Navy: The cruisers must go, that others may stay

Navy: The cruisers must go, that others may stay

The Navy’s proposal to decommission seven Aegis cruisers was “an extremely difficult choice for us to make,” but it must be done to protect what the Navy calls the “wholeness” of the rest of its fleet, top commanders told Congress Thursday.

Navy logistics and readiness boss Vice Adm. Bill Burke told a House Armed Services Committee panel that the surface force is banking on the money and sailors it would save from the ships going away — along with its now-fully funded request for ship maintenance — to help continue to dig the fleet out of its longstanding readiness problems.

“The cruiser retirements were an extremely difficult choice for us to make, but our goal was to balance readiness, procurment and the personnel priorities within our budget controls to still meet global force management and avoid a hollow force,” Burke said.

The Navy can free up about $4 billion by not keeping the ships, he said, even though they have 10 or even 15 years of life left — and the Navy’s recent top goal has been squeezing the most good from everything in today’s fleet. The ships need comprehensive upgrades and they’re suffering from the infamous cracks in their aluminum superstructures, so Burke said the brass had to swallow hard and let them go.

He’s not kidding: Although Secretary Panetta and other DoD-level officials have pooh-poohed the “older, less-capable” cruisers, these ships have long commanded a special status in the surface force. When certain kinds of Navy officers at desks in the Pentagon close their eyes for a moment of pause, they picture themselves on the bridge of a cruiser as the ship turns at high speed on a sunny afternoon off Southern California.

Virginia Republican Rep. Randy Forbes, who chaired Thursday’s hearing, wants that daydream to remain a reality for six of the seven ships slated to go away. (We’ll get to the seventh in a moment.) He said his committee staff has calculated that it would cost about $592 million in FY 13 and $859 million in FY 14 to upgrade the six ships and keep them around for the rest of their service lives. Compare that against more than $2 billion for a single new destroyer and it seems like a no-brainer, he argued.

Maybe, Burke said, but he said Forbes’ estimates didn’t cover the cost of operating the ships, or fielding helicopters with them, and said the bottom line was this: With seven fewer cruisers and fully funded maintenance budgets, the surface Navy could finally slay the readiness and maintenance demons that have been plaguing it for the past decade. He and Naval Sea Systems Command boss Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy said the fleet is turning the corner on its readiness problem, and deviating from the latest plans could throw a monkey wrench into that effort.

“It was a terribly difficult choice,” Burke said. “We didn’t want to make it. But in order to maintain readiness of all the forces we chose to decrement our Navy by a couple [of cruisers] … If we didn’t do this, if we kept too many, we’d be under-maintaining all of them and we’d end up down the road having a bigger problem than we have today.”

As for the seventh ship, Thursday’s hearing made clear that the poor cruiser USS Port Royal is a goner no matter what. Forbes’ estimates deliberately excluded the cost to upgrade it, and none of the Navy witnesses seemed to even consider keeping it around past its scheduled mothball date next year. The Port Royal ran hard aground off Honolulu in 2009 and its repairs cost the Navy tens of millions of dollars, but by all accounts, the ship has never been the same. As it sat stuck on the coral reef, the tide rocked and shook the cruiser and all of its onboard equipment, damaging it more than might have initially been apparent. The Port Royal eventually returned to service, but the Navy’s mothball decision and Thursday’s hearing apparently confirmed the brass wants to just cut its losses.

The sad twist for the surface Navy — taking Burke and McCoy at their word that it’s turning the corner — is that even a smaller, better-maintained fleet still falls far short of the oft-discussed “demand signal” from the combatant commanders. Under questioning from Forbes, Burke said that it would take a fleet of 500 ships to meet the “demand” from the various military areas of operation around the world. If everything goes the Navy’s way, it hopes to build a fleet of 300 ships by 2019.

So it’s the old standoff: Will Congress ultimately force service officials to keep ships they don’t want, having absorbed — in this case — the Navy’s years of arguments that “quantity is a capability all its own?” As we saw this week, lawmakers have asked the Pentagon not to implement any of its planned changes until the Hill gives its go-ahead, so there may be still more talk of keeping these once-prized warships the Navy says must go.

Join the Conversation

Cut off your nose to spite your face, Navy!

Back in the day the Navy brass said they had to have these. They obviously approved of their construction, or they would not have been built the way they were. Now they can live without them. How many Billions of dollars were wasted, so they can say ” that we can loove without these ships”. Ridiculous.

I hate spell check. The word in quotes should have been live, not loove. Sorry.

I think that decision to kill the cruisers is going to come back and bite them in the Butt in a big way. What the US Navy should have done instead, kill off projects that are not working or becoming money pits like the LCS project. By killing the LCS project, they could have saved money by buying into the US Coast Guards NSC cutter and sell off the LCS to countries that are interested in them, like Taiwan or the Philippines.

The Navy said that they had to have them in the late 70’s and 80’s when the threat was Regimental Missile attacks from the Soviet Air Force. From where I sit, the threat has definietly changed quite a bit since then so holding the Navy to what it asked for in a different era with a different threat set is kind of clueless.

That said, I’ve sailed on several of these and can do a lot more than just fleet air defense. With all the issues about fleet numbers being low, I do not think that they should get rid of these six. IF the Navy budget could get plussed up to cover the costs of them then they should get upgraded and stay in the fleet. Port Royal though needs to go and go now.

Recommission it back. We need it for future defense against Iran and North Korea. Invest on algae oil to generate revenue that it required. Use Portland Oregon as an example on oil and energy self sufficiency and revenue creation.

The US has no known enemies that can strike the US mainland so why do we need such a large navy?

Because the Navy is what ensures we have no enemies that could strike the continental US?

Bad decision to cut the Navy in a new strategy that leave the Middle East and goes to the Pacific. Cut useless Army programs and keep 3 of the 7 in service still is a better idea.

95% of all world trade is done by the sea. Protecting the mainland isn’t the end game.

I agree with Nicky, scrap that worthless, over-funded LCS. As soon as the first ran so hideously over-budget, and commissioned without all the promised new technology, it should have been canned. That’ll save the Navy hundreds of billions of dollars that they can put into maintaining the actually *needed* cruisers.

The Navy is being penny wise and pound foolish by continuing to spend millions the the Little Crappy Ships and to
let these national assets, the cruisers, go.

