DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Fleet Ownership Versus Global Allocation of Ships in the Combat Logistics Force

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Fleet Ownership Versus Global Allocation of Ships in the Combat Logistics Force View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2006-09 Evaluation of fleet ownership versus global allocation of ships in the Combat Logistics Force Doyle, David E. Monterey California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/2596 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS EVALUATION OF FLEET OWNERSHIP VERSUS GLOBAL ALLOCATION OF SHIPS IN THE COMBAT LOGISTICS FORCE by David E. Doyle September 2006 Thesis Advisor: W. Matthew Carlyle Second Reader: Gerald G. Brown Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED September 2006 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Evaluation of Fleet Ownership versus Global Allocation of Ships in the Combat Logistics Force 6. AUTHOR(S) David E. Doyle 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) Military Sealift Command (MSC) introduced its new Dry Cargo and Ammunition Ship (T-AKE) in June 2006, to replace its retiring ammunition and fast combat stores supply ships. MSC seeks new ways to use T-AKEs, fleet replenishment oilers, and fast combat support ships to better support the U.S. Navy. We evaluate two alternate ways to manage these ships, one where each ship operates under a particular “fleet ownership,” and another where these ships are “globally allocated,” serving any fleet customer as needed worldwide. We introduce an optimization-based scheduling tool, and use it to evaluate an expository 181-day peacetime scenario. We track daily inventories of 13 battle groups --- carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, surface strike groups, and a littoral combat ship squadron --- to gain insight into how to best employ CLF ships. We determine that, in our scenario, global allocation provides significantly better service to fleet customers. 14. SUBJECT TERMS Global Allocation, Fleet Ownership, Combat Logistics Force, Optimization, 15. NUMBER OF Mixed Integer Program, Global Sea Route, T-AKE, T-AO, T-AOE, Station Ship, Shuttle Ship, PAGES Logistics Planning Factors, Underway Replenishment, Consolidation 100 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF OF ABSTRACT REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited EVALUATION OF FLEET OWNERSHIP VERSUS GLOBAL ALLOCATION OF SHIPS IN THE COMBAT LOGISTICS FORCE David E. Doyle Lieutenant Commander, Supply Corps, United States Navy B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1993 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN OPERATIONS RESEARCH from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL September 2006 Author: David E. Doyle Approved by: W. Matthew Carlyle Thesis Advisor Gerald G. Brown Second Reader James N. Eagle Chairman, Department of Operations Research iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv ABSTRACT Military Sealift Command (MSC) introduced its new Dry Cargo and Ammunition Ship (T-AKE) in June 2006, to replace its retiring ammunition and fast combat stores supply ships. MSC seeks new ways to use T-AKEs, fleet replenishment oilers, and fast combat support ships to better support the U.S. Navy. We evaluate two alternate ways to manage these ships, one where each ship operates under a particular “fleet ownership,” and another where these ships are “globally allocated,” serving any fleet customer as needed worldwide. We introduce an optimization-based scheduling tool, and use it to evaluate an expository 181-day peacetime scenario. We track daily inventories of 13 battle groups --- carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, surface strike groups, and a littoral combat ship squadron --- to gain insight into how to best employ CLF ships. We determine that, in our scenario, global allocation provides significantly better service to fleet customers. v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 A. THE CURRENT FORCE AND THE FUTURE PLAN...............................1 B. THESIS OBJECTIVE.....................................................................................4 II. BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................5 A. WHY CHOOSE AN OPTIMIZATION MODEL?.......................................5 B. PAST RESEARCH ..........................................................................................5 1. Optimizing the Number and Employment of Combat Logistics Force Shuttle Ships, with a Case Study of the T-AKE Ship ............5 2. A Comparison of the Operational Potential and Capability of Two Combat Logistics Force Alternatives ........................................6 3. Optimizing Global Operations Plans for the Combat Logistics Force......................................................................................................6 