Great article. Doesn't leave much hope the status quo is likely to change and our public shipyards reflect how $'s were invested in higher priority areas.
Great article explaining what happened and why...but how do we solve that so we can build ships for the Navy if nothing else? It looks like we need to innovate and build ships that nobody else can build or find a way to do it in hubs where the shipbuilder has a nearby steel plant and other materials under their direct control. The Japanese Zaibatsu were critical in this capacity by teaming to build and operate the various components of their shipbuilding industry. So collaboration would seem to be the key, but everyone would have to be in on taking the revenue from the final payment/operations rather than marking up their particular components for their profits.
I know, not easy, and our culture finds this sketchy - but we use teams of companies all the time to deliver on government contracts. Maybe get them all together in a concerted discussion to let the companies tell the government how it can be done in a way they are willing to do it.
I'd start with simple platforms and have aa build new stratregy with fast design changes per flight. LUSVs engine selection are all American designed and built diesels. For manned ships I'd look at 4 engine CODAD arrangements of CAT C-280, MTU 4000 and Cummins QSK95. Think Taiwan's catamarans, Singapore's Independence Class Littoral Mission Vessel. The Cummins would favor a little smaller and the CAT a little bigger.
There is little incentive for the ship builders to train and staff for building faster: They buy more shipbuilding land, hire and train more workers, and then loose the contract in some spiteful rage by the government? The way things are now, the two or three shipbuilders get to have consistent work and profits.
A large number of Royal Navy ships during the Nelson period were built in private yards. And your logic fails in other ways: If a wooden square rigged sailing ship firing 32 lb muzzle loaders was good enough for Nelson, is it good enough for us?
Further, the government cannot build anything - look at (for example) NASA, or the Army Corps of Engineers. At best they're highly incompetent project managers. The problem with civilian construction of warships isn't the civilian construction: It's that the various program office ROADies can't help but decide that they need to 'fix' the design. So, they ask (innocuously in some cases) for a simple change - which requires xx hours of blueprint revision, yy hours of design review, zz hours of undoing what's already been done, AA hours of scraping material that's already been purchased and installed, BB hours of WAITING for the new design to be built and delivered. The yards love it because they're getting paid for change orders or cost plus, the roadies love it because they're padding their resumes for post-retirement, the Navy loves it because the more complicated it is, the more 'leadership' is required in non-operational assignments. After all, going to sea is boring and could be dangerous.
During WWII, aircraft were built to an inferior standard (by civilian factories). Then they were flown to other airports and those mods that were actually needed were incorporated - highly expensive, but the planes got built, faster than trying to retool the line.
Navy ships, apparently, are not designed to be upgraded - else why would (for example) hulls be scrapped instead of modified to modern standards? The hull shapes are much the same, the gas turbine engines are much the same as they have been for the last 40 or more years (1980's on), the only real differences are the electronics - which cannot be upgraded? WTF?
Conversely, look at the B52 bomber. Designed in the late 1940's, first flew in 1952, last one built in 1963, programmed to last until (at least) 2050's? The electronics are regularly (not often enough, but regularly) updated, and now the engines are all being upgraded.
For the roughly two hundred years that the US Navy built naval ships in naval yards we were at the forefront of technology.
Now that we closed the yards and offloaded an essential function of the sovereign to multi-national corporations we produce the LCS and the USS Ford. These two facts are related.
For 100 years, the Electric Boat Company (currently a division of GD) has designed, built and upgraded submarines - Diesel Electric and Nuclear.
Today, the US Government yards that work on submarines cannot even repair one in a timely manner - cf the USS Connecticut, SSN-22, damaged in 2021, and maybe returning to service in 2025 - likely not.
Further, the ships designed by the US Government and built in government yards are not necessarily better: This past spring/summer I watched on You Tube the drydocking of the Battleship New Jersey. Designed by Bureau of Construction and Repair (later BuShips), built in a government yard (Philadelphia Navy Yard), ordered in 1939, laid down in 1940 (pre war), launched in 1942.
Today there is no way the ship can move under it's own power: While the engines are still in preserved status and the fuel tanks still hold a quarter-million pounds of fuel (for ballast) the lines connecting the two are rusted through, unusable, and unrepairable. Apparently it's not feasible to cut the hull open through the armor belt, replace the lines, and then restore the armor. So, not even repairable if a golden-bb got through in WWII combat.
Anyone involved in construction knows change orders are expensive. One contractor I knew in Ohio would bid jobs in such a way that most of their profit came from change orders. I don't know if the state ever figured it out.
The government, at all levels, alas, can't competently manage projects anymore.
The government has never done anything efficiently.
