The U.S. Navy's 30 Year Plan on Shipbuilding - 2024

[@sadlerbw9]

Random bits and pieces I saw while skimming through the budget that was proposed in Congress yesterday: - Navy is not allowed to decommission any LCS's or two named LSD's. One was the USS Tortuga, and I forget what the second was. - $142 million allocated to buy two used sealift ships. - Navy has to start buying US-made propulsion systems and combining gears for the FFG's no later than the 11th hull. - Fleet oilers were a big enough deal that they had their own line item alongside carriers and submarines. There is a ton of stuff in there. These were just some things I thought were relevant to readers here, and also not totally obvious or expected.

[@cragnamorra]

And this highlights an important point: what's really important is not naval leadership, but the nation's civilian leadership. The plan which Sal covers here is the Navy's plan. Like any plan, it has to start with some assumptions. The main one being "how much money is available?". So the Navy has to start with projecting a budget, or at least what to ask for a budget that they think (hope?) might be approved, and the safest approach to that question is to assume roughly the same they're getting now, adjusted for inflation. They're not going to plan for or ask for a 500-ship navy, for the simple reason that there's no way in hell that could happen, or so they estimate. When the Navy has undergone significant expansion in the past, the USN's own plan was NOT the driving force. It was a strongly pro-naval administration (i.e., both of the Roosevelts and Reagan, as prominent examples) with strong congressional support, who placed a political emphasis on growing the Navy. (worth noting here...the enormous Navy of the latter part of WW2 had largely been authorized and had actually started building before Pearl Harbor, not in response to it).

[@DM-mv4eq]

Tha tells me they have more info on FFG propulsion than has been made publicly available or that they are calling BS on the Navy for hiding yet another detail. Like the VLS SNAFU.

[@gogudelagaze1585]

Honestly, the LCS decision almost looks like intentional sabotage at this rate. The LCS as they exist right now are completely useless in any kind of real conflict. Hell, they can't even be used in the Red Sea, which should be their optimal environment..

[@scottlanghoff8729]

Isn’t it interesting that the same people that demanded we buy those POS LCS’s are now demanding we have to keep them?

[@SpriteRosa]

Building ship? Chinese immigrants, joint with other Asian ethnics groups, is building a country in the land of America!

[@dmac7128]

Decisions made 30-35 years ago to decommission shipyards are coming back to bite big time. In hindsight it would have been more prudent to retain those shipyards and lease them out to commercial ship builders with generous terms and tax incentives. That would have served to preserve capacity and more importantly have kept ship workers employed thus ensuring that a large pool of knowledge is preserved.

[@SpriteRosa]

Building ship? Chinese immigrants, joint with other Asian ethnics groups, is building a country in the land of America!

[@SpriteRosa]

Building ship? Chinese immigrants, joint with other Asian ethnics groups, is building a country in the land of America!

[@davidz7858]

No body will rent them, US ship could not compete in world ship market, it does not happen today, back to 50s, 60s US ship could not compete with UK, Norway, later not compete with Japan, Korea, now beat by China. Workers are too lazy and demand high pay and owners are too greedy.

[@keilgon]

Thank Sal for all your insights! Love the channel!!

[@fastfreddy3103]

Worked at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company briefly back in the ‘70s. Nimitz was undergoing sea trials. They let us tour her on lunch break since we had clearance. Bridge & flight deck if I recall correctly.

[@MADHIKER777]

I vote Sal for Secretary of the Navy!

[@marysbigpimp]

I like that idea

[@DerekTheAntony]

I'm going to have to say I completely agree

[@SterlingWhitehead]

SECNAV Sal!

[@mill2712]

Unfortunate they only go by appointment. So we got to convince the current president or returning president to appoint him.

[@BrettBaker-uk4te]

SECTRANS SAL! BABY NEEDS INLAND WATERWAYS IMPROVED!

[@FarmerDrew]

My ancestors came to America to build clipper ships back in the 1700s and Benjamin Dutton and his family did exactly that. Now, I'm moving to Maryland to do my part.