4. Optimizing Global Combat Logistics Force Support for Sea Base Operations ...................................................................................7 C. CLF BOTTOM-UP REVIEW ........................................................................7 D. PRESENCE REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................9 E. GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT ..........................................................11 F. LOGISTICS SCHEME OF MANEUVER ..................................................12 III. SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................13 A. 181-DAY PEACETIME SCENARIO ..........................................................13 B. WEB-BASED SCHEDULING TOOL .........................................................15 C. COMBATANT SHIP GROUPINGS............................................................16 1. Carrier Strike Group.........................................................................16 2. Expeditionary Strike Group .............................................................17 3. Surface Strike Group.........................................................................17 4. Littoral Combat Ship Squadron.......................................................17 D. COMBAT LOGISTICS FORCE..................................................................18 1. Lewis and Clark (T-AKE 1) Class....................................................18 2. Henry J. Kaiser (T-AO 187) Class....................................................20 3. Supply (T-AOE6) Class .....................................................................20 E. LOGISTICS PLANNING FACTORS .........................................................20 1. Consumption Rates............................................................................21 2. Capacity Totals...................................................................................21 IV. MODEL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................25 A. NAVIGABLE WORLD SEA ROUTE MODEL.........................................25 B. MODELING FLEET OWNERSHIP...........................................................28 C. ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................29 D. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS...........................................................30 E. MODEL FORMULATION...........................................................................31 1. Indices [~cardinality].........................................................................31 vii 2. Provided Data [units].........................................................................31 3. Derived Data.......................................................................................32 4. Decision Variables..............................................................................33
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Cost of the Navy's New Frigate
    OCTOBER 2020 The Cost of the Navy’s New Frigate On April 30, 2020, the Navy awarded Fincantieri Several factors support the Navy’s estimate: Marinette Marine a contract to build the Navy’s new sur- face combatant, a guided missile frigate long designated • The FFG(X) is based on a design that has been in as FFG(X).1 The contract guarantees that Fincantieri will production for many years. build the lead ship (the first ship designed for a class) and gives the Navy options to build as many as nine addi- • Little if any new technology is being developed for it. tional ships. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office examines the potential costs if the Navy exercises • The contractor is an experienced builder of small all of those options. surface combatants. • CBO estimates the cost of the 10 FFG(X) ships • An independent estimate within the Department of would be $12.3 billion in 2020 (inflation-adjusted) Defense (DoD) was lower than the Navy’s estimate. dollars, about $1.2 billion per ship, on the basis of its own weight-based cost model. That amount is Other factors suggest the Navy’s estimate is too low: 40 percent more than the Navy’s estimate. • The costs of all surface combatants since 1970, as • The Navy estimates that the 10 ships would measured per thousand tons, were higher. cost $8.7 billion in 2020 dollars, an average of $870 million per ship. • Historically the Navy has almost always underestimated the cost of the lead ship, and a more • If the Navy’s estimate turns out to be accurate, expensive lead ship generally results in higher costs the FFG(X) would be the least expensive surface for the follow-on ships.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Interception: Centerpiece of Economic Sanctions in the New World Order Lois E