So in the end we’ll end up with a bunch of jets skis in place of top end cruisers-really smart move Navy!

“When certain kinds of Navy officers at desks in the Pentagon close their eyes for a moment of pause, they picture themselves on the bridge of a cruiser as the ship turns at high speed on a sunny afternoon off Southern California.…”

Gee, the author makes it sound like those cruisers are just.…cruise ships.
What, no one in the Pentagon remembers serving on Ticos in the cold North Atlantic above Iceland and near Scandanavian waters, playing shadow-the-Soviets?

My question is: these older cruisers (CG-47 class), is there anything they really bring to the table that’s superior to what these new Flight Burke destroyers have?
Other than number of available missile cells in a Tico versus a Burke, and better support/accomodation for the helos, what really makes a newer Burke so inferior to an older Tico hull?

Let’s face it: we’re never really going to see another war of numbers where attrition empties every last missile cell the USN can put to sea now to the point that we’re clamoring for VLS reloads ASAP. So what really are we losing in decomming older hulls whose systems are becoming more costly in upkeep?

That’s why the US Navy needs to be hit with with Reality Torpedo and see why decoming cruisers is a bad thing that’s going to bite them in the butt down the road. Instead, the US navy should cancel the LCS program. Sell off all the remaining LCS’s to places like Taiwan, Philippines. The LCS as of now is nothing more than glorified USCG WMEC cutter. Force the US Navy to invest and buy in the NSC cutter. Cancel the Zimwalt class destroyer and just upgrade the Burkes IIA to Flight 3’s standard.

hey Gust, why then have an Air Force, an Army, a Coast Guard, why do we need any defense at all? I know, let’s just bow down to the whole world and see if they will “like” us.

Better still Gust, why don’t you remove the windows and doors on your house and then tell us what happens.

To cut these seven ships is just idiotic. The Ticos are with exception of the Nimitz carrier the most capable surface combatants of the Navy and they give the navy the skills what he needs in a Symmetric War in the pacific and to maintain them is not really costly in compare with the acquisition of new not so capable DDG-51. The Navy spends about 500 Million for one small and nearly unarmed aluminum hull LCS how has no military value so the Navy needs to cut ships how are useless for the new strategic focus and this ships are not the Ticos. So you need to cut just four useless LCS and maintain all seven Cruisers for another 15 years I think this is a perfect deal!

But in the moment to avoid the sequestration is the all-important target for the DOD and the Congress because when Sequestration will happen the USA is gone as a World Power but them sequestration can be avoided the saving of the seven Cruiser should be the first priority. And I see hope for this how long the Sequestration will no happen because what the Congress has the last word on this issue and it looks like what a lot of lawmakers see the idiocies of the Navy planers.

And the NSC cutter costs upwards of 600 million? And has a structure so messed up the Coast Guard had to reduce the number of at sea days per year just to get the vessel to the two-decade mark intact? Get real.…

Don’t you get it guys the LCS’s or Lousy Combat Ships make mega bucks for defense contractors. The poor desk bound lazy/kiss asses will need jobs when they retire. Oh and do not forget the other bottomless pit, F35’s. Isn’t a Navy three or four star the honcho of that contract payday. What a hull, pun intended, way to run a navy. Aloha and remember Pearl Harbor — give me a fast, defenseless ship for I intend to send others in harms way, Damn the torpedoes, ops we got no torpedoes aboard, well full speed ahead anyway, I have not yet begun to fight , oh yea we lost that ship. Millions for toy ships not one cent for real ships. I have dinky toy ship models that have more firepower than a LCS. Sorry for the rant but theses self-serving…well enough — anchors aweigh — if you can get underway.

Keep the cruisers — cancel LCS and San Anone class, decom the de weaponed frigates. If you are going to have a smaller fleet then you want one with multiple capabilities for assault and defence.

While they are at it — permanently closing down GUAM, SINGAPORE, SASEBO, YAKUSKA, ROSEVELT ROADS, OKINAWA which are useless in reality and give us no tactical edge we cant achieve from the mainland including reaction time which is where all the support and transports ships are at (US mainland). This would save 10X the ammount of getting rid of the CG’s.

Don’t agree with you Boomer — way off. Where would you purpose to do heavy maintenance. We closed Subic and moved to Singapore. Yoko is a super yard that is better than anything we have here in the US. They kept the Midway in better shape than when it was new. Dry dock for carriers are hard to come by. Rosie Roads has been closed for years.

We need to use these off shore yards as they will do better work, on budget, on time. Fact is if we built our new ships in Japan and Korea we would be better off. Finland, Sweden build good ships on time/budget.

As for the LCS — waste of money. By Norway’s and Sweden’s version instead of spending development money on our — what ever you want to classify it — junk or perfecto.

I would keep GUAM and ROSEVELT ROADS but close SINGAPORE, SASEBO, YAKUSKA,. At the same time I would upgrade the San Antonio Class LPD to Absalon class support ship standard and put the same weapons that the Absalon class support ship have on the San Antonio class LPD.

D.Kellog, never say never. it is tiring to hear people predict the future with such tremendous certainty. Can you say that in 2014, that you are not going to get in some type of accident. Either at home or on the road…
No you can not. So do not say we may not get in this type of war, or that.

If it is simply about saving money then that doesn’t explain the Navy’s decision to scrap all of the cruisers instead of selling them to allies (like we are doing with 30-year-old frigates). Selling the cruisers would bring in income and avoid the scrapping costs. Plus, if allies like Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, etc deploy these cruisers then the US might not need to deploy as many surface combatants, which would save even more money. At least mothball them so we can sell them to Taiwan if China acts too aggressively against its neighbors, giving us some bargaining chips.

all of our allies are broke and been riding our tails for a long time now — It would not bring in any money because when ever we sell off our gear it is for free, no money ever exchanges hands.

Buying from one of them would had been much cheaper and better in the long run considering the LCS is a ripoff reverse engineer stretch hull VISBY corvette anyhow. (it’s that no sole contractor bid regulation thing that bites us in the butt). But as far as Singapore and Japan — been there — tried to get work done there, major pain, people are rude as heck in Japan. Only thing singapore has going for it is that its cheap and the gals are very willing, but foget having any maintenance accomplished unless you want to do it yourself.

They closed Roosevelt Roads years ago. Wake up! You can buy lots on it now.

