I would definitely form a squadron around a frigate and corvettes for low end presence missions in those areas. Give a LTcdr and Lt a chance to see if they have what it takes to command a corvettes before they are allowed to command a destroyer, cruiser or large deck amphibious assault ship.
"Balanced Fleet" has a nice ring to it but how many blue water navies do we face and likely will face in the next 50 years? What about several unbalanced fleets instead? For example, a fleet designed to defeat the Chinese Navy and little else. Plus a "show the flag fleet,", designed to reassure allies/others facing hostile countries or non-state groups. Plus a humanitarian fleet designed to render assistance when natural disaster strikes somewhere in the world with a shoreline. Plus a beefed up Coast Guard fleet to turn back climate refugees, undocumented workers, drug runners and the like. We could add a unbalanced fleets as new challenges arise.
A fleet optimized for both today's PLAN and PLAN plus 30 would likely be able to handle any of the worlds other Navies or coastal fights as well as showing the flag, hostage rescue, and earthquake relief.
I think we need the approach that first acknowledges the most likely threat (China) and then looks at the capacity to fight that threat, to determine what gaps it would create against other potential adversaries, and works to fill those gaps as budget allows.
The Navy that can beat China solidly, can probably already do most everything else we need them to do, such that closing the gaps should be easier.
LOSING to China could be an Extinction Level Event for our Constitutional Republic.
A "balanced fleet" to defeat other navies first. Calling for an "unbalanced fleet" semantically steers the conversation in the wrong direction to my ear. Flag waving to reassure allies and for humanitarian relief can be secondary or tertiary duties of any well-balanced fleet we build. I like the idea of a beefed up Coast Guard. They have been underappreciated and undersized too long.
Considering all the extra duties (especially the "grey zone" ones) the CG is expected to handle, the fact we aren't expanding the Coast Guard is criminal negligence.
Their protection of our economic zone from rapacious theft is practically unknown to JQ Public. How many Cutters does it take to monitor 100 fishing trawlers? "The Chinese government says its distant-water fishing fleet, or those vessels that travel far from China’s coast, numbers roughly 2,600, but other research ...puts this number closer to 17,000, with many of these ships being invisible like those that satellite data discovered in North Korean waters. By comparison, the United States’ distant water fishing fleet has fewer than 300 vessels." - https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-chinas-expanding-fishing-fleet-is-depleting-worlds-oceans
My thought is that the fleet should be focused on being able to take on and defeat the next two most capable navies. If it has to take on #5 or #8, it just uses less ordnance to do so. Showing the flag and humanitarian uses arent somthing that should even enter the discussion when designing a fleet and its ships. Combat capability and winning in combat are all that are important to me. I dont think anythings better than a brutally powerful warship if someone needs a peek at the stars n bars. Honestly, if the fleet isnt that great at saving volcano or tsunami refugees, Im ok with that. The USNS ships will hafta do...
Question: What is the range and manning requirements for the 3 designs, especially for the corvette? The US really needs an escort class, something with long legs and small crew to provide defense of tankers, cargo and convoys. A new take on the old Destroyer Escort. We also need mine sweepers/hunters and some other patrol boats that can take on Chinese Subs.
Maning is extremely important these days since if you do not have the crews it does not matter how many ships you have. Can the corvette version be run in a real part time reserve configuration
Based on my experience, Don, no. Not for the long haul.
Minimum manning cuts to the bone. When you cut to the bone you damage muscle. Some wonk will try to sell you minimum manning as an efficiency plan. Sleek, fit & trim, no waste, huge savings in salaries and retirements, great gain in square footage for more guns & ammo, beefier propulsion system and maybe room for 1 or 2 rail guns in 5 to 7 years. I was on a minimum manned FFG that went NRF which made us very much more minimally manned (to put a twisty spin on it). We had very good and capable SELRES to augment us. For one weekend a month. For a two week stint once a year. In that final year aboard after going NRF I saw none of the promised TARs who were supposed to replace the Regulars we lost. Most of those TARS were being force converted from YN, PN and other TAR ratings that were neither tech nor mech. And the NEC's they were to get after conversion entailed a long school pipeline and a weird combination of NEC's at that. (TACAN/UHF radios/Crypto for HF. Crypto for UHF/Air radar/Surface radar IFF/HF radios...) If the TARs ever arrived they be mostly E-5/E-6 coming aboard as brand new techs & mechs, probably attitudinal about being dragooned from a promised 20 year career ashore to sea duty. And speaking from experience as a force converted E-6 RD to the new EW rating with a 51 week school to be a tech/operator on complicated EW equipment after getting NEC's that didn't match the equipment I had to work on, it was a tough row to hoe. The SELRES were great people and I bet many of the TAR's, once seasoned by time, were great too. But people who aren't aboard enough to help or aren't yet thoroughly competent (like any new "A" graduate) to be of help are no help to the minimum manning concept. Burn out on minimum man ships is a real thing. Minimum manning is a real challenge that sailors will rise to, but in the end it sucks and things unravel. You kind of have to be there to know it.
Glad to see someone who has been there/done that. What I ponder is how to man ships in the quantities we need without enough personnel to do it. I don't see a huge number of youngsters wanting to/able to join up. I assume that the number of sailors is going to be static.
What can be done to add ships and aircraft keeping the number of people the same? How can we rapidly add people to the force if war comes? We can stockpile munitions but how do we stockpile ships and planes for a war in the pacific?
