Without change, US Navy's future fleet looks too ambitious for industry

[rangerrebew]

Without change, US Navy's future fleet looks too ambitious for industry
Opinion by Theo Egan • 22h •


For those of us who maintain detailed forecasts of the global defense market, there are few times as exciting as the annual release of the new Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) budget and the 30-year ship building plan. The long-range plan lays out the path that must be taken by industry to build the capability required by the U.S. Navy.
 
For the long-range plan to be carried out, the first step is executing the FYDP plan through fiscal 2029, per the president's budget request, which provides plenty of insight into the expectation for ship construction timelines and statuses.

These ship-by-ship details provide insight into recent performance, the changing of expectations and the difficult road ahead for the long-range plan.

The plan outlines an ambitious increase in the number of active battle force ships to meet the goal of an eventual 381 ships (plus 134 unmanned vessels). It shows increasing deliveries effectively across all ship categories through the late 2030s in a baseline plan, and provides an alternative with fewer procurements, but both begin with the assumption that FY25-FY29 FYDP expectations will be met.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/without-change-us-navy-s-future-fleet-looks-too-ambitious-for-industry/ar-BB1ltgv0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=ff4895afdef94b37bec51a266618b93c&ei=53

[rangerrebew]

To me it seems the Navy is short a key player who understands what it takes to build ships.

[Timber Rattler]

To me it seems the Navy is short a key player who understands what it takes to build ships.

When the naval shipyards were shutdown in the 1990s, as part of the "Peace Dividend," all those skilled workers and tradesmen who knew how to build ships were lost too.  As a result, all that accumulated knowledge and experience was lost too, but nobody thought of that, or even cared, back when the Clinton Administration was cutting defense spending to pay for the Democrats pet social programs.