Price is closer to $400 million according to recent Huntington INGALLS offers to Navy. And what are you talking about Weak structure ??!? One of those NSC’s made a patrol last year to BERING Sea in winter of 2011. Your “facts” are all wrong. Get real yourself.…

LCS cannot do wonders in the South China Sea. It doesn’t have that “Psychological” factor to intimidate the OPFOR.

I’ve sailed on many of the cruisers that are tabbed to be mothballed. These ships have been ridden hard and put away wet. When we projected that they would last 30 years back in the early 80’s, I don’t think the amount of extra deployments was taken into account. If we had the 313 ship Navy, we wouldn’t be considering the early retirement of this ships. To be only building 2 Burke class ships a year is crazy, they need to build 4–5 a year just to keep up with the early retirements of our over used fleet. These 7 ships aren’t the only ones that will be mothballed earlier than planned.

Because without a large navy you would have enemies that would strike the US mainland

The typo isn’t the biggest flaw in your post.

I don’t doubt they’ve regretted getting rid of the VLS Spruances and yet here they’re going to do it again. At the very least just put them in storage with upkeep, don’t blow the fuckers up this time.

well Kellogg, there are considerable differences:

–Tico: 122 VLS tubes verses Burkes 90 or 96
–Alll Tico have Harpoon, only Flight 1 Burkes have Harpoon
–All Tico have two helos, only Flight II Burkes have helos
–Two 5 in guns verse 1 5 inch gun
–All Ticos have 2 Phalanx, only Flight I Burke has Phalanx, some Flight II have one
–SPY radar faces are on separated on Ticos on either end of the ship, on Burkes all four radars are on same forward superstructure which is highly susceptible to a single hit mission kill, if the Tico got hit on one superstructure she’d still have two operational radar faces
–All Tico have AN/SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar, only Flight I Burke have it
–All Tico have AN/SLQ-33 (V3), only newer Burke have V3
–All Tico have 4 illuminators, Burkes have 3
–All Tico have additional air search radar SPS-49, Burkes do not
–All Tico will be getting or already have the SPQ-9B which is used for detecting sea skimming missiles
–Tico have a crew of close to 400, Burkes have around 330.

So overall, the Tico are complete warships with capabilities in every area, AAW, ASW, AsuW, etc. Burkes have varying capabilities in some but not all areas depending upon the Flight.

The Burkes has the advantage of lower RCS but in the end, once you are detected then the fight is one and I think a Tico will generally beat a Burke simply because she has more of everything and better and more sensors and a larger crew. If the Tico was up against a Flt 1 Burke she could use here helos for remote targeting, if she was up against Flt II Burkes, which have no ASuW, then she would take the Burke out with salvo of Harpoons missiles.

So, in the end, our Ticos are our most capable ships by far.

Why does everyone think that you can win wars nowadays with just infantry?

I think we should sell several of the cruisers to Taiwan and use the proceeds to help modernize the remaining fleet of aegis ships. As a taxpayer

i wholeheartedly disagree with getting rid of the ticos, however the LCS’s are multi mission capable in most aspects of warfare, would i ever put money on an LCS vs. opposing surface combatants. hell no. these ships were meant to move fast, stay stealthy, get in get out and go home. as is the same with the ddg 51 class. now compare a ddg51 to a tico and see what dosen’t line up. a few extra holes for another missle or two and minus one five inch cannon and a couple other minor things. the ddg51 is a good economical replacement for the ticos… lets get real here people, this decision was going to happen. i neither support nor oppose the new additions to the fleet but i do have to say lets give the new girls a chance to show us all what they got to offer. we’re in the technological boom. other countries are trying to keep pace with us. lets stay on top and keep pushing forward.

Ah the military castratos — hear the high pitch squeal of them claiming how afraid they are.

The navy is large because the contractors have bought enough congressmen to keep the money flowing its that simple. The idea that it’s defending the US against some imaginary enemy is funny but the idea that it’s keeping the worlds sea lanes safe is just hilarious.

What good is a navy that cant defeat Somali in wooden ships ? Its good for corporate welfare that’s what.

When you are living in the past the present is considered predicting the future.

As a cruiser guy could not have said it better.

Lets just go ahead and scrap the entire Navy to make itfunk and his PRC masters happy then. Read a history book, the world isn’t a friendly place. From a strategic standpoint the Navy is our strongest line of defense.

Considering the entire 1st world is involved anti-piracy ops, what are you complaining about? Are you under the delusion that they’ve managed to sink warships? It’s more law enforcement than warfare.

William Crook is one of those big dirty rats at the bottom of the rat hole just waiting for us to throw our hard earned money down to him.

Gust. those carriers, cruisers, and destroyers are keeps the any potential ( china) enemy at bay. 10–11 battle groups. that is firepower from hell. Now you have some what of an idea why China is getting in the carrier business.

I do agree and understand what you are saying Marty but I have a question for you. Remember the USS Stark and the two exocet missiles she took? She surived because one didn’t blow. I am no expert on naval ships but I don’t think an LCS can take a hit from a Marverick missile. As for something like a Harpoon, I believe would sink it.

your absolutely right Greensboro, a LCS is not built to the same standards as a regular warship, more like commercial standards. The LCA will not survive any type of a hit, even a 3 in shell will take her out easily.
The Perry’s are tough frigates, this has been proven over and over again. Of course they were build to take damage and still fight, just like a warship is supposed to, something the LCS cannot do.

I would hate to be on a LCS during wartime.…because I knew I wouldn’t be coming back.

God forbid Americans build ships. Lets just all have honest careers collecting welfare money at home like you.

The Navy’s “Top Brass” should reconsider their future build ideas, that is: “Hurry ahead ideas on future ship building and see how that works for the fleet attitude”. These days the United States, still seen as a world power, should restructure the fleets to/as the world’s countries evolves into change. Maybe a younger, out of the box type thinking, intelligence structure is needed to start America rolling again.

The NAVY should reconsider future builds — you are absolutely correct — but younger out of the box thinking is part of the problem. A major issue with our ships and the Coast Guards is hull wear and cracks, this is due to engineers trying to make them lighter and cheaper which in the long run makes them more expensive during the life of the ship. I’m not saying that they need to go back to 12″ hull battle ship designs but going from a 1/4″ to 3/4″ thick hull to a 1 1/2′ to 3″ hull with extra skelatal brasing and more watertight bulkheards of at least 1″ thick would greatly increase the lives of our ships. Nuclear power is also more modular and cost effective over a 30 to 60 yrs life span if built this way. Nuclear power plants will also provide sufficient energy for future upgrades without taking away propulsion power or requiring new power generating equipment to be installed.