Even things that are very, very important - defense, for example; or the post office, things that are actually Constitutionally mandated, are incredibly inefficient. Build things? Nope
My first ship, shortly after its commissioning, I worked for the repair officer and our tasks was to effect many millions of dollars of "rip it out; replace it" activities because those "remove and replace" contracts were a lot less expensive than change orders to the original build contact at Newport News.
The US shipbuilding industry is pretty much gone. I recall writing a paper about it when I was in junior high (more than 50 years ago) about the deterioration. And with the various labor and environmental laws, if you want a ship built today you're MUCH better off going to Europe or Korea, or even Japan (China of course is right out).
Those yards for the most part are already busy building and fixing civilian ships.
As I said earlier, there is little incentive for ship builders to build more capacity, train and hire more people.... Why, so they can be laid off, and angry in five years?
CDR Sal, you continue to push what should be obvious, but is apparently not understood by the bureaucracy. Please keep doing it, if for no other reason than being able to say "I told you so" later if and when things go dreadfully wrong. The Obvious: DoD is a dependencies based enterprise. Industrial capacity is a "must have" capability. If you don't have it, it doesn't matter how many "silver bullet, one weird trick to make all the problems go away" .ppt briefings" the Military Industrial Complex (TM) / major defense contractors produce and display at the prototype level. If you can't produce at scale whether it is ships, armor, aircraft, munitions, critical chips, etc. you will be unable to perform DoD's primary mission: defense of the United States. Also obviously, as you state, industrial capacity is flexible (within limits). Shifting production lines from hospital ships to frigates is possible within much shorter time constraints than starting from scratch. I'd add that building the platforms then recruiting the personnel to man them may be much more possible than thought IF the proper incentives (pay, benfits, social standing, etc.) are created. All of this requires changing the mindset of the "Iron Triangle" of DoD, Congress, and the Military Industrial Complex (TM). You are on point, and on target, keep up the good work.
One of the most true things I have come to understand in my over half century on this planet is this: “Just when your are tired of saying something, is right when people are starting to listen.”
These ships are built to the original contract as much as humanly possible. There are no deviations allowed unless circumstances force otherwise, e.g. supplier going out of business, significant flaw discovered, etc. Once the ship goes through Acceptance Trials and is delivered it is operated for approximately a year (non-mission status). Then they go through Final Contract Trials (conducted by the Navy INSURV Board). After that they go into a shipyard again and get any modifications or upgrades that MSC requires. That is when the medical equipment would be installed. Thankfully I have not seen the type of thing you are commenting on interjected into the build process at this yard.
The AH specs and the EPF specs have always had spaces for both sexes. Unfortunately while MSC T-ship speces supported that, but who knows what the Expeditionary specs that NAVSEA dreamed up
Having been nucleus crew on EPFs 7,10 and 13 almost 4 years of my life have been spent at the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile. It has been an enormously rewarding and frustrating experience. USNS APALACHICOLA (T-EPF 13) had to go back into dry dock post delivery to repair thousands of hull defects. Even with that the effort that goes into constructing this incredibly complex organism and eventually bringing her to life amazes me as much as it did when I first witnessed it almost five decades ago. Like all shipyards there are great people there and a dose of corruption among others that is ever present when billions of dollars change hands. My experience at Austal was a walk in the park compared to my first on USS BIDDLE (CG 34) at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in the 70s. Austal is cleaner, safer and does better work. We do need to watch them like a hawk though.
I too believe these hospital ships to be good thing.
They are. It is a long sad story that involves poor workmanship, lack of QA and millions of dollars in repairs and the conflict over who pays for them. The ship is mostly healthy now, just in time to be laid up, probably without accomplishing a single mission.
I am not a mechanical guy either (recently retired Communications Officer), but saw the evidence first hand, watched teams of welders and fabricators, and read the reports. Watching this ship be built and then repaired was a true object lesson in watching the sausage being made.
Damn. It just seems like "get a stable hull together" is something that we should have made pretty much automatic over the last 100 hundred years or so.
Aluminum catamarans are a different animal altogether. There are several different alloys and thicknesses used, depending on the purpose of that part of the hull and that makes it trickier.
OK, I'm not getting it. The Marines want to do their EABO operations, and they say they need to build ships to transport their systems and load outs to various islands etc. So why are they not just building a crap load of these FAST transports (vs the slow ones they are asking for) and have the same shipyard also build ship-to-shore mobile connectors to facilitate the transfer of equipment? You've got a design that works, all you really need is the connector and enough of them that the opponents can't spend time tracking where all of them are going, stopping, for how long, etc.
Known design. Known cost. Know operations parameters. And it keeps the shipyard going.
Connectors+ EPF would be tough. The EPF Flt II put in that 11m davit because the crane launches were not successfully meeting the KPI. The EMS moves the davits down to the mission deck level because the mission deck isn't loading combat vehicles any more. Tough to do much with a landing boat the size of an 11-12m RHIB.
