The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins: Lavender Room: Slowtwitch Forums

Bike Shops Coaches Fitters Race Calendar Running Stores Store Stack & Reach Training Log Triathlon Clubs We Noticed
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins

1 2 3

View All

big kahuna

Mar 15, 12 18:05

Post #1 of 56 (1787 views)

The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins	Quote \| Reply

11 ships (6 Perry class "figs" (fast frigates), the USS Enterprise (it's pretty old, but still...) -- first put into service when we had something like 800 ships in the fleet (during my service I saw more than 600 ships on a couple of occasions) and 15 flattops -- and 4 Ticonderoga class cruisers being put into mothballs, sold to some other country or scrapped altogether. The figs and the Big E are probably at the end, really, of their useful service lives but the four CGs each have maybe another decade's worth of use out of them, though as ships gets older they take more in maintenance and that can get expensive, even if you SLEPd every one of them to extend their service lives. I'll miss the Port Royal (homeported in Pearl Harbor) most. I've had the privilege of dining in the officer's mess on several occasions and the ship's still relatively young. Anyway, combined; we're parking more than 500 VLS (vertical launching system) cells and that's a lotta missile launch capability that we ain't gonna get back in a hurry if we need it.

I also don't know what the downstream shipbuilding or commissioning picture looks like, though I'm thinking we can kiss the idea of a 15-carrier force goodbye just because of simple economics. We just can't afford that sorta capability anymore, sadly. I freely admit that I'm no great strategic thinker or tactician when it comes to my beloved Navy and Marine Corps fighting team (that's CDR Slowguy's bailiwick) but the sea lanes of communication (SLOC) still have to be kept open and the oceans ain't getting any smaller, even if we're undergoing some sort of shrinkage in them due to global warming or climate change or something, right? Maybe a shift in capability -- to a more littoral, "brown water," nature -- with amphib ships, super-fast catamaran-type aluminum-hulled platforms, special warfare assets and the like -- is in the future? I'm hopeful...

Still, it's sad to see the world's finest nuclear navy contracting in such a fashion. Sad for the country and sad for the world, which benefited from the Pax Americana the U.S. Navy helped to maintain, after picking up the baton from the once-great (British) Royal Navy, which had established the Pax Brittanica that made the world's oceans safe for the passage of all. Maybe that's not needed anymore, though. Here's the list of the soon-to-be-dearly-departed:

From NAVADMIN 087/12

2. THE PROJECTED FY13 SHIP INACTIVATION SCHEDULE FOR INACTIVATING U.S. NAVAL VESSELS IS PROMULGATED AS FOLLOWS TO FACILITATE FLEET PLANNING EFFORTS TO CONDUCT A DECOMMISSIONING CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE AVAILABILITY (CMAV) OR INACTIVATION AVAILABILITY (INAC):

SHIP NAME INACTIVATION POST DECOM STATUS
USS CROMMELIN (FFG 37) 31 OCT 2012 SEE NOTE 1
USS UNDERWOOD (FFG 36) 15 FEB 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS CURTS (FFG 38) 27 FEB 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS CARR (FFG 52) 15 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) 15 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 2
USS KLAKRING (FFG 42) 22 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS REUBEN JAMES (FFG 57) 30 AUG 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS COWPENS (CG 63) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3
USS ANZIO (CG 68) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3
USS VICKSBURG (CG 69) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3
USS PORT ROYAL (CG 73) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3

NOTE 1: VESSEL IS DESIGNATED FOR FOREIGN MILITARY SALE (FMS). PER REF A, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NON-TRANSFERRABLE TECHNOLOGY IDENTIFIED BY NAVSEA AND NAVY IPO UNDER SEPCOR, NO ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT REMOVALS ARE AUTHORIZED ON THE FRIGATES EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY OPNAV N8F IN RESPONSE TO A RECORD MESSAGE REQUEST THAT INCLUDES JUSTIFICATION FOR REMOVAL AND INCLUDES COORDINATION VIA THE APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS COMMAND. TYCOMS ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS DIRECTION. PER REFS A AND B, IT IS NAVY POLICY THAT SHIPS DESIGNATED FOR FMS TRANSFER SHALL NOT BE STRIPPED. STRIPPING OF SHIPS PROVIDES DIMINISHED OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY TO MARITIME PARTNERS AND CORRODES OUR EFFORTS TO BUILD MARITIME PARTNER CAPACITY. SEE PARAGRAPH 3 FOR ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT REMOVAL GUIDANCE.

NOTE 2: DATE INACTIVATION BEGINS IN A NAVAL SHIPYARD AND THE UNIT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR OPERATIONAL TASKING. FINAL DECOMMISSIONING DATE SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE CNO AND NVR CUSTODIAN IAW REFS B AND C.

NOTE 3: VESSEL WILL BE DECOMMISSIONED AND DISPOSED OF BY DISMANTLEMENT. REQUEST USFFC AND CPF COORDINATE REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILIZING VESSELS IN A LOGISTIC SUPPORT STATUS PRIOR TO THEIR DISMANTLEMENT WITH OPNAV N8F VIA N86.

