I believe Mare Island has already been sold to developers. If not, I'd be very surprised. Remember how fast the various Democrat-owned development companies (including one owned by Rep. Pelosi's husband) were allowed to scarf up the Presidio and Hunters Point? I distinctly remember Senator Feinstein publicly and loudly thanking President Clinton for removing those war-mongering sites from San Francisco Bay.
Couldn't find that particular quote but here are Feinstein and Boxer applauding President Clinton on his announcement closing all those Bay Area bases & shipyards. Link to C-Span. https://www.c-span.org/video/?48636-1/military-base-closings
OK. Boxer. Thanks for the correction. I mostly remember the effusive “Thank yous”. She probably didn’t use the term “war mongering”, but that was her go-to position, so I may have remembered things incorrectly. My apologies for not verifying the exact quote.
And wasn't it Clinton who sold off Long Beach Naval Station, a wonderful homeport, and the Long Beach Naval Shipyard to the Chinese? Or maybe it was BRAC-ed. I don't remember. I think it is all a container facility now.
Mare Island is an active shipyard, with three dry-docks operational. AS-40 is currently in one of them going through an overhaul, AS-39 was in there last year. Mare Island Dry Dock actively works on USCG cutters, ice breakers and USNS ships. At least two of the basins can handle 688-boats as this was the first yard to do initial overhauls on the class.
The former base has new housing on the West side of the property and multiple tenants spread about in a variety of old buildings however, ship repair is its main business. Wouldn't take much for USN to come back or, start funneling contracts to the heavy industry there.
Good to know. The last time I was there was in 1982. I just figured it had been BRAC’d since then so as to make the land available to those who want even more power and wealth than they have now.
The yard spaces have been in continual usage since USN walked away, things have ramped up the last 10-years though. There's a number of Superfund toxic sites around the old magazines/storage areas. Because the military doesn't like modern or, making continual updates to its infrastructure, a number of buildings have asbestos issues. Lennar built-out a number of new homes on the West-side otherwise, the whole East-side of the island, which was the principal area of the base is unchanged.
Your reference to what I will call “the continual lack of modernization of public shipyards” reminds me of a visit a group of us newly-minted EDOs took to PNSY in the early 80’s. The yard was so proud of their ancient foundry works. I refrained from asking whether they had considered updating any of the equipment.
Yet another example of why we should have shipyards. There is no way a private business would keep ancient foundry works in operation. In our "just-in-time," environment we don't build parts.
In an environment where the naval crews are building naval ships, the idea that they can make parts from lumps of raw metal has a different appeal.
If they're going to do submarine work, they'll need a considerable upgrade to handle the nuclear side of things. Not cheap or quick. Electronics shop as well and SUBSAFE capability is a must. Working on submarines is considerable step up.
Not just yards, but people. A few years ago, a neighbor would pass me whilst walking our Black Lab each morning…always around 0500 or so…one morning he stopped to ask me a question…he was the EB director at HII, responsible for the kluging of SSNs between Newport News and Connecticut…he asked me If I knew anyone reliable looking for a JOB! Said HII and EB were extremely frustrated trying to find and keep folks who:
Were not drug or alcohol abusers
Could obtain a security clearance
And would show up for work…..
So, not just shipyards…but good people with an honest work ethic….
That is where location can help. I wouldn't pick NW Ohio to fix that, but the Gulf Shipyards and some other lingering capacity around the company might be bettter places to grow a labor pool.
As VADM Rowden said years ago "no one wants to be a volunteer fireman building ships or repairing ships". Meaning sit around at the house for 3 years, not getting paid, and waiting on the next Navy contract to give you 3-4 years of steady pay.
My Dad worked for Lockheed all his life which consisted of getting laid off while Unions and the Gov argued costs and perks. Then he would work as a Carpenter, Inside trim cabinet builder, auto parts, employed at his friends auto parts store where he got paid less but had a slush fund to carry him. He just wanted something to do.
