Here’s a list of the planned 2022 ship decommissionings.(1)
|
Ship |
Class |
Commissioned |
Service Years |
|
USS San Jacinto (CG-56) |
Ticonderoga |
1988 |
34 |
|
USS Lake Champlain (CG-57) |
Ticonderoga |
1988 |
34 |
|
USS Monterey (CG-61) |
Ticonderoga |
1990 |
32 |
|
USS Hue City (CG-66) |
Ticonderoga |
1991 |
31 |
|
USS Anzio (CG-68) |
Ticonderoga |
1992 |
30 |
|
USS Vella Gulf (CG-72) |
Ticonderoga |
1993 |
29 |
|
USS Port Royal (CG-73) |
Ticonderoga |
1994 |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) |
LCS |
2012 |
10 |
|
USS Coranado (LCS-4) |
LCS |
2014 |
8 |
|
USS Detroit (LCS-7) |
LCS |
2016 |
6 |
|
USS Little Rock (LCS-9) |
LCS |
2017 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
USS Whidbey Island (LSD-41) |
Whidbey Island |
1985 |
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
USS Providence (SSN-719) |
Los Angeles |
1985 |
37 |
|
USS Oklahoma City (SSN-723) |
Los Angeles |
1988 |
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
USNS Apache (T-ATF-172) |
|
1981a |
41 |
a launch date
The planned service life of the Ticonderoga class is 35 years. None of these will make it.
The planned service life of the LCS is 25 years. None of these will make it.
The planned service life of the Whidbey Island class is 40 years. It will not make it.
The planned service life of the Los Angeles class is 35 years, I believe. None of these will make it.
The planned service life of the Apache is unknown.
From the table, we see that only one ship, the USS Providence (and Apache?), will meet its planned service life although some will come close. The rest are all being retired early and some by many years.
The Navy is crying that they need more ships.
The Navy is planning to retire 15 ships in 2022, most of them early retirements.
The Navy has requested 4 new warships for 2022.
What’s wrong with this picture?
_________________________________
Wasn't the 35 years service life of the Tico's conditioned on them getting a modernization something these ones never got?
ReplyDelete“This decision was made as part of a divestment of our least capable legacy platforms,” Navy budget documents say about these four ballistic missile defense cruisers.
“In this case, these cruises have not been through CG Modernization program and, as Ballistic Missile Defense ships, these ships are our least capable Aegis baseline in the high-end fight. These four ships decommission at an average age of over 20 years of service life. We avoid the cost of maintaining this unique combat systems/software baseline. These ships are not part of the 2-4-6 modernization and would not be candidates to serve the role of Air Defense Commander in a Carrier Strike Group. The Navy is committed to maintaining those cruisers for that vital role. But we have more capable BMD platforms, including all of our new destroyers.”
https://news.usni.org/2020/02/10/navys-new-shipbuilding-plan-dead-on-arrival-lawmakers-say
Or is the USN lying it's arse off again?
If we have to fight China in a war, even if these ships aren't adequate to escort a carrier, I think they'd probably be good for merchant convoys. Right now we have NO escorts for those.
Delete"Wasn't the 35 years service life of the Tico's conditioned on them getting a modernization something these ones never got?"
DeleteNo. The 35 years is the hull life. The Navy was, at one point - and rather reluctantly, at that - , looking at modernizations to extend the service life past 35 years but that plan has fallen by the wayside. The Navy was never serious about the modernization and offered it only as a sop to Congress who refused to let them retire the crusiers several years ago when the Navy first tried to retire them.
ComNavOPs, I have a question and possible suggestion for a future post:
DeleteAre convoys even feasible today?
Given the state of our merchant marine, our decline in shipbuilding capabilities, and the increase in surveillance & standoff weapons... maybe the initial hesitation to implement convoys in WW1 & WW2 due the "eggs in one basket" fear might be legitimate now.
Without a significant development or improvement of those deficiencies, I dont really see convoys being sustainable.
"Are convoys even feasible today?"
DeleteWell, that's an interesting question.
Given the scarcity of numbers of US flagged merchant ships, the entire question may be moot! Setting that aside and assuming we have enough ships to for a convoy …
The only thing more defenseless and risky than a cluster of merchant ships is a single merchant ship. In WWII, a single ship, especially a fast one, stood a chance of making the ocean crossing alone. Modern sensors have probably rendered that an impossibility. Modern subs have so much more speed than in WWII and modern missiles render the speed of even a fast merchant ship irrelevant. We certainly don't have the number of escorts to protect individual ships so that takes us back to the convoy system.
Honestly, I haven't really given it much thought but that's my initial reaction. Do you have a different take on it?
In my honest opinion, I see neither option sustainable. I don't foresee us being able to procure foreign flagged ships to fulfill the gap either.
DeleteWould airlift command be able to take up the slake combat attrition would cause? Do we even have the civilan facilities to repair these ships?
I'm mostly have no idea, I only thought of this today.
"Would airlift command be able to take up the slake combat attrition would cause?"
DeleteNot even close! Most people don't realize the incredible amount of supplies needed to run a peer war. D-Day, in WWII, was all about capturing ports so that cargo ships could unload to support the push across Europe. Check out the tonnages that passed through those ports and then compare them to the most positive airlift effort you can imagine. There is no comparison!
These are the kinds of things out professional warriors should be thinking about and fixing … but they're not. They're too concerned with shiny new toys instead of understanding that it's support, repair, logistics, etc. that wins wars.
RE: convoys. Here's a thought that might even provide a valid use for drone ships. Over most of the Pacific, the primary threat to merchant ships is submarines. And their primary sensor is passive sonar.
DeleteSuppose that, in addition to merchant ships, we spread several dozen small drone ships over a broad area, and each one broadcasts into the ocean the sound of the merchant ship. Seems like it should be possible to confuse the submarine with that.
If we also had P8 aircraft over the area, that could make it very risky for the submarine to use active sonar, or come close to the surface to make use of satellite surveillance.
Would that make our merchant ships safe enough?
I understand that once upon a time, there was a ship category called "Naval Reserve Force, Active", in which ships were maintained with a small permanent crew, with the rest of the crew filled out with reservists. They would be on a lower operational status, but still maintained, and since they had a crew they could be brought into service in a pinch more quickly than a ship sitting in maintenance category B.
