Something that I think those of us not in the Merchant Marine and Maritime industry do not appreciate is just how worn ships over 20+ years can be. There are significant problems with fielding a class of ships over 20-30 years. The Navy will have ships going offline as they are bringing new hulls of the class into service. So knuckledraggers like me think budgeting for 8 ships of the same class means we'll have 8 ships (LHAs) worth of capability at the same time. We say 'Thank you, Navy'. In reality, 8 LHAs planned between 2019 and 2052 means we never have more than maybe 60 percent (4-5) of those LHAs in service (cut that by 30-41% readiness), with the first of the class going into pasture around 10 years before the the last ship is slated to be built. I understand some of the nuance here (balancing cost and resources available with need to maintain production yards). At least the references currently show 4 LPDs between 2040 and 2044....(eye roll). [Source for numbers: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61240]
“Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth calls on his defense leaders to accelerate their workforce and recapitalization plans by the end of the week, our national security ecosystem has an unprecedented opportunity to radically restructure and set itself not for yesterday’s wars, but tomorrow’s security.” – April 14, 2025
Of course competition breeds “agility, innovation, and responsiveness” and that evaporated from the process with this consolidation. The congressional mandated cost-plus contracts of 10 to 12 percent profit margins resulted in a process where “cost overruns and delays were tolerated and helped increase profits”. In other words, we innovate too slow and build too expensive.
The article concludes it is time to change. “Industry must be measured on how fast they can deliver real-world results, not how well they check the boxes of a static requirements document (which they often help write). The risks of under delivering and overspending are best mitigated by embracing a minimum viable product (MVP) mindset that focuses on rapidly fielding operating prototypes, and continually improving and adapting them. These are hallmarks of modern software development, but the mindset has a place in even the largest hardware-focused projects as well.”
I appreciate the guidance issued by the SECDEF and the implementation in the Department of the Navy is going to be interesting to watch. S/F
Let me summarize. We won’t have a minimum number of ships for years. We do not know where the next conflict will be. The Marine Corps does not have forces to fight where ever it would be anyway. We must build enough ships to carry a Marine Corps we no longer have to places unknown. If we had the ships and a Corps to load on them, it would hardly matter where the next fight would be. If you do not have ships or the Corps there will be no next fight regardless of where it is. Sounds like checkmate to me.
I would think not. First the Army already has them for assigned missions. Second they’re small and slow and not able to conduct UNREPS (underway replenishments).
I was just at NASSCO shipyard today in Norfolk Va. The USS Bataan is currently undergoing a multi -year upgrade and drydocking for much needed maintenance and F-35B upgrades....needless to say a very complicated and huge undertaking.
As I walked into the yard today, I saw a huge contingent of Marines and more stars than a constellation. I do believe the Commandant (if not there were more than enough stars in the place to take his place!!) was there although I did not stick around to ask them questions.
Maybe he was checking to see if the USN was keeping a 24/7 Firewatch…..in order to make certain the Bataan, does not become a BURNED OUT HULK LIKE THE BONNY DICK!
Have you read the final report? The Captain of that ship took no lead when there was utter chaos on the peir. No centralized command, three different command structures all working with themselves. Reading that report makes you want to punch walls.
I am not in the ship building business but the ship repair business. But, I believe the US Navy is the biggest roadblock to ships being delivered on time either new or repaired. The Constellation class frigates are a prime example of this. They pulled the wool over Congresses eyes on this one with their selection of a "mature" design, the FREMM. Then they proceeded to change it, making it longer, wider, to the point it is no longer that ship at all. Then they started production with 80% plans....then 5 yrs later they said they still had 80% plans completed.
The Ford class carriers. The Gerald Ford carrier is just horrendous in its cost over runs. 15 billion on that ship alone? Weapons elevators built to thousands of an inch clearance....on a warship? And took over 2 years to work correctly. Electro magnetic catapults and arresting gear that do not allow the sorties that the tried and true steam driven ones allowed.