Another question. How much of the 51 week school and continuing education/practice could be done using Computer Based Training at a reservists home? Hard to turn a wrench on a computer simulation but some things could be I assume (maybe wrongly).
Can systems on a new class of ship be changed to make this type of training/continuing practice be more applicable so the weekend a month of hands on works out?
You could. The question is how much would be possible given the current preference for including IDTT (rescheduled drills to travel) as part of the training plan as well. As a reservist, the current policy is for use of non paid drills for several hours work from home as well.
The question is always how much time and money are we willing to put into this.
The EW rating got folded in to the CTT rating several decades ago. When I was Divo for EW"A" School in 1987-89 the training was shorter than 51 weeks and was divided into two phases. Trainees were 6 year obligors and would be given Operator training first (12-16 weeks?) and sent to the Fleet for about 18 months. They'd return for the technical phase of training which was in two parts. They had around 16 weeks of electronics technology training in CTM"A" School, which I was Divo for in 1986. That school trained EW's, CTM's and ET(SS)'s in electronics. After that, those three ratings would branch off to their particular equipment training and then off to the Fleet or wherever. For an EW, that equipment training could vary from 14 to 18 weeks depending on the ship he was being detailed to. The whole shebang was at NTTC Corry Station in Pensacola at the CNEWS compound (Consolidated Navy Electronic Warfare School), a tenant command which housed both phases of EW training, CTM"A" School, ET(SS)"A" School, NFO EWO Training, the EW Advanced Operations School and CTT ELINT School. The lengths of that training are dredged up from memory and may be +/-. Since the CTT's took over the EW rating I think they split the rate back into a CTT NEC for surface ship EW Operator and have CTM's maintain the equipment. I could opine on that as a bad idea but won't. But as to your question, Don, I don't think computer based instruction would yield good results. Way back when, I was a student in traditional classroom training, self-paced courses taught by TV and workbooks and some primitive computer training. When I ran the technology and operations phases of training at CNEWS it was all classroom. In the technology phase I had experienced E-6/E-7/E-8 instructors who were CTM's, EW's, ET(SS)'s, AT's, ET's. Had a German Wernher von Braun type guy for my TraSpec who tweaked the curriculum to keep it current. I had a day and night shift teaching students and "night" study for both shift for self-study or one-on-one tutoring for students who asked for help or got help assigned to them because they were stubborn. Elex technology can be a rough course of study before things "click", if they ever do. When I ran the operations side of the school I got to be more hands-on with the actual goings-on in the classroom. Hands down a good instructor trumps computer assisted training. 1. Most of the students were fresh from boot camp. I am certain they benefited from having a good Petty Officer or Chief as their instructor and mentor. (Let's remember too that the folks pimping computer assisted training have a selling point that it frees up sailors to serve in the fleet where they are most needed. Hey! The EW rate was 5/2 Sea/Shore rotation and you want to canx shore billets for them and go to 6/1 rotation and when they go ashore they serve in some out-of-rate general billet? Va fangool, Charlie.) 2. I observed that some students dozed off during training. It was a problem. My instructors brought the sleepers to me after repeat offenses, for me and the Master Chief to play Bad Cop-Bad Cop with them. Solved that problem eventually. Fleet EW's usually stand a watch on the Intercept Search receiver alone, no supervision. They are the first line of defense to detect ASCM's, targeting radars, threats and are authorized to fire chaff from the SRBOC mortar and to employ the deception repeater when the CO so authorizes. They all do, mostly. My thinking was that if a kid slept in class in full view of his peers and instructor he had just demonstrated he'd probably do that in the fleet. Now, every Friday I donned my dress uniform and personally welcomed and indoctrinated the incoming class, fresh from bootcamp. Among all the good stuff about their bright futures in a challenging job and how much help was available to get them to graduation I gave them the dire warning of a policy I had just implemented a few weeks before. "If you fall asleep in class you will be disenrolled. Why? Because we will send no snoozers to the fleet to fill a critical role in threat detection. If you feel sleepy, stand up. Those few seconds between when you snooze and fall down will be excused, but all else...you get the boot. Do you understand?" I'd wait until I got a loud enough response and tell them we are here to make you EW's. You tell what you need and we'll see you through this. And if you gave it your best effort and fall short we'll find something else fun for you to do besides chip paint." I was an LDO LT, I doubt they expected eloquence. Well, during that indoc, just a few weeks after the new sleeping policy, a sailor at a desk 3 feet away just in front of me started snoring. I was stunned. For about a second. I turned to the Instructor and hollered at him, "Disenroll this C_cksucker" and then did a hate-stare to the rest of the class for allowing that to happen. Not my finest moment. But it was another year before we had a kid sleep in class. My point is that classroom training with good military role models trumps all else for training young sailors. Other modes of training may work well for seasoned fleeties who have embraced our common Navy values. I do not believe any civilian or computer can trump a 4.0 sailor instructor. And most folks know, at least in my experience, that crappy instructors end up at the gym or carpenter shop, short toured to a 2 year G billet from a 3 year I billet.
"Run government like a business," and you get crap like minium manning. If you are extracting value from your labor force, and turning it over to shareholders in the form of dividends, minimum manning is great. Workers are an expense. If you can get more product made with less workers, Great. Businesses run on profit.
Defending a nation is not a business. We should be looking at maximum manning; our warships should be fully manned; with extra sailors ready to leap into damage control lockers. We need more sailors, not less.