Another ideal the NAVY should consider is that for every so many ships built a sprare aft (propulsion section) be built as a spare. Ships are built in sections and then brought and tied together. Buy building spare sections they could reduce shipyard overtime greatly because the only thing to do is remove the old section — slide the new one in place — reconnect/test and perform dock/sea trials. A 4 to 5yr overhaul could be done in two years or less with all the systems being rebuilt or replaced and ready to go before the ship even enters the yard for repairs This is how modular engineering should be used on ships rather than designing swapable mission gear, A WARSHIP SHOULD BE READY FOR ANYTHING AT ANY GIVEN TIME AND NOT HAVE TO RUN BACK TO PORT FOR REFITTING A DIFFERENT WEAPON MODULE TO GO BACK OUT TO THE FIGHTING. IF IT CANT ENGAGE ANY ENEMY AT ANYTIME WITH WHAT IT HAS (SHIPS — SUBS — PLANE — MISSILES — ETC) THEN ITS NOT AN EFFECTIVE PLATFORM.

your right Boomer, build then strong and they will last long-can take battle damage and not sink

nuclear power should be our only option for all new cruiser and destroyer. With the new designs then have now that are smaller and require much less maintenance and most importantly, they don’t require mi-life refueling (the will last the lifetime of the hull). Nuc power is now the ‘no duh’ choice.

Lastly, the operationally advantages are huge for nuclear power
–unlimited range (no need to refuel every week)
–unlimited high speed cruising (can keep up with the carriers indef.)
–vast amounts of electrical power generating (for future energy weapons)
–no need to have a fleet of very vulnerable oilers all over the world, which everyone knows will be the first ships sunk in a war.
–long tern operation costs are lower (especially with rising oil prices)

Nobody is talking about scrapping all of the cruisers. The number is 7 of which one has serious problems (Port Royal).

I’m a plankowner on the last Nuke cruiser that the US built and the electrical power available was far from “vast”. If you wanted the amount of electical power that people are considering, you’d need to double or even triple the generating plant. Considering the elements of the steam cycle, you’d probably not want to add additional generators but rather, increase the capacity/size of what was used before. Space and weight would not be insignificant but should be doable. I’d venture though that the better answer would be to rearchitect the nuke plant so that all of the steam goes to generating electricity and drive the shafts electrically.

Nuc plants have evolved greatly from then, Modern plants are far more powerful. The power plant on a TRIDENT class sub would outpower the old CGN unit even though it is smaller scale. This is why surface and sub engineers should be sharing info and gaining from each other rather than letting contractors tell them that they cant share propriatary info. I say that as long as it stays within the NAVY that there is no breech of propritary data and do what needs to be done. If we want bath iron to build us a frigate hull and take that hull to EB for a sub power plant than so be it. If you took the layout of a VA class sub and put that same layout in a high speed low drag 400 ft long 40 ft beam surface hull, added more weapons and a superstructure of proportionate size you would have a highly capable high speed and endurance warship with about a 200 man crew — it could be done (the VA already has a large torpedo room and VLS — sonar — radar — navigation, just need AA and AS launchers and 5″ gun added and helo deck)

I guess that you don’t know much about the procurement of nuclear power systems in the Navy. If you did, you’d know that the contractors do not own the designs but rather, NAVSEA does and they are free to interchange and use components and concepts accross the board however they wish.
By the way, each of the reactors on a Virginia CGN had as much power as an Ohio reactor.

Your statement on converting the Virginia Class Sub design to a surface ship really takes the cake though. From that post alone, you have told me all that I need to know about your level of knowledge about ships and the Navy.

24 yrs and retired (1980 to 2004), qualified on a number of subs and surface ships as well, was work control sup for pearl shipyard before retirement, work as acquisitions now. navy has not designed a ship in years, NAVSEA only does admin work and money disposition mostly now days. SUrface ships have a lot of redundant hold overs from the old days not really required on a modern ship such as you dont need a DCC when everything can be controlled from the bridge as can fire control and a number of other systems, thus the reason surface ships require huge crews. Dont get me wrong I’m not a 100% sub guy either — enjoyed my time on surface ships as well but they could be smaller — deadlier — and more cost effective if they got away from old school designs and they wouldnt had went looking for this LCS abortion. A properly laid out design with no redundancy could be smaller and more lethal than the current CG’s.

A 400 ft ship with a real torpedo room (MK48’s and TTL’s)/ VLS/ a 5″ or two/ anti air and anti ship missiles/ anti ballistic missile system / minimal crew and nuclear power can be laid out and ready to go in no time if NAVSEA were to actualy be able to design ships again, rather than just lay out requirements for what they hope to get and hope some contractor will come close.

The other redundancy on surface ships: not only CO & XO state rooms but also dept heads, CPO qtrs, LPO qtrs, and finaly crews qtrs — how about officers mess — cpo mess — 1st class mess — and crews mess (with a speed line and full meal line plus sald and desert bars). It’s reasons like this why surface ships are so large, sub crews are a lot closer and recieve way more training on ships systems and damage control, this is something surface ships need to embrace then the ships and crews can be smaller.

And who will protect the carriers ?

If we keep cutting the NAVY we will no longer be the worlds strongest, come on people get with it, this country is going to hell in a hand bag.

I did not say that NAVSEA designs ships but NAVSEA 08 designs and more importantly controls the designs of nuclear power systems. The shipyards do not own the designs of the nuclear plants. In my 31 yrs as a Surface Warfare Officer I never saw a ship that could control its fire control systems or weapons systems from the bridge. Many surface ships do not have a seperate Damage Control Central and in a lot of cases, DC Central is also the Engineering Log Room.

The Navy originally designed the California Class CGNs to launch MK48s but it was removed because it was not the best weapon for a surface ship. Relatively slow compared to air breathing weapons and also somewhat short range. Far better return on the space/weight and people by using Harpoons and other air breathing weapons. The large Torpedo Rooms would be a liability on a surface ship as they would need relatively few torpedoes and lots more space for 5″ ammunition and SMs.