Now, to my "area of expertise"(sarcasm)...ship repair. I can tell you all sorts of sordid details about what is going on right now in the ship repair industry in Hampon Roads. But I am sure you can only imagine,....and not be far from actuality.
Manpower: People do not want to do these jobs. They are hot and dirty. They pay well, but pay also depends on their skill levels. We get recent welding trade school grads coming in that pass one test and think they are worth $40 an hour...with no experience.
There are more training opportunities to get trades training in this area. Huntington Ingalls, builder of our carriers and submarines, has training programs all over western part of Virginia to get the trades they require. Just last night I saw numerous commercials for BUILDSUBMARINES.COM trying to get folks that want to learn a trade.
Recently there was a USNI article stating that to combat lead times for material on LHDs, they were going to "lock" the repairs at 520 days and award those contracts 360 days out! My boss and I laughed at that! Locking the repair package at 520 days out? We all know nothing breaks over a year before a repair.
I am ranting. I am proud of the work I do but sometimes you just want to pound your head against a piece of steel plate for all the frustrations.
What the current White House is doing is a good thing but not nearly enough of a good thing. China is our peer adversary on the sea, an existential threat. China has something like 50% of the world's blue water ship production. Japan and Korea have something like 40% more. We have close to zero. The massive civilian capacity is convertible to naval capacity, is its foundation and wellspring, and decisively so in case of mobilization for strategic emergency.
For our security we need production scale comparable to China's, which means a radical increase both in shipbuilding and in all of the factors needed for shipbuilding, steel, machinery, instruments, etc. Not possible, unless we do what Japan, Korea and China all successfully did, which was to put in place aggressive strategic-industrial policies and organization that supported shipbuilding. So, South Korea could do it but we can't?
The US is in extreme danger of becoming an economic and political colony of China's, and will remain so unless and until the US re-industrializes.
Dr. Huber, once again, strikes with a dry-eyed analysis of real world requirements in being a major player in today’s world. His compliment of the WH ship building initiative should propel us to do more. As he said in an earlier piece, when Pacific lands are taken by force of arms by an aggressor, they will need to be taken back by Marines and Soldiers coming from the sea, in ships made in America with American steel, the sinews of war. Offered as food for thought
"The Navy wants a Louisiana shipyard to build the first hull for the Landing Ship Medium program as part of a plan to find an off-the-shelf design to support the Marine Corps’ new island-hopping regiments, a Navy official told USNI News. The Navy also wants the data rights for a Dutch tank landing ship used by international navies."
Here it is...once again the US Navy is going to take a proven design and make it their own. How long will this languish before the first bit of steel is cut? How much will the cost overrun be? Last count I believe the first Constellation class frigate is up to $3,000,000,000.00! How is this sustainable? How is the Navy allowed to do this?
I believe our existing shipyard have the capability of building ships in a timely manner to meet whatever goals are set. Sure, they need trades people, but the infrastructure is there.
It is the NAVY who is to blame for these long cost overruns and delayed construction. Can you imagine if in WWII they had these sorts of delays?
Something that I think those of us not in the Merchant Marine and Maritime industry do not appreciate is just how worn ships over 20+ years can be. There are significant problems with fielding a class of ships over 20-30 years. The Navy will have ships going offline as they are bringing new hulls of the class into service. So knuckledraggers like me think budgeting for 8 ships of the same class means we'll have 8 ships (LHAs) worth of capability at the same time. We say 'Thank you, Navy'. In reality, 8 LHAs planned between 2019 and 2052 means we never have more than maybe 60 percent (4-5) of those LHAs in service (cut that by 30-41% readiness), with the first of the class going into pasture around 10 years before the the last ship is slated to be built. I understand some of the nuance here (balancing cost and resources available with need to maintain production yards). At least the references currently show 4 LPDs between 2040 and 2044....(eye roll). [Source for numbers: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61240]
“Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth calls on his defense leaders to accelerate their workforce and recapitalization plans by the end of the week, our national security ecosystem has an unprecedented opportunity to radically restructure and set itself not for yesterday’s wars, but tomorrow’s security.” – April 14, 2025
I caught this article the other day recognizing that this might help the US Navy’s amphibious ship building and maintenance problem. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/04/14/hegseths_memo_what_to_do_next_1103761.html The above article mentions the “infamous 1993 Last Supper” dinner/meeting where a Deputy SecDef told defense contractors to consolidate in order to maintain profits. Apparently, consolidate they did, and DOD went from more than fifty major contractors to five. This move “reshaped” the Nation Defense Industry. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/03/01/the-last-supper-how-a-1993-pentagon-dinner-reshaped-the-defense-industry
Of course competition breeds “agility, innovation, and responsiveness” and that evaporated from the process with this consolidation. The congressional mandated cost-plus contracts of 10 to 12 percent profit margins resulted in a process where “cost overruns and delays were tolerated and helped increase profits”. In other words, we innovate too slow and build too expensive.