You can have an aluminum landing boat, but an aluminum landing ship would be a tall order. Even as a stern lander catamaran would be tough as your mission deck is so high your ramp angle could easily end up being steeper than say even a Newport LST. They do need LSM to be fast instead of slow. I think they should at least look at the large fast supply vessels like those used for Overlord USV and bigger. Mount the same gear as a bridgelayer on the stern and you won't have the angle problem when landing. Trick would be making one big enough. They max out at about 900 ton full load and berth 18 max. Figure 25 knots full load.
Other Sal likes the special ops ship MV Ocean Trader using connectors. Connectors are the way to go as draft is very relevant. LCAC gets around it but have a big footprint, expensive, and complicated. LCU also has too big a footprint and is too slow and too deep. France has a new connector, EDA-S, that fits 2 per LCAC (and 2 per their earlier EDA-R). Its basically like a modern scaled up LCM-8 or scaled down Army MSV-L.
I also think they could build a fast landing boat that fits 6 in a 2 LCAC spot with a carrying capacity along the lines of C-130J.. Look at the Finns new Uto class (Kewatec LC 1920). Like that except I'd not provide berthing for the crew and move the pilothouse allowing for roll on roll off with an aft ramp such that another landing craft could lower its ramp onto the baot in front of it.
I got this far: "The EPF Flt II put in that 11m davit because the crane launches were not successfully meeting the KPI. The EMS moves the davits down to the mission deck level because the mission deck isn't loading combat vehicles any more."
and realized I was wholly unqualified to have an opinion.
I was thinking more of the floating connectors that can be adjusted to deck height (the ones that are developed look like smaller floating dry docks) or something like the self-propelled modular barges being built by Navamar of Montreal for the Canadian Department of National Defence’s (DND) Ship-to-Shore Connector (SSC) project. Or a bow ramp. Something along the lines of what is discussed here: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/april/epf-should-be-permanent-light-amphibious-warship
This is true, good platform that does great work, but you are also trying to build enough of them to transport troops and cargo that trying to track and attack them is a losing battle....there is no safety for any ship against missile attack, no matter how well armed. You want to be able to move about more quickly to drop ship the equipment, Marines, and supplies, then move on before you are noticed - at least most of the time. The Besson class ships could be nice, mobile fire support platforms with several MLRS or other systems aboard to move about between islands, though. Give the enemy a lot of things to try to track and target, with a nice surprise in the box within 300 to 500 miles.
I don't think 11.5 knots loaded of the Besson class with the seakeeping of the class would be great for the transport mission, either.
The EPF, however, could add SeaRAMs, according to some articles, other weapons systems against small boats or the like, and some hardened areas (Kevlar, etc.)...but there really isn't a lot you can do to really make them survivable if seriously attacked. Then there would also be whatever weapons the Marines have with them.
But if the enemy discovered them unloading, you'd have to defend yourself, then unass anyway as they would know where you are and that defeats the whole purpose. Move on to your secondary island!
6 med ships, and then..... Marine Ubers.... or...... fore and aft SeaRAMs and a few M2s, ASW helicopter and some torpedo launchers, and the biggest radar and sonar sets that can be mounted. Use for patrols around ports and smaller islands. Engage subs, call in Naval Air for surface and air threats.
I wonder how well they can react to patients suffering from chem/bio attacks (Korean War scenario)? Can they keep the ship and crew protected as well as the larger hospital ships?
a valid question; it seems to be a smaller ship designed to get a smaller number, maybe company casualties, out of imminent danger. They had a few isolation wards.
Exactly why giving some contracts to SK or Japan doesn't build ships faster and on budget? Give both of those countries the soups to nuts responsibility and authority.
Hospital ships, yeah! Everything of this post is positive. Makes for a nice start on a Thursday.
from book, "Helium Phoenix", 1996, chapter on hospital airships.....
"back in the post Korean War days when the Military Sea Transport Service had still docked up at pier 39 in Seattle; when......... Campbell had been a boy; and while visiting his seaman fathers’ MSTS freighter at the docks, he had first seen the hospital ship SS Hope.
It was an impressive thought to the boy; that a hospital could move about the world and take help and hope to those that had none. That image stayed with him all his life; and became part of his vision for (the) Airships’ future."
I shouldn't but I can't help it. "Helium Phoenix" reminded me. Have you ever seen the first episode of the silly tv show Archer? You must. If necessary, PM me for why
It's worth a view. One of the funniest collection of scenes I've come across in one episode. The beginning is funny, then skip to around 3:20:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsjQZ2eXTxE
You know, during the Salvadoran Civil War, with the left in Congress doing everything in their power to ensure a communist win, it occurred to me (I was a lieutenant in Panama at the time and, maybe, with a stretch, somewhat peripherally involved) that there was one form of aid to the Salvadoran Army we could have sent and to which no leftist could raise a public complaint, a hospital ship. Would have helped them a lot, too.
