You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Government Corruption
16 of 49 US SSNs in Drydocks or Waiting for Available Drydock Space
2024-05-23
A taste:
[CDRSalamander] If you’ve hung around American navalist circles enough, you’ve heard people defend the proposition that it isn’t the aircraft carrier that is our capital ship; it is the nuclear attack submarine (SSN).

If true, you would think that everything would be done to make sure that the ones we have were properly maintained, and the industrial infrastructure was scalable, and robust.

You would think.

Over at American Affairs Journal, our friend Jerry Hendrix has an exceptionally well-researched article that needs to be on your must-read list this week, Sunk at the Pier: Crisis in the American Submarine Industrial Base.

Onstation at the yards, his SITREP is sobering;

…of the submarine force already in commission, sixteen of those forty-nine boats—or nearly a third of the Navy’s premier offensive force—are in drydocks or tied to piers, lacking required dive certifications. These submarines cannot get underway due to a three-year maintenance backlog in the U.S. Navy.The bottom line is that the American submarine force, the “point of the spear” of American power, upon which so many military plans depend, is unprepared to meet the current threat environment, and there are no quick fixes. It has taken decades—and a sequence of bad assump­tions and poor decisions—to fall into the current state of unpreparedness, and it will take years, as well as significant investments in both new ship construction and submarine repair capacity, to recover.



Posted by:Griter+Slash1619

#14  if I understand correctly, the Los Angeles class only requires one refueling during its lifetime and the Virginia class don’t require any refuelings!
Posted by: Andy Wherenter1387   2024-05-23 20:27  

#13  Still, a better performance record than our friends in Germany.
Posted by: Ebbuger Whuque4103   2024-05-23 14:18  

#12  In 1968, Nuclear subs needed “refueling” every 5 years. I do not know what the current schedule looks like since I left the sub force in 72. The reason why, I got married and would not go back to “cold” bunking.
Posted by: Old Salty   2024-05-23 13:37  

#11  Do they actually have crews for the boats?
I realize the nuc boats always have reactor guys on board, even when powered down, but how 'bout the rest? They seem to be shorthanded.
(I had a HS buddy, who qual'ed for reactor watch, got assigned to a boat in the Pac, and rode it into the Boston navy yard for a 2 year refit. Good work if you can get it.)
Posted by: ed in texas   2024-05-23 12:24  

#10  Herb is consistent, even when he uses other nyms
Posted by: Frank G   2024-05-23 11:20  

#9  what do we need offensive forces for?

Well...to crush the opposition.
Not like that's ever going to happen.
Posted by: Skidmark   2024-05-23 10:59  

#8  what do we need offensive forces for?

For when ZOG orders you to wipe out Brussels and liberate Ireland - Spain can go to hell, and Norway is Russia's problem.
Posted by: Grom the reflective   2024-05-23 10:06  

#7  Try framing a house with a tack hammer.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2024-05-23 09:15  

#6  Think of it in terms of football. Few scores are made by the defensive line. Of course if your goal doesn't include winning, leave the offensive line on the bench.
Posted by: Besoeker   2024-05-23 09:13  

#5  what do we need offensive forces for?

Peace through superior firepower.

Peace happens when both sides know who would win, war results when it is in question.
Posted by: Glenmore   2024-05-23 08:47  

#4  

Could lack of Federal $$$$$$ be an issue?
Or, is it there are only 17+/- dry docks in the USA, NOT counting the floaters?
Posted by: NN2N1   2024-05-23 05:33  

#3   what do we need offensive forces for?

Think of it like car insurance - better have it and not need it than need it and not have it. MAD may sound mad, but it's basic game theory.

I'd be more worried about the Klingons and other schemers looking to play the Great Game. Who is up for some Afghanistan?
Posted by: SteveS   2024-05-23 05:25  

#2  ^ Hi, Herb
Posted by: Frank G   2024-05-23 05:14  

#1  what do we need offensive forces for? They are just a temptation for the worst in DC to start more expensive wars we can't afford.
Defend our own border, that's a tall enough problem for them to fix. After that's over we can worry about shipyards.
Posted by: Cromonter Spawn of the Faeries8102   2024-05-23 03:05  

00:00