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 53 | Number 4 March 1993 Maritime Interception: Centerpiece of Economic Sanctions in the New World Order Lois E. Fielding Repository Citation Lois E. Fielding, Maritime Interception: Centerpiece of Economic Sanctions in the New World Order, 53 La. L. Rev. (1993) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol53/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maritime Interception: Centerpiece of Economic Sanctions in the New World Order Lois E. Fielding* I. INTRODUCTION In the early morning hours of December 26, 1990, the Ibn Khaldun, an "Iraqi-flagged cargo ship," plied the waters of the northern Arabian Sea in the vicinity of Masirah Island as she proceeded to Basra, Iraq after leaving the port of Aden.' Out of sight, the HMAS Sydney, the USS Olendorf and the USS Fife coordinated operations and began the interception process adopted by the Multinational Interception Force 2 (MIF). Using bridge to bridge radio, the on-scene commander issued the warning: "In accordance with its previously published notice to mariners, the United States intends to exercise its right to conduct a visit and search of your vessel under international law. Request you stop your vessel and prepare to receive my inspection team." 3 The Ibn Khaldun refused to slow. The request was repeated until 5:30 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 7 Three Ships Named USS Marblehead Since the Latter Part Of
    Three Ships named USS Marblehead The 1st Marblehead Since the latter part of the 19th century, cruisers in the United States Navy have carried the names of U.S. cities. Three ships have been named after Marblehead, MA, the birthplace of the U.S. Navy, and all three had distinguished careers. The 1st Marblehead. The first Marblehead was not a cruiser, however. She Source: Wikipedia.com was an Unadilla-class gunboat designed not for ship-to-ship warfare but for bombardment of coastal targets and blockade runners. Launched in 1861, she served the Union during the American Civil War. First assigned to the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron, she took part in operations along the York and Pamunkey Rivers in Virginia. On 1 MAY 1862, she shelled Confederate positions at Yorktown in support of General George McClellan's drive up the peninsula toward Richmond. In an unusual engagement, this Marblehead was docked in Pamunkey River when Confederate cavalry commander Jeb Stuart ordered an attack on the docked ship. Discovered by Union sailors and marines, who opened fire, the Confederate horse artillery under Major John Pelham unlimbered his guns and fired on Marblehead. The bluecoats were called back aboard and as the ship got under way Pelham's guns raced the ship, firing at it as long as the horse can keep up with it. The Marblehead escaped. Reassigned to the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, she commenced patrols off the southern east coast in search of Confederate vessels. With the single turreted, coastal monitor Passaic, in early-FEB 1863, she reconnoitered Georgia’s Wilmington River in an unsuccessful attempt to locate the ironclad ram CSS Atlanta.
    [Show full text]
  • FOLIS JONES - a GUY WHO's BEEN 'Tt Iere Page 6 "Retirement" Is Not in This Exchief's Vocabulary
    A crewman aboard USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), garbed in fright deck gear, awaits the next air- craft launch. (Photo by JOI Kerby Harrison) MAGAZINE OF THE U.S. NAVY - 56th YEAR OF PUBLICATION 19 7 8 NUMBER 743 NUMBERDECEMBER 1978 Chief of Naval Operations: ADM Thomas B. Hayward Chief of Information: RADM DavidM. Cooney OIC Navy Internal Relations Act.: CAPT James E. Wentz Features 6 PRESIDENTS WHO WERE NAVY MEN Ties between the nation's top officeand the Navy 12 FOLIS JONES - A GUY WHO'S BEEN 'Tt iERE Page 6 "Retirement" is not in this exchief's vocabulary 18 FOREIGN MILITARY TRAINING Training people of other navies is a two-way street 22 SALEM'S ARITHMETIC SAILOR Before Bowditch, navigationwas anything but exact 27 IVAN ROGOV - EXTENDING THE SOVIETSPHERE Russia's latest addition heads for the open sea 32 ATHENS MARATHON Navy runners do well in classic endurance race 33 ALL-NAVY SAILINGCHAMPIONSHIP Last of the annual event heldat Newport, R.I. 36 A LONG, HARD STRUGGLE BACK Margie Vose and Navy medicine team upto beat the odds Page 22 39 "PEARL" TV special involves yesterday's ships, today's people 40 SURVIVOR BENEFITS First in anew series on Rights and Benefits Departments Currents - 2; Bearings - 28; Mail Buoy - 48 Covers Front: Retired Navy Chief Folis Jones ready for another race - see page 12. Back: All-Navy Sailing at Newport, R.I., this past summer. Both front and back covers by JO1 (SS)Pete Sundberg. Staff: Editor: John F. Coleman; News Editor: JoanneE. Dumene Associates: Richard Hosier (Layout); Michael Tuffli (Art);Edward Jenkins (Research-Acting); Elaine McNeil(Editorial Assistant) Send mailto: All Hands, Hoffman No.
