Home » Budget Industry » Document: Report to Congress on the U.S. Navy’s Next Generation TAO(X) Oiler Program


Document: Report to Congress on the U.S. Navy’s Next Generation TAO(X) Oiler Program

The following is the Dec. 17, report from the Congressional Research Service, Navy TAO(X) Oiler Shipbuilding Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    Amazing only 2 shipyards being consisted Ingalls, Mississippi. and NASSCO. Caliifornia. And it appears neither one has built a tanker in decades. However, Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, on part of the site of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard has been building 600 to 800 foot tankers too be flagged by U.S. merchant marine. under the Jones Act for years now. In fact everything they built in the last decade has been for US flagged vessels. And they are not being consisted for building the next TAO, but rumor that the two Senators 1 DA and 1 R from PA are going to flex their muscle. It appears Toomey
    ‘S office is looking into it

    • El_Sid

      Not quite true – NASSCO are currently building product tankers for APT and SEACOR, and MLP/AFSB was a modified tanker design.
      The real issue is trying to maintain the industrial base, the tanker deal is tied up with deals for new amphibious ships. Although it’s debatable whether it’s worth doing at the prices being discussed – the first TAO-X will cost more than the UK is paying for four similar Tide-class tankers built in Korea (~$160m each).

      • disqus_zommBwspv9

        Sorry did not see that but did NASSCO is currently building the T-AKE. The Ingalls the New LHA.

        • El_Sid

          T-AKEs were all finished a couple of years ago – the product tankers started after the T-AKEs were done. This is the problem that NASSCO and Ingalls face, there’s a bit of a gap between the end of two big contracts that gave them steady work (San Antonios for Ingalls, T-AKE for NASSCO) and the only new contracts in sight are the tankers and LX(R). That’s why they’re being competed jointly.

          • disqus_zommBwspv9

            Well then they need to pedition the navy to build a new class of Tenders. Not the big ones, Just convert a merchant ship design and make it about 600 feet long.

    • Secundius

      @ Sailboater/

      NASSCO, also has a Shipyard in Norfolk, VA. off Ligon Street. NASSCO is a Division of General Dymanics…

      • disqus_zommBwspv9

        Yes yes old news that the former naval Annex and Metro Marine. Wonder who payed to get the toxins that seap into the ground from that small Mountain of drums filled with various lubricants. That was there since the late 60’s

  • John B. Morgen

    Congress should reject the Navy’s request of having only two bids from two shipyards; our nation-state has other shipyards and they should be allowed to file bids. We must protect our viable ship construction workforce active from becoming inactive because we might need these other workers in case of a major war with other nation-states. We must broaden these construction contracts as much as possible, like we did during World War II.

    • El_Sid

      The trouble is that contracts are already being stretched about as thin as they will go – MLP/AFSB was only given to NASSCO as a form of life support. If NASSCO doesn’t get the tanker or LX(R) contract, then NASSCO will close.
      Given that the USN is prepared to pay ~$600m per tanker rather than $160m/ship like the UK is paying Korea, you could argue that the USN is prepared to spend $440m per ship in order to keep NASSCO open. You can debate the rights and wrongs of it, but it’s clear that the USN is already struggling to keep two “big-ship” yards open, never mind more than that.

      • Secundius

        @ El_Sid.

        The problem your Overlooking is the “Jones” Act of 1920. Which Prohibits Purchases of Ships by the US Merchant Marines and the US Navy from a Foreign Manufacturer…

        • El_Sid

          I’m not overlooking it, it’s just the mechanism by which the US expresses its desire to protect its shipyards. I recognise the vested interests involved but at the same time the Jones Act is not written in stone; it was created by human hand and it could be undone by human hand.

          I understand there is a valid case for wanting to maintain domestic shipbuilding on strategic grounds, but the Tides are a rare demonstration of just how much the Jones Act protectionism is costing the US. When budgets are so tight, an extra $440m per year could go a long way.

          • Secundius

            @ El_Sid.

            It would take an Act of Congress to Repeal the “Jones” Act of 1920. In 95-years, it has YET to come up for a VOTE…

          • El_Sid

            As I say – I recognise the reasons why it hasn’t happened. But a vote is all it would take to repeal it.
            Some things are impossible to change, like the laws of physics; some are possible but very difficult for the US Government to effect, like turning Iran into a secular democracy – and then there’s stuff that is within their power if there’s the will. The Jones Act falls in this last category.

          • Secundius

            @ El_Sid.

            NOW “IF” You Reinstated the “Lend Lease” Act of March 1941. Then Buying from Foreign Shipyards WOULDN’T BE A PROBLEM, with the possible exception that it would expire in March 2040. Because the Original Act, was a 99-years Act…

      • John B. Morgen

        We can expect California would be lobbying quite hard to get one of those contracts because San Diego doesn’t need its unemployment rate to go up.

  • CAPT Mongo

    Good to see that a helo refueling capability is in the specs. What I do not see is the capability to carry/rapidly install a basic AAW/ASUW self protection capability (e.g. Phalanx/SEARAM etc). Such a capability will be sorely needed in the event of a real shooting war at sea given the paucity of escorts which will be available, and the amount of time which there ships will spend outside of the Battle Group’s protective umbrella. Likewise an ASW (e.g. NIXIE) defensive capability would be a wise investment.

    Understood that these items may in fact be in the “Plan” and that it may be too early in the process to see them yet. Still….

    • disqus_zommBwspv9

      I been concern about the lack of AAW/ASUW self protection myself. Did most of my time on 3 Gators and the USS Seattle. I was not too thrilled when the Support ships went to USNS but don’t they have a Navy comm crew onboard? if so then an Navy detachment for defense against pirates would make sense. But would that restrict the number of port (political reasons) they could enter? .

      • CAPT Mongo

        I do not believe that the (actually rather modest) defensive weaponry proposed would limit the ships’ access to ports needed.

  • disqus_zommBwspv9

    Question, has there been any talk of building tenders? Nothing fancy just a converted merchant ship the can be put in port, either in CONUS or Overseas.

  • old guy

    SWIPE strikes again