Yes, the unsexy but important. For a moment at least, let’s put to the side FLT III DDG-51, FFG(X), and “call-or-don’t-call-a-cruiser-a-cruiser” arguments and talk about a few of classes of ships that briefly made their way in to the news cycle this week who are in dire need of attention and funds.
First of all, icebreakers – and we should start by looking at what the King of the Arctic is up to, Russia;
Russia currently has 40 icebreaking ships and is in the midst of a capability ramp-up. Two new icebreaking corvettes, equipped to carry cruise missiles, will join the Russian fleet by 2020, Zukunft said.
How about the US?
America’s only existing heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, is “living on borrowed time,” Zukunft said. At 41 years old, many of the ship’s parts are no longer manufactured: The Coast Guard has been scavenging them off its sister ship, the Polar Sea, now an inoperable “organ donor.” Even with annual shipyard overhauls, the risk of an unexpected, catastrophic breakdown rises with every year of heavy battering in icy waters, and if the Polar Star gets stuck in ice, the US has nothing powerful enough to rescue it.
Good news is, we have a plan;
In a hearing before the House Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Paul Zukunft said current plans call for the service to build three medium and three heavy icebreakers, with accelerated delivery of the first heavy icebreaker in 2023. Currently, the United States has just one heavy icebreaker, the 40-year-old and poorly aging Polar Star, and one medium icebreaker, the Healy, used primarily for research expeditions.
In a smart more, there will be additional flexibility;
The Coast Guard’s new heavy icebreaker will have space, weight, and electrical power set aside to carry offensive weapons, Commandant Paul Zukunft said here today. While Adm. Zukunft has publicly advocated making the icebreaker capable of carrying cruise missiles, this is the first confirmation we’ve seen that design work is indeed underway.
I’ll avoid a gratuitous snark that we need a few light ice breakers to escort LCS around, but we really should not be in as bad shape as we are in the arctic. It’s shocking, really, considering the amount of wealth we have in the polar regions and a deep history of exploration.
As for arming icebreakers, compared to how the Russians are arming their icebreakers, our plans are modest, but something is better than nothing and returns to the traditional practice of making sure these ships can hold their own if so needed. Sound move.
A late start on icebreakers, but at least we are moving forward.
Next our LCC;
The Navy’s oldest warship has completed a 19-month dry dock period designed to extend its life another 20 years.
The USS Blue Ridge, which serves as the flagship of the Yokosuka-based 7th Fleet, returned pier side this week at Yokosuka after an extended dry-dock selected restricted availability maintenance period, a Navy statement said.
…
“While modernization of Blue Ridge’s communications suite has gone very well, additional maintenance is required to address issues with the ship’s engineering plant which is nearing 50 years in service,” he said. “Once these repairs are finished, Blue Ridge will resume its role as Seventh Fleet’s command ship and play a critical role as our forces operate forward on a daily basis.”The ship entered dry dock in June 2016 for what was scheduled to be a 14-month period.
Commissioned in 1970, the Blue Ridge is the oldest deployable warship in the Navy and the second oldest still-active ship. Only the USS Constitution, which is primarily a ceremonial ship, is older. In 2011, the chief of naval operations extended the Blue Ridge’s service life into 2039.
The Blue Ridge is one of only two amphibious-command ships still in service. The other, the USS Mount Whitney, is the flagship of the Navy’s 6th Fleet out of Naples, Italy.
Almost 70-yrs of service by the time all is said and done.
The case can be made that would could use more than 2 LCC right now. While good people can agree about their utility, I think the “we don’t need them” is the weaker part of the argument. From HA/DR on the low end to, “You and your HQ have to leave our country in 5 days”/”That static HQ of ours only survived the first 36-hrs of the war. We should have seen that the conventional MRBM threat a bit clearer.” on the high end.
What you may consider a forward base, a peer considers a target within range.
What is wrong about having a new class of LCC with the goal of having Hull-1 commissioned in 2030? If we use the LPD-17 hull as your starting point to minimize program risk, etc … you can do the rest.
While we have our minds on WESTPAC, over-reliance on shore facilities within easy range of growing peer regional powers, do we need to look again at bringing back Destroyer Tenders and commissioning new Submarine Tenders? Our existing AS are almost 40-yrs old and we have zero AD.
The Pacific is large and HI & CONUS yards are far away. Even in peacetime, what we have learned in the last year with the FITZGERALD and MCCAIN is that our destroyers do not have access to enough depot-level repair help as they need.
There is nothing “sexy” about WABG, LCC, AS, and AD … but as we wake up challenged again on the high seas, isn’t it time that we give them the thought, funding, and program support they need?