The article concludes it is time to change. “Industry must be measured on how fast they can deliver real-world results, not how well they check the boxes of a static requirements document (which they often help write). The risks of under delivering and overspending are best mitigated by embracing a minimum viable product (MVP) mindset that focuses on rapidly fielding operating prototypes, and continually improving and adapting them. These are hallmarks of modern software development, but the mindset has a place in even the largest hardware-focused projects as well.”
I appreciate the guidance issued by the SECDEF and the implementation in the Department of the Navy is going to be interesting to watch. S/F
Let me summarize. We won’t have a minimum number of ships for years. We do not know where the next conflict will be. The Marine Corps does not have forces to fight where ever it would be anyway. We must build enough ships to carry a Marine Corps we no longer have to places unknown. If we had the ships and a Corps to load on them, it would hardly matter where the next fight would be. If you do not have ships or the Corps there will be no next fight regardless of where it is. Sounds like checkmate to me.
The Army has over 30 amphibious and landing craft of their approximately 135 types of ships.
In an emergency can they work with the Navy/Marine Corps to support a MAGTAF?
What do you think?
I would think not. First the Army already has them for assigned missions. Second they’re small and slow and not able to conduct UNREPS (underway replenishments).
I was just at NASSCO shipyard today in Norfolk Va. The USS Bataan is currently undergoing a multi -year upgrade and drydocking for much needed maintenance and F-35B upgrades....needless to say a very complicated and huge undertaking.
As I walked into the yard today, I saw a huge contingent of Marines and more stars than a constellation. I do believe the Commandant (if not there were more than enough stars in the place to take his place!!) was there although I did not stick around to ask them questions.
Maybe he was checking to see if the USN was keeping a 24/7 Firewatch…..in order to make certain the Bataan, does not become a BURNED OUT HULK LIKE THE BONNY DICK!
The events of the Bonhomme Richard were a disgrace. It's a good thing it was at dock and not at sea.
Have you read the final report? The Captain of that ship took no lead when there was utter chaos on the peir. No centralized command, three different command structures all working with themselves. Reading that report makes you want to punch walls.
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/SitePages/Home.aspx?RootFolder=%2Ffoia%2Freadingroom%2FHotTopics%2FBHR%20and%20MFR%20Investigations&FolderCTID=0x012000C9F89F68DF40E744A067873ECF6220C0&View=%7B854CB8F6%2D5C90%2D46E6%2DA4A1%2D11FD0F9B23C6%7D
For your reading pleasure
No, I have not read the final rpt. I just knew it was a giant cluster #$^@, and no one really to assume responsibility.
Thanks, I'll read this.
Because you work at ship repair industry, I would like to see what you think about my comments. S/F
I am not in the ship building business but the ship repair business. But, I believe the US Navy is the biggest roadblock to ships being delivered on time either new or repaired. The Constellation class frigates are a prime example of this. They pulled the wool over Congresses eyes on this one with their selection of a "mature" design, the FREMM. Then they proceeded to change it, making it longer, wider, to the point it is no longer that ship at all. Then they started production with 80% plans....then 5 yrs later they said they still had 80% plans completed.