[@kevinyaucheekin1319]

That a material falsehood. Capiche Yankee 😊

[@FarmerDrew]

@@kevinyaucheekin1319 you speak Italian? Non vali un cavolo

[@FarmerDrew]

@@kevinyaucheekin1319 Non vale un cavolo

[@FarmerDrew]

@@kevinyaucheekin1319 Deficiente

[@FarmerDrew]

@@kevinyaucheekin1319 Mammalucco

[@Idahoguy10157]

Shipyards, shipyards, shipyards! We lack shipyards for new construction, and repair and overhaul. Especially for SSNs. USS Boise submarine has been tied up waiting five years for shipyard work

[@DM-mv4eq]

For SSN repair, maybe. Or certify a commercial yard for nuke work. We have plenty of shipyards. We need the labor and the order book. See attached incomplete list of smaller yards: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vGXRBmAkCuZfMZf-B16O565gF9V1tkFUaNlOsQ3Ir94/edit#gid=0

[@taylorclear-g8z]

If we had a robust US Flag merchant fleet, we’d have shipyards and steel mills and mines to build and maintain quality vessels. Most of the skills necessary to build a warship are directly translatable from building a merchant ship. But in the past 7 decades, and especially in the last 50 years, such industries were offshored and shipyards and mills and smelters and mines were then perceived as “Le BAD”. So that crackerjack welder never picked up a stinger because the work wasn’t there, and instead he or she is driving for Uber. And the General Dynamics Yard in Quincy Mass now is a YuppieNest of overpriced housing.

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@taylorclear-g8z … you speak the truth, brother

[@danielkershaw5998]

Thanks Sal, love the traditional CVN names!

[@Richardrefund]

Oh My Gosh! The're scheduled to decommission the USS Ashland (LSD-48) in two years! I'm a plank owner for that ship! Talk about feeling freeking old! Will I be one of those 'old' dudes sitting at the decommissioning ceremony? Hell no I won't! But, I will be there wherever it is. Thanks Sal, I would vote for you for Secretary of the Navy!

[@cragnamorra]

lol right there with you buddy. Served on five ships as ship's company; four are gone (three of them while was still on active duty), and the fifth (which was still less than 5 yrs old when I served on her) is on the chopping block for 2028. And I didn't retire THAT long ago, lol.

[@Richardrefund]

@@cragnamorra Haha well, at least we know we made it! My first one was the USS Enterprise (CVN-65). She's gone to! That being my first command, kinda spoiled it for me. No other ship is a great as she was. Take care.

[@MultiCconway]

We will NEVER grow the fleet if we cannot even replace attrition.

[@Menaceblue3]

Attrition? You mean recruiting at an all time low?(except marines)

[@chillxxx241]

I heard that the Coast Guard can’t even man the ships it currently has in service.

[@Maungateitei]

None will be built. The US empire is dead, and the world is celebrating the end of its reign of terror.

[@seanworkman431]

If boys are not encouraged to be men there will be no crew. Have all the ships you want but they need crew and that means men who are prepared to work for their country and without a border one does not have a country.

[@coachwendy5618]

​@@seanworkman431You may be surprised to know that women are actually ship captains now and are filling some of the voids, but it's true that recruiting is low. Maybe the government should offer more incentives to encourage stronger military strategies rather than create migrant crises and other distractions that make the US appear weak. Also, the newer aircraft carriers require fewer crewmen and the Navy is considering automating more ships in the future to contend with the low recruitment numbers.

[@wrightsublette1701]

I 100% agree on Lexington for CVN-82. From this point forward, we should use Yorktown, Midway,Saratoga, Ranger & Coral Sea for our future carrier names.

[@BradHartliep-kn9ud]

2024 #POTUS #BradHartliep has been OPPOSED to using "presidents" names for #Carriers for 44 years. I despise ships being named after Politicians and I have been calling for a return to #Classic #Carrier Names for 44 Years -- and as #President I will sign a Law making it #Illegal to name ANY ship after ANY President or #Politician, retroactive to CV67 22 Oct 1964 ..

[@QuattroSG]

I don't think they have 30 years to get their act together, I doubt they even have 30 months...

[@FoxtrotYouniform]

might even be 3 months instead of 30

[@DM-mv4eq]

October surprise@@FoxtrotYouniform

[@willek1335]

Statistically, I'd put it at max 20.

[@peredavi]

Time to learn Mandarin.

[@petergreenwood7731]

Maybe China has a ship for sale

[@SpockBorg5]

Anyone ever considered handing off some ship building to an allied nation with similar ship building capabilities. At very least they could build designs that are less critical or possess tech that is already well known. Maybe even have them build basic units that we could outfit ourselves with more sensitive systems or at minimum contract maintenance and refit work to them in order to free up domestic capacity for new builds.

[@TheFirebird123456]

They have unfortunately congress demands all ships be built in the US. If not korea and japan could fill our destroyer complement quite quickly. They have yards over there that build more ships than the entire US does in a year.

