's. And in so doing, the Naval Yard system was saved and was in place to produce more Curisers/Destroyers/ and most importantly, Carriers in WWII that kept England afloat prior to US intervention.

>New navy

Nothing new needed, just increase the size to 900 ships because numbers will be needed to face up to future challenges. This can easily be achieved by cutting all useless wellfare and forcing the million man strong prison population to work for their food.

>>34767739

Cont'


And why didn't Jackie Fisher want civilians to control ship building? Because he knew, better than maybe anyone in history, that Governments can build/design ships at fractional costs and MUCH faster rates than civilian agencies can.

Simple version: let's say I'm the government. I budget in 100,000,000 for ships for this year. I hand that to the Navy. Now if they do it themselves, they spend 50,000,000 on R&D and 50,000,000 on the Ships. If they farm it out to Civilians, 50,000,000 goes to R&D, 10,000,000 goes to paying the top three Executives at the Company, another 10,000,000 into Advertising for future Navy contracts and 30,000,000 into the ships. Which means you either get LESS ships, or WORSE ships, or, what is most often the case, both. Admirals and Naval architects don't get $1,000,000 incomes, but the owners of NNSD and Bath Iron Works DO (many times over in fact), so the same budget being handed down by Congress goes MUCH further for the Navy than it does for Private Industry.

*THAT'S* what Eisenhower was warning about with the MiC. It wasn't the creation of wars, or assignations, or other tinfoil hat bullshit, it was a reduction in *both* quality and most importantly, QUANTITY in so handing off R&D and production to civilian enterprise, because the Military, and Governments in General, can do things on the cheap because the two biggest holes for money: executives and advertising, don't functionally exist within a government Naval or Army program. So you spend the same amount, and get MORE quality and MORE quantity if you do it in house. Being the Supreme Allied Commander in WWII, he recognized that and feared what would happen to the American war machine if turned over to businessmen, whose priority is *profit* not quality control.

>>34767739
>>34767768
I feel like we are kind of off on a tangent.

Also, one thing private shipyards had going for them at the time was the government didn't have to pay to keep them afloat between major purchases, research, and design efforts. These days, with the general collapse of the US private large scale shipbuilding market, the government basically does have to pay to maintain the private yards that make navy ships.

Also, do you have any sources on NNSD operating at a loss for a decade to look more competitive on paper? A quick google didn't turn anything up for me.

Lastly, I think your ratios are skewed excessively on the budget example you gave. Furthermore, I think the argument is moot, the damage has been done.

The objective here is more restructuring the navy, vice change the political and industrial situation surrounding the navy.

>>34767423
Paying corporations to do anything is the greatest inefficiency in government. If the government owned manufacturing, everything would be faster and cheaper. Alas, we're not China.

>>34766788
What are the advantages to CGNs over CG?

File: 1500361904284.png (485KB, 628x418px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 628x418px

>>34766996
>I don't care about second strike deterrence
So...yeah ...let's just have all our nukes... In silos and AF depots... where they can be rekt ...

#1 problem with the US Navy is that all their ships are just too damn expensive. With a proper procurement setup they could cut prices of ships in half, and that would be just a start.

Proper mass production of ships would lower costs further.

The other issue is them designing new ship classes with unready technologies, like EMALS or all the crap they wanted in the LCS, which inevitably results in delays/cost overruns/downgrades.

Design and build with whats availible today, not these insane decades long programs where billions are spent on basically nothing.

>>34767768
>that Governments can build/design ships at fractional costs and MUCH faster rates than civilian agencies can.

What the hell is this nonsense. Thats just patently untrue. Governments will always cost far more because ultimately they are not spending their own money, and political games will be played.

This isn't 1940 anymore, they aren't going to be drafting skilled workers and paying them peanuts. Nor does basically everyone have experience in welding/steel working.
Hell, look at how the military wastes its manpower today, you would be delusional to think government operated shipyards would be better than private.

Especially since anything government means MASSIVE amounts of affirmative action. The ships wouldn't even work after the 50%+ black workers got through with em.