He retired from there after building a large number of aircraft, he was a wing root man and Landing gear specialist, C-130, 141 B stretch, Jet star and the Skunk works job.
With the rate inflation is going, buying now will be cheaper. I think expanding the yard capacity into the Lakes, is an excellent idea. The problem with building and repairing submarines on the Lakes is getting them to and from the ocean. Seaway limits are just over 26 feet of draft. Under normal conditions, our fast boats have a similar surfaced draft based on released photographs, and boomers are far over that. If it's going to be actual production, not just component work, we're going to need to get boats there. Either trust the canal and locks, or prepare camels to reduce draft.
And today is the 83rd Anniversary of the Two-Ocean Navy act. I doubt we could get another, without staunch Navalists in both the White House and Congress. The last Navalist President was laid to rest 19 years ago.
I believe It’s an active yard, but needs to bring the dry docks back to MIL STD to do any repair work.that’s what congressman Garamendi announced while standing at the dry docks a couple of months ago.
"We should put them in some kind of bureaucratic quarantine until the right Congress and Chief Executive can put them in hospice." Back in the day they would have gotten the "Old Yeller" treatment or at least that final trip to the vet. They have endangered the Nation and our way of life. How far we have fallen in such a relatively short time.
• Current combat force ships: 272 (This is the lowest number since the end of WWI). Minimum requirement per Department of the Navy in 2015 was 308. CNO announced several months ago that the Navy was doing a Force Structure review which will be out soon which he said he expected would document the need for a lot more ships in light of multiplying threats around the world. Minimum requirement per Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of Military Readiness is 346 ships. The breakdown below is based on DON requirements:
o 11 CVN (Nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier)
o 88 Large Combatants (Ticonderoga cruisers, Burke Destroyers and Zumwalt Destroyers)
o 52 SSC (Small Surface Combatant such as Littoral Combat Ship)
o 48 SSN (Nuclear Attack Submarine)
o 14 SSBN (Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine)
o 34 LHA/LPD (Amphibious Carrier/Landing Platform Dock)
o 29 Combat logistics ships of various types
o 32 other ships (submarine tenders, combat command ships, Mine Countermeasures ships, Fast Patrol, and Forward Basing)
• Shortage versus Navy minimum requirements in 2015: the Navy is short at least 36 ships and against the consensus requirement is short 74 ships. OBM/DOD guidance limits what the Navy is allowed to submit as its basic requirements so the real minimum requirement as validated by the 1993 Bottom-Up Review, 2014 National Defense Panel, and Heritage Foundation 2016 Index of Military Readiness is 346 or a 21% shortfall. The 1993 BUR is considered the Gold Standard of Force Structure Reviews as it was and is the most comprehensive review of military force structure since the fall of the Soviet Union and every serious study done since then has documented requirements at least as great as was the case when the threat level was the lowest it has been since the end of WWII. The recent COCOM requirement for ships was 450.
• Requirements: $21B per year of SCN is required across the FYDP and beyond to begin catching up to requirements. $21B would represent a modest 15% increase in the shipbuilding account.
• Must separately fund Ohio SSBN replacement by use of National Sea Based Deterrence Fund. National Sea Based Deterrence Fund established by Congress in the FY2015 NDAA to recognize the unique nature of the strategic nuclear deterrence provided by the SSBN that establishes it as a national priority separate and distinct from the Navy’s traditional shipbuilding budget.
1
• There are only 4 companies and a total of 8 shipyards in the entire country capable of building modern U.S. Navy combat ships. (Huntington-Ingalls, General Dynamics, Austal, & Marinette.) The unique and classified nature of Navy combatants requires that the nation retain a robust state of the art shipbuilding industry that is capable of building the world’s most advanced, most capable warships. Because of continuous cutbacks in shipbuilding since the fall of the Soviet Union, the national shipbuilding industry has shrunk. The industry as it stands now has unparalleled capability but limited capacity, i.e. it can only build a few ships at a time. Were external threats to manifest themselves more overtly, the industry will be very challenged to surge into higher production rates which is another reason why now while we have the chance, the Navy’s shipbuilding budget should be increased to the $21B+ range and kept there for the foreseeable future while the nation attempts to build up the Navy to known requirements. Current shipbuilders and their products are listed below:
o Bath Iron Works builds DDG 51 class and DDG 1000 ships
o Electric Boat builds Virginia class SSNs
o NASSCO builds RO-RO, TAK(E), Auxiliary and ESB (Expeditionary Mobile Base).