[@TheWaynester101]

​@TheFirebird123456 It would be wise to outsource several classes of ships: basic design destroyers, corvettes and oilers. •basic destroyers. Just use a tried and tested design. Pump them out, we need a large amount of them! • WE NEED CORVETTES. a new class of corvettes to replace what the LCS was supposed to be. Make the hull overseas, fit the weapons locally. Just use a traditional hull, slap a few missles, torpedoes,two 5 inch guns and a cheap anti drone capability. THAT is the type of ship that should be in the red sea. Its a small, CHEAP ship with limited capabilities. Its purpose is to do stupid shit so that the expensive destroyers dont have to be occupied doing said stupid shit. We can redesign the zumwalt to have 100 VLS cells and add AEGIS. Produce it locally. Its a good design, just the weapon system on it turned out to be crap. We need another yard producing aircraft carriers. We need 12 of them. Im curious, what is the navy's plan if we lose one in battle? We need the capability to pump an aircraft carrier out every 4 years at most. Lastly.... if we are even considering a fight with china, island hoping will be part of the game. We need shore bombardment capability. Im not saying to bring back the battleship. That style of naval warfare is long dead. But it would be wise to have a ship whose sole purpose is efficient, cheap, and powerful shore bombardment. Just imagine, time to take an island, the carrier strike group has dealt with the surface vessels/aircraft/missle launchers. But theres still fortified locations on the island. What will you do? Send your men in landing craft to get slaughtered? Use your remaining $1,000,000 missles to destroy a few locations? What if another ship shows up? What will you fire at them? Or you bring in your shore bombardment ship who was quietly waiting in the back, far away from the action. she comes in 10 miles off shore and showers the island with 16 inch shells. THEN send in the landing craft to clean up and claim the island. This ship would have no missles, no radar, nothing. Just nine 16 inch guns with autoloaders and a whole lot of ammunition. Just a floating gun platform. It stays protected by the carrier strike group, It fires, then heads back home to be re-stocked. "Oh, why would we have a defenseless ship with the strike group who serves only a single purpose?" Then what are the cargo vessel and fueling ships that accompany the carrier strike group?

[@steventoby3768]

Well, I'm older than you so I doubt I'll live to see AI Sal. However, this video shows what I've known since 1985: the USN's procurement system is sick. Every ship design I worked on seemed more screwed up than the previous one. I wouldn't know what to do to fix the problems but I can see, even without knowing exact numbers, that things are bad. Somehow restoring a commercial shipyard base would help but again, I don't see how that could happen. It's not just budgets being too small, it's a cadre of people who know how to build ships. These are skilled jobs you can't learn in a month.

[@Hawka-Loogy]

Likely the plan will be obsolete soon

[@TheBelrick]

Sal is such a fibber. Naming the most powerful American warship after a Nigerian cook with an artificial story with the name of Doris is nothing less than Cattle Humiliation. "It's A gOOd nAmE" The reasons behind the naming is the same reason why the USN is collapsing. Yes collapsing. You cannot have a fleet > than the people that create and fund the fleet. See UK 1918. The rate of decommissioning won't increase, because decommissioning is expensive. Rates of hulks tied up alongside piers to rust out WILL increase. God help you all given how oblivious to the reality you struggle to live in you all are.

[@markerickson4273]

Thank you Sal.

[@tysenp8193]

Could you do another update on coast guard shipbuilding? I’m really curious what’s going on with their new icebreakers, havent heard about them in a long while

[@kentriat2426]

I’m starting to think the US navy is going to down size by half in the next two decades. The costs being outlined in billions is just no going to be stainable on a shrinking budget. Having to borrow funds via selling treasury bonds over 30 years to build these ships will in fact caddy 120% in the cost due to interest payments which sit upwards off 3.5 - 4.89%. If the USA dollar stops being the sole trading currency then the USA can not export its debit to the world and the military will come to a stop almost in equipment purchases. The budget is likely to come down to about 250 billion with no overseas deployments or bases.

[@TankandDimples]

That is dependent on a lot of variables.

[@k53847]

We are approaching the nirvana of two Admirals per US Navy warship, so I'm sure we'll have a vastly better lead and managed force compared to when we have a mere 0.04 admirals per warship. Which was also the last time we won a major naval war.

[@DM-mv4eq]

And we had plenty of aircraft then too so that's not the reason for the imbalance.

[@Darkrunn]

Bordering on criminal negligence and mismanagement.

[@Mikell-h2c]

The FBI needs to get involved !

[@sails3538]

America as a whole has been mismanaged for 30 yrs. It funny to witness the end of a super power....