What US ships have seperate LPO qtrs? What ships have a seperate LPO or 1st class Mess (total mess, not a partitioned off section of the mess deck) ?

There are lots of reasons why surface ships are larger. Generally, ships are sized to accomodate their weapons, sensors and engineering plant.

With the Arleigh Burke class DDG why do we need these cruisers? The cruisers of old, were gun platforms, that served their purpose. That is finished.

On the other hand; I heard it broadcast on network news, the other day that the army, was the senior service. I beg to disagree. our Navy was our first fighting force, thank you very much!!!

Yes in deed! “Who will protect the carriers?” I did along with the rest of the USS Blandy DD943 crew, off the Gunline of South East Asia! Yes i know things and ships have changed since i was aboard destroyers like DD693 and DD943. Keep the cruisers for there life span!

Obama has no clues about protecting the USA, he’s put in charge yes men and cutting the Navy’s finest vessels follow his plan to give up the missles protecting Europe per his open mike comment to the Ruskies. Democrats will demimate our country once again, a major event will take place and we’ll be defenseless. Our new Secritary of Defense Leon P, is another plant shifting to the political side of leadership and totally letting down our countries defenses.

I agree. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Are these decision admirals kissing certain people’s butts that have demonstrated how much they don’t like our military?

You do not know about history. Romans made this mistake. Their mistake was nobody can strike them. But someone did. Strategy must be stay as strong as you can.

When it gets down to it we have Senators and Congressmen forcing much of the Military to except what they do not want. Congress wants the Army to take so many Tanks, the Army says they don’t need them. Samething happens to the Navy because politicians lose their job if their folks back home don’t have jobs. So you wonder where all the defense spending goes. Intead we need to equip our military with what they need not what they can’t use, that could be just as dangerous as not being prepared for any conflict.What good are 30 more tanks if they are never used or do have the personnel to drive them.

Piss poor planning makes for piss poor performance. Decommissioning these 7 ships is about as stupid as I have ever heard. Just stop building on these LCS’s which has no value at all and use the money to keep the maintenance program in place as well as increase the number of combat ready ships in order to reduce the number of times a single ship needs to deploy overseas. I really am beginning to wonder about this younger generation and how they think. I am for a fleet that has ships that is a multi-capable. That is what’s needed in today’s fleet and if these people making these stupid decisions can’t figure this out then we as a nation is in trouble.

too bad the navy gave up its diesel sub fleet perfect for the job and it is much less expensive

Don’t let us go the way of the Russian navy, with their ships decaying in port..

sorry about that i was thinking about pirates off east africa

The short answer.…OIL. Kick the Oil fix this country needs every day and we could save millions in weapon systems not forgetting many young lives.

I’m willing to bet you’ve never served anyone but your naive self. Or had an original thought. Whose spoon-fed pap are you parroting? You’d be singing a different tune if it had been your sorry ass the Seals had rescued from those Somali pirates.

still it would scare the hell out of them long and black sea monster coming out of the sea at close quarters and a 5 inch deck gun love to see the face on them

Replacing them or trashing them, that is the question. The Aegis System is an absolute defensive capability that can’t be replaced with a bunch of destroyers. Carriers are not always available for Aegis work. I don’t think they have thought this through very well.

I think the Navy does regret getting rid of (sinking) all of the Spruances, but they will never admit it publicly

The Spruances were not Aegis cruiser by any means, but they did bring a lot of Strike and ASW capabilities to the table. ASW is a capability are a slowly losing by the way.

i think they can keep them and refit them as needed new is not always better TICO is a good ship and proven The Burke class is better for diff jobs..just as the Tico..these ships are not cheap but they have a purpose..

HI, I know nothing about an LCS but it sounds like a regular type USCG ship we regular people see at
the docks by the the sea shore, I see the pictures of these CRUISERS that they want to get rid of?
AS a tax payer and (sinic) for the life of me understand the real reason for this?? Is this a polical
move for big money deals for ship builders and government pay offs??? THE CRUISERS ARE OUR
BEST DEFENCE . Look at the B-52, over 50 years of service with upgrades, ad still mission worthy??
I’m thinking whos making the money form congress off this deal?? I’m just a sinic!

Times change and so do needs and requirements. What I haven’t seen discussed yet is how effective the Aegis system is in today’s world. That system and the technology that is integral to it are no longer cutting edge. This is a question that may help clarify– Are you still using the computers and peripherals you were using 30 years ago? Why not? I’m thinking the technology those cruisers carry have been refined and combined and are already in place in other hulls. Making them superfluous in today’s fleet.

There is a reason why we currently have no real enemies that can reach our shores…Thank the Navy for that. The next time you run accross a member of the US Military, take the time to thank them for your freedoms and for being able to sleep at night knowing that they are standing the watch…

I’m really surprised the POTUS didn’t order them sold to China or Iran.

Two words come to mind: Jimmy Carter. He cut to a 300 ship Navy that took 20 years to recover from.

All congress seems to know how to do lately is cut defense. They are cutting qualified personnel, benefits, and now ships. What’s next? So now you will have an under trained, under qualified, non-committed defense and fighting force so that when things get hot again somewhere in the world that requires quick mobilization, the resources needed will not be there. Wish congress would take a closer look at their benefits packages and cut the outrageous spending that occurs in their offices. But I guess that is just wishful thinking.

I think this has a lot more to do with finding funding and reason for other cool toys. Like future SSGN’s, which can be configured with over 140 VLS tubes, launch drones, deliver special forces, and cost too much to get rid of SSBN’s. The CG’s where flawed but very capable, SSGN’s just hide the flaws better.

What we need to do is rememebr that the early hulls of the ages class are not vertical launch hulls, so you can eather up grade the hulls or put them into ‚moth balls for quick break out with reserve crews, other wise reduced crews and reservests, place thiem in major port cities and then they can be used for emergance air defence of the city agianst air and missle attack.
just one old sailors idea.

Sticker on an LCS is only ~500 million. Where are you coming up with hunderds of billions?