o Newport News Shipbuilding builds CVNs and Virginia class SSNs
o Ingalls builds DDG 51 class, LHA 6 class and LPD 17 class for the Navy and NSC (National Security Cutter) for the USCG and is leading the design for the BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense ship) and LX(R) (replacement for aging LSD fleet).
o Austal builds the LCS and EFP (Expeditionary Fast Transport built for Military Sealift Command)
o Marinette builds the LCS
o Avondale builds the LPD 17 class amphibious ship
Sources:
Congressional Research Service Report: Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, 27 May 2106
2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength, the Heritage Foundation, October 2015
Naval History and Heritage Command
Shipbuilder Council of America
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Deploying Beyond Their Means, America’s Navy and Marine Corps at a Tipping Point, 18 November 2105
However, it prompted me to dust off and revisit a couple of related histories that I highly recommend vis a vis shipyard capacity. These are Carew's "Becoming the Arsenal" and Heinrich's "Warship Builders."
Heinrich's work focuses on major warship construction for WWII, primarily in the Naval Shipyards. Carew's work is broader, setting the stage for industrial mobilization in the history of WWI experience and the politics of the Depression years. His focus is on industrial mobilization in support of WWII, and from a Naval perspective is focused largely on sealift and minor combattants. Taken together, they offer a rather comprehensive view of the topic for the sea services.
These are some of the thought provoking and, for me, unexpected insights gleaned from these two works:
US economic mobilization planning for WWII was seriously underway by 1938, much earlier than I realized and almost a third of a decade before the US entered the war. In CDR Sal speak, almost a World War before the World War. The decision to fully mobilize significantly predated Pearl Harbor.... May/June 1940.
We generally think of mass industrial production as the "big club" for logistics, but for warship production it was Navy Yards that turned out the overwhelming majority of warships. Most civilian yards could not handle the technical demands of building warships. In the case of submarines, built in both civilian and government yards, the lead government yard (Portsmouth, NH) was far more productive than the lead civilian yard (EB). EB averaged 405 days per ship, Portsmouth 214 days!
Critical bottlenecks (especially sole or limited source components) controlled the pace of combattant shipbuilding, along with the dramatic expansion of drydocks and ways in only a couple of years.
Mass production capacity was paced by labor and transportation shortages, and facilitated (for shipbuilding) by a high/low mix concept of low tech DE's and Liberty Ships built in commercial yards to commercial standards.
There's lots more to be digested from the two books, but this rereading, coupled with the CSIS study, and after action analysis from the Brits' Falklands campaign puts an exclamation mark on this column.
It also invites further thought about implications of the Ukrainian war for current logistics planning. It is noteworthy to consider:
How fast we have burned through munitions stockpiles (to the point of stripping US prepositioned stocks of howitzer shells in Israel and S. Korea);
How difficult it will be to ramp up production of high mix armaments and munitions;
What that implies about the nature of the Ukrainian war as it becomes a long war, fought with older low tech material; and
What it means to strategic vulnerability vis a vis the PRC if the West and Russia burn through high mix capabilities while the PRC stands on the sidelines conserving theirs.
But considering how Germany has degraded in the 21st century I guess we should ask how many tube they have functional? 20k rounds may be just fine for the four tubes.
....RE: Bartlett Maritime: I grew up in Lorain, OH. We had a yard there once - American Shipbuilding and Dry Dock. My Dad did just shy of 20 years there and turned off the lights in the Engineering Office. If you look it up on Google Maps, just a little south of the big drawbridge on the Black River, you can see what's left of it after deranged union demands killed it nearly forty years ago. It's all condos and marina docks now, sitting next to what used to be a thousand foot drydock.