[@PrezVeto]

​@@Mikell-h2cWe want less criminality, not more!

[@cheddar2648]

I can remember when I was active in "The Gator Navy" 2010-2012, there was rumor of disbanding the US Marine Corps. These talks and rumors were happening concurrent with aggressive Chinese expansion and sea base construction. It's still unbelievable to me that it was considered. As always, thank you for the expert analysis, Sal.

[@SamMiller-x4f]

30 year plan?😂 The U.S. Congress was required to have a ratified 2024 budget 6 months ago. The U.S.A. is fully bankrupt.

[@gregthornton4750]

Im not an expert on carriers. But Im a former Nuke STE on Submarines. Carriers have Refueling overhauls once in lifetime of ship. Roughly 25 year mark. Carriers go through maintenance availabilitys to rehab the stuff that gets worn out during deployments which is all that stuff besides the reactor core. take care and keep up the great work.

[@laurenglass4514]

I guess they don’t understand that we have extreme Navy ship needs and the ship building time frame is nuts.

[@shadow7037932]

Yup. And meanwhile China is building new ships left and right.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

We have no money for any of this.

[@k53847]

@@WALTERBROADDUS We apparently spend 20 billion a year importing Biden's illegals.

[@frank-y8n]

@@WALTERBROADDUS US is spending more than the next ten big spenders together on 'defense'. But those ten hardly spend anything on war, China for the last time forty years ago and just a few weeks, while US is always at war - now even with Yemen.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@frank-y8n We have a debt of over $32 trillion dollars. We have a population that is aging and making less. We have a domestic issues to pay for. We other members of the DOD to fund also. This dream plan is going no place. And we are going to have learn to live with China on this Globe. Yes, we spend a lot. And bill is going to the Great grandkids.

[@stevendamon7309]

Warfare itself is evolving faster than these vessels can be commissioned.

[@1BigBen]

I like the idea of turning USNS John Glenn into hospital ship, you got clean sheets for deck plan, you can build it with modular structure and with helipad, route the pipes in a smart way for the start, as it can partially submerge you can have wet entry that is normally above the waterline when not at use, oh are they decommissioning ships due to maintenance and running cost or just because its.. the bean counter plan. if it still fully operational just little old you keep it running till you can do a "handover" (one coming in from the late tour and other going out for its first)

[@DavidHamby-ORF-48]

Ahoy, Sal. Good look at the trees. The force architecture is slowly crumbling. The cruisers had the extra room to carry the air combat management folks. Where do those tasks go? And the ASW screen? A Swedish Gotland class SSK owned a battle group a few years back.

[@whya2ndaccount]

Increasing platforms is all well and good (if achievable) but you also, in a non conscription navy, need to crew them (recruiting, retention, etc.).

[@DM-mv4eq]

Faster Ford builds would free 600+ billets per ship. Could man 2 of the destroyers in its own battle group with the savings. Newer, more livable ships might help retention too.

[@fortusvictus8297]

Planning to build ships that everyone knows will be obsolete by the time they are 'fit for duty' has been a quirk of the Naval funding I have never understood. Why not just fund the hull and save the funding for the guts (tech and sensors) until a couple of years out? Planning a ship for todays demands or 10 years out is how we got the LCS and Zumwalt.

[@Khronogi]

This is a good question that I'd like an expert answer to.

[@-mg-max-]

Sometime only angle of death can free up some management and planning positions for fresh younger minds who can think outside of the box!

[@esotericcommonsense6366]

The meme of the military industrial complex convincing the government that shipyard would totally be better if the navy was their sole customer, and now it's taking them a decade to build a carrier. This is simply the system working as intended.

[@jimcarlson2252]

Great fact filled video by Sal on Ship Building in America, done not commercially today but through military government spending. Long gone are the days when commercial companies built the US Navy ships. Listening to Retired Douglas MacGregor recently he stated our US economy is near 50% percent government spending. American manufacturing usually cannot compete commercially, so most US Navy ship building are done without healthy competition but rely on heavy government military support and spending. Prior to the U.S. entrance into WW2 war, Bethlehem Steel in PA and MD gross sales were $135 million. In 1945 sales topped $1.33 billion, with more than 300,000 employees. Bethlehem became a global giant in the steel industry. America no longer has 100,000’s of knowledgeable steel workers but today must rely on very expensive non-competitive steel workers that only can work if the military government spends billions to finance the US Navy ship building of the future.

[@harrymaciolek9629]

How does conflict with China where we lose two carriers affect their schedules?

