China will only benefit from the US Navy’s shipbuilding budget

Isa Khan

Experienced member
Moderator
Messages
7,227
Reactions
46 10,285
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
The proposed U.S. Navy shipbuilding budget for fiscal 2021 contains only good news for China. The threat of a larger U.S. Navy has disappeared. Reductions of cruisers eliminate long-range offensive and anti-submarine warfare ships. Frigates and Marine expeditionary ship programs are delayed.

Force assessments form the plan for the Navy. An assessment conducted in the 1970s and implemented in the 1980s defined the 600-ship, Cold War-ear Navy. The bottoms-Up assessment conducted in the early 1990s defined a 350-ship Navy for the post-Cold War environment, but was not executed.

The Navy continued to decline over the next decades. Another assessment in 2016 defined a 355-ship Navy for the current environment involving Russia and China and con-firmed in law. The last administration did not implement it. The current administration is not implementing it.

Rather, the ship production and retirement rates indicate a Navy of about 250 ships, declining over the next few years from the current level of 290. Early retirement of six littoral combat ships is planned.

There are eight new ships. Based on a 30-year life expectancy, this extrapolates to a 240-ship Navy. Some will argue that can be recovered in the future, but past reliance on that hope has proved fruitless for the last 20 years.

The conceptual Navy envisioned in the 355-ship law cannot happen within current budget expectations. The combination of increased ship cost — typified by the constant dollar growth of the warship Bonhomme Richard and replacement from $900 million to $3.2 billion, and seen in many other cases — dooms hope.

Only large unit-cost reductions and/or large budget increases can result in the hoped-for 355-ship Navy summarized from many analyses.
Increased funding could come from a reduction in fleet operating tempo. A reduction of 20 percent would yield $7 billion for recapitalization rather than annual operations. An alternative is elimination of the third nuclear triad leg, reduction in Army programs, and elimination of nonproductive research and development projects. Why is more R&D being spent on Ford-class carriers?

The other aspect likely to please China is the planned retirement of cruisers. The air defense capability is being superseded by the DDG 51 class, However, the reductions eliminate over 2,500 Tomahawk-capable launchers, 44 5-inch guns and 22 very good anti-submarine warfare ships. The anti-submarine characteristics include quieted propulsion, passive and active sonar, standoff weapons, and helicopter support. This capacity is not being replaced, but ship count is being maintained by LCS production.
Moreover, U.S. Coast Guard forces are not being expanded, leaving the United States’ exclusive economic zones open to Chinese fishing and poaching.

An important lesson from building the 600-ship Navy is to implement service life extensions while the longer-term construction is in progress. This should be done with the retiring cruisers. They have very important offensive and anti-submarine capabilities that are not duplicated by any other ship. There is no need to update the Aegis systems since that capability is furnished by destroyers. Retaining these 22 ships through service life extension provides an unmistakable offensive capability and retains a defensive capability.

Regarding funding, the proposed budget makes force levels the lowest level of importance. Yet these are the deterrent forces for the rapidly growing Chinese and Russian threats. Chinese merchant and 17,000-ship fishing fleets already dominate the world’s oceans.

Chinese naval forces would benefit from our failure to implement a 355-ship Navy in an aggressive manner. The U.S. acquisition system should make China’s goal of naval leadership harder, not easier.

Everett Pyatt is a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Navy for shipbuilding and logistics.

 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,361
Reactions
22 12,853
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
by decommissioning all 22x Ticonderoga, USN will losses
that's :
122x22= 2684 VLS

in the next 3-4 years the US Navy is poised to have inducted at least 9 DDG-51's (Flight IIA and III)
that's :
9x96=864 VLS

and a single Zumwalt class
1x80= VLS

Total: 944 VLS

that's 1740 VLS less, a very bad idea.:(

is the Ticonderoga's that bad that they wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible??
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
US knows it can never catch up with unrivaled ship building capacity of China, it's better to give up sooner than later to cut the loss.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,361
Reactions
22 12,853
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
note: even with all Ticonderoga out, the USN will absolutely still have VLS number advantage , in aggregate terms.

this not yet counting it's allies like Japan.


still, I don't think it's a good idea to retired the cruisers now.
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
If the Americans want to turn this around they would need a bold strategy, one could say a crazy strategy.

The problem for the Americans is the carriers, submarines and destroyers, all highly complex, very expensive and taking up much of the US ship building capacity.

So I would put the entire US navy up for sale to US allies and partners around the world. Set up a reserve fleet improvement program. Hope to raise around 100 billion dollars for the rebuild program of the US strategic fleet.

Aim to build 16 fleet carriers, each able to operation 55 aircraft. 24 AAW cruisers with 200 VLS and extended range missiles. 12 AAW destroyers 120 VLS. 48 ASW/AAW destroyers 90 VLS. 100 ASW escort frigates 40 VLS. 70 SSN. 12 SSBN. Price point for the carriers being 5 billion each, cruisers 2 billion, AAW destroyers 1.3 billion, ASW/AAW destroyers 1 billion, escort frigates 400 million, SSN's 800 million. SSBN 3 billion. 329,600,000,000 take 100 billion that's 229.6 billion over an 8 year build program. Or 28.7 billion a year. That's a 282 ship navy.

This serves a number of purposes, first to arm US allies. Imagine the Australians with 6 AB destroyers or Canada with 4 Virginia class subs. Or Indian with a Nimitz class carrier. Second totally restructure how the US builds ships, set a price point and build what you can get for that price point. Build to build the ships, not to maintain a program for the politicians and military industrial complex, driving up program costs. Push the US build program to its full capacity year on year, bringing ship building back to the US from China, Korea and Japan.

These would be the key strategic advantages of this strategy.

Set up a build and export program for the US navy, by which you build ships to export them them to other nations, supplementing the US costs. This would be made up of brown water navy assets. General frigate, ASW corvette, stealth corvette, missile boat, SSK, minesweeper, general patrol boat, light carrier. Of which the US would build and operate a certain number of each ship class within the repurposed Caribbean fleet. If the US did this it would regain domination over the Caribbean sea, have an export market for its allied and partners, the strategic numbers. Three things the US hasn't had for at least 20 years.

Its clear that since the end of the cold war the US build program has be misguided and been a racket, without any strategic purpose or tactical doctrine in mind. Meanwhile the Chinese have a strategic purpose and tactical doctrine. Its better for the US to totally cut its loses with its current disaster of a fleet and rebuild. Same thing the British should have done before WW2.
 
Top Bottom