ReplyDeleteThis would be a lower cost way of operating these ships. Obviously crew would cost less, and I assume that maintenance would cost at least somewhat less since there would be less time at sea.
That way these ships could be activated quickly in a crisis.
What do you think?
The Navy refuses to provide needed maintenance for active ships so I can't see them providing even minimal maintenance for reserve ships.
DeleteThe Navy's desire to minimize reserve expenditures has seen the reduction of our reserve/mothball fleet to near zero.
Perhaps since the ships haven't been maintained properly, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that they won't reach their planned service lives?
ReplyDeleteWe should not be surprised. However, that says that we should not be designing (and selling to Congress!) ships that are touted to have 35+ year lives when we know none will ever reach their service life.
DeleteI've repeatedly called for designing 15-20 year ship lives and this why.
"I've repeatedly called for designing 15-20 year ship lives and this why."
DeleteI do have at least one concern about this. It seems to me that at least some of the things that we do to make something a warship (as opposed to a commercial ship), like stronger construction and whatnot, are the same things we would do to make the service life longer. I'm pretty sure you aren't proposing that we build warships to merchant ship standards, so if we actually build them as warships but leave out the "other" things that lead to longer service lives, will we actually save much?
688 class service life is 33 years
ReplyDeletePlanned service life of CG 47 class is 40 years after mod
I'm working off the 25-Apr-2018 NAVSEA memo about service lives.
DeleteThe NAVSEA attempted to increase the service lives but wound up abandoning that and reverting to the original 35 yr life for CG-47 class. Do you have a reference indicating an increase to 40 years?
The easiest reference is fas.org page for CG 47 there are others im too lazy to look up again
Deletehttps://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cg-47.htm
Deletehttps://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/04/12/as-the-us-navy-scrambles-to-field-more-missiles-in-asia-a-tough-decision-looms-for-aging-cruisers/
DeleteCape st. George last to decom in 2038
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/127126/1191837111-MIT.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Deletehttps://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=523&Article=2265191
DeleteRickusn, your comments seem to be triplicating. See if you can limit them to one appearance!
DeleteI'll stick with the NAVSEA memo as a more authoritative source. Regardless, a 40 year life would simply make the entire situation even worse!
DeleteHow do i stop duplicate posts?
Delete"How do i stop duplicate posts?"
DeleteI have no idea. I can delete duplicates but that gets old, quickly!
This comment didn't triplicate so that's good. Keep doing that!
Heres the definitive story on the seven CG in the cruiser modernization plan:
Deletehttps://news.usni.org/2021/04/05/navy-struggling-to-modernize-aging-cruiser-fleet-as-tight-budgets-push-pentagon-to-shed-legacy-platforms
Note the last two Hue City and Anzio may be decom in 2022 rather than completing modernization
Rickusn, Your most recent comment had six or eight duplications. I'm blanket deleting comments for ease of blog maintenance until you can figure out how to limit comments to just one appearance. You are the only person this is happening with so I have to assume the problem is something on your end. See what you can come up with. Good luck.
DeleteIve figured it out.
DeleteOutstanding!
DeleteIsn't the USN cheating the taxpayers by decommissioning ships before they reach their expected service lives? I had it ingrained into my head by Dad (he was an engineer on the F-14 program for most of its service life) that if you are going to replace something, than it should be replaced by something that is equivalent or superior to it, preferably the latter. Considering the decepid state of our shipbuilding industry, decomming ships doesn't seem to be very prudent at this time. Major head scratch.
ReplyDeleteWell, I understand that many of these ships haven't been maintained well. That might possibly prevent them from reaching their full service life. So yeah, the navy is cheating the taxpayers, either now or in the past.
DeleteThe Navy doesn't have its priorities straight- hasn't for DECADES. As noted in https://blog.usni.org/posts/2021/06/16/war-comes-on-its-own-schedule-not-yours
ReplyDelete"The budget also inexplicably cuts sailors, reducing manpower by 1,600 even though the end-strength must grow by 27,712 to man the 355-ship fleet."
"At a time when inflation is surging above four percent, the administration proposes a paltry 2.7 percent pay raise. This would surely compound the difficulty of attracting people to the Navy—especially when you consider that we will need additional sailors to man a larger fleet by 2034."
"Moreover, while it boosts the budget for sexual assault prevention and response, or SAPR, by $47 million, it shrinks higher education and entry level programs, such as the Reserve Officer Training Program, by $391 million. And, it misses an opportunity to bring back BOOST—Broadened Opportunity for Officer Selection Training—as recommended in the February 3, 2021, Task Force One Navy report, to improve accession of minority and underserved recruits who want to become naval officers."
In short, the Navy failed to recruit and train enough seamen to man the ships it has. To fix this, the Navy isn't increasing enlistment/reenlistment bonuses to get more seamen, or increase its training budget to get more skilled officers; it's getting unmanned ships that can do without, IF these ships work.
What happens if the unmanned ships don't work? I see no indication the Navy has a Plan B. Will the admirals have to report to its civilian leaders they have no choice but to surrender?
" no choice but to surrender?"
DeleteThat IS Plan B!
"That IS Plan B!"
DeleteThat might as well be Plan A, nowadays...
"What’s wrong with this picture?"
ReplyDeleteEverything.
Actually, I should probably clarify a bit. I don't have one problem in the world getting rid of the LCSs. My problem is that they were built in the first place.
DeleteI'm all for getting rid of the LCS but for a Navy that claims to want to grow the fleet to 355 ships, or whatever, and claims that the LCS is a mighty ship of war, the logical discontinuity is glaring. The Navy is embarking on a production program of small, weak, unmanned vessels which will almost make the LCS look good!
DeleteThe illogic is astounding.
Astounding is a proper word. The Navy seems to be embarking on a conscious effort to make itself weaker and less relevant. If this is the Navy we are going to have, why even have one? Seriously.
DeleteFrom what I've read, the "planned service lives" are based on assumptions of a certain amount of yearly use. Apparently, we've overused many of these ships with longer and more frequent deployments. If so, then the quote, "It's not the years, it's the mileage" is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteThis may be another symptom of overuse of our fleet.
On the other hand, much of the fleet is tied up dockside awaiting maintenance for months or years at a time and are being severely underutilized!
DeleteMany of the Aegis cruisers have been idled for years at a time and are, therefore, much 'younger' than their calendar lives would indicate.