[@mattc.310]

Thanks for the report. They still have no idea of what they actually need or the World they live in.

[@cragnamorra]

"Trying to put together the best - or 'least bad' - plan possible under existing budgetary & industrial constraints" might be a better characterization. It's not as if the USN can snap their fingers and double the USN budget, or will an extra couple productive large-scale shipyards into being. Gonna need a clear-thinking rational White House and Congress - over multiple terms - for that. As mentioned elsewhere; past significant USN peacetime expansions (1900's, 1930's, 1980's) were not driven from within the USN, but from the civilian top.

[@larryoffranklin2634]

When does the math ever add up on government work or reports? Our government doesn't want us to make anything, it might cause pollution. But we need to start investing in American material and our own manufacturing of military ships.

[@FunnyQuailMan]

Gunston Hall might have been the other LSD. I think Germantown is finally being allowed to retire as another San Antonio will be coming online to replace it. LCS has been very quietly going through a new round of planning. For all their many, many, MANY problems over the years, they've actually begun to come into their own as they fill specific roles for which there are now or soon to be needs. As I understand it, the Navy will retain 15 out of the 19 Independence-class hulls built, with the intention of utilizing them in the Mine Countermeasures role as the Avenger-class is set to phase out since the mine countermeasures module is now functioning properly and has apparently been performing exceptionally well. The Freedom-class has found its niche with its surface warfare module as a maritime security, patrol & drug-interdiction, with the Navy now looking at keeping as many as 9 hulls, instead of just 6, out of the 16 built to perform in those roles, probably in the Caribbean & Gulf, off the coasts Mexico and around South America, for the most part. The US Coast Guard & partner nations need help with counter-narcotics & illegal fishing/international law enforcement, so word is that making the necessary fixes to the engines & combining gear was determined to be the most cost-effective solution for those needs, and foreign sales of at least 2 of the hulls to perhaps Greece and/or elsewhere would help pay for it. I'm glad to see they're looking less rigidly for solutions to sealift, RO/RO, pre-positioning, etc., and looking to civilian industry for more cost-effective, good-enough solutions as opposed to sticking stubbornly with a gold-plated & jewel-encrusted fleet with room & plans of diamond-studded add-ons over 10-year overhauls in the future for every single vessel. It's heartening to see what can be started (maybe even done & brought to fruition, and not changed entirely at the last minute & scrapped altogether after things have already been built, I guess we'll see) when a couple layers of Pentagon bureaucracy stand aside & regularly-replaced political appointees looking for any way they can to make a name for themselves are kept out of the way of people with lifelong investments in making the Navy work for the better in the nation's interest for a year or two. I almost started typing that such could perhaps be made into an actual program that could be expanded based on actual measures & milestones of success, but we all know what the Pentagon's bureaucratic nature & dime-a-dozen political appointees would do to a successful program like that and how fast they would destroy it with either bloat or by starvation if they were ever to have any chance at all to sink their claws into it. Maybe, rather, it could just be a process to be explored & more widely employed as things go.

[@mjays0432]

I believe that a good name for CV-82 would be “USS Dauntless,” in honor of the SBD, the airplane that more than any other, won World War II.

[@janetyer7147]

Sal, Thank you. Well done, as always.

[@bboomer7th]

I guess Drive On/Drive Off wasn’t in the running for an acronym.

[@cragnamorra]

😀

[@DM-mv4eq]

DO-DOs are extinct.

[@overlord6887]

IE, it's no longer a question of whether we will or won't have a Pearl Harbor 2, but when. . . The next 3 decades are going to be rough. I hope I'm wrong.

[@phobosmoon4643]

fentanyl is worse that pearl harbor imo - expect more and much worse asynchronous warfare; there is no point engaging with the old blind beast Uncle Sam in that way.

[@calvinhobbes7504]

Thanks for another great presentation, Dr. Sal. IMHO the hardware and its expense is only part of the problem. I *hope* the long view for ship acquisition is balanced against the huge pipeline for manpower training of engineers, planners, builders ... and sailors. Military recruitment seems to have tanked post-millennium, and of those interested, many can't meet the entrance requirements.

[@DM-mv4eq]

Some entrance requirements are now enforced where they used to be unable to do so. Medical disqualification due to digitized medical records. Our country has relied on some patriotic liars for a very long time. We need to get real on talent acquisition.

[@ZxZ239]

I am old to remember then they just starting to build the first LCS and it dind't take long for them to get rid of them.

[@ZezimaTruth]

I would like to learn more about the US shipbuilding capabilities and what making it so hard to ramp up production. I'm not familiar with the topic.