I peripherally worked with a guy who was probably in ES around that time. His wife had given an ultimatum "if you deploy again, I'm out." He went o El Salvador for two years.
So what is the Speed? More than 18 knots or the 43 knots for a EPF?
Also: "The final EPFs in the production line are also being outfitted with limited medical support capabilities similar to those slated for installation on the EMSs."
So if late model EPFs have the same medical capability why do we buy dedicated ships? cause we like "white"?
I have heard around 25 knots. They are larger and heavier while having the same engines (4 12,000+ hp MTU diesels) and being propeller driven vice jet drive. Since the EPFs are significantly smaller and have a 20,000 sq ft mission bay (15 ft high) that the medical ship uses for medical/office/berthing purposes, the EPF medical capability is significantly less. There are also other differences with regard to electrical generation, water capacity, HVAC, etc.
Also: "The final EPFs in the production line are also being outfitted with limited medical support capabilities similar to those slated for installation on the EMSs."
So if late model EPFs have the same medical capability why do we buy dedicated ships? cause we like "white"?
The EPF variant is smaller with lesser facilities and ability to generate hotel services. It also cannot support anywhere near the number of personnel. Think of emergency room/ambulance capability vs small hospital level of service.
Their single OR is similar to the 12 ORs on the hospital ship, and their accommodations for 12 patients are similar to the accommodations for 200. Except not as many.
If it keeps the 48.4 megawatts of power it really should be faster even with props. That is likely more juice than ffg will top out at. Maybe they plan to cut the engines from 20 to 16 valve. That would be smart.
I hate the ifea of messing with the propulsion of the commercial parent hull. Should be Wsrtsila 1500s same as on LCS (I know EPF used 1400s). I get that props are a conservative approach, but now they will be complicating a very simple transmission. I hope they go with MTU 2000 gensets rather than the Italian ones.
Most MSC engineers would agree with you regarding the gen sets. The Isotta Fraschinis have not been the most reliable in this application. It would seem they were chosen for their light weight. At the beginning of the EPF program (then JHSV) everything was about reducing weight to get as much speed as possible. The philosophy now leans more toward robustness.
I'd extend one caveat: If union jobs are going to be protected from obsolescence, then their barriers to creating greater efficiencies/streamlining should be completely dismissed. Make our Yards great again!
Good. Discussion of new hospital ships a few years ago brought me to CdrSalamander's: I'm happy that my wild eyed rants were similar to planning in the Pentagon.
These 3 EMS are designed to handle combat trauma, not public health. That's fine. For public health and humanitarian missions, I think we would be better off re-purposing commercial vessels, such as cruise ships that have reached the end of their first careers as floating hotels and resorts. I'm thinking of cruise ships that would be considered "small" (say, 2,000 passengers), versus today's 5,000-passenger giants.
You want to keep the ships somewhat busy, not tied up to a pier for 12 years before using them. This means everyone knows what they are doing when things get ugly and you know that things work and you actually have staff to man the ship.
Cruise ships are too open and are already massive germ spreaders. Get OSVs and build a hospital on their cargo deck like a barracks barge. Layout can be exactly how you want it.
James: You are correct about cruise ships, although I assumed that they would be gutted on the inside and re-designed as hospitals. Perhaps, this ends up being more complicated and expensive than building a new ship. Maybe the US should have one or two hospital ships that are primarily intended for civilian disaster relief and public health missions, rather than for handling war casualties.
What are your thoughts on this Substack article "Why Can't the US Build Ships?", https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-cant-the-us-build-ships?r=qjl3q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Excellent article...thanks for sharing.
Great article. Doesn't leave much hope the status quo is likely to change and our public shipyards reflect how $'s were invested in higher priority areas.
Great article explaining what happened and why...but how do we solve that so we can build ships for the Navy if nothing else? It looks like we need to innovate and build ships that nobody else can build or find a way to do it in hubs where the shipbuilder has a nearby steel plant and other materials under their direct control. The Japanese Zaibatsu were critical in this capacity by teaming to build and operate the various components of their shipbuilding industry. So collaboration would seem to be the key, but everyone would have to be in on taking the revenue from the final payment/operations rather than marking up their particular components for their profits.
I know, not easy, and our culture finds this sketchy - but we use teams of companies all the time to deliver on government contracts. Maybe get them all together in a concerted discussion to let the companies tell the government how it can be done in a way they are willing to do it.