Yes same with some 688 class subs but i dont see so far tha it matters to the usn
Delete"Yes same with some 688 class subs but i dont see so far tha it matters to the usn"
DeleteIt does not matter to the Navy because, in their view, the ships are aging in terms of technology whether they're at sea or sitting idle. The Navy has a fixation/obsession with new technology so a ship that is more than a few years old is obsolete, in their minds. Of course, that raises the question why they're designing for ships with 30+ year service lives if the Navy views them as obsolete within a few years?
"From what I've read, the "planned service lives" are based on assumptions of a certain amount of yearly use."
DeleteIt's actually more complicated than that. Some problems with old ships are calendar (age) related, independent of how much it's used. Like some types of corrosion, for example). Others are, in fact related to use. How much is in each category? I have no idea.
It's kind of like parking your car on the street outside your house. Even if you never drive it, it still deteriorates over time from exposure to weather, possible changes over time in lubricating fluids, and whatnot.
They need ships designed and sized to be built and maintained at smaller, disbursed yards. It might be good to plan on moving some of those ships to reserve status with a reserve crew based with the repair yard. A class of ship stewards. This is just what pops into my head having read this. Obviously much else needs done.
ReplyDelete"They need ships designed and sized to be built and maintained at smaller, disbursed yards."
DeleteI'd argue the Navy needs to expand and modernize its yards to support the large ships it already has. Small ships have limited range, endurance (how long they can be at sea before requiring refueling and replenishment of onboard supplies, how many hits they can dish out and absorb before they must retire from battle to rearm and conduct repairs), and crew comfort (too easily dismissed in an armchair admiral's minds, due to its impact on morale and its direct contribution to crew fatigue), making them inappropriate for the CONOPS the Navy currently has.
If you propose a CONOPS that justifies smaller ships with limited range, then your proposal will be more acceptable. Say the US resumes isolationism, refuses to intervene in foreign wars unless attacked first, and abandons overseas "allies" as the dead weight many of them are? That will make long range and extended deployments unnecessary.
""They need ships designed and sized to be built and maintained at smaller, disbursed yards."
DeleteI'd argue the Navy needs to expand and modernize its yards to support the large ships it already has"
We need a balanced mix of both!
"That will make long range and extended deployments unnecessary."
I've written posts demonstrating that deployments accomplish nothing and I've proposed eliminating deployments in favor of home porting to enable intensive maintenance and training.
ComNavOps, pay attention!
ReplyDeleteI'd like to offer an idea for your next or overnext post. Please, pay attention!!! See there is a problem. US military bases are closely to the chinese mobile or stationary land based cruise subsonic, supersonic and ballistic missile batteries. In the beginning of the war they will fire all the missiles toward the bases. The flight time is at least 15 minutes. The further base is, more time for defense it has, and thus she is safer as not every attack system is able to reach her. Ground based AAW systems are designed to counter the aircraft or high fly missiles. BMD is designed for countering ballistic missiles. And these kinds of missiles are expensive. The numbers or such missiles are less than subsonic, cheaper variants being affordable in large amounts.
US ground bases lack short range multiple missile air defence systems and radars for countering massive swarms in hundred of missiles.
The better defense is an offense. But US won't shoot the first. And it shoud defend its bases, facilities and vehicles to save them for counterattacks if they wish to win, not loose.
And the good defense must be layered, cheaper and in large amounts.
Why not to use air force F-15/16 or naval F-18 or smth else like UAV (if you don't mind) or aircraft based on the training jets equipped with radar, ISR, optic systems and 2-4 blocks of APWKS 2 of course. Additional they can carry 2 internal fuel tankers to increase their endurance.
I leave a link below. Even this missile has its disadvantages as the small flight time and range, but they are the cheapest, affordable and massive amounts for defense. Sure it would be not bad to make this missile with larger diameter, length to increase the ranfe od flight and with a newer enfine the speed to Mach 3 also. Or instead of using the APWKS integrate the Stinger missile. It has similar characteristics and might offer the same.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30337259/f-16-cruise-missile-rocket/
I want to improve my English knowledge. Sure there's a need leave comments. If you don't mind I stay here for practicing.
Well, I'm not an air warfare tactics expert, so I could be wrong, but I do have some concerns about this, from a practical point of view:
Delete(1) These missiles will certainly be ineffective against ballistic missiles, and will probably also be ineffective against supersonic cruise missiles, since they are both slower than many supersonic cruise missiles, so they can only produce a hit by luck in an ideal situation. So they would really only be effective against subsonic cruise missiles.
(2) As you properly noted, both missiles have quite a short range, so the aircraft has to maneuver for a period of time to get into position for an engagement. This is especially true for the APKWS. Since it is laser guided, the fighter must stay around to illuminate the target throughout the engagement. This means that, during the attack, each aircraft has to engage missiles one at a time, and can only engage a few, since it requires time for each engagement and the total attack will be of short duration.
(3) As you properly noted, MANY missiles will be fired in an attack, in an attempt to overwhelm our defenses. But since each aircraft can only intercept a few of them, that means MANY aircraft would be required. And remember, even if the missiles are cheap, the aircraft aren't. It also raises the question of whether all the aircraft would have to be airborne all the time, or they would have to be on alert and launched when cruise missiles are detected. If the former, you have the problem that, because of maintenance and whatnot, you'd need to have a lot more aircraft in the fleet than can be airborne at any given time. For the latter, you'd reduce the engagement time since the aircraft would have to fly out from the base, and you'd still have to have multiples of the number of aircraft in the fleet in order to have a certain number on alert.
(3) There's also a fratricide concern, where the aircraft could be vulnerable to our own land-based anti-aircraft missiles. This can probably be managed but it would also reduce the amount of space the aircraft can maneuver in (since it would probably require them to avoid coming close to the base during engagement) and therefore again reduce the number of missiles each aircraft can intercept.
What I fear is we will be faced with a real kinetic confrontation with the PRC, that the politicians won't accept being told to surrender or negotiation by the military. I can see the current naval leadership making a serious blunder and losing a carrier or sufficient surface combatants to make a major loss. Then it will fall to the silent service and the USAF to try and turn the tide. They'll be able to do some major damage, but won't be enough in a conventional war. The USAF had its own idiotic problems that it is just starting to get over.
ReplyDelete"What I fear is we will be faced with a real kinetic confrontation with the PRC"
DeleteThe only thing stopping the Chinese from a shooting war right now is that they don't have a sufficient advantage, yet. The moment they feel they do, they'll make demands and begin shooting if we don't acquiesce.