Our sailors should have nice, chushy, shore duty; where they do meaningful work, yet have time with family. Sea tours, and shore tours should be the same length; to retain the skilled petty officers. Rest 'em up on land to ready them for a strenuous tour at sea.
Maximal manning is ideal, but when the Navy misses recruiting by 20% where are these sailors going to come from? I wonder if a true reserve could get us where we need to but it probably would fail at getting sufficient manpower as well. (true reserve defined as 100% at home port. 2 weeks in summer + 1 weekend a month after initial service. Unless declared war)
Recruitment would improve if we worked harder at retention. Sea Duty is hard; we need to give our sailors soft shore duty, hopefully in the same communities where their ships were, or are going to be. As things stand now, we drive out good sailors because of the punishing sea duty.
Honestly, i think that there are a ton of shore billets that could be eliminated to free up sailors to be at sea where they belong. Plus, we need to fix our recruiting and public image a bit. If people are enlisting with visions of shore duty, send them next door.to Army recruiting. The Navy is a sea service, and having a manpower pool that balks at sea duty shows we're getting at least some of the wrong people or at least those with the wrong motivations. Now, we DO have to stop abusing our sailors with record settingly long deployments, and overworking them with minimal manning. We have to get our maintenance house in order, and thatll help. But...when we sign these kids up, they need to understand that the Navy means sea duty first and foremost, and not be entertaining any other illusions.
Yes, its easy for me to say that, but Im one of those weirdos that was happiest at sea...
I loved sea duty. 19½ on ships, 3 on neutral duty riding ships, 3½ on two shore assignments. When I got my 2 Filipino B-i-L's here on immigration visas the first thing they wanted to do was join the Navy. They were both in their late 20s and college grads in mechanical and electrical engineering. The recruiter turned them away because they had their quota of Filipinos. I told them to find another recruiter 20 miles away and to say they were Hispanic, which was kind of true considering 400 years of Spanish rule in PI. The older boy served 4 years as BT and got out. Can't blame him. The younger one became a GSE and retired a CWO4 with 31 years of sea duty. He now works in Singapore as a marine surveyor for the Navy at the shipyard there. He was just visiting us for the past 2 days while on vacation. Lots of fond reminiscing.
The Army would appreciate it. They are short recruits as well.
Today's youth are different than those from my generation and have very different expectations for service in all branches. I continue to wonder how we still get the needs of the country met while meeting the expectations of the people we are asking to do the job.
I am convinced that manpower needs needs are going to drive what we do more than any other factor in the future unless AI bails us out but that has risks of its own
Thanks for those who provided pointers in other responses. Looks like the ships being evaluated for the corvette have 60+ crew and a range of 4,000-7,000 miles at economical speed if I am reading the releases correctly.
[Naval architect in the back of the room, raising his hand] Sal - I didn't see any numbers for range or speed. The ships proposed for the RAN look like a good match for their immediate part of the world, but our navy has a wider "brief", as the Aussies would say, and therefore a need for long legs and the speed with which to use them. Can anyone point me toward the range and speed numbers for these ships?
After some bit of reading on the topic, including an article by Lt. Cmdr. John M. Leeds in the April 2020 issue of USNI Proceedings, I've come to the conclusion that Bob Work's plan for repurposing the USAF's B-1 fleet for maritime patrol bomber duty offers a short to mid-term pathway for upgrading the US Navy's combat power in the Pacific Theater -- assuming the B-1 fleet's maintenance issues can be solved and that the B-1's remaining airframe service life can be sucessfully extended another ten to fifteen years.
Yes, this is an expensive proposition. But the B-1 fleet actually exists, and its problems and issues are a known commodity.
A serious study should be undertaken to determine what resources in time and money would be required to: a) remanufacture all B-1 airframes to a common configurational standard; b) address any and all structural issues which might be present inside the B-1 airframes; c) begin production of an adequate supply of replacement parts and components based on a common airframe configuration; and d) modify and enhance the onboard combat systems for patrol bomber use.
Where are they going to be based out of? Who will refuel them? Who will escort them? What is their maintenance cost per hour? How long will it take to train the aircrew? Where will the FRS be located? How many airframe hours are left? Do that math, and then tell me how many P-8A you can buy with that. That is where the money needs to go.
"Honestly, we could use something along the lines of the Tasman or Alpha 5000 too, but that isn’t in the cards. That’s where I get a bit sad. Mixed in with some envy, but “sad.”"
We need a reverse AUKUS - surface ships designs & training in exchange for sub designs & training.
You could have had that already. The Australians are getting Hunter class frigates which are UK Type 26 frigates adapted for the needs of RAN. The consensus appears to be that these will be the best ASW frigates available, certainly better at ASW than what the USN appear to be getting
Definitely need beaucoup FFG’s to protect that long tail of USNS assets from CONUS to the First Island Chain. Unlike the Japanese, I’m sure the PLAN would use its SS to interdict logistics. All for DDG’s and CG’s, but as with the above comment on B-1’s, I think serious stand off strike in bombers (or UAV) and SSGN’s is realistic. Note that “boomer” with the dry desk shelter moving through Suez is sure to be “G” not a “B”.
Taking inspiration from the idea that Guam could capsize from excessive buildup, I propose that the new fleet be composed of small islands with oversized, nuclear-powered outboard motors.
Are the big four star and NAVSEA SES brains even capable of defining a balanced fleet? It seems they can't get past divest to invest or maintaining the toys they have.
At 11:28 there is an unmentioned model of the MUSV that seems to show a change in the shape and height of the bridge from the commercial model. Thanks!