I'd start with simple platforms and have aa build new stratregy with fast design changes per flight. LUSVs engine selection are all American designed and built diesels. For manned ships I'd look at 4 engine CODAD arrangements of CAT C-280, MTU 4000 and Cummins QSK95. Think Taiwan's catamarans, Singapore's Independence Class Littoral Mission Vessel. The Cummins would favor a little smaller and the CAT a little bigger.
Thanks for the link.
There is little incentive for the ship builders to train and staff for building faster: They buy more shipbuilding land, hire and train more workers, and then loose the contract in some spiteful rage by the government? The way things are now, the two or three shipbuilders get to have consistent work and profits.
The shipbuilder should be the United States. If sailing a government built warship was good enough for Nelson it should be good enough for us.
A large number of Royal Navy ships during the Nelson period were built in private yards. And your logic fails in other ways: If a wooden square rigged sailing ship firing 32 lb muzzle loaders was good enough for Nelson, is it good enough for us?
Further, the government cannot build anything - look at (for example) NASA, or the Army Corps of Engineers. At best they're highly incompetent project managers. The problem with civilian construction of warships isn't the civilian construction: It's that the various program office ROADies can't help but decide that they need to 'fix' the design. So, they ask (innocuously in some cases) for a simple change - which requires xx hours of blueprint revision, yy hours of design review, zz hours of undoing what's already been done, AA hours of scraping material that's already been purchased and installed, BB hours of WAITING for the new design to be built and delivered. The yards love it because they're getting paid for change orders or cost plus, the roadies love it because they're padding their resumes for post-retirement, the Navy loves it because the more complicated it is, the more 'leadership' is required in non-operational assignments. After all, going to sea is boring and could be dangerous.
During WWII, aircraft were built to an inferior standard (by civilian factories). Then they were flown to other airports and those mods that were actually needed were incorporated - highly expensive, but the planes got built, faster than trying to retool the line.
Navy ships, apparently, are not designed to be upgraded - else why would (for example) hulls be scrapped instead of modified to modern standards? The hull shapes are much the same, the gas turbine engines are much the same as they have been for the last 40 or more years (1980's on), the only real differences are the electronics - which cannot be upgraded? WTF?
Conversely, look at the B52 bomber. Designed in the late 1940's, first flew in 1952, last one built in 1963, programmed to last until (at least) 2050's? The electronics are regularly (not often enough, but regularly) updated, and now the engines are all being upgraded.
For the roughly two hundred years that the US Navy built naval ships in naval yards we were at the forefront of technology.
Now that we closed the yards and offloaded an essential function of the sovereign to multi-national corporations we produce the LCS and the USS Ford. These two facts are related.
For 100 years, the Electric Boat Company (currently a division of GD) has designed, built and upgraded submarines - Diesel Electric and Nuclear.
Today, the US Government yards that work on submarines cannot even repair one in a timely manner - cf the USS Connecticut, SSN-22, damaged in 2021, and maybe returning to service in 2025 - likely not.
Further, the ships designed by the US Government and built in government yards are not necessarily better: This past spring/summer I watched on You Tube the drydocking of the Battleship New Jersey. Designed by Bureau of Construction and Repair (later BuShips), built in a government yard (Philadelphia Navy Yard), ordered in 1939, laid down in 1940 (pre war), launched in 1942.
Today there is no way the ship can move under it's own power: While the engines are still in preserved status and the fuel tanks still hold a quarter-million pounds of fuel (for ballast) the lines connecting the two are rusted through, unusable, and unrepairable. Apparently it's not feasible to cut the hull open through the armor belt, replace the lines, and then restore the armor. So, not even repairable if a golden-bb got through in WWII combat.
There were many French, Spanish and Dutch ships taken as prizes that sailed in Nelson's Royal Navy too.
Anyone involved in construction knows change orders are expensive. One contractor I knew in Ohio would bid jobs in such a way that most of their profit came from change orders. I don't know if the state ever figured it out.
The government, at all levels, alas, can't competently manage projects anymore.
The government has never done anything efficiently.
Even things that are very, very important - defense, for example; or the post office, things that are actually Constitutionally mandated, are incredibly inefficient. Build things? Nope
My first ship, shortly after its commissioning, I worked for the repair officer and our tasks was to effect many millions of dollars of "rip it out; replace it" activities because those "remove and replace" contracts were a lot less expensive than change orders to the original build contact at Newport News.
You have to wonder why such contracts were needed and that Newport News Shipbuilding wasn't fined for their lousy work.
They would clean their act up if we actually got the small shipbuilders in kahoots and forced the growth in the budget to smaller yards.
What smaller yards?
The US shipbuilding industry is pretty much gone. I recall writing a paper about it when I was in junior high (more than 50 years ago) about the deterioration. And with the various labor and environmental laws, if you want a ship built today you're MUCH better off going to Europe or Korea, or even Japan (China of course is right out).