    [Show full text]
  • 01-10 January 25, 2010 C&P Brown Water Navy Tracking Program
    VA&R Archived Bulletins can be found at www.legion.org 01-10 January 25, 2010 C&P Brown Water Navy Tracking Program The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in a January 2010 Compensation and Pension (C&P) Service Bulletin, announced a new initiative to collect data on Vietnam naval operations for the purpose of providing regional offices with information to assist with development in Haas related disability claims based on herbicide exposure from Navy Veterans. To date, they have compiled verification from various sources showing that a number of offshore “blue water” naval vessels conducted operations on the inland “brown water” rivers and delta areas of Vietnam. VA has also identified certain vessel types that operated primarily or exclusively on the inland waterways. The ships and dates of inland waterway service are listed below. If a veteran’s service aboard one of these ships can be confirmed through military records during the time frames specified, then exposure to herbicide agents can be presumed without further development. This is an ongoing project and the list below is by no means complete. Therefore, veterans on vessels that traveled the inland waterways not identified below will need to submit evidence supporting brown water service. The vessels currently identified via this program include: All vessels of Inshore Fire Support [IFS] Division 93 during their entire Vietnam tour o USS Carronade (IFS 1) o USS Clarion River (LSMR 409) [Landing Ship, Medium, Rocket] o USS Francis River (LSMR 525) o USS White River (LSMR 536)
    [Show full text]
  • Combat Logistics Force Levels: Methodology and Results
    CRM D0006315.A2/Final October 2002 Combat Logistics Force Levels: Methodology and Results Wendy R Trickey • Burnham C. McCaffree Jr. 4825 Mark Center Drive • Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1850 Approved for distribution: October 2002 Integrated Systems and Operations Division This document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of the Navy. It Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Specific authority: N00014-00-D-0700. For copies of this document call: CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123 Copyright 2002 The CNA Corporation 0 Contents Summary . 1 Background and methodology . 1 Results . 2 Introduction . 5 Timeline methodology and assumptions . 9 Timeline description . 9 Peacetime presence requirements . 10 Initial use of presence requirements in the timeline methodology . 10 Current presence requirements . 11 CLF presence requirements during Operation Enduring Freedom . 12 Post-OEF CLF presence requirements . 12 Timeline assumptions . 14 Maintenance . 14 AOE workup for deployment. 16 Transit between theaters . 16 Deployment lengths . 17 AOE conversions . 18 CLF transition. 18 FDNF carrier battle group . 19 Other considerations . 21 Presence requirements. 21 Timeline limitations . 22 Force structure requirements and capabilities . 25 CLF Alternative I . 26 Near-term period (2003-2006) . 26 Mid-term period (2007-2015) . 28 Far-term period (2016-2020) . 30 i CLF Alternative II . 31 Near-term period . 32 Mid-term period (2007-2015) . 32 Far-term period (2016-2020) . 34 Summary of results . 35 Alternative III . 38 Conclusions . 39 Appendix. 41 References . 55 List of figures . 57 List of tables . 59 Distribution list . 61 ii Summary Background and methodology The Director, Strategic Mobility and Combat Logistics Division (N42) in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations recently asked CNA to investigate the future force structure of the Combat Logistics Force (CLF) based on current peacetime presence requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Deck Runoff NOD, Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards For
    This document is part of Appendix A, Deck Runoff: Nature of Discharge for the “Phase I Final Rule and Technical Development Document of Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS),” published in April 1999. The reference number is EPA-842-R-99-001. Phase I Final Rule and Technical Development Document of Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) Appendix A Deck Runoff: Nature of Discharge April 1999 NATURE OF DISCHARGE REPORT Deck Runoff 1.0 INTRODUCTION The National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 amended Section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)) to require that the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop uniform national discharge standards (UNDS) for vessels of the Armed Forces for “...discharges, other than sewage, incidental to normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces, ...” [Section 312(n)(1)]. UNDS is being developed in three phases. The first phase (which this report supports), will determine which discharges will be required to be controlled by marine pollution control devices (MPCDs)—either equipment or management practices. The second phase will develop MPCD performance standards. The final phase will determine the design, construction, installation, and use of MPCDs. A nature of discharge (NOD) report has been prepared for each of the discharges that has been identified as a candidate for regulation under UNDS. The NOD reports were developed based on information obtained from the technical community within the Navy and other branches of the Armed Forces with vessels potentially subject to UNDS, from information available in existing technical reports and documentation, and, when required, from data obtained from discharge samples that were collected under the UNDS program.