Get rid of all the metal ships and revert back to wind power. No armament either … we don’t want to be confrontational.


this is a response to all you backyard admirals and full bird kernals ( I kind of like that one). yes we need a naval prescence because it is a global theatre now. We must for now keep our oil delivery unquestioned. Maybe someday when bio-fuels are economically feasible that will lessen our relience on the navy. But the fact of the matter is that the military-industrial complex has a grip lock on our government and they really call the shots. There are so many hungry children I am sorry adults and children but why do we always need more carriers an jets. why not just outlaw war multi-nationally

The cruisers are basically the same as the destroyers these days with 35% more missiles. The rest of their capability is nearly identical. The hull is the same length, the weapons systems are basically identical, the destroyers have a more stealthy profile, and some radar defeating technologies but neither is actually stealthy.

itfunk is correct that the military contractor system is a gigantic boondoggle feeding the military industrial complex. The system is not good but it’s the best we have, and it’s politicians being corrupted by greed that are the root issue. Humans are easily corrupted for the most part and our politicians are overwhelmed with temptation.

On the other hand itfunk does not have any grasp of strategic realities in the world. Without the US Navy patrolling the seas the world economy would be devastated by piracy. It’s easy to say there’s no one out to get you when you’re comfy on your couch in the safest most well defended country in the world.

Look at the differences between Taiwan and Tibet. China believes both are part of their country. They regularly made/make threats against both but they rolled their army directly into Tibet because they could. If Taiwan was connected to China by a land route then that issue would have been resolved a long time ago as well. The only thing keeping Chinese troops out of Taiwan is water. The simple reality is no one has made an amphibious attack on any other country since WW2 without the US governments tacit approval. We control the sea lanes, it’s that simple, no one can impede shipping, blockade another country, or make war with a country that are not connected to by land because we say so. If you can’t understand how this level of safety promotes the entire world economy you’re living in a bubble of denial and left wing rhetoric. It’s not a fun job and other countries should pay a tax for the service we provide in keeping world commerce going but that’s not going to happen either.

Additionally the Navy projects force anywhere in the world without actually having to apply it. When North Korea or Iran starts rattling sabers and making threats the US parks a carrier near them and just the realization that we are ready and able to swat them down is usually enough to keep the peace. There are bad people out there who would do you harm. Ignore them at your own peril. It’s the guy in the wall with a gun who provides you peace and freedom, because freedom and peace are not free. Just look at any place in the world where they can’t afford to pay the price of freedom and see what conditions they are living in.

hell fire the navy brass I get a kick out of the bull about how great the San Antonio class ships are they were built and commissioned what 5 or 6 years ago and none has finished a deployment. Oh ya one is going out supposedly for 8 months ha it will spend more time docked than on a op.The navy has given work to ship yards with poor quality workers.

I’m impressed!

I think we need to keep dumping half billion dollar blocks of money into more Solyndra projects. We’re sure to find one that works sooner or later. Come on folks, what’s more important, payoffs to green energy cronys or our military? Cruisers smoozers, we need more windmills ;)…

I was on the Nimitz when i was in the navy and now every ounce in awhile i hear of her approx decomissioning date. Its Inevitable that ships built must be decommed. They have decommed several of the cruisers already and yes it is the first batch that does not have VLS that their looking to decom.
We still need our cruisers though so they should come up with a new design more capable with updated technology and have a replacement schedule like they do the Carriers.
The destroyers have many assignments. Escorting convoys and ASW patrols as well as fleet escort. The Cruisers are mainly for Carrier escort and surface combat. The Destroyers could not take over both jobs.

as a former navy man i think our goverment officals making these stupit dissions need to be fired.…. our arm forces used to be the most fear in the world. now all we do is cut back cut back and cut some more. i really think some of these countrys, even the ones that are friendly towards the usa, are laughing there butts off at us we are getting very weak and i sure would feel safer with our old large services of all our branches.
its bad when even the army would not take a person because of some misdemener . hell judges use to give pepole choise ‚joine the army or go to jail…

South East Asia? What time? The Vietnam War era? Man seriously, did the throw rice at you guy in there junks!
What they hell you need gun platforms for now days? You don’t! No offense bro, but china isn’t standing by
Waiting to throw rice, they gonna shoot missles at our ships, that’s why we need new technology ships that the brass can loose more of with less money man. Wake up and smell the s@#! they are shoveling.

It will be hard to see the Ticos go, but most of the posters are right. Those aluminum hulls seemed good at the time, but haven’t stood the test of time. As for scrapping, I think the Navy’s got it wrong. We should sell them (with inferior weapons systems) to some of our allies like Brazil (so it can watch Hugo Chavez) or to Britain to keep in the Falklands. Or put them into the reserve fleet. Should we (God forbid) get into a two-front war — say Taiwan and the Persian Gulf — we might need to pull them out to guard the coasts while our more advanced ships head to combat.

DD693! I was aboard Ingraham DD694. Now that was a long time ago! I was the communications officer when we decommissioned her in 1972 and “Inky-boat” was sold to the Greeks. They sailed her for another 20 or 25 years, eventually sinking her with gunfire–which I thought was cheating considering all the more interesting ways we’d tried to sink her. Just kidding on that. I’m trying to think of the name of 693. 692 was Sumner, wasn’t it? 693… Perry, no that’s not it. Oh, hell. I guess I could look it up. Anyway, best regards from another old Fram2 sailor. Even with their age, they were still some of the best “gun ships” around. Al Carter Explanation of the OSDOC II. After destroyers I became a gator, serving as communicator on a DOD development project OSDOC II where we developed methods to offload a container ship off an undeveloped landing beach with the amphibious means on hand in 1973. Neat operation and my most interesting time in the Navy. Also the time I felt I made my best contribution, including the post-op design of a containerized command and control facility for testing future OSDOCs. And then politics took over, requiring the rewrite of a lot of our developmental conclusions. (But nobody except other communicators ever reads the communications report, so at least the communicator who did OSDOC III knew the skinny. I would have shipped over for the job, but instead went to a long-range navigation unit as XO for a super-salty LDO LCDR, with an even saltier CWO4 as my assistant (ha! and me a brand fresh LT!!! Guess how many orders I gave him!). Surpringly, we got on great. I pushed the paper, they did the work. But I was anxious to get out and get married to my fiance, who had none of the makings of a service wife. So after a year and a half, I resigned with considerably mixed feelings. I taught school for a few years and then became a writer, which had always been my goal. You can find some of my 45 books on my web site aldencarter​.com. I’m disabled now and can’t turn out the copy like I used to, but I keep pecking away at things. Anyway, once again, mate: Fair winds and following seas, Al

Oh yeah. On the cruisers. They’re crazy to take them out. Half a surface navy’s job in this time in history is to remind people of the weight and power of the United States. And damn little does it as well as one of these cruisers. Fix up the six a little and sail them to the end of their life expectancy. Al Carter, LT, USN (former)

While serving onboard a couple ships including a Spruance (DD-974). I honestly never thought I would ever see the day when the Oliver Hazard Perry class would STILL be on active status in the fleet and ALL the Spruances and now, apparently the Tico’s, would be gone.. I know the Burkes are kick ass ships, especially the upgraded versions with helo capabilities and flight III. But there is just something about seeing a Tico class up close with all that firepower.