For big, deep draft sure. For OPC size and smaller.....https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vGXRBmAkCuZfMZf-B16O565gF9V1tkFUaNlOsQ3Ir94/edit?gid=0#gid=0
Those yards for the most part are already busy building and fixing civilian ships.
As I said earlier, there is little incentive for ship builders to build more capacity, train and hire more people.... Why, so they can be laid off, and angry in five years?
CDR Sal, you continue to push what should be obvious, but is apparently not understood by the bureaucracy. Please keep doing it, if for no other reason than being able to say "I told you so" later if and when things go dreadfully wrong. The Obvious: DoD is a dependencies based enterprise. Industrial capacity is a "must have" capability. If you don't have it, it doesn't matter how many "silver bullet, one weird trick to make all the problems go away" .ppt briefings" the Military Industrial Complex (TM) / major defense contractors produce and display at the prototype level. If you can't produce at scale whether it is ships, armor, aircraft, munitions, critical chips, etc. you will be unable to perform DoD's primary mission: defense of the United States. Also obviously, as you state, industrial capacity is flexible (within limits). Shifting production lines from hospital ships to frigates is possible within much shorter time constraints than starting from scratch. I'd add that building the platforms then recruiting the personnel to man them may be much more possible than thought IF the proper incentives (pay, benfits, social standing, etc.) are created. All of this requires changing the mindset of the "Iron Triangle" of DoD, Congress, and the Military Industrial Complex (TM). You are on point, and on target, keep up the good work.
One of the most true things I have come to understand in my over half century on this planet is this: “Just when your are tired of saying something, is right when people are starting to listen.”
Some times not even then.
The correct statement is: No requirement, No ship. Either find the bucks or go on wishfully thinking
Will the Navy or MSC change specs midstream because there were no gender transition facilities aboard thereby driving up costs and delaying delivery?
These ships are built to the original contract as much as humanly possible. There are no deviations allowed unless circumstances force otherwise, e.g. supplier going out of business, significant flaw discovered, etc. Once the ship goes through Acceptance Trials and is delivered it is operated for approximately a year (non-mission status). Then they go through Final Contract Trials (conducted by the Navy INSURV Board). After that they go into a shipyard again and get any modifications or upgrades that MSC requires. That is when the medical equipment would be installed. Thankfully I have not seen the type of thing you are commenting on interjected into the build process at this yard.
Right you are but there have been to major change orders to modify two EPFs and convert the design for three EMS-1 class
The AH specs and the EPF specs have always had spaces for both sexes. Unfortunately while MSC T-ship speces supported that, but who knows what the Expeditionary specs that NAVSEA dreamed up
Having been nucleus crew on EPFs 7,10 and 13 almost 4 years of my life have been spent at the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile. It has been an enormously rewarding and frustrating experience. USNS APALACHICOLA (T-EPF 13) had to go back into dry dock post delivery to repair thousands of hull defects. Even with that the effort that goes into constructing this incredibly complex organism and eventually bringing her to life amazes me as much as it did when I first witnessed it almost five decades ago. Like all shipyards there are great people there and a dose of corruption among others that is ever present when billions of dollars change hands. My experience at Austal was a walk in the park compared to my first on USS BIDDLE (CG 34) at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in the 70s. Austal is cleaner, safer and does better work. We do need to watch them like a hawk though.
I too believe these hospital ships to be good thing.
I'm just a long-separated Naval Officer and electrical engineer, but, hull defects sounds bad, even to a non-mechanical or civil guy
They are. It is a long sad story that involves poor workmanship, lack of QA and millions of dollars in repairs and the conflict over who pays for them. The ship is mostly healthy now, just in time to be laid up, probably without accomplishing a single mission.
I am not a mechanical guy either (recently retired Communications Officer), but saw the evidence first hand, watched teams of welders and fabricators, and read the reports. Watching this ship be built and then repaired was a true object lesson in watching the sausage being made.
Damn. It just seems like "get a stable hull together" is something that we should have made pretty much automatic over the last 100 hundred years or so.
Aluminum catamarans are a different animal altogether. There are several different alloys and thicknesses used, depending on the purpose of that part of the hull and that makes it trickier.
fair
Like building an aircraft.
And SUPSHIP is NOT watching Austal welding hulls
OK, I'm not getting it. The Marines want to do their EABO operations, and they say they need to build ships to transport their systems and load outs to various islands etc. So why are they not just building a crap load of these FAST transports (vs the slow ones they are asking for) and have the same shipyard also build ship-to-shore mobile connectors to facilitate the transfer of equipment? You've got a design that works, all you really need is the connector and enough of them that the opponents can't spend time tracking where all of them are going, stopping, for how long, etc.