Of course, if we continue on the path we are, which is giving them everything they want without contesting them, there won't be any need for them to shoot! We've given them the entire E/S China Seas, allowed them to build artificial islands and militarize them, allowed them to financially seize foreign bases, engage in massive intellectual property theft, etc. without offering any resistance, whatsoever. They've got be laughing every night about our FONOPS cruises while they steadily expand and consolidate their gains.
"The only thing stopping the Chinese from a shooting war right now is that they don't have a sufficient advantage, yet. The moment they feel they do, they'll make demands and begin shooting if we don't acquiesce."
DeleteYou seem to think the PRC government is as fanatical as the Japanese one that authorized the Attack on Pearl Harbor. It's not- there's a reason the PRC not only survived for 70+ years, but thrived, and it's because it's constantly performing cost-benefit analysis of important matters.
If China must go to war to get what it wants, it will, but if it doesn't- if a mere economic sanction, trade embargo, badmouthing the offending party on Russia Today, bribing the offending party's political opponents, etc., can get it what it wants? Then it won't.
The US HAD people capable of performing the necessary cost-benefit analysis, and using alternatives to force of arms, to achieve its goals. Sadly, these people are long gone.
"If China must go to war to get what it wants, it will,"
DeleteI'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. I also added,
"Of course, if we continue on the path we are, which is giving them everything they want without contesting them, there won't be any need for them to shoot!"
China uses every tool available to it. The only thing stopping China from using shooting force is that they don't feel they have a sufficient advantage, militarily, yet.
You repeated my comment using different words and now I've repeated your repeat!
"China uses every tool available to it."
DeleteAnd why aren't we, the United States, using every tool available to us? We have options besides force and the threat of force- at the very least, we have money that can be used to bribe other political, military, and business leaders- why aren't we thinking of ways to deal with China BESIDES as an enemy to be crushed underfoot, or as a subordinate we can boss around?
We cannot fix things so if we refuse to accept options BESIDES force.
"And why aren't we, the United States, using every tool available to us?"
DeleteWell, in fairness to the US, we DON't rely only on force or the threat of force. If you've been watching the news, for example, you know that we mostly use economic sanctions of one sort or another (just like the Chinese do). I suspect the problem with bribing foreign officials may be that it is in conflict with US law (obviously China does not have that problem). And it's certainly true that we need to figure out how to be more effective in these less lethal techniques, but saying that we rely entirely on force just isn't true.
The Trump administration had begun to engage China financially and in other ways although even those efforts were limited and half-hearted but it was a start. The current administration has pretty much ended any adversarial engagement with China although the virus issue may result in some mild sanction.
DeleteThe US has yet to acknowledge that we are at war with China and continues to try to treat China as a trading partner.
Warning: we're not going into a political discussion on this! These are just some very basic statements of fact.
But, But, LAWS !! That’s the answer!!! Would love to see how Marines feel about that……
ReplyDeleteThis is what USMC "Commandant" wants to buy:
Deletehttps://taskandpurpose.com/news/marine-corps-long-range-unmanned-surface-vessel-contract/
How this is supposed to survive, I don't know and even if it does, how it gets refuel, maintained, rearmed,finds it targets,etc....good questions!
As for USN, they only thing that makes sense, USN leadership has been "bought" by contractors, they only want to buy nice shiny objects and don't want to bother with maintenance and upgrades, just buy new!!! Forget putting ships in reserve or low status, there's nothing in it for industry so USN leaders don't need it either....when I say "bought", doesn't necessarily mean money under the table, it's just USN leaders have abdicated their responsibility to industry. What the industry says, goes! Don't need to worry about tactics, R&D, design , production,etc...what industry wants, it gets! USN leaders have turned in their brains.....
Being owned by contractors is a real possibility. And so is the idea that some of our Navy leadership is owned by the PRC.
DeleteHmmm, I never buy the whole PRC part....I just see it more as USN leaders have completely fallen for the idea that technology will solve every problem and gladly accept every idea coming from the industry.
Delete"Hmmm, I never buy the whole PRC part....I just see it more as USN leaders have completely fallen for the idea that technology will solve every problem and gladly accept every idea coming from the industry."
DeleteSad, but true. Every armchair general and admiral is obsessed with trying to "skip a generation" and "transform" the US military into one that can beat all its enemies without effort. The last part is important: No one wants to out in the effort of actually testing new technology to see if it will WORK in real-world situations, which will also require them to acknowledge "new" does NOT always equals "better"- a mistake that saw the Navy attempt to "divest to invest" (retire old, but tested and demonstrably functional ships to buy new, untested ships of uncertain functionality), crippling itself.
Just saw this piece from Forbes:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2021/06/23/dod-plan-sets-navy-up-to-quickly-shed-30-of-cruiserdestroyer-fleet/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
I just had the thought reading this: does the USN still want to be a navy??? Seriously though, what's going to be left? Not much really! USN will be out of the ship building business, they don't want to have ships anymore! With all the Ticos gone early Burkes gone and some future DDG program that can be canned anytime, USN will just be SSN, SSBN and a bunch of USVs is really the end game! That's their vision!!! I think of people and Congress can't see this, its denial.....
"I just had the thought reading this: does the USN still want to be a navy???"
DeleteThe answer looks like no.
My understanding is that a couple of the Ticos are going through that modernization right now, only to be decommissioned next year!!! Regardless of how in-depth the modernization is (or isnt), why isnt anyone screaming about the absurdity of that?? Its tantamount to giving your car an oil change, knowing that it'll be going to the junkyard in another 100 miles!! So far the only pushback to save the cruisers this budget go-around is from Rep Luria of Virginia. She grilled Adm Gilday about it, and wanting to divest from the cruisers to fund future tech. But Im afraid the Navy will get its way this time. It completely lied about its plans, and its compliance with the "2-4-6" rules laid out by Congress. Clearly, nobody in the Admiralty is familiar with the old "A bird in the hand..."
ReplyDeleteSome have indicated they've really been heisting parts from the modernization ships to keep the rest working. I don't think we will ever see one come out shiny and new.