I agree with you,Mike.Making the Navy ‚smaller is a bad idea! I served on a gearing class ‚destroyer during Nam. We served the country well.I saw her 21 st birthday.We don’t need big ships with all the bells and whistles.

I agree with you! I served Aboard the DD826 in nam.

I served on the Tico they decomed it and the Thomas S. Gates. The first 5 of the class are most likely decomed. Their main objective is not to save money, but to build the new stealth cruiser that has been in the works for 10+ yrs. As for selling them off instead of scrapping them they rather die than hand over that technogoly to are allies.

I’m not here to argue with a fellow sailor — while the moose LPO mess was just a partitioned off section, on the carriers and amphibs they were separate. The MK 48’s were taken off surface ships because the launchers were too high and caused damage to the transducers when the torpedos hit the water. Weapons control consoles for surface weapons can get smaller just as submarine consoles have. They have done a lot of the down sizing of elctronics and and combined spaces on the LCS abortions which was a step in the right direction, where they went wrong was making the weapons systems modular instead of being a full time multi capable warship. I dont see how torpedos would be a liability, if you put 6 adcaps in the water you will sink 6 ships period (no countermeasures are effective and you cant shoot them) whereas if you launch 6 harpoons it is possible for one or more to be shot down by close in weapons systems. But not all old school is bad — I still think our surface ships need to be thick skined and heavily armed, I also feel we need to get smaller deisel electric subs back in our fleet as well as modern versions of the old PT boats and return of the tenders.


most of the same arguments were made when the decomed the BB fleet. I do not know what we need now but it seems that Ship to Ship battles are long in the past and the USA needs to start thinking of how to protect shipping from some fishing boat with a few guys with pop guns. the seas are the lifeline of this country and the whole world and I remember hearing that it is the duty of all ships to “go in harms way” to protect all people from dangers on the high seas. As a Tin Can salor (DLG7) I always thought that is what we were doing and every time i hear of a ship being taken by some pirate I feel we have failed. Is it the place of a cruiser or a DD.or PT boat? I don’t care but we need to get the Job done so that every Pirate knows that every time he is in the water he has a high chance of becoming fish food… just my thought.

Without our Navy, we are sitting ducks, and so are our allies. $596 million for 7 cruisers to continue their service, or $2 Billion for ONE DESTROYER? Did these people fail math? I served under Burke onboard a Guided Missile Destroyer in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, and he was a bumbling incompetent then. He had a good heart, and definitely a military mindset, and he was a pretty good Rugby player, but he was a joke among the crew in his Division. God Bless Him; now he’s an Admiral?

What about the need for anti-ballistic capabilities in the middle east and far east?

cut back the cariers and build new sealthy or undersea ships with signicant firepower for surface to air and surface to surface and undersea warfare. I guarantee the loss of at least one carrier if we get into it with Iran

You guys don’t understsand.…the navy doesn’t “want” to do this. Those cruisers filled a unique roll (and still do). What is happening is the Navy is being told, “The economy is down, you have this mych money, you can’t have any more–now make do.”

It;s no different than if you had to decide whether to have a tooth fixed, buy groceries or pay utilities and only having enough cash for any two choices.

The problem is political administrations who put budget and politics over bottom-line, essential readiness.

It’s what they’re not telling us that worries me the most. What deal, treaty, or pact have they negotiated away of our strength or perceived threat from us? If the other shoe falls, will we hear if the socks match?

do you have a crystal ball?

Remember what they said after WWI “The war to end all wars”

The quicker way to get into another war is to disarm and make yourself weak-history has proven this over and over again.

We’re basically making disarming our Navy when we retire the cruisers and replace with the aluminum foiled LCS

It hurts to think of the cruisers being decommissioned. The sight of these ships were awe striking. When my ship “uss Miller” was decomed it ripped my heart out. I understand cutbacks but damn it do it where we should and not the protecting force of our country!

It hurts to think of the cruisers being decommissioned. The sight of these ships were awe striking. When my ship “uss Miller” was decomed it ripped my heart out. I understand cutbacks but do it where we should and not the protecting force of our country!

Looks like somebody over at OPNAV in the Pentagon laid a big one. Phew! What goes around, comes around. Having had a 35 year acquaintance with the Navy, I remember when they started decommissioning perfectly good SPRUANCE (DD-963) Class and DDG-993 Class ships as the AEGIS Cruisers (CG-47 Class) were being commissioned, because the AEGIS Navy viewed 30 DD-963s and 4 DDG-993s as a threat to the AEGIS Navy. An absurd decision, as much in the way of resources and dollars of U.S. taxpayers money was spent keeping those DDs and DDGs up to date, with upgrades to guns, ASW and missile systems. If we had them on station off the east coast of Africa, you can bet those pirates would go somewhere else! Nwo they are going to decom the CG-47 class, ridiculous — a fine class of ships to project sea power anywhere on the earth, and that is what we need to project. Thinking of the billions wasted on the laughable LCS toy boats (I won’t give them the dignity of calling them “ships”) is enough to make one sick. I never cared for Congress setting Navy priorities, but this is an instance where someone needs to set proper priorities for OPNAV.

Anyone who has watched “Ol Yeller” knows there are times in a person’s life when he must man up and make the hard decisions. The Navy’s decided to set its sights on the long-term sustainability of the fleet within the budgetary reality of the changing global economy, and in the end that’s the only approach to take. I wish real life were more like videogames and we could stay the world superpower forever, but we have to evolve to stay relevant. Even a reduced but fully functional US Navy is still stronger and more capable than the rest of the world’s navies combined, and this move will encourage our nation’s allies to shoulder more of their share of the burden of international defense.