    [Show full text]
  • NPRC) VIP List, 2009
    Description of document: National Archives National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) VIP list, 2009 Requested date: December 2007 Released date: March 2008 Posted date: 04-January-2010 Source of document: National Personnel Records Center Military Personnel Records 9700 Page Avenue St. Louis, MO 63132-5100 Note: NPRC staff has compiled a list of prominent persons whose military records files they hold. They call this their VIP Listing. You can ask for a copy of any of these files simply by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the address above. The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website.
    [Show full text]
  • Dod 4000.24-2-S1, Chap2b
    DOD 4LX)0.25-l -S1 RI RI CODE LOCATION AND ACTTVITY DoDAAD CODE COOE LOCATION ANO ACTIVITY DoDAAD COOE WFH 94TH MAINT SUP SPT ACTY GS WE 801S7 SPT BN SARSS-I SARSS-O CO B OSU SS4 BLDG 1019 CRP BUILDING 5207 FF STEWART &! 31314-5185 FORT CAMPBELL KY 42223-5000 WI EXCESS TURN-IN WG2 DOL REPARABLE SARSS 1 SARSS-1 REPARABLE EXCHANGE ACTIVITY B1OG 1086 SUP AND SVC DW DOL BLOC 315 FF STEWART GA 31314-5185 FORT CARSON CO 80913-5702 WFJ 226TH CS CO WG3 MAINTENANCE TROOP SARSS-1 SUPPORT SQUAORON BLDG 1019 3D ARMORED CALVARY REGIMENT FT STEWART GA 31314-5185 FORT BLISS TX 79916-6700 WFK 1015 Cs co MAINF WG4 00L VEHICLE STORAGE SARSS 1 SARSS-I CLASS N Iv Vll BLDG 403 F7 GILLEM MF CRP SUP AND SVC OIV 00L BLDG 315 FOREST PARK GA 30050-5000 FORT CARSON CO 80913-5702 W-L 1014 Cs co WG5 DOL ECHO OSU .SAFfSS 1 SARss-1 EXCESS WAREHOUSE 2190 WINIERVILLE RD MF CRP SUP ANO SVC DIV 00L BLOG 315 ATHENS GA 30605-2139 FORT CARSON CO 80913-5702 WFM 324TH CS BN MAINT TECH SHOP WG6 SUP LNV DOL CONSOL PRDP ACCT SARSS-1 MF CRP SUP AND SVC DIV DOL BLDG 315 BLOC 224 FORT CARSON CO 80913-5702 FT BENNING GA 31905-5182 WG7 HQS ANO HQS CO OISCOM SARSS2A WFN 724TH CS BN CA A DSU CL9 1ST CAV OW OMMC SARSS-I BLDG 32023 BLDG 1019 FORT HOOD TX 76545-5102 FF STEWART GA 31314-5185 WG8 71OTH MSB HSC GS WFP STOCK RECORD ACCT .