DeleteThe so-called modernization plan was never anything but a Navy ploy to retire cruisers despite the Congress' objections. There was never any intent to modernize and return them to service. The plan was fraud, pure and simple. I've posted on this. See, Ticonderoga Class Modernization
DeleteIf somebody died and left me in charge, I’d call the joint chiefs into a meeting and tell them, “Armed forces exist to do two things—kill bad people and break their toys. Your job is to make sure that your individual services are unexcelled at doing those two things. Anything else is ancillary. Maybe nice to have—maybe not—but in no case are you to confuse any other objective as being more important than your primary mission. Some specific guidance going forward:
ReplyDelete- Don’t get rid of any asset that is useful in attaining those two objectives before its time.
- Don’t replace any useful asset with a less useful asset.
Now, I want you to do a couple of things:
1. Figure out which branch does what, and how to keep each of you In your own lanes going forward. I have my own ideas about who should do what, and the closer you come to my ideas, the less likely I will be to fire you.
2. Every one of you has way too much cost and way too many personnel in admin/overhead, and not enough in combat and combat support. The reason for your existence is to put warheads on foreheads. Everything else is secondary. I want you to come up with a plan to cut 50% of your admin/overhead spending and headcount and redistribute it 1/3 to combat, 1/6 to combat support, and the rest to savings to be used in part to double your respective reserve components.
Report back to me a week from now with your plans to do number 1 and number 2. That is an order. We are done”.
Exactly @Cdr Chip!! Funny thing, I just made a similar post on another blog... But from the perspective of a services top officer...
DeleteKeep clunkers in your garage make no sense. They are not reliable for transportation.
ReplyDeleteTiconderoga has outdated PSEA radar plus little room for cost effective upgrade. Hope the new DDG(X) will be good onee.
LCS is a strategic blunder and "enemies" for which they aim don't exist. They are useless except do "freedom of passage" since no large Chinese naval ship can catch up with it. At least, for the time being, China won't open fire first.
To be fair, age doesn't equate to clunker... The most reliable car I ever had was over 40 yrs old. And its performance was as good as comtemporary cars...
DeleteMaintenance and care, along with careful use will ensure anything mechanical will last as long or longer than intended.
"Ticonderoga has outdated PSEA radar plus little room for cost effective upgrade."
DeleteThis is the Navy line of thinking and it's utterly incorrect. There is nothing wrong with the Ticos. Their systems are completely effective and that's the only thing that matters.
So what if there's some newer radar in the world that can count rivets on a target and display a 3D, full color, holographic image of the target and the Tico's radar can only see the target and generate a fire control solution? That's all that's needed.
So many observers - and the Navy - get so caught up in having to have the absolute latest technology that we stop asking whether what we have is good enough. The Ticonderogas are good enough.
"LCS is a strategic blunder and "enemies" for which they aim don't exist. They are useless except do "freedom of passage"
DeleteIf that were true I would think the USCG would not be doing that job. They are in fact simply pointless in every way.
"LCS is a strategic blunder and "enemies" for which they aim don't exist."
DeleteYou need to come up to speed on the origins of the LCS. It was intended to accomplish three tasks:
1. ASW - this task is still in great demand and will only increase so the 'enemies' for which the LCS-ASW was designed still exist and are, in fact, increasing.
2. MCM - mines are perhaps the greatest maritime threat there is and our various enemies have immense stockpiles of mines so the 'enemies' for which the LCS was designed still exist and, if anything, are an increasing threat in both number and sophistication.
3. ASuW - the LCS was intended to fight swarms of small craft in the Middle East (meaning, Iran) and that threat has only increased so the 'enemies' the LCS was designed to fight still exist and are increasing.
We see, then, that the 'enemies' the LCS was designed to deal with still exist and are increasing. The failing of the LCS was its execution. I won't bother with the litany of problems and poor decisions that plagued the program and still do. The original concept was not bad and even the early, modified concept could have been useful. Even today, the LCS could be useful if the ASW and MCS modules existed in a functional form … but they don't. That's a failure of execution not concept.
I have no idea what 'strategic blunder' means so I won't comment on that.
Let's come up to speed, do some research (starting with the archives of this blog!) and up the quality of these comments.
You might want to read the LCS Origins post in the archives.
I mean an enemy which LCS designed to assault don't exist today.
DeleteLCS' modules are not designed to against a navy equipped with latest high tech weapons.
"I mean an enemy which LCS designed to assault don't exist today."
DeleteReread my comment. The LCS was NOT designed to conduct assaults. I explained what it was designed to do.
"LCS' modules are not designed to against a navy equipped with latest high tech weapons."
You seem not to understand. The LCS modules were designed for ASW, MCM, and anti-swarm ASuW with a bit of land attack thrown in. None of the modules were ever intended to fight a high tech navy.
There is much to criticize the LCS about but an inability to conduct assaults is not one. It was never designed for that. I assume we won't need to cover this again?
My point is that all these modules were not designed to fight a competent navy. Its ASW targeted non-high tech conventional powered submarine in shallow waters. Its ASuW originally planned was NLOS-LS. The system's test missiles - XM-501's range was ~25 miles with small payload. They were designed to attack small boat (thus payload low). The ~25 miles range was because LCS' radar can only guide missile in this range (largely due to earth's curvature).
DeleteMy point - there is not a nation with this kind of naval force being enemy to US for a long time!
"non-high tech conventional powered submarine"
DeleteModern conventional SSKs are extremely high tech!
"My point - there is not a nation with this kind of naval force being enemy to US for a long time!"
I don't know what country or threat you think no longer exists. I've already described how all the threats the LCS was designed to face still exist. The various countries such as Iran, Libya, Yemen, NKorea, every African nation, every South American nation, and more all exist and present potential threats.
Whatever notion you have about some threat or country having disappeared is incorrect. The threats haven't changed, only the LCS' ability to deal with them has changed from the original concept and that is due to the complete and utter failure of the module development program.
You need to come up to speed on the LCS program if you wish to comment on it.
All that being said, the LCS (nor any other ship) needs to be decommed right now. If nothing else, the LCS can be set up as an Electronic Warfare ship for a Task Force, or even used to tow decoy Carriers if our enemies are forced to "go visual" during their missile attacks.
DeleteJust to note if the Navy had not poured $27.2 billion down the black hole that is Zumwalt (the GAO FY2021 dollar figure for the Zumwalt program) they would not be in their current position, they would have a dozen or more new destroyers/cruisers and so able to retire the Ticos.