>>34767913
Except that, at some point in the 1990s, Newport News attempted to start private shipbuilding but were told by the Navy that they would lose contracts if they did.

>>34766788
If you're looking to get Columbia at a lower price or replacing it with something cheaper, it would be truly subpar and not do it's job. Also,
>Yasen better than Virginia

>>34769788
>The other issue is them designing new ship classes with unready technologies

That's why the pentagon is splitting R&D from Acquisition. Previously you needed a ship class planned with these unready technologies in order to get funding to develop said technologies. We've gotten to the point where it takes 15-20 years for a new ship because of the needed R&D beforehand.

>>34766788
>I would like to see a return of frigates

that's currently on the table due to the failure of the LCS program to deliver on all of it's promises.

>nuclear cruisers

cost prohibitive, navigationally prohibitive, too much strain on crew, to little armament compared to cost, too great a danger to operate.

>So go from 12 to 5 or 6 super carriers

that would limit our ability to deploy more than 2 carriers regularly.

>make up the difference in the budget with a new FG

a swarm of frigates will not make up the loss of birds in the sky. you could have 10 frigates and they wouldn't give you anywhere near the ability of 1 carrier, with the exception of sonar detection from the ship itself. overall ASW? carrier still wins.

>at a cost not to exceed 3.5 billion each.

for for the cost of 2 you could have 1 supercarrier and still have money left over.

>>34769788
>Proper mass production of ships would lower costs further.

we don't need mass produced ships. the runup costs from shutting down and then bringing up the production lines when we hit fleet caps cost far more than the current system. what we need is reliable shipyards.

>The other issue is them designing new ship classes with unready technologies

that's part of the purpose of the Zumwalt. test platform for new tech which is probably going to be installed on the burkes (SPY-6 being the exception to that.)

>>34769894
>Newport News attempted to start private shipbuilding but were told by the Navy that they would lose contracts if they did.

probably because civilian shipbuilding has far less stringent security and safety protocols than military shipbuilding does, and thus adding that to the NN shipyard would pose a threat to the military vessels there.


also what investor in their right mind would want a freighter or something like that built by HI? those guys are fairly well known for their shit work. even more so than NASSCO.

>>34770544
>fleet caps
Why have a "fleet cap"? Just keep more ships on reserve duty rather than spending most of the year deployed doing essentially nothing.

There is no magic number of ships the US Navy is limited to

>>34770476
>you could have 10 frigates and they wouldn't give you anywhere near the ability of 1 carrier,

Now THIS is nonsense
For a variety of reasons such as, these Frigates could have their own flight decks, and all operating fighters.

>>34766788
FFGs yes. Nuke cruisers no. The cost outweighs the advantages. I'm thinking retire the Ticos and commission an upgraded OHP design. I can't see a way around having CSGs, so we'd need to keep at least 10 Fords in commission. Add an AB and a pair of OHPs to the existing CSG format to make up for the Tico.

To ease the strain on the Ford CSGs, we could build a half dozen light CSGs around LHAs. Figure a pair of ABs and a pair of OHPs. Now that I think about it, we could probably go with a half dozen of each type of CSG. A light and a heavy could fuse to form a carrier task group when the need arises.

I'm still pondering on the LCS concept. There's some bugs to be worked out, we could probably do something like run heavy/light squadrons, of 4 and 6 respectively. Heavy would have an AB flagship, light would be OHP.

I dunno, I'm just guessing at this point. I haven't factored for budget constraints.

File: USS_Long_Beach_(CGN-9)_underway_at_sea,_circa_in_the_1960s.jpg (73KB, 800x573px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x573px

She was too pretty and retired before her time...

>>34772539
What are the actual advantages of a CGN platform, unless it's a gigantic arsenal ship of similar cost and scale to a CVN?

To OP, and to expand on the original question, the only use I could see is if the US set aside a big hunk of budget to operate a diet super fast CSG, with all-nuke escorts with insane thrust:weight and length: beam, that was designed to operate with limited tendies and replenishment access.
But the current system is almost certainly more cost effective than this idea, which would involve sacking at least two CBGs' worth of assets.
And would still need to be on the right side of Panama to react really quick.