3. AN OPNAV WORKING GROUP WILL BE REVIEWING THE LOGISTICAL NEEDS OF THE NAVY AND THE CAPABILITY NEEDS OF OUR MARITIME PARTNERS. FLEET REPS, PROGRAM OFFICES, AND FMS STAKEHOLDERS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUSTIFY THEIR REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT REMOVALS AND EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO MITIGATE IMPACT TO FLEET AND INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS AS PART OF THAT REVIEW. DETAILS OF THE WORKING GROUP FORUM WILL BE PROVIDED VIA SEPCOR.

More on this at: http://www.informationdissemination.net/...vation-schedule.html

Quel

Mar 15, 12 18:15

Post #2 of 56 (1770 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

big kahuna wrote:

I'll miss the Port Royal (homeported in Pearl Harbor) most

"Homeported" is a pretty generous term:)

mck414

Mar 15, 12 18:19

Post #3 of 56 (1768 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I wonder what the oldest warship still in commission is? I've only ever been aboard the Dubuque and it was launched in '66.
--------------------------
Sponsored by Hammer Nutrition and Brooks Running
Altitude Multi Sport

My body tells me no, but I won�t quit 'cause I want more

Billabong

Mar 15, 12 18:22

Post #4 of 56 (1763 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [mck414] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

mck414 wrote:

I wonder what the oldest warship still in commission is? I've only ever been aboard the Dubuque and it was launched in '66.

http://www.history.navy.mil/ussconstitution/

All I Wanted Was A Pepsi, Just One Pepsi

http://teamredwhiteandblue.org/

Desiderata

Mar 15, 12 18:22

Post #5 of 56 (1760 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [mck414] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I'll give you a hint: she was named by George Washington and is named after a famous document that he signed.

__________________________________________________
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

(This post was edited by Desiderata on Mar 15, 12 18:23)

big kahuna

Mar 15, 12 18:24

Post #6 of 56 (1754 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Desiderata] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Been on that gal, too. But I'm not a plankowner. ;-)

big kahuna

Mar 15, 12 18:26

Post #7 of 56 (1750 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Quel] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Quel wrote:

big kahuna wrote:

I'll miss the Port Royal (homeported in Pearl Harbor) most

"Homeported" is a pretty generous term:)

Yeah, that's some bad juju, and some folks think the ship's got serious material conditions issues that are forcing her decommissioning. I don't know, though. I'll just be sad to see her strike her colors.

Billabong

Mar 15, 12 18:46

Post #8 of 56 (1721 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

worked a couple ships in Pearl, scuttlebutt is that Port Royal is a mess

All I Wanted Was A Pepsi, Just One Pepsi

http://teamredwhiteandblue.org/

big kahuna

Mar 15, 12 18:51

Post #9 of 56 (1711 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Billabong] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Billabong wrote:

worked a couple ships in Pearl, scuttlebutt is that Port Royal is a mess

Yeah, that's what I've been hearing. Hull issues that took millions to address (as noted in that link I provided, as well), maintenance problems, the whole nine yards. And she's the youngest of the four CGs, too. See what having bad ship drivers and a somewhat-lacking 3M (and PMR) program can do to a fine warship?

iO4

Mar 15, 12 18:56

Post #10 of 56 (1704 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

All the money is in unmanned systems these days. I bet within 20 years there won't be a manned airplane in the air force and most ships will also be largely unmanned as well.
----
Don't hold back

big kahuna

Mar 15, 12 18:58

Post #11 of 56 (1700 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [jO4] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

jO4 wrote:

All the money is in unmanned systems these days. I bet within 20 years there won't be a manned airplane in the air force and most ships will also be largely unmanned as well.

That could indeed be the way of things, sad to say.

tri_yoda

Mar 15, 12 19:39

Post #12 of 56 (1679 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [jO4] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

jO4 wrote:

All the money is in unmanned systems these days. I bet within 20 years there won't be a manned airplane in the air force and most ships will also be largely unmanned as well.

Considering about 40% of the existing fleet is nuclear and the nuclear fleet size is extremely unlikely to be significantly downsized (it really doesn't make a ton of sense to de-comission nuclear ships early, when there is still plenty of gas in the tank), this is probably not going to happen. The Navy has made a sizeable commitment to keeping a pipeline of sailors for its nuclear ships for at least the next 20 years.

AnthonyS

Mar 15, 12 20:56

Post #13 of 56 (1643 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [tri_yoda] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

tri_yoda wrote:

jO4 wrote:

All the money is in unmanned systems these days. I bet within 20 years there won't be a manned airplane in the air force and most ships will also be largely unmanned as well.

The nuclear fleet has already been significantly downsized. Every new nuclear class of vessel sees less and less built. Reagan was the last President to spend a lot of money on new ships. All of those ships are now being decommissioned. It's not like I was ever in a shipyard in a drydock full of submarines being decommissioned or anything like that.