I'm not sure where exactly Bartlett wants to build this - a mile or so south of the Lofton Henderson Bridge seems to be where everybody thinks it would go. There's room there for a couple of drydocks big enough to take any sub in the fleet, but that's where the good news ends. First, you've got to find a workforce. Lorain once built Fords, created steel, and built ships - and it's ALL gone now, along with the people who did those things and the local infrastructure that supported it. The drydocks will have to be enclosed, because working outside during a Lake Erie winter is nightmarish. Dredging shouldn't be a problem, but ice is going to be an issue. Ohio EPA will be hovering over every single operation, and the environmentalists will be crawling out of the woodwork. The terrain will need a lot of work, and going back to the weather, for a good chunk of the year you won't be able to do anything.
I'd love nothing more for this to work, I truly do - but the Lorain plan may well realistically be a non-starter. Cleveland or Toledo might be much better locations.
More people would try to kill it in Cleveland or Toledo. Lorain is desperate enough to tell any opponents "STFU".
A civilian example; there was a proposal to deepen/expand the port(s )of Erie PA and Ashtabula OH. It was killed due to local opposition. Worries that the project would fail and despite federal assurance, would be stuck with bills? No. Worries some of the stuff dumped in Erie years ago would get dredged up and pollute the area? No. If the project was successful, there would be more truck traffic to the port, and that would annoy tourists.
Totally concur - build, build, build. Key misses by the Japanese on the attack on Pearl Harbor was their failed to take out the shipyard and fuel facilities. I went through overhaul in Pearl almost 50 years ago. I hope it is still in good shape. Our fuel facilities at Red Hill are also endangered.
After USS Yorktown was crippled in the Battle of the Coral Sea she limped back to Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and was repaired in 3 days and then sailed for the Battle of Midway.
Heck, all the Blue Bastions that gave up their yards for BoHo housing might be amenable to getting those jobs back. If it weren't for the 3 hour commutes to get to affordable housing. Though mebbe Frisco could condo those empty office towers.
Seems like with a pro-union administration this might be a golden pork opportunity to create union jobs with a new yard in Ohio along with all the porky support programs like training at the local community colleges to hire more teachers.
Even if it's 5:1 pork to product we still get something out to the fleet.
Restart Mare Island? They built plenty of submarines.
https://garamendi.house.gov/media/press-releases/garamendi-mare-island-dry-dock-announce-historic-investment-shipyard
I believe Mare Island has already been sold to developers. If not, I'd be very surprised. Remember how fast the various Democrat-owned development companies (including one owned by Rep. Pelosi's husband) were allowed to scarf up the Presidio and Hunters Point? I distinctly remember Senator Feinstein publicly and loudly thanking President Clinton for removing those war-mongering sites from San Francisco Bay.
Couldn't find that particular quote but here are Feinstein and Boxer applauding President Clinton on his announcement closing all those Bay Area bases & shipyards. Link to C-Span. https://www.c-span.org/video/?48636-1/military-base-closings
OK. Boxer. Thanks for the correction. I mostly remember the effusive “Thank yous”. She probably didn’t use the term “war mongering”, but that was her go-to position, so I may have remembered things incorrectly. My apologies for not verifying the exact quote.
Heck! Wouldn't surprise. Just because it's not recorded for posterity on C-Span doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Still, I believe in getting the attribution correct.
And wasn't it Clinton who sold off Long Beach Naval Station, a wonderful homeport, and the Long Beach Naval Shipyard to the Chinese? Or maybe it was BRAC-ed. I don't remember. I think it is all a container facility now.
Mare Island is an active shipyard, with three dry-docks operational. AS-40 is currently in one of them going through an overhaul, AS-39 was in there last year. Mare Island Dry Dock actively works on USCG cutters, ice breakers and USNS ships. At least two of the basins can handle 688-boats as this was the first yard to do initial overhauls on the class.
