Rendering of the new National Security Multi-Mission Vessel


#1

[TABLE=“width: 590”]

[/TABLE]

[LEFT][FONT=DroidSansRegular][LEFT][I][COLOR=#0000D8][U][B]This request for ONE HAND is from SUNY Maritime via FSMAA:[/B][/U]

[B]Click here [/B]to type in your zip code on this Navy League webpage to ask your Congressional representatives to sign onto a letter from Congressmen Joe Crowley and Dan Benishek asking for construction funding in the FY 2017 budget.
[/I][/LEFT]
[LEFT]The men and women who make up the national maritime industry are vital to the nation’s economy and security. They are also in short supply.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]The federal government predicts there is a growing need for licensed captains, mates, pilots and ship engineers - four thousand a year until 2022.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Nearly 70 percent of those licensed mariners come from the same source - one of six state maritime academies. Training ships are essential to their mission of educating and preparing the next generation of merchant mariners.[/LEFT]
[LEFT][U][B]It is time to begin replacing these ships, beginning with the 54-year-old [I]Empire State VI[/I],[/B][/U] to ensure the nation has the mariners it needs.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]In 2016 the federal budget included funding to design National Security Multi-Mission Vessels - a new class of ships that will be used to train licensed mariners and to respond to disasters.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]We are at a critical juncture and need Congress to move forward to fund the construction of the first of these ships.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]We need all hands on deck. [/LEFT][/LEFT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]


#2

What happened to the tanker they were supposed to get. I remember on Commerical our SUNY cadet was bragging about this thing


#3

I’m not sure how or why the tanker project fell through but I saw schematics and renderings for it when I did my 1st class cruise a few years ago. I’m pretty sure there was a specific vessel that was planned for the conversion but I forget the name.


#4

I am all for the construction of a whole fleet of these ships as soon as they shutter the USMMA

here’s a novel idea…build these new training vessels to actually be able to carry cargo then assign a percentage of DoD ocean transportation requirements to these new vessels. This way mariners get trained for carrying the cargoes that they would be required to in a war plus the freight pays for the ships! Make then combination ro/ro. lo/lo and heavy lift.

who remembers this ship?

.


#5

[QUOTE=john;180406]The federal government predicts there is a growing need for licensed captains, mates, pilots and ship engineers - four thousand a year until 2022.[/QUOTE]

I’m curious where those numbers came from, right now there appear to be way too many mariners for the available jobs.


#6

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;180412]I’m curious where those numbers came from, right now there appear to be way too many mariners for the available jobs.[/QUOTE]

maybe they’re planning for a big war sometime about then…

Lord knows we NEED one!


#7

From what I have heard they plan on building one of these every 5 years so that we have one for each academy in 30 years obviously they will be upgraded over time but generally the same. If that holds true the Golden bear will be nearing 60 and thats if they can get fund for it. Since the name has national security in it there should be no doubt that it will pass


#8

I don’t believe any claptrap coming out of Washington… if they really do build a bunch of ships and if they really did ‘suddenly’ need crews they’d just go buy them, Jones Act or not!!


#9

These new academy “cruise ships” are a waste of money. It would be much better to build some practical Jones Act commercial ships with extra training facilities.


#10

[QUOTE=tugsailor;180463]These new academy “cruise ships” are a waste of money. It would be much better to build some practical Jones Act commercial ships with extra training facilities.[/QUOTE]

I agree…if the taxpayer is going to foot the bill for these they should at least be militarily useful vis be able to actually carry DoD cargoes. A pure training ship is never going to be used as a troop transport…boots move into theater in aircraft and not by sea anymore. Only marines go ashore by sea but we have a whole fleet of ships in the Gator Navy for that!

.


#11

How about modern version of a 500-600’ general cargo you see in trade moving windmills etc with one less hatch, for increased accommodations/deckhouse.


#12

A company should be set up to operate a small fleet of Jones Act tankers, bulkers, heavy lift, container ships, ro ro ships, Offshore vessels, tugs, and ferries. Probably a couple dozen ships would be required. The ships should have an additional training bridge, classroom space, and extra accommodations for about 20 students and four instructors. All cadets should get thorough training on each type of ship. The instructors and cadets should be mixed and come from all of the different academies. Some ships should be union and some nonunion. Cadets should get the broadest possible experience.