Known design. Known cost. Know operations parameters. And it keeps the shipyard going.
Sigh.
Connectors+ EPF would be tough. The EPF Flt II put in that 11m davit because the crane launches were not successfully meeting the KPI. The EMS moves the davits down to the mission deck level because the mission deck isn't loading combat vehicles any more. Tough to do much with a landing boat the size of an 11-12m RHIB.
You can have an aluminum landing boat, but an aluminum landing ship would be a tall order. Even as a stern lander catamaran would be tough as your mission deck is so high your ramp angle could easily end up being steeper than say even a Newport LST. They do need LSM to be fast instead of slow. I think they should at least look at the large fast supply vessels like those used for Overlord USV and bigger. Mount the same gear as a bridgelayer on the stern and you won't have the angle problem when landing. Trick would be making one big enough. They max out at about 900 ton full load and berth 18 max. Figure 25 knots full load.
Other Sal likes the special ops ship MV Ocean Trader using connectors. Connectors are the way to go as draft is very relevant. LCAC gets around it but have a big footprint, expensive, and complicated. LCU also has too big a footprint and is too slow and too deep. France has a new connector, EDA-S, that fits 2 per LCAC (and 2 per their earlier EDA-R). Its basically like a modern scaled up LCM-8 or scaled down Army MSV-L.
I also think they could build a fast landing boat that fits 6 in a 2 LCAC spot with a carrying capacity along the lines of C-130J.. Look at the Finns new Uto class (Kewatec LC 1920). Like that except I'd not provide berthing for the crew and move the pilothouse allowing for roll on roll off with an aft ramp such that another landing craft could lower its ramp onto the baot in front of it.
I got this far: "The EPF Flt II put in that 11m davit because the crane launches were not successfully meeting the KPI. The EMS moves the davits down to the mission deck level because the mission deck isn't loading combat vehicles any more."
and realized I was wholly unqualified to have an opinion.
I was thinking more of the floating connectors that can be adjusted to deck height (the ones that are developed look like smaller floating dry docks) or something like the self-propelled modular barges being built by Navamar of Montreal for the Canadian Department of National Defence’s (DND) Ship-to-Shore Connector (SSC) project. Or a bow ramp. Something along the lines of what is discussed here: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/april/epf-should-be-permanent-light-amphibious-warship
EPFs are NOT for assault they are to transport troops and cargo in uncontested environments.
The USN/USMC should be buying US Army Besson class LSVs
This is true, good platform that does great work, but you are also trying to build enough of them to transport troops and cargo that trying to track and attack them is a losing battle....there is no safety for any ship against missile attack, no matter how well armed. You want to be able to move about more quickly to drop ship the equipment, Marines, and supplies, then move on before you are noticed - at least most of the time. The Besson class ships could be nice, mobile fire support platforms with several MLRS or other systems aboard to move about between islands, though. Give the enemy a lot of things to try to track and target, with a nice surprise in the box within 300 to 500 miles.
I don't think 11.5 knots loaded of the Besson class with the seakeeping of the class would be great for the transport mission, either.
The EPF, however, could add SeaRAMs, according to some articles, other weapons systems against small boats or the like, and some hardened areas (Kevlar, etc.)...but there really isn't a lot you can do to really make them survivable if seriously attacked. Then there would also be whatever weapons the Marines have with them.
But if the enemy discovered them unloading, you'd have to defend yourself, then unass anyway as they would know where you are and that defeats the whole purpose. Move on to your secondary island!
6 med ships, and then..... Marine Ubers.... or...... fore and aft SeaRAMs and a few M2s, ASW helicopter and some torpedo launchers, and the biggest radar and sonar sets that can be mounted. Use for patrols around ports and smaller islands. Engage subs, call in Naval Air for surface and air threats.
I wonder how well they can react to patients suffering from chem/bio attacks (Korean War scenario)? Can they keep the ship and crew protected as well as the larger hospital ships?
a valid question; it seems to be a smaller ship designed to get a smaller number, maybe company casualties, out of imminent danger. They had a few isolation wards.
Just read the excellent Construction Physics piece on the soup-sandwitch that is much of US shipbuilding.
I've said this before: Maybe give Japanese and/or Korean shipyards a few contracts to help increase US naval production?
I know - impossible due to politics... At least until we lose a Pacific naval war.
That doesn’t build the GFE any faster.
Exactly why giving some contracts to SK or Japan doesn't build ships faster and on budget? Give both of those countries the soups to nuts responsibility and authority.
Hospital ships, yeah! Everything of this post is positive. Makes for a nice start on a Thursday.
from book, "Helium Phoenix", 1996, chapter on hospital airships.....