[@joefin5900]

Sal, get Mike Rowe on your channel and discuss how to provide qualified labor to shipyards.

[@dandaly7305]

Will any of these ships pass through the Bab-el-Mandeb?

[@gtdcov]

Am I missing something? You’re always talking about other video I should watch and pointing to the upper right of the screen and there is nothing there to press. KZbin platform, correct? I’ve never seen another channel use this method is why I ask.

[@patrickshanley4466]

Thanks for your input 👍

[@geo8rge]

The recent sinking of Russian ships by drones doesn't bode well for future surface ships.

[@Mikell-h2c]

Amen

[@groovygrape]

CVN-82 Sal Mercogliano has a nice ring to it.

[@GScully42]

Ten years to build a ship is job security i guess.

[@FarmerDrew]

It'll get closer to one year if we get closer to that 9 dash line

[@ROTEsimplemachines]

Convention vs Disruption; Capital Ships vs Swarms: Replicator

[@michaelharrington223]

I haven't watched a video yet but I have a feeling this is going to be pretty hilarious

[@StevenPalmer-cs5ix]

Considering the sailor short fall, this is an unfortunate necessity. MSC is reducing crew size to address their crewing issues even with the big pay bonuses!

[@13699111]

America's race to the bottom continues sadly. Thank you for all the interesting informative background information.

[@DM-mv4eq]

Buck up soldier! Don't fold a winning hand.

[@13699111]

@@DM-mv4eq your right thank you!!!

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

The navy wants to divest to invest. Basically, by cutting ships, they'll save maintenance cost which frees it up for new ships down the line. If you are replacing them one for one, you aren't really divesting. Of course, the question is if the divestment strategy is timed well.

[@taylorclear-g8z]

We could rebuild our Merchant Fleet by reserving cargoes for the US Flag in our Trade deals. “40/40/20” has been around for over 30 years, but nobody ever does it. Rebuilding the US Merchant Fleet would he,p to build the infrastructure, both physical and human, to build warships, too.

[@Antares_451]

My sister works in the government ship building industry. She a project manager and has been hella busy.

[@brianjordan-5357]

I think you should speak in front of Congress. I'm not confident they'd all understand what you say, but you make things pretty easy to understand for folks of average IQ.

[@GintaPPE1000]

These shipbuilding plans are all well and good, but they change year-to-year and sometimes either the Pentagon or Congress doesn’t fund everything that was planned. When ships take 5+ years each to build, you can’t just flip production on and off like that. You need to have a plan, and stick with that plan to the letter. What we have now is much better than the “fight for every new hull” nonsense of the 2000s, but if you want to fix the problems with US shipbuilding, start by telling lawmakers to stop using ship contracts as political weapons.

[@erikjohnson3255]

So far we only have acquired 5 of the 7 new used RO/ROs.

[@rapauli]

Consider the increasing temperature of the oceans. In equatorial zones much energy will have to go into cooling. Wet-bulb temps make it a danger area.

[@ag7898]

Can i put in a vote for eitber St. Lo or Gambier Bay for one of the Fords?

[@williammoreno2378]

In the late 70's I worked for a ship yard that had constructed many navy ships as far back as WWI. When I left, they were still using a belt driven propeller shaft stern tube boring machine of WWI vintage. They also had one or two 19-teens wooden dry-docks. What am I saying? Where did the money go to upgrading their facilities to stay competitive? They barely survived bankruptcy in the mid-80's. The place was pretty dilapidated and run down the three years I worked there. I've seen junk and scrap from yards that looked better and had more modern equipment. For decades foreign ships called on u.s. shipyards for repair work. We have no heavy industry like we had 30-40 years ago. We will never see a "41 for freedom" like shipbuilding program like what was accomplished in between 1959-67. We have no arsenal of democracy, where for example one b-24 bomber was completed every 63 minutes, 24/7/365. A lot of powerful groups sold out the usa and the Chinese are rubbing their hands waiting for the right time.

[@jakemurray2635]

The whole Ford class taking so incredibly long to build does make me start to question the viability of these 100,000 ton carriers. Is having the biggest ships truly worth it if the ships take a decade to build?

[@douglasengle2704]

The long build times are likely structured so they could greatly accelerated if world conditions change. It would probably still be in years though.

[@adrianpaz472]

I heard the Nimitz class will get an additional 5 years (55 total) after their RCOH because the fuel in their reactors can last that long. Is that correct?

