The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:37 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2039
Location: Vancouver, Canada
A summary of a GAO report:

Defense Aerospace

Quote:
Navy Shipbuilding: Past Performance Provides Valuable Lessons for Future Investments
(Source: US Government Accountability Office; issued June 06, 2018)
The [US] Navy set a goal in 2007 for a fleet of 330 ships. Since then, the Navy has:
--fallen 50 ships short,
--gone $11 billion over budget,
--experienced many years of schedule delays,
--delivered ships with less capability and lower quality than expected.


These poor outcomes persist because policy and processes enable the Navy to deviate from shipbuilding best practices.

(...SNIPPED)

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2628
Location: UK
It seems that the figure of 355 ships is a goal to which all other considerations are to be sacrificed. If it cannot be done effectively then it should not be done at all. Keeping the US Navy at present force levels might not be the ideal, but bringing retired hulls back into service and stretching the lifespan of current hulls is like getting into massive debt. One day it will catch up with them and suddenly a lot of warships have to be withdrawn over 5 to ten years (maybe less) because they are past it. Then force levels take a nosedive and US influence and prestige is similarly affected.

Remember one thing, presidents come and go. They are not necessarily interested in anything but their time in office, any issues they leave behind are someone else's problem.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2212
Location: Copenhagen
If they do this kind of life extension, they convert the US Navy into a fleet of museum ships (similar to parts of the Air Force). That may be not a problem in wars against countries with nearly no existing modern defence (e.g. Afghanistan or Iraq in 2003), but for sure not a credible defence against countries with a much more modern armament (e.g. China). And as Admiral John Byng has written for sure also the ships with the life extension has to be replaced and they will have to be replaced much sooner than newly built ships.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1776
extending the ships' live gives the navy time to build new ships.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2212
Location: Copenhagen
It requires that now money and yard capacity is both spend for new ships and updating older ones - and that could delay the building of new ships.

By the way: is there any historical example that a fleet was EXPANDED by keeping already old ships (> 30 years and older) longer in service? And thereby accepting that a significant part of the ships was obsolete? Which navy ever did that?

For sure there are plenty of examples that ships were updated after 10-20 years service. And for sure there are examples of a few aircraft carriers and the Iowa class. But in way described in the article? That really every major surface warships should serve longer?

For me it appears to be strategy designed to burn money - and perhaps for keeping repair yards busy.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1776
British royal navy with the updated QE class battleships like Queen Elizabeth, Valiant & Warspite. also the usn when Arkansas & the New York class was to be replaced by new builds like the North Carolina & South Dakota classes but instead where kept for war use.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2212
Location: Copenhagen
How old were these ships when they were modernised? The Queen Elizabeth class was c. 10 and 20 years, respectively, at the time of conversions. The surviving ships were decommissioned after 28-34 years.

When was it decided to keep the New York and Arkansas (Wyoming) class? They were only 27-29 years old, when the war started for the USA. For sure they were kept after the Second World War started, but they were all decommissioned after 32-34 years of service.

That is all not even near to age range discussed above ;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 470
DavidP wrote:
British royal navy with the updated QE class battleships like Queen Elizabeth, Valiant & Warspite. also the usn when Arkansas & the New York class was to be replaced by new builds like the North Carolina & South Dakota classes but instead where kept for war use.


All decisions on Battleships from 1920-1941 were based on the limits imposed by the Washington Naval treaty and its follow-up treaties.

That was the primary driver for retention, those ships could not be replaced without violating treaties.

"A ten-year pause or "Green Day" of the construction of capital ships (battleships and battlecruisers), including the immediate suspension of all building of capital ships.
The scrapping of existing or planned capital ships to give a 5:5:3:1.75:1.75 ratio of tonnage with respect to Britain, the United States, Japan, France and Italy respectively.
Ongoing limits of both capital ship tonnage and the tonnage of secondary vessels with the 5:5:3 ratio"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty

So new builds were delayed until treaty allowed, and by the time that happened, everything that could be retained was retained due to war going hot.

The North Carolina and South Dakota classes were never intended to replace the Arkansas and New York classes


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 288 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group