ReplyDeleteAs a result the Navy is in a bind of their own making, Gilday saying Ticos too expensive to maintain and modernize as they get older past their service life (it's said that in last decade of operation and support cost of Burkes is 30% higher).
Gilday the Tico modernization program are "up by 175 to 200 percent, the cost to modernize Hue City and Anzio alone is $1.5 billion approximately" they are finding when they open the ships up they are requiring more remedial work.
As the Ticos get older breakdown too often :-
Gilday, "Lake Champlain, she missed roughly one-third of the deployment because of maintenance things, not because her radar was down, not because her combat system wasn’t capable, not because she didn’t have a full magazine – but she had tank top cracking that required her to get that fixed to be safely underway. Vella Gulf missed a month of her previous deployment and has missed two and a half months of her current deployment. So all that, in my mind, has to go into the mix when we factor the availability and reliability of those ships. Those missile tubes will only count if they’re underway alongside the carrier.”
According to Gilday's figures modernization of Ticos running at ~$750 million per ship, is that not worth it as it will be ten or so years before the first ~$2.5 billion DDG(X) become operational, understand its expensive to modernize the Ticos and should not have been required but that's due to the failure of the Zumwalt to come online as replacement ships, you could argue the failure of Zumwalt cost the Navy ~$44 billion, actual cost of the Zumwalts and modernization of the 22 Ticos, but Navy saying they don't have the budget to modernize the Ticos so will cut their operational capability instead.
Gilday "These ships were intended to have a 30-year service life, we’re out to 35” Navy previously claimed Tico service life was 35 years, but now Gilday saying it's 30 years, who is dissembling?
https://news.usni.org/2021/04/05/navy-struggling-to-modernize-aging-cruiser-fleet-as-tight-budgets-push-pentagon-to-shed-legacy-platforms
"Navy previously claimed Tico service life was 35 years, but now Gilday saying it's 30 years, who is dissembling?"
DeleteGilday is lying. I have the NAVSEA memo on service lives and it lists 35 yrs for the Ticonderogas.
"According to Gilday's figures modernization of Ticos running at ~$750 million per ship"
Modernization cost is whatever you want it to be. If you modernize ONLY what is absolutely necessary, your costs will be relatively small. If you don't really want to modernize then you include everything you can think of in your cost estimate to 'prove' that it's too expensive.
There's nothing wrong with the Ticos AS THEY ARE. Modernization is something the Navy made up as they tried to get around Congress' refusal to allow them to be retired. Sure, some bits and pieces could be upgraded (newer computers, for example) but the main systems all work just fine.
What's actually needed is not modernization but routine maintenance like the tanks that Gilday refers to. BUT … here's the story on that. Those tanks SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED ROUTINELY OVER THE YEARS AND WERE NOT. The Navy opted to defer maintenance and - no big surprise - now they're in bad shape. If they had maintained the tanks routinely, they'd all be just fine. This is a self-inflicted problem by the Navy and every past CNO should be brought back to active duty and court martialed.
DeleteThe Tico design must date back to the mid 70's no doubt making them expensive/difficult to maintain, especially if their maintenance has been neglected over the years as you say resulting in the maintenance/modernization being expensive whether at the ~$750 million Gilday quotes or a much lower figure you think might be more realistic, but as said think Navy has no option but to find the funding for the Ticos in the FY2022 budget for the firepower they present, needed if the Navy to even pose a marginally strong enough threat to help deter the Chinese from invading Taiwan and possibly leading to an all out war, will be at the expense of the Navy's current budget priorities of new toys, the unproven USV's, hypersonic missiles and lasers etc
"Gilday is lying."
DeleteThis in itself is frightening, when top officers arent being honest in order to support their plans. When this topic came up, I reread old posts and did some surfing to refresh my memory. In doing that I found other flags making misstatements also. Im having a problem re-finding it, but in one article, an Admiral actually stated that the Ticos being decommed in 2022 "werent capable of acting as air warfare commander platforms for carrier battle groups"!!! Now that could've been a slip up and he meant the Burkes, but as flags continue to become less trustworthy, who knows??? Ill share the link if I can rediscover it...
"What's actually needed is not modernization but routine maintenance like the tanks that Gilday refers to. "
DeleteAs I understood it, the "program" the cruisers were going through had three parts. The first being the extended idling (which is really a fourth) with some "prep" for the other parts. Second was the mechanical overhaul which was just in depth maintenance that was probably playing catch up with what had been deferred. After moving from the idle period, the Navy claimed difficulty in being able to actually restart the ships systems, with various reasons ranging from shipyards not having the knowledge, to the new crews not having any previous experience. Third was the "structural" repairs (which the Navy claims has discovered so many more problems that the cost and timetable grew excessively), and the fourth being from what I can tell, little more than AEGIS software upgrades.
So it appears that youre right CNO, every bit of this "program" is designed as a way to idle them, and then find reasons to not return them to service. It seems their timetables are just a way to let time pass and allow the retirements initially pushed for in 2013-14 to fade from Congress' memory, and the ships to accumulate calendar age so they'll have a stronger case this time around. The waste involved in discarding these very capable ships, when replacements dont exist borders on criminal mismanagement...
"werent capable of acting as air warfare commander platforms for carrier battle groups"
DeleteAs you undoubtedly know, that's exactly what the Ticos were designed to do so, if that was actually stated, the admiral is either lying or utterly incompetent (or both!). Disturbingly, I find either to be completely plausible.
The weakening of the military as a whole is the main goal with the navy being more in your face about it. To many Generals and Admirals are owned by the defense contractors or the Chinese.
ReplyDeleteCome on, now. Isn't this a bit simplistic? I don't believe Navy leadership is 'owned' by industry or China. Sure, there are some inappropriate influences exerted by industry in the form of eventual employment on boards but I don't believe that any admirals are sitting around deliberately trying to think of ways to weaken the military.
DeleteAdmirals joined the Navy voluntarily so they must have some degree of patriotism and desire to help the country. They attended Annapolis so they aren't stupid. There's more going on here. Give it some thought and see if you can come up with another, better explanation for why they're making consistently poor decisions and then comment and let me know. I look forward to hearing what you come up with.
Senior military officers are a bureaucracy, and so they behave like all bureaucrats. Their top priorities, in order, are:
Delete1) my career, then
2) protecting my organization, and third
3) doing the mission we are supposed to do.