    [Show full text]
  • What Do Aoes Do When They Are Deployed? Center for Naval Analyses
    CAB D0000255.A1 / Final May 2000 What Do AOEs Do When They Are Deployed? Burnham C. McCaffree, Jr. • Jay C. Poret Center for Naval Analyses 4401 Ford Avenue • Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1498 Copyright CNA Corporation/Scanned October 2002 Approved for distribution: May 2000 ,*&. KW^f s£^ ••—H. Dwight Lydtis, Jr.rDfffector USMC & Expeditionary Systems Team Acquisition, Technology & Systems Analysis Division This document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of the Navy. APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED For copies of this document, call the CNA Document Control and Distribution Section (703) 824-2130 Copyright © 2000 The CNA Corporation What Do AOEs Do When They Are Deployed? The Navy has twelve aircraft carriers and eight fast combat support ships (AOEs) that were built to act as carrier battle group (CVBG) station ships. The multi-product AOE serves as a "warehouse" for fuel, ammunition, spare parts, provisions, and stores to other CVBG ships, especially the carrier. Currently, an AOE deploys with about four out of every five CVBGs on peacetime forward deployments. Prior to 1996, when there were only four AOEs, only two of every five CVBGs deployed with an AOE. That frequency could resume in the latter part of this decade when AOE-1 class ships are retired at the end of their 35-year service life. The combat logistics force (CLF) that supports forward deployed combatant ships consists of CVBG station ships and shuttle ships (oilers, ammunition ships, and combat stores ships) that resupply the station ships and the combatants as well.
    [Show full text]
  • NAVY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters August 1998 NAVY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers GAO/NSIAD-98-1 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-259298 August 27, 1998 The Honorable Ted Stevens Chairman The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable C.W. Bill Young Chairman The Honorable John P. Murtha Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on National Security Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives The aircraft carrier forms the building block of the Navy’s forward deployed peacetime presence, crisis response, and war-fighting forces. The nuclear-powered carrier is the most expensive weapon system in the Nation’s arsenal and represents a significant portion of the Navy’s shipbuilding and conversion future years defense program. As requested, this report discusses the cost-effectiveness to the Navy of using conventionally and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. As the Defense Department and the Navy assess design concepts for a new class of carriers, they will evaluate a number of factors, including different propulsion types. This report contains information and analysis that you may find useful in the process of allocating future defense resources. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, Navy, Energy, and State and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to others on request. Please contact me on (202) 512-3504 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the First 35 Pages Here!
    THE FOUR PIPE PIPER The World War II Newspaper of the USS John D. Ford (DD 228) RAMONA HOLMES HELLGATE PRESS ASHLAND, OREGON THE FOUR PIPE PIPER Published by Hellgate Press (An imprint of L&R Publishing, LLC) ©2021 RAMONA HOLMES. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems without written permission of the publisher. Hellgate Press PO Box 3531 Ashland, OR 97520 email: [email protected] Cover & Interior Design: L. Redding ISBN: 978-1-954163-13-3 Printed and bound in the United States of America First edition 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 To my father, Charles C Holmes MM2c, and his friends on the USS John D Ford (DD 228). Thanks for your service. CONTENTS Preface …………………vii Chapter One:…………...1 The USS John D Ford (DD 228): One Tough Little Destroyer 1920-1947 Chapter Two:…………..11 The Four Pipe Piper: Newspaper for the USS John D Ford Chapter Three:…………27 World War II in 1945 from a Seaman’s View: Four Pipe Piper, Feb. 19, 1945 Chapter Four:…………..41 The Ford Escorts a Convoy to the Azores: Four Pipe Piper, Feb. 24, 1945 Chapter Five:…………...53 Docked in Casablanca: Four Pipe Piper, Mar. 3, 1945 Chapter Six:…………….67 On to Horta, Azores: Four Pipe Piper, Mar. 10, 1945 Chapter Seven:…………81 Convoy Out and Back to the Azores: Four Pipe Piper, Mar. 18, 1945 Chapter Eight:…………..97 Beautiful Trinidad from the Ford: Four Pipe Piper, Apr.
    [Show full text]