We need the smaller frigate. I'd question sizing anything such that its for sure a corvette not a frigate. We then need a real small ship that can do many things. I want a manned version of the MUSV. Use the automation to keep the crew small, but with big, specialized capabilities. That deck could manage 160 GMLRS rounds, 16 Mk 41 VLS cells via container launcher with an ECM package, it could also drag a Captas-4. Before you say "Waterjets" Consider the much smaller jets needed are likely also much less noisy. You could also have it carry an MCM mission module potentially.
The Tasman class Corvette looks like an exact replacement in terms of capability for the current Anazc Frigates that are meant to be replaced by the Destroyer sized Hunter class Frigates. (minus the 5inch gun (and maybe slightly slower and less range, haven't seen those figures for the proposal).
I don't get Australian Navy procurement over the last 15 years, none of it has made sense and I'm not sure this does either.
They currently have 3 Hobart class Destroyers (they should have got at least 4), and they have start ed building the first of 9 Hunter class Frigates (Type 26), then they are in the middle of building 12 large OPVs to replace 14 smaller (as in more than 5 times smaller) long range patrol vessels (they have the same range and endurance as the new larger ones).
All of these exisiting projects are costing 10s of billions of dollars already.
I don't see where they are going to get the money, yet alone the manning for another new class of combatants. And canceling projects mid stream that you have already spent many many billions on is the height of stupidity.
Mind you there is plenty of that going on, won't even talk about the submarines.
No, but..... would Navy have been really interested in designing/building/deploying a good enough safer reactor for mass deployment? Congress funding it?
The Virginia and California class cruisers was incredibly expensive in the 1970s, they are the reason the Tico class was built on the Spruance class hulls, to save money even during the Oil Crisis of the 70s.
Considering the requirements NAVSEA 08 has for nuclear plants, it was a good idea not to. I don’t think the expense to man, train, and repair for those ships would outweigh the benefits.
Thanks to everyone who replied. If I’m synthesizing the replies correctly, they might be summarized as: “yes, nuke powered surface combatants would be sweet but not sweet enough to justify the cost”. Which makes sense.
But in a serious America, we might have taken a lesson from corporate strategy 101 30-40 years ago and said “we alone have the ability to develop this incredible and differentiating capability. It has high start-up costs, but once we scale it up and build the ecosystem that backs it, we will both have an unmatched naval capability and also enhance our civilian energy sector. It will make the bar for competing with America’s Navy that much higher, so let’s do it now and put one more moat between us and whoever emerges to eventually compete with us”. Sadly, we haven’t lived in that America for a while.
If anyone on the Porch thinks my analysis remains off and I’m fanboy’ing on nuke too hard and without understanding some of the realities or trade offs, I’d love to learn where I’m off.
Nuclear power requires a level of quality that's extremely expensive as an ongoing cost. Controlled materials in the system, constant testing and training of personnel, and QA that costs money. I know some ex-Navy nukes working civil side now. One's an instructor for the simulator at a plant, and while he could take a shift in the live control room, he's not allowed to because he doesn't have the right certifications.
You may be right. Making the bet I'm positing would fundamentally be a wager that you could meaningfully change the shape of the cost curve through scale and widespread adoption.
What should be the range, speed and manning be for a new pacific theater escort/DE/Frigate/Corvette for the USN? Protect tankers and other non-combatants from PRC subs and long range aircraft. I assume the armaments and sensors listed for these ships is about right. Can the Help be replaced with a drone yet or is that still a requirement for sub hunting? Other things that need to be considered when looking to fit this bill?
We could DEFINITELY use several squadrons of Tasmans. Western Hemisphere work, Pacific Island chains, Africa, the Mediterranean.....
I would definitely form a squadron around a frigate and corvettes for low end presence missions in those areas. Give a LTcdr and Lt a chance to see if they have what it takes to command a corvettes before they are allowed to command a destroyer, cruiser or large deck amphibious assault ship.
"Balanced Fleet" has a nice ring to it but how many blue water navies do we face and likely will face in the next 50 years? What about several unbalanced fleets instead? For example, a fleet designed to defeat the Chinese Navy and little else. Plus a "show the flag fleet,", designed to reassure allies/others facing hostile countries or non-state groups. Plus a humanitarian fleet designed to render assistance when natural disaster strikes somewhere in the world with a shoreline. Plus a beefed up Coast Guard fleet to turn back climate refugees, undocumented workers, drug runners and the like. We could add a unbalanced fleets as new challenges arise.
Anyone who tells you who we will have to fight on the high seas in the next 30-years is either a fool or is lying to you.
One can make educated guesses, but know for sure you only have to fight just one? History is not kind to such thought.
A fleet optimized for both today's PLAN and PLAN plus 30 would likely be able to handle any of the worlds other Navies or coastal fights as well as showing the flag, hostage rescue, and earthquake relief.
Design for the existential threat.
Makes ya' wonder if we have the modern equivalent of the Rainbow Plans on file, and if they've been updater to cover all those possible contingencies.
I agree but... (famous last words).
I think we need the approach that first acknowledges the most likely threat (China) and then looks at the capacity to fight that threat, to determine what gaps it would create against other potential adversaries, and works to fill those gaps as budget allows.
The Navy that can beat China solidly, can probably already do most everything else we need them to do, such that closing the gaps should be easier.
LOSING to China could be an Extinction Level Event for our Constitutional Republic.