The former base has new housing on the West side of the property and multiple tenants spread about in a variety of old buildings however, ship repair is its main business. Wouldn't take much for USN to come back or, start funneling contracts to the heavy industry there.
Good to know. The last time I was there was in 1982. I just figured it had been BRAC’d since then so as to make the land available to those who want even more power and wealth than they have now.
The yard spaces have been in continual usage since USN walked away, things have ramped up the last 10-years though. There's a number of Superfund toxic sites around the old magazines/storage areas. Because the military doesn't like modern or, making continual updates to its infrastructure, a number of buildings have asbestos issues. Lennar built-out a number of new homes on the West-side otherwise, the whole East-side of the island, which was the principal area of the base is unchanged.
Your reference to what I will call “the continual lack of modernization of public shipyards” reminds me of a visit a group of us newly-minted EDOs took to PNSY in the early 80’s. The yard was so proud of their ancient foundry works. I refrained from asking whether they had considered updating any of the equipment.
Yet another example of why we should have shipyards. There is no way a private business would keep ancient foundry works in operation. In our "just-in-time," environment we don't build parts.
In an environment where the naval crews are building naval ships, the idea that they can make parts from lumps of raw metal has a different appeal.
If they're going to do submarine work, they'll need a considerable upgrade to handle the nuclear side of things. Not cheap or quick. Electronics shop as well and SUBSAFE capability is a must. Working on submarines is considerable step up.
Like the Long Beach Naval Base and Naval Shipyard - now a COSCO shipping terminal.
COSCO as
China Ocean Shipping Company!
I spent some of my childhood in those LBNS drydocks- my dad worked in the sonar shop 68-80...
Mare Island is up and running now.
And PS: I love the Ohio option!!!
Not just yards, but people. A few years ago, a neighbor would pass me whilst walking our Black Lab each morning…always around 0500 or so…one morning he stopped to ask me a question…he was the EB director at HII, responsible for the kluging of SSNs between Newport News and Connecticut…he asked me If I knew anyone reliable looking for a JOB! Said HII and EB were extremely frustrated trying to find and keep folks who:
Were not drug or alcohol abusers
Could obtain a security clearance
And would show up for work…..
So, not just shipyards…but good people with an honest work ethic….
Damn, we’re screwed!
That is where location can help. I wouldn't pick NW Ohio to fix that, but the Gulf Shipyards and some other lingering capacity around the company might be bettter places to grow a labor pool.
Basic economics: There is a price equilibrium point where you CAN attract suitable workers - you simply have to find it.
I'd pump and clean septic tanks if someone met my hourly wage demand....
The same with shipyard workers: Pay them, train them, give them halfway rational managers and they will show up to work.
As VADM Rowden said years ago "no one wants to be a volunteer fireman building ships or repairing ships". Meaning sit around at the house for 3 years, not getting paid, and waiting on the next Navy contract to give you 3-4 years of steady pay.
Lessons Not Learned.
you beat me to it. The industrial base needs long term contract stability in order to recruit and expand capacity.
My Dad worked for Lockheed all his life which consisted of getting laid off while Unions and the Gov argued costs and perks. Then he would work as a Carpenter, Inside trim cabinet builder, auto parts, employed at his friends auto parts store where he got paid less but had a slush fund to carry him. He just wanted something to do.
He retired from there after building a large number of aircraft, he was a wing root man and Landing gear specialist, C-130, 141 B stretch, Jet star and the Skunk works job.
With the rate inflation is going, buying now will be cheaper. I think expanding the yard capacity into the Lakes, is an excellent idea. The problem with building and repairing submarines on the Lakes is getting them to and from the ocean. Seaway limits are just over 26 feet of draft. Under normal conditions, our fast boats have a similar surfaced draft based on released photographs, and boomers are far over that. If it's going to be actual production, not just component work, we're going to need to get boats there. Either trust the canal and locks, or prepare camels to reduce draft.
