• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MASSIVE US NAVY Drydock Capacity Failures

We are also the only nation that maintains constant fleets in 2 oceans, as well as other places.

Realize, we are a nation that spans a continent, and need to maintain a presence in both the Atlantic and Pacific. The next closest is the Russians, but they have never been a major Naval Power, mostly concentrating on their Army.
Well, if you saying that the Navy is too small. How much bigger should it be to make you feel comfortable?

Please also realize that one of today's carrier groups is more powerful than all the ships a few decades ago combined.
 
The British empire spanned the world to an overt extent far greater than the present American empire. It did so with a fleet that was as big as the next 2 navies combined. There were a lot of naval powers around in the early 19th century.

I ask again, who are you expecting to fight with your navy?

Is this the early 1800s anymore? Is the British Empire still a thing anymore?

In the early 1800s did the United States stretch across the Continent to the Pacific Ocean?

Nope, does not apply. Stay on target.

The evidence that it was the right call is 70 years of peace on the seas. The US Navy has been largely untouchable in all that time.

What do you propose as an alternative that has the range, vision and firepower of a carrier battle group?

Oh, the Navy was very touchable. But it is largely MAD that kept the peace since the end of WWII. Thankfully nobody wanted to try and tangle with nations that had nuclear weapons.

It is not like no nations have attacked the US Navy in 70 years. But it was always kept small scale if they did.

Then we would need to spend a lot more money to do so because personnel cost money. Military personnel are very expensive (although becoming less so with the Blended Retirement System that every member of Congress and Presidents should have had to go on too since they decided it was a good way to save money).

Not really, because the vast majority of people who join the military only serve a single 4-6 year term then get out. Therefore, no retirement at all.

Out of those I went to school with, I know of around 15 that joined the military. 2 of them as Officers. I am the only one of those that served long enough to collect retirement.

Well, if you saying that the Navy is too small. How much bigger should it be to make you feel comfortable?

Please also realize that one of today's carrier groups is more powerful than all the ships a few decades ago combined.

I did not say that, do not put words in my mouth.

But a carrier group can not do everything, and it requires a lot of support ships to operate.

Myself, I think a better long term solution would be a return to the fleets we saw during the Reagan Administration. Less carriers, and instead put more into the Amphibious Warfare groups. Build "Battleships" as the capital ship, with amphibious assets (including LHAs) to give more capabilities.

And please notice that "Battleships" is in quotes. Far to many obsesses on the exact class (BB) and do not understand that it is more of a role than an actual class of ship.
 
Not really, because the vast majority of people who join the military only serve a single 4-6 year term then get out. Therefore, no retirement at all.

Out of those I went to school with, I know of around 15 that joined the military. 2 of them as Officers. I am the only one of those that served long enough to collect retirement.

It is not just retirement that is a factor in it though. The lowest military person makes around $50K a year between base pay, meals and housing (whether getting them or getting paid for them), and other immediate benefits. The lowest grade Sailor is not the most likely to be employed to build ships. That would require a lot of training. It would still be military employed civilians building the ships. Many of those are also entitled to many of the benefits that military enjoy, being federal employees (they may pay a bit more for some of them). In fact, many Sailors, especially in engineering fields, get employed at the shipyards in order to convert their military years of service into years that count towards federal retirement. This is more benefits. Whereas the military simply paying a civilian shipyard to build the ships means they don't have to pay those workers, be responsible for the benefits and compensations that those workers get.
 
It is not just retirement that is a factor in it though. The lowest military person makes around $50K a year between base pay, meals and housing (whether getting them or getting paid for them), and other immediate benefits. The lowest grade Sailor is not the most likely to be employed to build ships. That would require a lot of training. It would still be military employed civilians building the ships. Many of those are also entitled to many of the benefits that military enjoy, being federal employees (they may pay a bit more for some of them). In fact, many Sailors, especially in engineering fields, get employed at the shipyards in order to convert their military years of service into years that count towards federal retirement. This is more benefits. Whereas the military simply paying a civilian shipyard to build the ships means they don't have to pay those workers, be responsible for the benefits and compensations that those workers get.

When we were still building ships on Navy bases, it was also done by civilians and contractors a lot of the time.