A "balanced fleet" to defeat other navies first. Calling for an "unbalanced fleet" semantically steers the conversation in the wrong direction to my ear. Flag waving to reassure allies and for humanitarian relief can be secondary or tertiary duties of any well-balanced fleet we build. I like the idea of a beefed up Coast Guard. They have been underappreciated and undersized too long.
Considering all the extra duties (especially the "grey zone" ones) the CG is expected to handle, the fact we aren't expanding the Coast Guard is criminal negligence.
Their protection of our economic zone from rapacious theft is practically unknown to JQ Public. How many Cutters does it take to monitor 100 fishing trawlers? "The Chinese government says its distant-water fishing fleet, or those vessels that travel far from China’s coast, numbers roughly 2,600, but other research ...puts this number closer to 17,000, with many of these ships being invisible like those that satellite data discovered in North Korean waters. By comparison, the United States’ distant water fishing fleet has fewer than 300 vessels." - https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-chinas-expanding-fishing-fleet-is-depleting-worlds-oceans
Lots of people really think Media Reports and Strongly Worded Letters are all you need.
Water off a duck's back.
My thought is that the fleet should be focused on being able to take on and defeat the next two most capable navies. If it has to take on #5 or #8, it just uses less ordnance to do so. Showing the flag and humanitarian uses arent somthing that should even enter the discussion when designing a fleet and its ships. Combat capability and winning in combat are all that are important to me. I dont think anythings better than a brutally powerful warship if someone needs a peek at the stars n bars. Honestly, if the fleet isnt that great at saving volcano or tsunami refugees, Im ok with that. The USNS ships will hafta do...
I just want to see capable WARships....
What about defeating a Ukraine? Better example, Iran, where mass is not the determining factor.
" Plus a beefed up Coast Guard fleet to turn back climate refugees,"
"Climate Refugees" is an artificial label that NGO's are salivating over to latch into a lucrative funding stream for the next few decades.
Even better than the quite artificial, multi generational, "Palestine Refugees"....
can those Aussie VLS hold US weaps?
That Aussie DD looks good.
Yes
Question: What is the range and manning requirements for the 3 designs, especially for the corvette? The US really needs an escort class, something with long legs and small crew to provide defense of tankers, cargo and convoys. A new take on the old Destroyer Escort. We also need mine sweepers/hunters and some other patrol boats that can take on Chinese Subs.
Maning is extremely important these days since if you do not have the crews it does not matter how many ships you have. Can the corvette version be run in a real part time reserve configuration
Based on my experience, Don, no. Not for the long haul.
Minimum manning cuts to the bone. When you cut to the bone you damage muscle. Some wonk will try to sell you minimum manning as an efficiency plan. Sleek, fit & trim, no waste, huge savings in salaries and retirements, great gain in square footage for more guns & ammo, beefier propulsion system and maybe room for 1 or 2 rail guns in 5 to 7 years. I was on a minimum manned FFG that went NRF which made us very much more minimally manned (to put a twisty spin on it). We had very good and capable SELRES to augment us. For one weekend a month. For a two week stint once a year. In that final year aboard after going NRF I saw none of the promised TARs who were supposed to replace the Regulars we lost. Most of those TARS were being force converted from YN, PN and other TAR ratings that were neither tech nor mech. And the NEC's they were to get after conversion entailed a long school pipeline and a weird combination of NEC's at that. (TACAN/UHF radios/Crypto for HF. Crypto for UHF/Air radar/Surface radar IFF/HF radios...) If the TARs ever arrived they be mostly E-5/E-6 coming aboard as brand new techs & mechs, probably attitudinal about being dragooned from a promised 20 year career ashore to sea duty. And speaking from experience as a force converted E-6 RD to the new EW rating with a 51 week school to be a tech/operator on complicated EW equipment after getting NEC's that didn't match the equipment I had to work on, it was a tough row to hoe. The SELRES were great people and I bet many of the TAR's, once seasoned by time, were great too. But people who aren't aboard enough to help or aren't yet thoroughly competent (like any new "A" graduate) to be of help are no help to the minimum manning concept. Burn out on minimum man ships is a real thing. Minimum manning is a real challenge that sailors will rise to, but in the end it sucks and things unravel. You kind of have to be there to know it.
Glad to see someone who has been there/done that. What I ponder is how to man ships in the quantities we need without enough personnel to do it. I don't see a huge number of youngsters wanting to/able to join up. I assume that the number of sailors is going to be static.
What can be done to add ships and aircraft keeping the number of people the same? How can we rapidly add people to the force if war comes? We can stockpile munitions but how do we stockpile ships and planes for a war in the pacific?
Another question. How much of the 51 week school and continuing education/practice could be done using Computer Based Training at a reservists home? Hard to turn a wrench on a computer simulation but some things could be I assume (maybe wrongly).
Can systems on a new class of ship be changed to make this type of training/continuing practice be more applicable so the weekend a month of hands on works out?
You could. The question is how much would be possible given the current preference for including IDTT (rescheduled drills to travel) as part of the training plan as well. As a reservist, the current policy is for use of non paid drills for several hours work from home as well.
The question is always how much time and money are we willing to put into this.