And today is the 83rd Anniversary of the Two-Ocean Navy act. I doubt we could get another, without staunch Navalists in both the White House and Congress. The last Navalist President was laid to rest 19 years ago.
We need to upgrade the St. Lawrence anyway; lots of potential for increasing freight traffic through the Lakes.
At the very least build Lordstown; rail components there for repair/refurbishment.
Trained shipyard workers are another blockage
Lacking skilled tradesmen in general that could be flexed into making war materials, including ships. Coming out of WW2 nearly 4 in 10 US workers in a population of 150M. Now it is less that 1 in 10 in a population of 330M. But we do have lots of service economy workers! (https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/april/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/blog/2017/april/blogimage_manuempshare_041117.jpg)
The navy is lucky to have 4 yards as they tried for a decade, unsuccessfully, to decom PNSY.
I believe It’s an active yard, but needs to bring the dry docks back to MIL STD to do any repair work.that’s what congressman Garamendi announced while standing at the dry docks a couple of months ago.
"We should put them in some kind of bureaucratic quarantine until the right Congress and Chief Executive can put them in hospice." Back in the day they would have gotten the "Old Yeller" treatment or at least that final trip to the vet. They have endangered the Nation and our way of life. How far we have fallen in such a relatively short time.
I wrote this paper for Congressman Mark Meadows in 2016.
Brent Ramsey
Updated 14 August 2016
shrblr@bellsouth.net
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Background
• Current combat force ships: 272 (This is the lowest number since the end of WWI). Minimum requirement per Department of the Navy in 2015 was 308. CNO announced several months ago that the Navy was doing a Force Structure review which will be out soon which he said he expected would document the need for a lot more ships in light of multiplying threats around the world. Minimum requirement per Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of Military Readiness is 346 ships. The breakdown below is based on DON requirements:
o 11 CVN (Nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier)
o 88 Large Combatants (Ticonderoga cruisers, Burke Destroyers and Zumwalt Destroyers)
o 52 SSC (Small Surface Combatant such as Littoral Combat Ship)
o 48 SSN (Nuclear Attack Submarine)
o 14 SSBN (Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine)
o 34 LHA/LPD (Amphibious Carrier/Landing Platform Dock)
o 29 Combat logistics ships of various types
o 32 other ships (submarine tenders, combat command ships, Mine Countermeasures ships, Fast Patrol, and Forward Basing)
• Shortage versus Navy minimum requirements in 2015: the Navy is short at least 36 ships and against the consensus requirement is short 74 ships. OBM/DOD guidance limits what the Navy is allowed to submit as its basic requirements so the real minimum requirement as validated by the 1993 Bottom-Up Review, 2014 National Defense Panel, and Heritage Foundation 2016 Index of Military Readiness is 346 or a 21% shortfall. The 1993 BUR is considered the Gold Standard of Force Structure Reviews as it was and is the most comprehensive review of military force structure since the fall of the Soviet Union and every serious study done since then has documented requirements at least as great as was the case when the threat level was the lowest it has been since the end of WWII. The recent COCOM requirement for ships was 450.
• Requirements: $21B per year of SCN is required across the FYDP and beyond to begin catching up to requirements. $21B would represent a modest 15% increase in the shipbuilding account.
• Must separately fund Ohio SSBN replacement by use of National Sea Based Deterrence Fund. National Sea Based Deterrence Fund established by Congress in the FY2015 NDAA to recognize the unique nature of the strategic nuclear deterrence provided by the SSBN that establishes it as a national priority separate and distinct from the Navy’s traditional shipbuilding budget.