The Ford class carriers. The Gerald Ford carrier is just horrendous in its cost over runs. 15 billion on that ship alone? Weapons elevators built to thousands of an inch clearance....on a warship? And took over 2 years to work correctly. Electro magnetic catapults and arresting gear that do not allow the sorties that the tried and true steam driven ones allowed.
Now, to my "area of expertise"(sarcasm)...ship repair. I can tell you all sorts of sordid details about what is going on right now in the ship repair industry in Hampon Roads. But I am sure you can only imagine,....and not be far from actuality.
Manpower: People do not want to do these jobs. They are hot and dirty. They pay well, but pay also depends on their skill levels. We get recent welding trade school grads coming in that pass one test and think they are worth $40 an hour...with no experience.
There are more training opportunities to get trades training in this area. Huntington Ingalls, builder of our carriers and submarines, has training programs all over western part of Virginia to get the trades they require. Just last night I saw numerous commercials for BUILDSUBMARINES.COM trying to get folks that want to learn a trade.
Recently there was a USNI article stating that to combat lead times for material on LHDs, they were going to "lock" the repairs at 520 days and award those contracts 360 days out! My boss and I laughed at that! Locking the repair package at 520 days out? We all know nothing breaks over a year before a repair.
I am ranting. I am proud of the work I do but sometimes you just want to pound your head against a piece of steel plate for all the frustrations.
lol...thanks for answering my question..."8 LIKED" that maybe a CP record. S/F
He was there to observe the loading of his NEMSIS systems. SARC!
https://open.substack.com/pub/cpldanusmcret764175/p/trumps-shipbuilding?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=ohc7t
This pays for itself with surplus
What the current White House is doing is a good thing but not nearly enough of a good thing. China is our peer adversary on the sea, an existential threat. China has something like 50% of the world's blue water ship production. Japan and Korea have something like 40% more. We have close to zero. The massive civilian capacity is convertible to naval capacity, is its foundation and wellspring, and decisively so in case of mobilization for strategic emergency.
For our security we need production scale comparable to China's, which means a radical increase both in shipbuilding and in all of the factors needed for shipbuilding, steel, machinery, instruments, etc. Not possible, unless we do what Japan, Korea and China all successfully did, which was to put in place aggressive strategic-industrial policies and organization that supported shipbuilding. So, South Korea could do it but we can't?
The US is in extreme danger of becoming an economic and political colony of China's, and will remain so unless and until the US re-industrializes.
Dr. Huber, once again, strikes with a dry-eyed analysis of real world requirements in being a major player in today’s world. His compliment of the WH ship building initiative should propel us to do more. As he said in an earlier piece, when Pacific lands are taken by force of arms by an aggressor, they will need to be taken back by Marines and Soldiers coming from the sea, in ships made in America with American steel, the sinews of war. Offered as food for thought
"The Navy wants a Louisiana shipyard to build the first hull for the Landing Ship Medium program as part of a plan to find an off-the-shelf design to support the Marine Corps’ new island-hopping regiments, a Navy official told USNI News. The Navy also wants the data rights for a Dutch tank landing ship used by international navies."
https://news.usni.org/2025/04/17/navy-wants-bollinger-to-build-first-landing-ship-medium-hull-seeks-data-package-for-dutch-tank-landing-ship?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru
Here it is...once again the US Navy is going to take a proven design and make it their own. How long will this languish before the first bit of steel is cut? How much will the cost overrun be? Last count I believe the first Constellation class frigate is up to $3,000,000,000.00! How is this sustainable? How is the Navy allowed to do this?
I believe our existing shipyard have the capability of building ships in a timely manner to meet whatever goals are set. Sure, they need trades people, but the infrastructure is there.
It is the NAVY who is to blame for these long cost overruns and delayed construction. Can you imagine if in WWII they had these sorts of delays?
Good Diplomacy would be cheaper. Go War Mongers!!!!