All branches are incredibly top-heavy, with a lot of rice bowls to keep full. If cuts need to be made, they will be made to the operating forces rather than to the bureaucracy, which will be preserved intact.
Cut the admin/overhead in half, and we would free up an amazing supply of resources to get the operational end right.
"...see if you can come up with another, better explanation for why they're making consistently poor decisions..."
DeleteI'll give a whack at it.
I think one major influence is a result of the 1991 Gulf War.
We fought a nearly bloodless campaign (for us and allies anyway) and we've come to expect to have an overwhelming technological advantage.
We believe that this is normal and that belief has only been reinforced by our campaign against goat herders and jihadi militias over the last 20 years.
Now we're facing a peer adversary and we are expecting to maintain this overwhelming tech advantage and it's not possible.
But yet we try to maintain an advantage by going for exotic technologies and hail mary solutions.
What we need to do is build solid, no-nonsense equipment that is manned by superbly trained sailors and soldiers.
Lutefisk
"I'll give a whack at it.
DeleteI think one major influence is a result of the 1991 Gulf War."
Without either agreeing or disagreeing, I very much like and appreciate this kind of comment. It offers a different take on the topic and furthers the discussion. Well done!
Now, I understand that the US hasn't fought a significant enemy in quite some time but why hasn't the US military taken more notice of what Russia has done in Ukraine? The Russians provided grimly graphic evidence of the power of signals intercept and analysis, UAVs, EW, and artillery, among other things. This should have been an absolutely stunning, eye opening event and yet the US military has had only a mild response, if even that. How does this tie into your theory?
"... increment of Chinese military R&D..."
DeleteThat's why I feel that this confrontation with China is not primarily military, it's economic.
We need to deflate the Chinese economic balloon which we ourselves have inflated, and continue to inflate.
All military power stems from economic power, that's where we need to fight them.
Lutefisk
"This should have been an absolutely stunning, eye opening event and yet the US military has had only a mild response, if even that. How does this tie into your theory?"
DeleteI wish I had an answer for you better than "I don't know".
Is it a lack of vision created by our absolute dominance for so long in the air, at sea with no rival, and on land where we looked pretty cool shooting snipers with Hellfire missiles?
Has it been an arrogant assumption of US military technological superiority?
Now that they realize that they are no longer ahead, they are trying to leapfrog to military technologies that are realistically out of grasp?
I'm as baffled as anyone.
Lutefisk
"Admirals joined the Navy voluntarily so they must have some degree of patriotism and desire to help the country."
DeleteI wouldn't be so sure about that, maybe many of them just think it's a very lucrative career path?
"I wouldn't be so sure about that, maybe many of them just think it's a very lucrative career path?"
DeleteWhen you're an 18 yr old looking at a brutally hard stay at Annapolis, I don't think you're looking all that far ahead in life. The reality is that the vast majority of officers join out of some degree of patriotism.
Yeah, I have to agree with what CNO said. You have to be crazy about the regimental life and fused with patriotism to go there. And when you are 18, neither of those things come around very often.
DeleteThat being said, I will offer my view on the issue. I think the issue here may lies with how we are being taught. I keep seeing and meeting more people that says what we are doing is right and keep going at it, much more than people saying there is something wrong and we should investigate. It felt like a sense of pride is clouding our judgement or we are being peer-pressured to believe what's wrong is correct. Either case is bad but I believe it's a combination of both that what we are facing.
Why and how it came to be? I'm not exactly sure but my bet is on how we failed to connect historical analysis with the way we teach, instead we praise what's shiny and what's next ("It's newer so it should be better" kind of thingking). I study in a field that concerns the managing of companies/projects and we are constantly showered with the failures of existing/past companies and a history of certain ideas and concepts (often with tragic consequences) came to be. I don't see the same level of discussion happening with the Annapolis grads I know (they still believe that the LCS is a successful program). But I don't go there personally so I'm just speculating here.
I would argue that the constant failures may made it seems grim and we might need a few two or three lessons on incredibly successful projects to remind us that "being ballsy pays!", something I learnt from this blog. However, I can't argue with the fact that we are constantly reminded that every wrong action may hurts the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of hard-working Americans.
It's gets worse after 2026 when the remaining 11 Ticonderoga cruisers and the first Burke destroyers are retired. By the early-2030's, the Navy could be down to 65 to 70 Burkes and 4 to 6 Constellation frigates.
ReplyDeleteYou are so right about things getting worse and I strongly suspect that, at some point, we're going to start early retiring Burkes to pay for more unmanned vessels. The Navy will use the same argument for early retiring Burkes as they are for early retiring the cruisers: they're too expensive to upgrade and they haven't been well maintained so it's not economical to modernize them.
DeleteVery good point you make!
Actually, it might be even worse.
DeleteThe Chinese Navy now has some 28 major surface combatants (Type 052C, 052D, 055).
If current chinese warship building trends trends continue, it will have some 80 to 84 major surface combatants by 2030.
It menas that from being outnumbered by 92:28 today it will reach roughly parity in less than a decade.
Navy has formally created DDG(X) program office. They expect to buy first ship in 2028. At this moment, there is official announcement of how DDG(X) would be like.
Deletehttps://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/06/04/navy-creates-ddgx-program-office-after-years-of-delays-for-large-combatant-replacement/
While Ticonderoga will be scraped, Navy will welcome newer and modern DDG(X), if there is no delay which would mean long held tradition is broken.
COMNAVOPS-I agree that most joined because of some patriotism. But they're 25-30 years into a career that affords them great opportunities. Perhaps I'm painting with to wide a brush but lets take mad dog Mattis for an example. Here is a man who served with distiction, achieved great stature in the military and as secretary of defense. After leaving the Trump administrstion he joins the Cohen Group and pens a letter eviserating Trump foriegn policy in regards to China. Mattis called for Biden to dump America First policies and to work with China. I guess putting your vountry 1st is bad for buisness. The Cohen Group is run by former high ranking military officials and have 4 overseas offices in which 2 of them are in China. I think if you are not questioning their commitment to the country then perhaps your looking at it through rose colored glasses. This is only one example and goes way beyond "inappropriate influences" as you stated.
ReplyDeleteHistory is full of people who betrayed their country. Why would we be any different? I imagine you watched General Milley the other day rant about "white rage" among other things. The whole anti white and woke culture wave that is being foisted upon the military is being done by high ranking officers. It is being done to weaken the armed forces as a whole, there is no other explanation. None. It is traitorous IMHO.