>>34769788

There is no point in mass producing ships in peace time. The purpose of the way they slowly dole out build orders is to preserve the US shipbuilding industry & expertise (which can't compete in the commercial sector) as a strategic asset in case of a future naval arms race.

>>34769652
You get more power and space. The navy has flat admitted that right now they have about twice as many CGs as they really need right now (this is why they have been lobbying congress to put half of them in extended avaliabilities for years, congress has basically not allowed them to because they are afraid the Navy is going to stealth decommission them). This is because the only thing the CGs do right now that can't be done by a Burke is serve as a command center for air control (there is a specific term for this that is escaping my mind right now). Furthermore, the CGs don't have any room to add anything to them without pulling something else off of them.

More power and space means the Navy can add other things to the job profile of the cruisers and gives the Navy the option to add things to them without having to pull equipment off of them to maintain relatively neutral displacement.

>>34774095
The point of the CGN platform is to have a large ship (something about 30% to 50% more displacement than current cruisers) with a lot of power and space available for whatever the Navy needs for strategic configuration in the future. I would argue that we over-use super carriers right now ("if you only have hammers everything looks like a nail", note I am not arguing that we only have super carriers, just that I think we are over using them) and think that other ships in the fleet can fulfill the roles they do now adequately and that the real problem is we need more ships (thus the FFGs I was suggesting be made).

>>34769894
I fail to see how Newport news trying to break back into private shipbuilding, but the Navy cock-blocking them, has any relation to what I said. NNSD had traditionally done private shipbuilding work until around the 1970s. By the way, do you have a source on the Navy cock-blocking them?

As for the Columbia class, current estimates are projecting 100 billion dollars for 12 boats. That is an average cost equal to that of a nimitz.

File: SNS_Dedalo_(R01)_underway.jpg (2MB, 2870x1887px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2870x1887px

Stop building Super Carriers and produce these lovely, ugly bastards to control and protect shipping lanes as well as offer a capable force projection asset. Have em backed up by the super carriers as necessary.

>>34775588
continued from
Source on costs: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf

The Columbia class costs too much. It is not that much bigger than a Virginia class submarine which costs about 2 billion each. So the Columbia class should cost roughly 4 or 5 billion not 8+ billlion.

>>34769894
>Also,>Yasen better than Virginia
Better is too subjective a term. I was specifically speaking to firepower, which the Yansen has in spades compared to a Virginia.


>>34770476
>>nuclear cruisers
>cost prohibitive, navigationally prohibitive, too much strain on crew, to little armament compared to cost, too great a danger to operate.
"Navigationally prohibitive", there aren't that many nuclear free zones. Cost prohibitive is arguable. The rest is, as far as I can tell, baseless.

>>So go from 12 to 5 or 6 super carriers
>that would limit our ability to deploy more than 2 carriers regularly.
Yes, and? We over use them as it is. If the need were great enough we could deploy 3 at once.

>>make up the difference in the budget with a new FG
>a swarm of frigates will not make up the loss of birds in the sky. you could have 10 frigates and they wouldn't give you anywhere near the ability of 1 carrier, with the exception of sonar detection from the ship itself. overall ASW? carrier still wins.
Combat commanders disagree. They have been screaming for more than a decade for more ships of any type they can get their hands on. Thus, build FFGs.

>>at a cost not to exceed 3.5 billion each.
>for for the cost of 2 you could have 1 supercarrier and still have money left over.
You are using the nimitz class as a comparison point, a more contemporary comparison is the Ford class which cost about 12 billion each, which means more than 3 CGNs per super carrier. But you are also misconstruing by suggestion, it was carriers into FFGs. And Ticos at about a 2/3 ratio by count of ships but roughly equal tonnage wise rate with a new CGN class.

>>34770658
>>fleet caps
>Why have a "fleet cap"? Just keep more ships on reserve duty rather than spending most of the year deployed doing essentially nothing.
>There is no magic number of ships the US Navy is limited to
Because it is not JUST the ships.