1
• There are only 4 companies and a total of 8 shipyards in the entire country capable of building modern U.S. Navy combat ships. (Huntington-Ingalls, General Dynamics, Austal, & Marinette.) The unique and classified nature of Navy combatants requires that the nation retain a robust state of the art shipbuilding industry that is capable of building the world’s most advanced, most capable warships. Because of continuous cutbacks in shipbuilding since the fall of the Soviet Union, the national shipbuilding industry has shrunk. The industry as it stands now has unparalleled capability but limited capacity, i.e. it can only build a few ships at a time. Were external threats to manifest themselves more overtly, the industry will be very challenged to surge into higher production rates which is another reason why now while we have the chance, the Navy’s shipbuilding budget should be increased to the $21B+ range and kept there for the foreseeable future while the nation attempts to build up the Navy to known requirements. Current shipbuilders and their products are listed below:
o Bath Iron Works builds DDG 51 class and DDG 1000 ships
o Electric Boat builds Virginia class SSNs
o NASSCO builds RO-RO, TAK(E), Auxiliary and ESB (Expeditionary Mobile Base).
o Newport News Shipbuilding builds CVNs and Virginia class SSNs
o Ingalls builds DDG 51 class, LHA 6 class and LPD 17 class for the Navy and NSC (National Security Cutter) for the USCG and is leading the design for the BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense ship) and LX(R) (replacement for aging LSD fleet).
o Austal builds the LCS and EFP (Expeditionary Fast Transport built for Military Sealift Command)
o Marinette builds the LCS
o Avondale builds the LPD 17 class amphibious ship
Sources:
Congressional Research Service Report: Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, 27 May 2106
2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength, the Heritage Foundation, October 2015
Naval History and Heritage Command
Shipbuilder Council of America
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Deploying Beyond Their Means, America’s Navy and Marine Corps at a Tipping Point, 18 November 2105
1993 Bottom-Up Review
2
And Avondale is gone now.
The recent study, "Empty Bins in a Wartime Environment (link below) is a sobering read, focused largely on logistics/sustainment.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/empty-bins-wartime-environment-challenge-us-defense-industrial-base
However, it prompted me to dust off and revisit a couple of related histories that I highly recommend vis a vis shipyard capacity. These are Carew's "Becoming the Arsenal" and Heinrich's "Warship Builders."
Heinrich's work focuses on major warship construction for WWII, primarily in the Naval Shipyards. Carew's work is broader, setting the stage for industrial mobilization in the history of WWI experience and the politics of the Depression years. His focus is on industrial mobilization in support of WWII, and from a Naval perspective is focused largely on sealift and minor combattants. Taken together, they offer a rather comprehensive view of the topic for the sea services.
These are some of the thought provoking and, for me, unexpected insights gleaned from these two works:
US economic mobilization planning for WWII was seriously underway by 1938, much earlier than I realized and almost a third of a decade before the US entered the war. In CDR Sal speak, almost a World War before the World War. The decision to fully mobilize significantly predated Pearl Harbor.... May/June 1940.
We generally think of mass industrial production as the "big club" for logistics, but for warship production it was Navy Yards that turned out the overwhelming majority of warships. Most civilian yards could not handle the technical demands of building warships. In the case of submarines, built in both civilian and government yards, the lead government yard (Portsmouth, NH) was far more productive than the lead civilian yard (EB). EB averaged 405 days per ship, Portsmouth 214 days!
Critical bottlenecks (especially sole or limited source components) controlled the pace of combattant shipbuilding, along with the dramatic expansion of drydocks and ways in only a couple of years.
Mass production capacity was paced by labor and transportation shortages, and facilitated (for shipbuilding) by a high/low mix concept of low tech DE's and Liberty Ships built in commercial yards to commercial standards.
There's lots more to be digested from the two books, but this rereading, coupled with the CSIS study, and after action analysis from the Brits' Falklands campaign puts an exclamation mark on this column.
It also invites further thought about implications of the Ukrainian war for current logistics planning. It is noteworthy to consider:
How fast we have burned through munitions stockpiles (to the point of stripping US prepositioned stocks of howitzer shells in Israel and S. Korea);
How difficult it will be to ramp up production of high mix armaments and munitions;
What that implies about the nature of the Ukrainian war as it becomes a long war, fought with older low tech material; and
What it means to strategic vulnerability vis a vis the PRC if the West and Russia burn through high mix capabilities while the PRC stands on the sidelines conserving theirs.