If the navy wants to continue to build the LCS while decommissioning true warships all while China expands their fleet then I dont think questioning what the hell the motives are is out of line. The job is to keep the fleet as lethal as possible and they are failing in a huge way. Some of these guys being in the pocket of the Chinese is not a stretch. All it takes is something as simple as doing something that you can be blackmailed for and thats an old story. It is neither simplistic nor far fetched to think flag officers can be bought off. Im sure you wouldn't be surrised if many elected officials were.
I hope you don't think I'm suggesting that every flag officer is pure as can be and motivated only by patriotism. Of course not! We have only to look at the Fat Leonard scandal that has ensnared dozens of officers of all ranks to see that bad actors abound.
DeleteThe point is that I think the motivations are far less sinister than plots to betray the country or whatever. As Sherlock Holmes said, the simplest explanation is invariably the correct one. The simplest explanation for Navy leadership behavior is simple incompetence reinforced but a total lack of accountability.
We also need to recognize that the promotion system, by its very nature, weeds out the patriotic in favor of the pure politician who will get along and go along. Thus, the highest ranking officers are, by definition, the worst of the officer corps. Again, nothing sinister or mysterious … just institutionalized incompetence.
I see your point and its well taken. I do not think all are corrupt and I probably came accross that way. It is hard to find reason in a increasingly unreasonable world. Especially when all you have believed in and held in high regard is under constant attack.
DeleteWe need responsibility and accountability. Normally, we would expect the CNO to enforce accountability but, as I've explained, the promotion system we use ensures that he, as the highest officer in the Navy, is the least competent and, therefore, least likely to set and enforce standards.
DeleteFailing that, we would hope that Congress would apply accountability. They have multiple methods to do so. They approve flag rank officers and can fire them. They can also withhold budget - and they have done that to a limited but increasing extent of late - to force certain behaviors on the Navy. The example of Congress refusing to allow the Navy to early retire the Aegis cruisers is a good example of Congress exercising its oversight and budget authorities. We just need much, much more of it.
Unfortunately, Congress is nearly as incompetent as the Navy so …
The reality is that the only accountability will come an actual war where life and death are coins of accountability and no amount of politics can evade the accountability at that point. The regrettable aspect is that many good people will die as the accountability of war is applied. This is exactly what happened at the start of WWII until we weeded out the non-warriors.
I don't think these guys are traitorous or even incompetent so much as they are bureaucrats. And a bureaucrat thinks of three things, in descending order of importance:
Delete1) advancing my career,
2) protecting and defending my agency,
3) doing whatever in the heck it is that we are supposed to be doing.
Given that hierarchy of values, the decisions they make are no surprise. I'm not quite sure how to break the cycle, but I am sure that the cycle needs to be broken.
History says the cycle is broken only one of two ways:
Delete1. The emergence of an exceptional leader (a Rickover) or,
2. War
The first is very rare and unlikely. The second is ruthlessly effective but carries a very high price with it.
"I don't think these guys are ... incompetent"
DeleteIncompetent means incapable of performing the required task(s). Navy leadership has proven that they are incapable of performing the task. Therefore, by definition, they are incompetent on a scale that defies belief. Whether the underlying reason is stupidity, bureaucracy, careerism, treason, or whatever, doesn't matter. The end result is rampant incompetence.
One other issue with current Flag rank officers: They all got in during the late 70's. Ask yourself (if you lived through those times), what type of men were joining at that time?
DeleteI know that is painting with a very wide brush, and I hate to lump in some good men who joined in the Carter years, but I served in the mid-80's and I was NOT impressed with most of them. Sorry, but I think it's relevant.
"They all got in during the late 70's. ... I served in the mid-80's and I was NOT impressed with most of them."
DeleteFor sake of discussion, let's say you're right about the quality of the people joining in the '70s. That means the Navy has had several decades of opportunity to weed those people out during promotion board after promotion board and those boards were conducted by people NOT of the '70s. Unless you're going to claim that every single one of those '70s people were abject failures, how do you explain the failure of the Navy to weed them out?
Could it be that the Navy's people-quality problems are not due strictly to the '70s era people? Could there be some other explanation?
I think they come in with good intentions, at least the vast majority do. But career preservation steps in and becomes a huge goal, especially as they rise in rank. And part of that career thing is looking out for the Navy and not making waves. Warriors don't do well in peacetime military organizations. And except for plinking a few goat herders, we've been a peacetime military for 6 decades or so. The warriors are all gone, and so things are being run by the folks who got their reports in on time.
DeleteSince Ticonderoga is too old and outdated to justify keeping spending lots of money simply for some people's memory and pride, let's focus on coming DDG(X).
DeleteNavy has formally set up a program office for DDG(X). There is little information on how DDG(X) will be. What makes many discouraged is that first ship is expected to be procured in 2028. Could Navy pull this schedule forward?
"Since Ticonderoga is too old and outdated to justify keeping spending lots of money"
DeleteYou completely missed the point of the post. The Ticonderoga is still completely effective and, therefore, does not need to be modernized to any great extent. It remains as combat effective as when it was built.
One of my observations as a young army officer was that the people who reach high ranks in the army, at least during peacetime, seem to be good at meeting the organization's expectations.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that, IMO, is that you end up with leadership that doesn't do a lot of innovative thinking.
Out of the box thinking is not necessarily discouraged, but it isn't rewarded either.
The rusty nails typically don't rise to the top leadership ranks.
I think that contributes to what appears to be 'group think', but is actually institutional inertia.
Lutefisk
I'm reminded of the Peter Principle, which states that, in any bureaucracy, people tend to rise to their level of incompetence and then stay there. I'm sure that all of our current leaders performed competently at lower levels, so they got promoted. Eventually, they are promoted to a position where they are incompetent, and then don't get promoted anymore, so they stay there.
ReplyDeleteI guess the Peter Principle now applies to the Navy.
CNV68, USS Nimitz, maiden voyage 1975, give or take, I went aboard first time in 1976, is still out there. I figure we're getting our money's worth out of the old girl. It was built at the then-astronomical sum of 1 billion dollars.
ReplyDeleteCarriers are one of the very few classes that seem to run out their entire design service life although the Navy has twice tried to early retire a Nimitz class carrier instead of doing the mid-life RCOH.
Delete