Go look in Janes Fighting Ships at the numbers of submarines being built and what year they were built in. We have no nuclear cruisers anymore (all decommed). And now we are decomming carriers. Frigates, destroyers and all the fleet support ships are not nuclear. Most of the ships are non nuclear. We don't have enough nuke operators as it is. We can't educate or retain enough either.
--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.

last tri in 83

Mar 15, 12 20:58

Post #14 of 56 (1642 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

bad move

_____________________________________________
To err is human, to forgive, canine

BarryP

Mar 15, 12 21:07

Post #15 of 56 (1639 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [last tri in 83] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Tim, I thought you were one of those responsible small government conservative types.
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

last tri in 83

Mar 15, 12 21:28

Post #16 of 56 (1628 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [BarryP] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Own the seas baby.

_____________________________________________
To err is human, to forgive, canine

Steve Hawley

Mar 16, 12 0:07

Post #17 of 56 (1600 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I'm a firm believer in A.T. Mahan thesis in that we [America] are a sea power and as our military [rightly] downsizes I'd much rather the land forces--including the USMC--be downsized as opposed to some sort of 'fair sharing' of the pain. Don't need a large standing Army or Marine Corps and in fact such a state is ahistorical from a American perspective. A large Army just invites adventureism too IMO. Our economy and the whole world's in fact depends upon the free flow of commerce upon open sea lanes and for that you need a large and professional Navy. We can do what we need to do (your odd Grenada, Panama, etc) with a small professional Army & USMC and expand our land forces as necessary when vital national interests are threatened via our Guard and Reserve Forces (very professionalised for another generation due to their involvment in OEF/OIF). Older Perry class FFs are probably more maintenance and personnel intensive than their worth but decommissioning Ticonderoga class aegis missle cruisers seems like cutting meat vice 'fat.' Of course the one based out of Pearl got run up onto the reef outside the harbor--amazing to me in this age of GPS--so maybe it does need to get turned into a new batch of Prius' ?

/r
Steve

Constantine

Mar 16, 12 4:26

Post #18 of 56 (1559 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Quel] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Nice Starboard list.
Oh no watch out for the reef OOD

YaHey

Mar 16, 12 5:01

Post #19 of 56 (1549 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

On the one hand, I can see why you would be sad to see the navy shrink.

On the other, it's simple economics. We spend all our money to defend our economic competitors? We're not even the hegemon in Asia. Anyway, all this money could be spent for economic rebuilding.

Bruce Wayne

Mar 16, 12 5:04

Post #20 of 56 (1546 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [mck414] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I was on the Dubuque in 1997...good times.

_________________________________________________

vibrolux

Mar 16, 12 5:49

Post #21 of 56 (1513 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [YaHey] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Don't get too excited. As the Navy didn't grow like the Marine Corp or Army did during the last 11 years of war, it also won't see the massive downsizing they will.

big kahuna

Mar 16, 12 6:06

Post #22 of 56 (1504 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [Steve Hawley] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Steve Hawley wrote:

The above episode at LSA Anaconda illustrates why you were a great leader, Steve. You thought of a lot more other things than just the need to stack your weapons and proceed on. You also were willing to take the heat from your own chain of command because you did what you thought was correct from a tactical as well as strategic-thinking viewpoint.

I'm also with you about those Aegis cruisers. That's a lot of blue water capability being taken out of hide that, maybe, could have a place out in Asian waters or WestPac, which I guess is where we're going to shift focus in the near future. I'll leave the force reduction activities for Army and Marine end strength to the folks that are better informed than me on what Army and Marine Corps feels they need.

BarryP

Mar 16, 12 7:20

Post #23 of 56 (1478 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [last tri in 83] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Quote:

Own the seas baby.

We curretly spend more on our military than the next 19 nations combined. So since you think spending more than the next 18 nations combined is a mistake, I'm wondering what you think the right number is. Is 19 too small? Should it be 50? Keep in mind that we are in the most defensible position in the world of any industrialized nation, we have been borrowing to fund our military for over 3 decades, and most of our threats require small special forces and CIA operatives, which has drastically shrunk in the last 20 years.

Really? You think shrinking the military is a mistake?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

slowguy

Mar 16, 12 7:29

Post #24 of 56 (1474 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [BarryP] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"Keep in mind that we are in the most defensible position in the world of any industrialized nation, we have been borrowing to fund our military for over 3 decades, and most of our threats require small special forces and CIA operatives, which has drastically shrunk in the last 20 years. "

Nations don't build navies to protect their shorelines, and if you think most of our threats can be fought by special forces and CIA, you're woefully underinformed.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

trail

Mar 16, 12 8:03

Post #25 of 56 (1441 views)

Re: The Great Shrinking of the US Navy Begins [slowguy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

>Nations don't build navies to protect their shorelines,

I'd argue that some do. China, for instance, has little ability with their Navy very far from shore. But taking the Formosa Strait (and therefore two shorelines) from them would be *extremely* hard.

1 2 3

View All