Trump's Navy

[AdamG]

U.S. President Donald Trump says he wants to build dozens of new warships in one of the biggest peace-time expansions of the U.S. Navy. But interviews with ship-builders, unions and a review of public and internal documents show major obstacles to that plan.
The initiative could cost nearly $700 billion in government funding, take 30 years to complete and require hiring tens of thousands of skilled shipyard workers - many of whom don't exist yet because they still need to be hired and trained, according to the interviews and the documents reviewed.
Trump has vowed a huge build-up of the U.S. military to project American power in the face of an emboldened China and Russia. That includes expanding the Navy to 350 warships from 275 today. He has provided no specifics, including how soon he wants the larger fleet. (For graphics on projected strength of U.S. Navy, shipyard employment see: tmsnrt.rs/2n3vOr0)
The Navy has given Defense Secretary Jim Mattis a report that explores#how the country's industrial base could support higher ship production, Admiral Bill Moran, the vice chief of Naval Operations with oversight of the Navy’s shipbuilding outlook, told Reuters.
He declined to give further details. But those interviewed for this story say there are clearly two big issues - there are not enough skilled workers in the market, from electricians to welders, and after years of historically low production, shipyards and their suppliers, including nuclear fuel producers, will struggle to ramp up for years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN16O142

[AdamG]

The deployment of Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group has been extended by a month so the CSG can conduct presence operations off the coast of Korea, the commander of the strike group said late Tuesday in a message to his crew.
“Our deployment has been extended 30 days to provide a persistent presence in the waters off the Korean Peninsula,” wrote Rear Adm. Jim Kilby on the wall of the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) Facebook page.
“Our mission is to reassure allies and our partners of our steadfast commitment to the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. We will continue to be the centerpiece of visible maritime deterrence, providing our national command authority with flexible deterrent options, all domain access, and a visible forward presence.”

https://news.usni.org/2017/04/19/car...yment-extended

[AdamG]

The Navy would have to spend $102 billion annually build, operate and maintain a 355-ship fleet over the next 30 years, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office issued on Monday.
The report, prepared at the request of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower and projection forces, outlines cost scenarios in how the Navy buys and maintains the 355-ship fleet the service announced it needed in 2016 – up from its current fleet of 275 ships.
“The cost to build and operate a 355-ship fleet would average $102 billion per year (in 2017 dollars) through 2047, CBO estimates, or more than one-third greater than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for today’s 275-ship fleet… That amount would be 13 percent more than the $90 billion needed to build and operate the eet envisioned in the Navy’s 2017 shipbuilding plan,” read the report.
“Meeting the 355-ship objective would cost the Navy an average of about $26.6 billion (in 2017 dollars) annually for ship construction, which is more than 60 percent above the average amount the Congress has appropriated for that purpose over the past 30 years.”

https://news.usni.org/2017/04/25/cbo...uilding-budget

see also https://news.usni.org/2017/04/25/25316

[AdamG]

For more than three years now, I've been tracking the U.S. Navy's progress toward building a working electromagnetic railgun prototype -- a Mach 6 cannon reputedly capable of striking targets 110 miles away with pinpoint accuracy.
Each railgun projectile would cost about $25,000 to produce -- and if you're keeping track, then yes, success on the railgun project would yield a weapon boasting nearly twice the 67-mile range of Boeing's (NYSE:BA) Harpoon II missile#but costing just 1/48th the Boeing missile's $1.2 million cost.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/...for-prime.aspx

[AdamG]

Old enemies unite: Japan dispatches its biggest warship since WWII to protect a US supply ship from Kim Jong-un's missiles
Izumo, a helicopter carrier, is being sent by Japan to protect a US supply ship
The American vessel is thought to be supplying the USS Carl Vinson strike group#
Deployment marks the first time Japan has used new powers allowing its military to carry out actions that are not strictly in self-defense
Comes as North Korea threatened to carry out a sixth nuclear test at 'any time'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4fpma5j7x

[davidbfpo]

A curious deployment, which was just in a BBC News report. Why a helicopter carrier to escort a supply ship? Leaving politics aside.

What does this 'helicopter destroyer' contribute: ASW helicopters, SAR, CIWS, radar and the like. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JS_Izumo

Is there a NK submarine threat?

Thanks to Google there is another helicopter carrier in Japan, a French Mistral class ship; there for separate multi-national exercises this month at Tinian island. See: https://www.rt.com/news/386592-frenc...l-drill-japan/ or http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39768110

[AdamG]

Why a helicopter carrier to escort a supply ship?
Is there a NK submarine threat?

Threat? Yes & No.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...big-joke-20300

Meanwhile, back on the real carrier.

During the 2008 financial crisis the theory emerged that certain companies, particularly financial institutions, were “too big to fail.” These firms were considered to be so large and entwined with other companies that their closure would be catastrophic to the entire economy. In today’s Navy, the aircraft carrier has become “too big to sink.” When it functions as designed, it is an extremely powerful platform that has remarkable economies of scale. But carriers are crucial to so many of the fleet’s missions that if the enemy can defeat them, the results would be catastrophic for both the Navy and the nation. The loss of a $12 billion capital ship, more than 5,000 American lives, and a powerful symbol of U.S. military superiority would send shock waves around the world.
Yet the Navy remains blind to the reality that its carriers—by way of destruction, damage, or deterrence from completing their missions—are poised for defeat in battle. By accepting the eventual demise of the carrier, the Navy could accelerate its shift away from a carrier-centric fleet.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...5/too-big-sink