"back in the post Korean War days when the Military Sea Transport Service had still docked up at pier 39 in Seattle; when......... Campbell had been a boy; and while visiting his seaman fathers’ MSTS freighter at the docks, he had first seen the hospital ship SS Hope.
It was an impressive thought to the boy; that a hospital could move about the world and take help and hope to those that had none. That image stayed with him all his life; and became part of his vision for (the) Airships’ future."
I shouldn't but I can't help it. "Helium Phoenix" reminded me. Have you ever seen the first episode of the silly tv show Archer? You must. If necessary, PM me for why
nope, never have. I've run into repeated references to it though.
as always (sigh)
It's worth a view. One of the funniest collection of scenes I've come across in one episode. The beginning is funny, then skip to around 3:20:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsjQZ2eXTxE
You know, during the Salvadoran Civil War, with the left in Congress doing everything in their power to ensure a communist win, it occurred to me (I was a lieutenant in Panama at the time and, maybe, with a stretch, somewhat peripherally involved) that there was one form of aid to the Salvadoran Army we could have sent and to which no leftist could raise a public complaint, a hospital ship. Would have helped them a lot, too.
I peripherally worked with a guy who was probably in ES around that time. His wife had given an ultimatum "if you deploy again, I'm out." He went o El Salvador for two years.
Git er done. Immediately, if not sooner.
We can always paint over the red crosses with a grey paint scheme.
So what is the Speed? More than 18 knots or the 43 knots for a EPF?
Also: "The final EPFs in the production line are also being outfitted with limited medical support capabilities similar to those slated for installation on the EMSs."
So if late model EPFs have the same medical capability why do we buy dedicated ships? cause we like "white"?
I have heard around 25 knots. They are larger and heavier while having the same engines (4 12,000+ hp MTU diesels) and being propeller driven vice jet drive. Since the EPFs are significantly smaller and have a 20,000 sq ft mission bay (15 ft high) that the medical ship uses for medical/office/berthing purposes, the EPF medical capability is significantly less. There are also other differences with regard to electrical generation, water capacity, HVAC, etc.
thanks
what about this part?
Also: "The final EPFs in the production line are also being outfitted with limited medical support capabilities similar to those slated for installation on the EMSs."
So if late model EPFs have the same medical capability why do we buy dedicated ships? cause we like "white"?
The EPF variant is smaller with lesser facilities and ability to generate hotel services. It also cannot support anywhere near the number of personnel. Think of emergency room/ambulance capability vs small hospital level of service.
so they misuse the "similar"
Their single OR is similar to the 12 ORs on the hospital ship, and their accommodations for 12 patients are similar to the accommodations for 200. Except not as many.
Something like that.
In every way. Its a new hull altogether.
so FFG speed
If it keeps the 48.4 megawatts of power it really should be faster even with props. That is likely more juice than ffg will top out at. Maybe they plan to cut the engines from 20 to 16 valve. That would be smart.
Sorry, was spacing out. 36.4
I hate the ifea of messing with the propulsion of the commercial parent hull. Should be Wsrtsila 1500s same as on LCS (I know EPF used 1400s). I get that props are a conservative approach, but now they will be complicating a very simple transmission. I hope they go with MTU 2000 gensets rather than the Italian ones.
Most MSC engineers would agree with you regarding the gen sets. The Isotta Fraschinis have not been the most reliable in this application. It would seem they were chosen for their light weight. At the beginning of the EPF program (then JHSV) everything was about reducing weight to get as much speed as possible. The philosophy now leans more toward robustness.
I'd extend one caveat: If union jobs are going to be protected from obsolescence, then their barriers to creating greater efficiencies/streamlining should be completely dismissed. Make our Yards great again!
Good. Discussion of new hospital ships a few years ago brought me to CdrSalamander's: I'm happy that my wild eyed rants were similar to planning in the Pentagon.
These 3 EMS are designed to handle combat trauma, not public health. That's fine. For public health and humanitarian missions, I think we would be better off re-purposing commercial vessels, such as cruise ships that have reached the end of their first careers as floating hotels and resorts. I'm thinking of cruise ships that would be considered "small" (say, 2,000 passengers), versus today's 5,000-passenger giants.
You want to keep the ships somewhat busy, not tied up to a pier for 12 years before using them. This means everyone knows what they are doing when things get ugly and you know that things work and you actually have staff to man the ship.
Cruise ships are too open and are already massive germ spreaders. Get OSVs and build a hospital on their cargo deck like a barracks barge. Layout can be exactly how you want it.
James: You are correct about cruise ships, although I assumed that they would be gutted on the inside and re-designed as hospitals. Perhaps, this ends up being more complicated and expensive than building a new ship. Maybe the US should have one or two hospital ships that are primarily intended for civilian disaster relief and public health missions, rather than for handling war casualties.