The EW rating got folded in to the CTT rating several decades ago. When I was Divo for EW"A" School in 1987-89 the training was shorter than 51 weeks and was divided into two phases. Trainees were 6 year obligors and would be given Operator training first (12-16 weeks?) and sent to the Fleet for about 18 months. They'd return for the technical phase of training which was in two parts. They had around 16 weeks of electronics technology training in CTM"A" School, which I was Divo for in 1986. That school trained EW's, CTM's and ET(SS)'s in electronics. After that, those three ratings would branch off to their particular equipment training and then off to the Fleet or wherever. For an EW, that equipment training could vary from 14 to 18 weeks depending on the ship he was being detailed to. The whole shebang was at NTTC Corry Station in Pensacola at the CNEWS compound (Consolidated Navy Electronic Warfare School), a tenant command which housed both phases of EW training, CTM"A" School, ET(SS)"A" School, NFO EWO Training, the EW Advanced Operations School and CTT ELINT School. The lengths of that training are dredged up from memory and may be +/-. Since the CTT's took over the EW rating I think they split the rate back into a CTT NEC for surface ship EW Operator and have CTM's maintain the equipment. I could opine on that as a bad idea but won't. But as to your question, Don, I don't think computer based instruction would yield good results. Way back when, I was a student in traditional classroom training, self-paced courses taught by TV and workbooks and some primitive computer training. When I ran the technology and operations phases of training at CNEWS it was all classroom. In the technology phase I had experienced E-6/E-7/E-8 instructors who were CTM's, EW's, ET(SS)'s, AT's, ET's. Had a German Wernher von Braun type guy for my TraSpec who tweaked the curriculum to keep it current. I had a day and night shift teaching students and "night" study for both shift for self-study or one-on-one tutoring for students who asked for help or got help assigned to them because they were stubborn. Elex technology can be a rough course of study before things "click", if they ever do. When I ran the operations side of the school I got to be more hands-on with the actual goings-on in the classroom. Hands down a good instructor trumps computer assisted training. 1. Most of the students were fresh from boot camp. I am certain they benefited from having a good Petty Officer or Chief as their instructor and mentor. (Let's remember too that the folks pimping computer assisted training have a selling point that it frees up sailors to serve in the fleet where they are most needed. Hey! The EW rate was 5/2 Sea/Shore rotation and you want to canx shore billets for them and go to 6/1 rotation and when they go ashore they serve in some out-of-rate general billet? Va fangool, Charlie.) 2. I observed that some students dozed off during training. It was a problem. My instructors brought the sleepers to me after repeat offenses, for me and the Master Chief to play Bad Cop-Bad Cop with them. Solved that problem eventually. Fleet EW's usually stand a watch on the Intercept Search receiver alone, no supervision. They are the first line of defense to detect ASCM's, targeting radars, threats and are authorized to fire chaff from the SRBOC mortar and to employ the deception repeater when the CO so authorizes. They all do, mostly. My thinking was that if a kid slept in class in full view of his peers and instructor he had just demonstrated he'd probably do that in the fleet. Now, every Friday I donned my dress uniform and personally welcomed and indoctrinated the incoming class, fresh from bootcamp. Among all the good stuff about their bright futures in a challenging job and how much help was available to get them to graduation I gave them the dire warning of a policy I had just implemented a few weeks before. "If you fall asleep in class you will be disenrolled. Why? Because we will send no snoozers to the fleet to fill a critical role in threat detection. If you feel sleepy, stand up. Those few seconds between when you snooze and fall down will be excused, but all else...you get the boot. Do you understand?" I'd wait until I got a loud enough response and tell them we are here to make you EW's. You tell what you need and we'll see you through this. And if you gave it your best effort and fall short we'll find something else fun for you to do besides chip paint." I was an LDO LT, I doubt they expected eloquence. Well, during that indoc, just a few weeks after the new sleeping policy, a sailor at a desk 3 feet away just in front of me started snoring. I was stunned. For about a second. I turned to the Instructor and hollered at him, "Disenroll this C_cksucker" and then did a hate-stare to the rest of the class for allowing that to happen. Not my finest moment. But it was another year before we had a kid sleep in class. My point is that classroom training with good military role models trumps all else for training young sailors. Other modes of training may work well for seasoned fleeties who have embraced our common Navy values. I do not believe any civilian or computer can trump a 4.0 sailor instructor. And most folks know, at least in my experience, that crappy instructors end up at the gym or carpenter shop, short toured to a 2 year G billet from a 3 year I billet.
"Run government like a business," and you get crap like minium manning. If you are extracting value from your labor force, and turning it over to shareholders in the form of dividends, minimum manning is great. Workers are an expense. If you can get more product made with less workers, Great. Businesses run on profit.
Defending a nation is not a business. We should be looking at maximum manning; our warships should be fully manned; with extra sailors ready to leap into damage control lockers. We need more sailors, not less.
Our sailors should have nice, chushy, shore duty; where they do meaningful work, yet have time with family. Sea tours, and shore tours should be the same length; to retain the skilled petty officers. Rest 'em up on land to ready them for a strenuous tour at sea.
Maximal manning is ideal, but when the Navy misses recruiting by 20% where are these sailors going to come from? I wonder if a true reserve could get us where we need to but it probably would fail at getting sufficient manpower as well. (true reserve defined as 100% at home port. 2 weeks in summer + 1 weekend a month after initial service. Unless declared war)
Recruitment would improve if we worked harder at retention. Sea Duty is hard; we need to give our sailors soft shore duty, hopefully in the same communities where their ships were, or are going to be. As things stand now, we drive out good sailors because of the punishing sea duty.