[@SteamCrane]

Are any of the ships being scrapped candidates for SLEP? Of course that may be limited by drydock capacity.

[@DM-mv4eq]

Anything is possible, but it diminishing returns. More cost to repair for less quality use after the older they get. A build new strategy would be part of fixing several of our issues. Fords need over 600 less crew. That puts a bite in the manning issue, but the way we are planning we will never get there before the death spiral tears the whole thing down.

[@mrjava66]

No AI of Sal could ever be as good as Original Version Sal! 18:50 lol!!!

[@cdf01]

I can’t help but think of the Littoral Combat Ship Disaster as I watch this.

[@Grace17893]

Well good luck guys God help us amen

[@chronus4421]

Thanks Sal!

[@jkapown]

When tanker ship's anchor due to weather conditions can they do so near shore & go ashore until weather clears, or are they obligated to stay aboard & hopefully don't capsize?

[@peterepoet2535]

Mr. Sal, GOD Bless you for your compassion and nautical wisdom. Could a ship be outfitted with Pectoral Fins (Flippers) that are deployed on Port and Starboard sides of the Ship to allow for steering if the Propulsion power goes out since the rudder relies on Prop propulsion water pressure to be effective in navigating. Bottle Nose Dolphins use their Pectoral fins to turn very efficiently. ❤️✝️🇺🇸 😊

[@nemesiswarrior75]

At this point why doesn’t the USN update the WW2 Fletcher Class DD to make them highly automated with 32 crew. A few Anti-ship launchers & some Torps. Order 300 at $750million ea. Guess that makes too much sense.

[@glass8289]

Please give the ship building contracts to Wallstreet and Boeing.

[@ajobdunwell2585]

I don't know if Boeing makes boats, but Lockheed Martin built the LCS that are already being retired.

[@glass8289]

@@ajobdunwell2585 I am just joking 😀 about boeing.

[@CaptainBanjo-fw4fq]

Could always give them to BAE. They’ve never had any problems… Seriously though, we’re paying the price of under-investing in industry and a just in time efficiency paradigm.

[@Mikell-h2c]

Thanks sucker U S taxpayers,

[@Mikell-h2c]

So the doors will fall off!

[@crapmalls]

There will be a US navy in 30 years? Huge if true

[@judgedredd8876]

At 16:00 the objective was 12 aircraft carriers and we are at 11 and you think we never got close to that? Isn't that as close as one could get besides reaching the 12 mark?

[@wgowshipping]

I am talking about when we go down to 9 carriers and fluctuate between 9 and 11 carriers. We never reach 12.

[@jasonsekwadi9740]

US NAVY should not decomission ships, it would be better to repair and convert old ships into unmanmed decoy vessels: fill them with defensive missiles and place them in strategic positions in a fleet so they can soak up enemy missiles and distract from manned ships. Plus the battleships should be reactivated and converted into missile ships. With the rear turret being kept/upgraded for off shore bombardment/amphibious operations.

[@Justhings332]

The U.S. Navy needs more ports for construction of a multitude of ships and vessels. They need more marine transports, (Amphibs) a new destroyer eventually, Missile guided frigates, and by then a new class of heavy cruiser or even a amphibious assault ship. Even if it took the Navy to even recommission one or two of its Iowa class battleships as an ultimate deterrent to the rise of China in the western pacific. So basically more ships and out of those ships, some brand new ones. A lot less decommissioning. What happened to mothball fleets?? Bring that back ya know?

[@ropeburnsrussell]

And we should dock Ticos in Guam, Alaska, Hawaii as static air defense.

[@SteamCrane]

Not crazy. Call them pillboxes.

[@andrewchanis8082]

Why does it take years to refuel? I worked at a nuclear power plant and we replaced one third of the rods every 18 months in a few weeks (including other maintenance work).

[@wgowshipping]

GW took 69 months. www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=523&Article=3408521

[@andrewchanis8082]

@wgowshipping Thanks for the link. That was a major overhaul on top of refueling. I would hope refueling alone would be quicker (probably still longer and harder than my plant).

[@DM-mv4eq]

Have to cut into the ship and the ship is the one ship left with a real capital ship protection system. Then the reactor, also hardened. @@andrewchanis8082

[@elizabethopoulos4894]

This building schedule makes about as much sense as having everyone in a different action stations vs general quarters, and we know how that turned out in the Guadalcanal campaign.