But the cost was lower because they were using our shipyards, our equipment, our security, etc. That means lower cost because we are not having to essentially subsidize the civilian companies having to provide all of that. Now that cost is being put into the overhead of each ship built.

For example, the USS Drum and other Sturgeon class subs were built at Mare Island. They were built by General Dynamics, but at the facilities of Mare Island, Portsmouth, as well as other shipyards.

Like how outpatient surgery is cheaper in your doctor's office, instead of having them do it at a hospital.
 
When we were still building ships on Navy bases, it was also done by civilians and contractors a lot of the time.

But the cost was lower because they were using our shipyards, our equipment, our security, etc. That means lower cost because we are not having to essentially subsidize the civilian companies having to provide all of that. Now that cost is being put into the overhead of each ship built.

For example, the USS Drum and other Sturgeon class subs were built at Mare Island. They were built by General Dynamics, but at the facilities of Mare Island, Portsmouth, as well as other shipyards.

Like how outpatient surgery is cheaper in your doctor's office, instead of having them do it at a hospital.

That analogy doesn't really make sense. Why would your doctor not be performing outpatient surgery? Unless you are saying that your doctor is performing the surgery, in his own facility, which would then relate to it being cheaper for the workers who are building the ships to build them in their own facilities, instead of ours, which would equate to the hospital in that analogy.

And we really do not have the space to build ships at our current shipyards. I've been there. It is one of the reasons that our maintenance schedules are behind, because there simply isn't places to put ships or boats needing repairs or scheduled maintenance (especially not certain types of maintenance) if one or more other boats or ships already in for maintenance falls behind.

Personnel is another problem. There is a reason that they are sending reservists like myself to the yards every year to do work for annual training there. It is because the shipyards faced a major issue this past decade. Lots of older workers retiring without enough qualified, experienced personnel to replace them. There was no consistent hiring in the 80s and 90s of Navy shipyard personnel. Therefore they fell behind the curve in keeping up with the right personnel for the jobs. That caused a personnel shortage. It also becomes an issue when we have a couple of government shutdowns as well as rampups of military personnel. The government may have saved money in those decades but they also caused issues with the current manning within our shipyards. It is a similar fact the military itself faced when we went to war.
 
Oh, the Navy was very touchable. But it is largely MAD that kept the peace since the end of WWII. Thankfully nobody wanted to try and tangle with nations that had nuclear weapons.

It is not like no nations have attacked the US Navy in 70 years. But it was always kept small scale if they did.

Wrong. It's not like we haven't fought wars in the age of MAD.
 
And we really do not have the space to build ships at our current shipyards. I've been there. It is one of the reasons that our maintenance schedules are behind, because there simply isn't places to put ships or boats needing repairs or scheduled maintenance (especially not certain types of maintenance) if one or more other boats or ships already in for maintenance falls behind.

Which goes right back to the BRACs of the 1990s. We really gutted our capabilities in this area when we did that, and we will never get them back.

This is why I have long believed we should return to the old practice of mothballing facilities for 20 years or so before we finally decide they are not needed. That way we can restore them if it is realized the base really is required. Bases like Fort Rucker had that done, and when it was realized they really were needed saved a ton of money as opposed to building new bases.
 
Wrong. It's not like we haven't fought wars in the age of MAD.

No major wars. They were all regional wars, with no nuclear nations taking up arms in opposition to each other.

I never said there were no wars, that is impossible, There will NEVER be no wars. But there have been no major wars since then.
 
Which goes right back to the BRACs of the 1990s. We really gutted our capabilities in this area when we did that, and we will never get them back.

This is why I have long believed we should return to the old practice of mothballing facilities for 20 years or so before we finally decide they are not needed. That way we can restore them if it is realized the base really is required. Bases like Fort Rucker had that done, and when it was realized they really were needed saved a ton of money as opposed to building new bases.

But it shows what is going on now. We can't live in the past. Things that have already been done cannot be changed. All we can do is work with what we have in the most efficient way we can.

