The US Navy is not ready to repair ships damaged in a great power fight with China or Russia

[Stevicus]

The US Navy is not ready to repair ships damaged in a great power fight with China or Russia, watchdog reports (msn.com)

• A government watchdog reports that the US Navy is not ready to repair major battle damage.
• The service put decreased emphasis on maintaining this capability after the Cold War.
• The GAO argues that great-power rivalries in this century require a revival of this capability.

The US Navy is not ready to do repairs on vessels damaged in battle with a great-power rival like China or Russia, a US government watchdog reported this week.

"The ability to repair and maintain ships plays a critical role in sustaining Navy readiness," the Government Accountability Office said in a new report, but that critical capability is not currently where it needs to be, especially when it comes to fixing ships damaged in combat and getting them back into the fight.

The Navy has not needed to quickly repair ships damaged in a great-power conflict since World War II, when warships were less advanced and complex than today's modern vessels and the US had a much more robust industrial capacity.

So, back when we had a much more robust industrial capacity, we were much more capable of repairing ships. Now, they've apparently let it wither since the end of the Cold War.

After the end of the Cold War, the service shifted its focus from wartime repairs to peacetime maintenance, reducing the number of public shipyards and divesting of some of its important naval repair assets.

"The rise of 21st century adversaries capable of producing high-end threats in warfare - referred to as great power competitors - revives the need for the Navy to reexamine its battle damage repair capability to ensure it is ready for potential conflict," the GAO report said.

The watchdog added that "depending on the nature of the conflict, the Navy may not be able to rely on additional ships to replace damaged ones--making the need for battle damage repair capability all the more important."

This could be a problem if we ever did have to go to war. Throughout our history, America has been primarily a sea power, just as Britain has been.

On the other hand, I've noticed that stories like this come out whenever the Pentagon decides it wants to lobby for more money on defense.

The Pentagon reported this year that China has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of around 350 ships, including 130 major surface combatants. China is also the top shipbuilding nation in the world by tonnage, meaning it likely has the ability to rapidly build up its naval force or replace combat losses.

The US Navy has a proven, more capable but smaller force and produces ships at a slower pace, suggesting it can afford to suffer far fewer losses in a major conflict given the challenges the service faces to replace them.

Furthermore, the Navy's regular maintenance capacity, which it would likely need to rely on to repair damaged warships in a conflict, has had problems for years, issues that have resulted in costly delays and serious readiness setbacks.

The GAO said that "battle damage repairs may further exacerbate" the "ongoing shipyard challenges to keep up with regular maintenance demand," potentially making an already problematic situation worse.

Shortfalls in the Navy's wartime battle-damage repair capabilities include the lack of an established damage repair doctrine, an unclear command and control, and an insufficient repair capacity, among other things.

It used to be that China didn't really have much of a navy at all, but now they have the largest in the world. Meanwhile, our own navy "has had problems for years" and "issues that have resulted in costly delays and serious readiness setbacks." They also note a "lack of an established damage repair doctrine, an unclear command and control, and an insufficient repair capacity, among other things." From what they're describing, it appears to be a serious mismanagement problem.

Navy officials told the GAO that "the Navy could handle a single battle damage event," but they were "uncertain how the Navy might handle multiple simultaneous or near-simultaneous events" like what the service would experience in a high-end conflict with a near-peer adversary.

In recent years, the Navy has experienced a few major unexpected repair situations in which a ship suffered severe damage. In 2017, the destroyers USS Fitzgerald and USS John S. McCain were damaged in collisions. The repair work took a couple of years and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Last year, the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard, while pierside, was gutted by a fire. The Navy made the decision to scrap the ship rather than repair it.

The GAO report said that the Navy is still "in the early stages of determining how it will provide battle damage repair during a great power conflict." In its report, the watchdog provided three key recommendations, most of which the Navy agreed to try to implement.

In the Biden administration's fiscal year 2022 budget, the Department of the Navy's $211.7 billion budget proposal placed less importance on ship, aircraft, and weapons procurement, focusing attention and resources instead on operations and maintenance, personnel, research and development, and infrastructure.

I am very much a peacenik, and I think we should emphasize diplomacy to try to maintain peace and keep us out of war. It's disconcerting to see so many warmongers in our government who take on a very hawkish, militaristic stance on things. If they're going to rattle their sabers like that, it seems their first order of business should be to make sure they have their stuff better organized and better prepared to back up their threats on the world stage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even back in my college days, that was eons ago, Navy ships were often called "targets". Meaning that if there was an all out war that they would be taken out rather quickly.

It is time to invest in the Space Force

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've worked for a company involved in defence (mostly airforce and navy) maintenance software. I was amazed at the low rates of availability for some vessels/aircraft.

 

[Revoltingest]

On the other hand, I've noticed that stories like this come out whenever the Pentagon decides it wants to lobby for more money on defense.

When don't they want more money?

 

[Stevicus]

When don't they want more money?

Yeah, the US spends much more on defense than China, yet they still can't cut the mustard: U.S. vs. China Military Spending: Which Is Bigger? (investopedia.com)

In 2019, the U.S. remained the world's top military spender by far, at about $649 billion. China was second at about $261 billion.

I guess that's the difference between using state-owned facilities versus private contractors.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, the US spends much more on defense than China, yet they still can't cut the mustard: U.S. vs. China Military Spending: Which Is Bigger? (investopedia.com)



I guess that's the difference between using state-owned facilities versus private contractors.

I wouldn't trust China's figures on spending.
(They have a credibility issue.)