Honestly, i think that there are a ton of shore billets that could be eliminated to free up sailors to be at sea where they belong. Plus, we need to fix our recruiting and public image a bit. If people are enlisting with visions of shore duty, send them next door.to Army recruiting. The Navy is a sea service, and having a manpower pool that balks at sea duty shows we're getting at least some of the wrong people or at least those with the wrong motivations. Now, we DO have to stop abusing our sailors with record settingly long deployments, and overworking them with minimal manning. We have to get our maintenance house in order, and thatll help. But...when we sign these kids up, they need to understand that the Navy means sea duty first and foremost, and not be entertaining any other illusions.
Yes, its easy for me to say that, but Im one of those weirdos that was happiest at sea...
I loved sea duty. 19½ on ships, 3 on neutral duty riding ships, 3½ on two shore assignments. When I got my 2 Filipino B-i-L's here on immigration visas the first thing they wanted to do was join the Navy. They were both in their late 20s and college grads in mechanical and electrical engineering. The recruiter turned them away because they had their quota of Filipinos. I told them to find another recruiter 20 miles away and to say they were Hispanic, which was kind of true considering 400 years of Spanish rule in PI. The older boy served 4 years as BT and got out. Can't blame him. The younger one became a GSE and retired a CWO4 with 31 years of sea duty. He now works in Singapore as a marine surveyor for the Navy at the shipyard there. He was just visiting us for the past 2 days while on vacation. Lots of fond reminiscing.
The Army would appreciate it. They are short recruits as well.
Today's youth are different than those from my generation and have very different expectations for service in all branches. I continue to wonder how we still get the needs of the country met while meeting the expectations of the people we are asking to do the job.
I am convinced that manpower needs needs are going to drive what we do more than any other factor in the future unless AI bails us out but that has risks of its own
Spot on, Tom.
Thanks for those who provided pointers in other responses. Looks like the ships being evaluated for the corvette have 60+ crew and a range of 4,000-7,000 miles at economical speed if I am reading the releases correctly.
[Naval architect in the back of the room, raising his hand] Sal - I didn't see any numbers for range or speed. The ships proposed for the RAN look like a good match for their immediate part of the world, but our navy has a wider "brief", as the Aussies would say, and therefore a need for long legs and the speed with which to use them. Can anyone point me toward the range and speed numbers for these ships?
Look at the ships they are based on for a swag ... they are in the article.
This story says the notional corvette will have a complement of 60 and a range of 6k nm. https://navalinstitute.com.au/shipbuilders-queue-for-australian-business/
I was looking through my father's 1946, Blue Jackets Manual and came across this passage on page 184.
Purpose of naval forces:
"Our Navy is a fighting organization designed to engage and defeat our enemies on, over, and under all the oceans of the world."
1. The Navy protects the over-water transportation of our own and friendly land forces, air forces, supply and trade.
2. The Navy prevents the enrmy from using the sea to transport his land forces, air forces,msupplies and trade.
Page 187 to 189
Characteristics of fighting ships:
1. Armament
2. Armor protection
3. Speed
4. Maneuverability
5. Range (they stress "sea keeping" ability as an important characteristic in the Pacific Ocean)
6. Expandability (they acknowledge that ships will be sunk)
While technology has changed, basic characteristics that are found in any "warship" haven't fundamentally changed. Just the opinion of an old hermit.
(Page 193: "Cruisers range in displacement from 5,000 to 15,000 ton.") Calling the Zumwalt class a "destroyer" is silly.
After some bit of reading on the topic, including an article by Lt. Cmdr. John M. Leeds in the April 2020 issue of USNI Proceedings, I've come to the conclusion that Bob Work's plan for repurposing the USAF's B-1 fleet for maritime patrol bomber duty offers a short to mid-term pathway for upgrading the US Navy's combat power in the Pacific Theater -- assuming the B-1 fleet's maintenance issues can be solved and that the B-1's remaining airframe service life can be sucessfully extended another ten to fifteen years.
Yes, this is an expensive proposition. But the B-1 fleet actually exists, and its problems and issues are a known commodity.
A serious study should be undertaken to determine what resources in time and money would be required to: a) remanufacture all B-1 airframes to a common configurational standard; b) address any and all structural issues which might be present inside the B-1 airframes; c) begin production of an adequate supply of replacement parts and components based on a common airframe configuration; and d) modify and enhance the onboard combat systems for patrol bomber use.
Where are they going to be based out of? Who will refuel them? Who will escort them? What is their maintenance cost per hour? How long will it take to train the aircrew? Where will the FRS be located? How many airframe hours are left? Do that math, and then tell me how many P-8A you can buy with that. That is where the money needs to go.
Or P-8s or C-130s with Rapid Dragon, and a bunch of C-130s set up for refueling to keep the range on patrol/strike aircraft up.
"Honestly, we could use something along the lines of the Tasman or Alpha 5000 too, but that isn’t in the cards. That’s where I get a bit sad. Mixed in with some envy, but “sad.”"
We need a reverse AUKUS - surface ships designs & training in exchange for sub designs & training.
You could have had that already. The Australians are getting Hunter class frigates which are UK Type 26 frigates adapted for the needs of RAN. The consensus appears to be that these will be the best ASW frigates available, certainly better at ASW than what the USN appear to be getting
Definitely need beaucoup FFG’s to protect that long tail of USNS assets from CONUS to the First Island Chain. Unlike the Japanese, I’m sure the PLAN would use its SS to interdict logistics. All for DDG’s and CG’s, but as with the above comment on B-1’s, I think serious stand off strike in bombers (or UAV) and SSGN’s is realistic. Note that “boomer” with the dry desk shelter moving through Suez is sure to be “G” not a “B”.
of course. a B can hit 90% of possible targets from home port. assuming no South of the equator nuke targets
Hopefully, the VPM boats starting with ARIZONA (SSN-803) will provide the firepower with more on station time, than the aging SSGN conversions.