To me it is similar to those who argue about how we should go to the metric system. In theory, it makes sense to convert over, since the rest of the world uses it and it is a better system. In reality, it would be a nightmare and take a very long time to implement, requiring decades of dedication to a mixed system where both must be taught to everyone and people encouraged into embracing the metric system over the Standard system despite using both. It would also very likely lead to a lot of problems and very likely many injuries and deaths, since people are people and make mistakes.
 
No major wars. They were all regional wars, with no nuclear nations taking up arms in opposition to each other.

I never said there were no wars, that is impossible, There will NEVER be no wars. But there have been no major wars since then.

THere were no major wars because the US Force projection was the entire globe. That immediate force projection was made possible largely on the mobility and power of the US carrier battle groups.
 
THere were no major wars because the US Force projection was the entire globe. That immediate force projection was made possible largely on the mobility and power of the US carrier battle groups.

Uh-huh. Keep telling yourself that.

Detente is more like it.
 
The GAO report on the recent facility shortfalls at the shipyards helps with understanding this stuff too. Our Facilities are grossly underrated for the requirements that they're required to meet. The recent changes after the Miami fire made every shipyards water supply structures instantly under-rated for Fire Fighting needs. Some overhauls are short in excess of 18000 amps of 440vac power to execute the proposed schedules as they equipment for the work has become better and safer, but uses a lot more power and the infrastructure upgrades have been kicked down the road continually for decades.

This gets compiled when the Navy feels it is behind on maintenance and then decides that an idle period for a dry-dock is to be used for an availability... and then you can't do the facility and maintenance that's required to keep the systems working optimally. Throw in the green workforce Roguenuke already mentioned along with constantly needed to support emergency repairs on ships that have broken or become damaged while deployed (Stripping assets away from other projects making them all late) and it turns into a cascading nightmare to power through.

there have also been continuous leadership changes, as most military commanders last 3 years before transfer or promotion, and a lot of people that weren't ready for leadership are being sucked up to fill all the vacancies from retirees without the full breadth of experience they really need. Which leads to buzz-word Flovor of the Month™ management and organizational strategies that normally do little to help.

The whole situation is a mess caused by shortsighted budgeting and poor leadership over many decades.
 
The GAO report on the recent facility shortfalls at the shipyards helps with understanding this stuff too. Our Facilities are grossly underrated for the requirements that they're required to meet. The recent changes after the Miami fire made every shipyards water supply structures instantly under-rated for Fire Fighting needs. Some overhauls are short in excess of 18000 amps of 440vac power to execute the proposed schedules as they equipment for the work has become better and safer, but uses a lot more power and the infrastructure upgrades have been kicked down the road continually for decades.

This gets compiled when the Navy feels it is behind on maintenance and then decides that an idle period for a dry-dock is to be used for an availability... and then you can't do the facility and maintenance that's required to keep the systems working optimally. Throw in the green workforce Roguenuke already mentioned along with constantly needed to support emergency repairs on ships that have broken or become damaged while deployed (Stripping assets away from other projects making them all late) and it turns into a cascading nightmare to power through.

there have also been continuous leadership changes, as most military commanders last 3 years before transfer or promotion, and a lot of people that weren't ready for leadership are being sucked up to fill all the vacancies from retirees without the full breadth of experience they really need. Which leads to buzz-word Flovor of the Month™ management and organizational strategies that normally do little to help.

The whole situation is a mess caused by shortsighted budgeting and poor leadership over many decades.

May 24, 1979
"Properly running a sophisticated technical program requires a fundamental understanding of and commitment to the technical aspects of the job and a willingness to pay infinite attention to the technical details. I might add, infinite personal attention. This can only be done by one who understands the details and their implications. The phrase, ‘The devil is in the details’ is especially true for technical work. If you ignore those details and attempt to rely on management techniques or gimmicks you will surely end up with a system that is unmanageable, and problems will be immensely more difficult to solve. At Naval Reactors, I take individuals who are good engineers and make them into managers. They do not manage by gimmicks but rather by knowledge, logic, common sense, and hard work and experience."
Admiral Rickover
 
The devil is in the details indeed. I love a good Rickover story when they come along. I have His principals posted near my workstation. "Don't Live With Deficiencies" and "Face Facts Brutally" are the two I normally have highlighted when dealing with folks.

-TTB
 
Back
Top Bottom