Note also that private defense contractors pay
property taxes & income taxes. So a full accounting
would be need for any cromulent cost comparison.

 

[Stevicus]

I wouldn't trust China's figures on spending.
(They have a credibility issue.)

Our own military also has a credibility issue.

Note also that private defense contractors pay
property taxes & income taxes. So a full accounting
would be need for any cromulent cost comparison.

Noted.

 

[Revoltingest]

Our own military also has a credibility issue.

Still, I give more credibility to Ameristanian federal government's
cost figures than I would to the PRC's government.

 

[Stevicus]

Still, I give more credibility to Ameristanian federal government's
cost figures than I would to the PRC's government.

It still doesn't explain how their navy got to be so large, while ours seems to be falling into disrepair. (Or maybe it's not quite so dire as the article portrays it, which goes back to the credibility issue.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

It still doesn't explain how their navy got to be so large, while ours seems to be falling into disrepair. (Or maybe it's not quite so dire as the article portrays it, which goes back to the credibility issue.)

But we need new ships because . . . well I cannot go into all of the details right now But look, look:

How cool is that? And this one is even better. It has a tennis court on the poop deck:

I don't know about you, but we cannot afford a tennis court gap right now.

 

[Revoltingest]

It still doesn't explain how their navy got to be so large, while ours seems to be falling into disrepair. (Or maybe it's not quite so dire as the article portrays it, which goes back to the credibility issue.)

I've not compared the 2 navies & their relative capability.
But beware judging a navy based upon size, given that
technology is so much more important than in years past.

 

[Stevicus]

I've not compared the 2 navies & their relative capability.
But beware judging a navy based upon size, given that
technology is so much more important than in years past.

I thought the Chinese had reached technological parity with the U.S. (and possibly even surpassing us in some areas). I keep seeing stories about how U.S. science and math education has lagged woefully behind China and other industrialized nations.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought the Chinese had reached technological parity with the U.S. (and possibly even surpassing us in some areas). I keep seeing stories about how U.S. science and math education has lagged woefully behind China and other industrialized nations.

Whether they've surpassed us or not,
this does appear to be their goal.
It's a very difficult thing to measure.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Heavy repair facilities are had to maintain in peace time, who is going to keep them up to date and ready for action when they are not6 being used. who will pick up the tab for doing nothing.

China is building new modern ship at a far faster rate than the USA, who are not even keeping the bulk of their fleet up to date. Chinas Building yards are both up to date and fully busy. and they have the steel production to match. none of which is true of the American ship building industry.

however the USA has a smaller number of very high-tech vessels. which impress but would be easily neutralised in a war situation . Like the German super Tiger tanks were in WW2. the attrition rate was too high for them to make a serious impression.

 

[Stevicus]

Whether they've surpassed us or not,
this does appear to be their goal.
It's a very difficult thing to measure.

Either way, it appears we would be in a dire situation if it came to a fight with China.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I thought the Chinese had reached technological parity with the U.S. (and possibly even surpassing us in some areas). I keep seeing stories about how U.S. science and math education has lagged woefully behind China and other industrialized nations.

All true. It is difficult to compare the fleets as they are so different spec wise. Most of the American fleet was built when warfare was very different. China is unlikely to be making anything like that mistake. no0t only can they out man and out resource the USA. but their technology, is at the very least, just as good, and probably more suitable for modern warfare.

 

[Stevicus]

China is building new modern ship at a far faster rate than the USA, who are not even keeping the bulk of their fleet up to date. Chinas Building yards are both up to date and fully busy. and they have the steel production to match. none of which is true of the American ship building industry.

Yeah, we've let our industrial infrastructure wither on the vine these past decades. This country has been grossly mismanaged since the 1980s. Now we're paying the price.

 

[Revoltingest]

Either way, it appears we would be in a dire situation if it came to a fight with China.

My only prediction is that it would be devastating to many.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I thought the Chinese had reached technological parity with the U.S. (and possibly even surpassing us in some areas). I keep seeing stories about how U.S. science and math education has lagged woefully behind China and other industrialized nations.

That's bs. China is still a developing nation and is third world in some ways. They're always stealing from everyone, too, so their tech know-how isn't that great.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The US Navy is not ready to repair ships damaged in a great power fight with China or Russia, watchdog reports (msn.com)




So, back when we had a much more robust industrial capacity, we were much more capable of repairing ships. Now, they've apparently let it wither since the end of the Cold War.





This could be a problem if we ever did have to go to war. Throughout our history, America has been primarily a sea power, just as Britain has been.

On the other hand, I've noticed that stories like this come out whenever the Pentagon decides it wants to lobby for more money on defense.



It used to be that China didn't really have much of a navy at all, but now they have the largest in the world. Meanwhile, our own navy "has had problems for years" and "issues that have resulted in costly delays and serious readiness setbacks." They also note a "lack of an established damage repair doctrine, an unclear command and control, and an insufficient repair capacity, among other things." From what they're describing, it appears to be a serious mismanagement problem.



I am very much a peacenik, and I think we should emphasize diplomacy to try to maintain peace and keep us out of war. It's disconcerting to see so many warmongers in our government who take on a very hawkish, militaristic stance on things. If they're going to rattle their sabers like that, it seems their first order of business should be to make sure they have their stuff better organized and better prepared to back up their threats on the world stage.

If it's anything like humvee protection during the Iraq wars...

I think its interesting to note if the US isn't doing it, no one else is either.

Anyways, I'm sure there are enough allies to meet a China/Russian threat in such a scenario.