Food for further thought.
Germany has 20,000 rounds of HE artillery rounds. Total, for the entire country. They are thinking about maybe ordering some in the coming months.
Not too good.
But considering how Germany has degraded in the 21st century I guess we should ask how many tube they have functional? 20k rounds may be just fine for the four tubes.
....RE: Bartlett Maritime: I grew up in Lorain, OH. We had a yard there once - American Shipbuilding and Dry Dock. My Dad did just shy of 20 years there and turned off the lights in the Engineering Office. If you look it up on Google Maps, just a little south of the big drawbridge on the Black River, you can see what's left of it after deranged union demands killed it nearly forty years ago. It's all condos and marina docks now, sitting next to what used to be a thousand foot drydock.
I'm not sure where exactly Bartlett wants to build this - a mile or so south of the Lofton Henderson Bridge seems to be where everybody thinks it would go. There's room there for a couple of drydocks big enough to take any sub in the fleet, but that's where the good news ends. First, you've got to find a workforce. Lorain once built Fords, created steel, and built ships - and it's ALL gone now, along with the people who did those things and the local infrastructure that supported it. The drydocks will have to be enclosed, because working outside during a Lake Erie winter is nightmarish. Dredging shouldn't be a problem, but ice is going to be an issue. Ohio EPA will be hovering over every single operation, and the environmentalists will be crawling out of the woodwork. The terrain will need a lot of work, and going back to the weather, for a good chunk of the year you won't be able to do anything.
I'd love nothing more for this to work, I truly do - but the Lorain plan may well realistically be a non-starter. Cleveland or Toledo might be much better locations.
More people would try to kill it in Cleveland or Toledo. Lorain is desperate enough to tell any opponents "STFU".
A civilian example; there was a proposal to deepen/expand the port(s )of Erie PA and Ashtabula OH. It was killed due to local opposition. Worries that the project would fail and despite federal assurance, would be stuck with bills? No. Worries some of the stuff dumped in Erie years ago would get dredged up and pollute the area? No. If the project was successful, there would be more truck traffic to the port, and that would annoy tourists.
People may not like it but there is a option B till we get things fixed at home: Foreign shipyards, Japan and Korea come to mind.
Those yards will be of little use in war.
True but we are hoping to get stuff done/caught up before a war (Your .96 ratio) because if it happens before we are hosed anyway.
They give us some bandwidth before any shooting starts.
that's basically it; Use a yard in a country that likely is allied with us against the typical aggressor in this case and has the capacity to help.
Punts with an inevitable loss. Just ask the Turks.
Then the neutral Nation becomes a part of a war, and get hit.
Interdiction would limit any travel from the to these areas.
Totally concur - build, build, build. Key misses by the Japanese on the attack on Pearl Harbor was their failed to take out the shipyard and fuel facilities. I went through overhaul in Pearl almost 50 years ago. I hope it is still in good shape. Our fuel facilities at Red Hill are also endangered.
"Our fuel facilities at Red Hill are also endangered." Endangered? Heck! Soon to be dismantled.
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/446660/navy-provides-updates-actions-supporting-red-hill-closure-water-quality
After USS Yorktown was crippled in the Battle of the Coral Sea she limped back to Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and was repaired in 3 days and then sailed for the Battle of Midway.
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/youve-got-three-days-repairing-the-yorktown-after-coral-sea/
Heck, all the Blue Bastions that gave up their yards for BoHo housing might be amenable to getting those jobs back. If it weren't for the 3 hour commutes to get to affordable housing. Though mebbe Frisco could condo those empty office towers.
Seems like with a pro-union administration this might be a golden pork opportunity to create union jobs with a new yard in Ohio along with all the porky support programs like training at the local community colleges to hire more teachers.
Even if it's 5:1 pork to product we still get something out to the fleet.
Your baseline assumption is that the current administration actually cares about union workers.
No, my baseline assumption is they care about pandering to the unions to get more money and votes.
Fair bet.
Corruption always wins when it buys votes. (5:1)