Personally, I don’t see much value in crowding 100 kids onto a school ship for a cruise. That bears no relationship to the operation of a commercial vessel.


#13

[QUOTE=tugsailor;180475]A company should be set up to operate a small fleet of Jones Act tankers, bulkers, heavy lift, container ships, ro ro ships, Offshore vessels, tugs, and ferries. Probably a couple dozen ships would be required. The ships should have an additional training bridge, classroom space, and extra accommodations for about 20 students and four instructors. All cadets should get thorough training on each type of ship. The instructors and cadets should be mixed and come from all of the different academies. Some ships should be union and some nonunion. Cadets should get the broadest possible experience.

Personally, I don’t see much value in crowding 100 kids onto a school ship for a cruise. That bears no relationship to the operation of a commercial vessel.[/QUOTE]

That would be nice. Have the federal government subsidize a Jones Act company (or at least American owned and crewed) with the money they would save from scraping the existing training ships and have the cadets get their at sea training solely from shipping out.


#14

you know thinking about it that there is no good reason any number of RRF ships could not be retrofitted with extra berthing for cadets and instructors for a tiny fraction of the cost of building brand new training vessels and then use the damned things for what they are intended to do which is to carry cargo instead of propping up piers.

better still buy a few of the multipurpose vessels like zdrive posted and add them to the RRF. There are no ships like them in the fleet save the steam powered T-ACS’s. A few 5-600’ versions of those vessels with diesel plants would be very useful to have available.


#15

On the Golden Bear as a senior deckie you now stand a total of 6 watches or so underway on the bridge. This is why we dont know shit anymore


#16

They tried the RRF ship idea at TAMUG and it failed miserably. Mostly because just about everything in the RRF is 30+ years old and no one wants to spend millions converting them into training ships that will again be obsolete and broken down in a handful of years.


#17

The cost to build a modified geared general cargo ship in the 5-600’ range would probably be pretty comparable to a complete training ship.

This would be a win all around:
Gummint could subsidize short-sea shipping to keep them busy on scheduled runs
Gummint has these smaller ships available to move military cargo to small shithole ports lmsr’s cant in case of war
Economical to run, single diesel direct reversing, or CPP
Proven designs
Best training for Mariners, coastwise runs with nearly daily cargo
Jobs for existing Mariners
Even if they don’t build new they could buy fairly new <5 year old ships for cheap to convert

Obvious, ain’t gonna happen, but my thoughts.


#18

There are no ships like them in the fleet save the steam powered T-ACS’s. A few 5-600’ versions of those vessels with diesel plants would be very useful to have available.[/QUOTE]

The cranes ships need to be scrapped as there are a very few ships that they could even discharged out side of the antique Jones Act fleet. There is no way they could work a Panamax container ship. I have seen a few Asian ship lines either with a second bridge or a sub bridge to one side of the wheelhouse. A better bet is to fund something like this on the American fleet.


#19

It would be best to have the government buy some top quality, less than five years old, foreign ships with distressed debt for pennies on the dollar. Once they become government owned, they would forever after be Jones Act qualified.

No point in building student cruise ships that will just sit alongside the dock and be used as floating dorms 75 percent of the time. No point in building anything that cannot routinely trade in commerce all the time and provide constant realistic training.


#20

this whole thread cuts across many issues which are for the most part all counterintuative such as

  1. why does the US government own a fleet of cargo ships which is does not use to carry its own defense cargo and instead hires foreign ships?

  2. why would we want to pay for a fleet of training ships to not be militarily useful and able to carry surge sealift cargo in a war or general cargo during peace?

  3. why does the US use special training ships for maritime officer cadets when they can instead be trained on working vessels?

  4. why are cadets not shipped out as an officer apprentice with real working duties aboard as opposed to observer status?

the system we have is antiquated and not in the interests of the industry. more importantly, why are we unable to change it?