Taking inspiration from the idea that Guam could capsize from excessive buildup, I propose that the new fleet be composed of small islands with oversized, nuclear-powered outboard motors.
Are the big four star and NAVSEA SES brains even capable of defining a balanced fleet? It seems they can't get past divest to invest or maintaining the toys they have.
Perhaps the porch has become Alonso Quijano.
To dream, the impossible dream, to get funding, for the ships that we need
To base, where we need to have bases, to get fighters, from Grumman again!
This is my quest, to build up that fleet
No matter the senile, no matter the Squad
To do for the USN, to keep the seas free,
But I shall fight for it, no matter how hard.
And I know, if I keep to my quest,
The seas will be peaceful, for fear of our wrath!
And the world, will be better for this,
That one Badger, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove, with his last ounce of courage,
To get the required fleet!
The badger's name? Alonso Quijano!
If anyone is interested in the Carol Merril "Let's Make a Deal" version - this YouTube. Timepoints 0:58-5:35. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_nU7EyRSyk
At 11:28 there is an unmentioned model of the MUSV that seems to show a change in the shape and height of the bridge from the commercial model. Thanks!
The other concept for the RAN this week came from Gibbs & Cox where they ditched the gun altogether. https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2023/2023/11/gibbs-and-cox-unveil-australian-light-frigate/
We need the smaller frigate. I'd question sizing anything such that its for sure a corvette not a frigate. We then need a real small ship that can do many things. I want a manned version of the MUSV. Use the automation to keep the crew small, but with big, specialized capabilities. That deck could manage 160 GMLRS rounds, 16 Mk 41 VLS cells via container launcher with an ECM package, it could also drag a Captas-4. Before you say "Waterjets" Consider the much smaller jets needed are likely also much less noisy. You could also have it carry an MCM mission module potentially.
The Tasman class Corvette looks like an exact replacement in terms of capability for the current Anazc Frigates that are meant to be replaced by the Destroyer sized Hunter class Frigates. (minus the 5inch gun (and maybe slightly slower and less range, haven't seen those figures for the proposal).
I don't get Australian Navy procurement over the last 15 years, none of it has made sense and I'm not sure this does either.
They currently have 3 Hobart class Destroyers (they should have got at least 4), and they have start ed building the first of 9 Hunter class Frigates (Type 26), then they are in the middle of building 12 large OPVs to replace 14 smaller (as in more than 5 times smaller) long range patrol vessels (they have the same range and endurance as the new larger ones).
All of these exisiting projects are costing 10s of billions of dollars already.
I don't see where they are going to get the money, yet alone the manning for another new class of combatants. And canceling projects mid stream that you have already spent many many billions on is the height of stupidity.
Mind you there is plenty of that going on, won't even talk about the submarines.
Question to the porch - am I nuts for thinking we missed a huge opportunity by not pursuing nuke powered surface combatants over the last 30yrs?
No, but..... would Navy have been really interested in designing/building/deploying a good enough safer reactor for mass deployment? Congress funding it?
Would it have really been affordable though?
The Virginia and California class cruisers was incredibly expensive in the 1970s, they are the reason the Tico class was built on the Spruance class hulls, to save money even during the Oil Crisis of the 70s.
Considering the requirements NAVSEA 08 has for nuclear plants, it was a good idea not to. I don’t think the expense to man, train, and repair for those ships would outweigh the benefits.
Thanks to everyone who replied. If I’m synthesizing the replies correctly, they might be summarized as: “yes, nuke powered surface combatants would be sweet but not sweet enough to justify the cost”. Which makes sense.
But in a serious America, we might have taken a lesson from corporate strategy 101 30-40 years ago and said “we alone have the ability to develop this incredible and differentiating capability. It has high start-up costs, but once we scale it up and build the ecosystem that backs it, we will both have an unmatched naval capability and also enhance our civilian energy sector. It will make the bar for competing with America’s Navy that much higher, so let’s do it now and put one more moat between us and whoever emerges to eventually compete with us”. Sadly, we haven’t lived in that America for a while.
If anyone on the Porch thinks my analysis remains off and I’m fanboy’ing on nuke too hard and without understanding some of the realities or trade offs, I’d love to learn where I’m off.
Atomic power is green power.
You're fanboying too hard.
Nuclear power requires a level of quality that's extremely expensive as an ongoing cost. Controlled materials in the system, constant testing and training of personnel, and QA that costs money. I know some ex-Navy nukes working civil side now. One's an instructor for the simulator at a plant, and while he could take a shift in the live control room, he's not allowed to because he doesn't have the right certifications.
You may be right. Making the bet I'm positing would fundamentally be a wager that you could meaningfully change the shape of the cost curve through scale and widespread adoption.
What should be the range, speed and manning be for a new pacific theater escort/DE/Frigate/Corvette for the USN? Protect tankers and other non-combatants from PRC subs and long range aircraft. I assume the armaments and sensors listed for these ships is about right. Can the Help be replaced with a drone yet or is that still a requirement for sub hunting? Other things that need to be considered when looking to fit this bill?
Probably need the helicopter for actual ordnance on target. UAV would be useful for finding targets though.