It is also the crews and logistics and maintenance supporting that ship that really matter when it comes to actual combat effectiveness. The only way to keep the crew properly trained is to keep sending them on deployments. The lack of logistics and maintenance only becomes apparent when you need them, so if the ship is mothballed and not being supported you don't know that you need them.

>>34770614
>>Newport News attempted to start private shipbuilding but were told by the Navy that they would lose contracts if they did.
>probably because civilian shipbuilding has far less stringent security and safety protocols than military shipbuilding does, and thus adding that to the NN shipyard would pose a threat to the military vessels there.
I don't think that would be the case. If the concern were "we don't want private ships at Newport News because they will be a security risk to the Navy work" they could just segregate part of the yard. I tend to think it is some other motivation, like leverage. Like maybe the Navy didn't want Newport News to have the financial flexibility of having more than one customer. I am still not sure this actually happened or not, frankly.

>also what investor in their right mind would want a freighter or something like that built by HI? those guys are fairly well known for their shit work. even more so than NASSCO.
I am not sure to what you are referring specifically? They obviously aren't great but I haven't gotten the impression that they are complete shit either. Where is this impression coming from?

>>34770675
>>you could have 10 frigates and they wouldn't give you anywhere near the ability of 1 carrier,
>Now THIS is nonsense
>For a variety of reasons such as, these Frigates could have their own flight decks, and all operating fighters.

How would a frigate operate a fighter? They could probably operate drones but not fighters.


>>34771258
That is kind of similar to what I was thinking but not quite. I want the Ticos retired because they are power, weight, and space limited. I want FFGs because the Burkes are over worked as they are and the combat commanders need more ships. My plan for the new CGNs was to have them perform the current job they do for regular CSGs and lite-CSGs you talked about but also more generally. (OHP is Oliver Hazard Perry FFG, CSG is Carrier Strike Group, AB is Arleigh Burke DDG)

>>34775714
>Stop building Super Carriers and produce these lovely, ugly bastards to control and protect shipping lanes as well as offer a capable force projection asset. Have em backed up by the super carriers as necessary.

Completely stop? I don't think that is a good idea. Super Carriers have a place in the fleet. I just think they are over-used right now. I do agree that more LHAs may have some merit, though. If I had allowed myself more budget in my suggestion, I would have suggested building more LHAs.

>>34776009
Current production rates, yes. But i should have been more clear, not stop completely.

>>34775801
>The only way to keep the crew properly trained is to keep sending them on deployments.

This is absolutely not true
A short cruise every year is all you really need.
With monthly exercises/refreshers.

>>34766784
I'd reduce the number of CVNs from 11 down to just 7 (We don't need that many fucking carriers), and fund an upgraded version of the Burke with improved radar, sonar, etc, then produce that and some nuclear cruisers in favor of the old CGs. I'd spend no money on frigates, but I would increase the number of SSBNs a tad and the number of Seawolf-class SSNs. Oh, and I'd cut funding to the Zumwalt-class hunks of junk, despite how fucking awesome their railguns are.

Tl;dr put more money into long-range cruisers, destroyers and subs instead of wasting it on carriers

>>34777373
The combat commanders continously are asking for more ships. So, your solution is to take the ships we have and NOT deploy them? Or are you suggesting we buy more ships and pay to keep crews around and trained but not use them?

Also, time training on land is, in general, worth less than experience at sea. If we want crews that have comparable performance then they either have to train continously on land, without getting anything out of them, or go on deployment reguarly, as they do now.

3000 Ticonderoga class missile cruisers
>Norks make a move
>Kim looks out to sea
>They come
>The tomahawk rain lasts for 3 days and 3 nights
>Every square foot of the country has been hit

>>34778931
...no.

But funny, I guess.

>>34778931
that seems to be what russia wants to see its surface fleet as, except they want to build a bunch of small corvettes

>>34780213
>Russia
Pretty sure you ment china. Also, corvetts are not great at projecting power and typically are not designed for cross ocean transit or given the range for it.