[@danapeck5382]

Thanks, terrifying. Brings back memories of '80s Newport News with 3 Nimitz, 8 fast attacks in construction, 33,000 on payroll. Sigh

[@tangiblebear5309]

So hopefully no naval battles for ww3

[@Jeffrey-ed8sz]

USDOD seems as if they are way behind the times. Why does it cost so much for old te chnoloy? The best in the world, N word Please.

[@mebeasensei]

Doesn’t the publication of the report compromise geopolitical strategic integrity? I mean, any adversary can plan based on this, and not tell anyone either.???

[@Uff-Da-Dog]

It seems like the US Navy has a big problem repairing and maintaining their ships as well. Need more shipyards!

[@DM-mv4eq]

Need a smarter customer and a more stable order book to maintain a qualified labor pool. There are plenty of yards.

[@QALibrary]

Is there any news on a replacement for the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6)?

[@wgowshipping]

No.

[@QALibrary]

@@wgowshipping I am gobsmacked

[@cragnamorra]

There's a little side angle to that. Decades ago, Congress authorized and appropriated the construction of an extra LHD which the Navy didn't ask for. I'm sure that Trent Lott being Senate Majority Leader at the time (from Mississippi; home of the Ingalls yard which built them) had nothing to do with that...cough cough. I'm not at all saying the USN wasn't pleasantly surprised or was unhappy to accept the additional big ship. But the subtraction of an extra LHD's worth of maintenance, administration, and manning costs from the annual operating budget may not have been the unmitigated disaster one might perceive, from USN bean-counters' perspectives.

[@lanimulrepus]

Good job!

[@ChuckWorkman-y6x]

Great job Doctor Sal! Hopefully the new administration next year address's the dire need of domestic merchant marine and naval shipbuilding! To remain strong this has to happen!!! Thank you Sir!

[@ropeburnsrussell]

Sal, what do you think of shoehorning VLS cells into the national security cutter and building them like crazy?

[@wgowshipping]

I love the Frigate option for NSC. They have a longer duration on station.

[@ropeburnsrussell]

@@wgowshipping how do we get the government on board?

[@DM-mv4eq]

Its getting the Navy on board to suck it up and accept the Coast Guard picked the better seaframe.@@ropeburnsrussell

[@DM-mv4eq]

Even without the VLS they would provide a huge plug and play opportunity. Convert the aft boat lunch to ASW with Captas-4, TB-37U and Nixie. Get the aviation spaces ready for MH-60R with magazine. Too bad later ships deleted the haul down and traversing system. Stack a second boat over the amidships boat like they do on many Burkes leaving the Unrep station on the port side. Swap the CWIS for Searam or RAM launcher. Upgrade the SEWIP to Blk II V6. Standardize around TRS-4D and SPQ-9B radars. Place NSM, ADL launchers or possibly Mk 70 launchers aft of the Mk 110. Tactical length ADL for ESSM and VLA might be the way to go. Keep it such that the gear on the gray hulls could end up on the white hulls in an emergency.

[@grayfox7306]

There is an assumption that the US will continue to have an economy that will support the plan. My bet is the economy will decrease which will force a reduction in the build plan. The next issue is America's decline in heavy industry and other industries required to support the plan. This from a old CVN-69 plank owner. We like Ike.

[@S.Sheezy]

This could be a shift from conventional war fighting to cyber warfare.

[@jawadad73]

build a navy 30 years in the future in an age battlefield tactics and technology changes quarterly...I sense a lot of costly 'littoral combat ship' misshaps in the future...

[@moosesnWoop]

ahaha AI is brilliant. Having a lot of fun with it currently

[@GizzyDillespee]

They'd better have some quick plans for cost effective drone defense. High dollar drone defense is nice too... But to be functional in foreign seas, they'll need much more of the high-volume drone defenses. Otherwise, they're wasting money and lives building new ships. And as far as ships go, if the navy can't replenish attrition, and we need those numbers, then don't decommission so fast.

[@GizzyDillespee]

For example, like you said, it's dumb to get rid of the salvage ships before the new ones are ready. As far as LCS, I think billionaires should buy those. Wouldn't that be so apropos? Sell them to billionaires!

[@template16]

Still trying to get my head around an AI version of Sal.

[@thomasbernecky2078]

why do we need 12 carriers anyway? To counter the grave threat of the Russian carriers? Or China's 3 carriers?

[@bradwilson1855]

Need to quit naming carriers after people and return to naming them after battles. We need another Yorktown, Saratoga, Lexington etc

[@mikegallegos7]

My unkindly opinion: today's Admirals spend waaay too much time in front of mirrors perfecting their haircut's hard parting line and not enough time being a Naval Officer.

[@georgewest2096]

thanks.