Admiral Burke passed away back in 1996

Some say they can not attack or
n main land, In WW2 Some said attack on base so far away would not happen, Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, They did not get the AirCraft Carriers in port, So Midway Happened, if we would have lost there , The next attack would be our West Coast (There was Subs shelling us on the West Coast in Feb. 1942, I was scared almost to death when we heard about it I lived in San Diego, Now you say they can not attack our mainland (REMEMBER 9/11 Sept 11, 2002 )

I’m usually with Big Rick on most issues, but he is wrong about a Tico being a superior ship over a Burke

—Burkes have CBN (Chemical , Biological, and Nuclear) protection with a sealed pressurized system, Tico’s don’t
—Burkes get about 18% better fuel consumption than a Tico
—Tico’s have aluminum deckhouses (with 2″ wide not long cracks) Burkes are all HY-80
—SPS-49 has been removed from 74% of Tico’s, not needed
—70% of Burkes are baseline 6+, only 3 Tico’s have ACB8
—All the Tico’s computers are in the Forward deckhouse (1 hit and done) Burkes have 2 independent computer rooms
—Tico’s are more labor intensive to keep it running(can you say more money for retirements)
—The Newest Burke is being built in Bath, the newest Tico is 21 years old
—I’ve built 57 AEGIS 47/51 class ships, and there is no comparison, the Burkes are far superior to the Tico’s

Senator Chuck Schmuer is all for dry docking any ship that still fires any projectile with gun powder Also only Majors in the USA can have a firearm as long as they are not American born

This is the “Change” all the A holes voted for as the military members are still being robbed of a decent salary while invaders to this country are entittled to more handouts then those willing to die for our freedoms

If they have to go for now, mothball them and we will always have them in our back pocket, just in case.

Once again, our Navy senior leadership proves that they’re more politician than warriors or leaders. Rather than doing what’s best for their country and men, they cave to political and social pressure. Rather than put up some semblance of a fight for what’s right and needed to accomplish the mission properly and safely they, as always, give in to their “bosses”. Another questionable decision and a sad day to be sure. So you save 4 billion today. What’s it going to cost us to replace these vessels when the mothball fleet lets them go to rust?

Quite odd that the very last of the Ticonderoga-class cruiser is going to be mothball which is what USS Port Royal was. It’s basically the newest of that class, I can’t understand how a ship would be damage by wave from the ocean when it has to go through tremendous sea trails and acceptances trail which consist of bomb explosion near the ship to see if the ship would hold up. I was on the USS Mobile Bay CG-53 and there’s no way that it has outlast the USS Port Royal CG-73. Perhaps it wasn’t taken care of and no it’s not due to the tropical weather of Hawaii that rapidly worsen the material condition of the ship because the Mobile Bay was in Japan for an extent period of time before Hull swapping with the USS Cowpen for San Diego.

This IS pathetic!!! The current regime and its “lapdogs” in the brass ARE destroying OUR Navy!
While the “top brass” wastes countless $$$ on B.S. p/c programs and training on tolerance for gays etc…; while the NAVY has MORE admirals now then we did during WORLD WAR 2-(why? and WHAT the hell are all those admirals doing?!?-VERY Few go to sea as fleet/battle group commanders!!!)
We are currently at 284 Ships; are decommisioning 1 of our Aircraft Carriers, and now are going to lose nearly 1/3 of our Cruiser fleet?!?
My 1ST enlistment (that turned into a 20yr. career) in late 80’s we had nearly 600 ships and NOW, this article claims we NEED at least 500 ships but hope to build the fleet up to 300 ships by 2019!
In a word “PATHETIC!!!“
ABO=“ANYBODY” but obama!
BM1(SW/AW) {Retired}

“Reality Torpedo” — priceless metaphor..

Another case of nitwit civilians and wishy-washy senior officers who don’t seem to care much about the national defense or the direction the nation is headed with the jackass president we are currently stuck with. Reagan had us at about 600 seaworthy vessels during his tenure. We are now at less than half that number, and because Washington, DC thinks there is no longer a threat, they just indiscriminately make stupid choices that weaken us as a country. The manufacturers have also done a great job of screwing the country, and the politicians are following suit. We need to elct people who really cae about the future of the U.S., or it will cease to exist as a sovereign nation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As an active duty sailor, my biggest concern is how we would be able to man these cruisers with the Navy cutting personnel nearly as deeply as when Clinton was President. Having served on Burke class destroyers and having done repair work on Ticonderoga class cruisers, a DDG may have few missiles and only one five inch gun but is capable of doing the job of a destroyer, a frigate and a cruiser with a little more than half the manning of a cruiser.

tico’s, Burkes, they may have been slick and sleek, but could never compare to the Terrier shooters of long ago. AAAH USS Sterett (CG-31).…

Over 30 years ago, I was the production officer at Pascagoula for the construction of the first Aegis cruiser.…Ticonderoga. The Navy spent millions of extra $$ on her just to get her to the fleet ahead of schedule.… Tico and her sisters (Flight 1 Aegis) have long been in mothballs.…wonder how many people know that? The day had to come but I’m sorry it came so early.….most of the ships were not kept fully updated as they aged.…typical Navy problem.

Too bad these have to go! They have a lot of
Good years left to train new sailors!
The Frigates are next!!


The liberals won’t be happy until they have reduced our military to what it was under the Carter administration. Obama’s open mic comment to the Russians proves that he is an untrustworthy, sneaky bastard unworthy of the title, President of the United States. Selling out to the Russians after the election is nothing short of treason.

I spent 8 years of my life on those platforms and you got to believe me that the superstructure cracks are real and a big problem. Both the Spruance class destroyers and the Ticonderoga cruisers have this develop after a few years. Bad design. Sad to see them go but it’s for the best.

Since the rev war with the Brits (1776) we have let are navy fall down. And over and over again have had to build it up again to fight the foes that have tried to take advantage of us. I think that that idiot Obam (what’s his name) is another idiot who is willing to sell our military (esp the Navy) short. Aw, for another Reagan!!!
There’s nothing going on today that says we need a strong navy!!!!!!! Geezz, I guess I have missed the news!!!!

Does ANYONE really think that geniuses in air conditioned offices who who kiss a$$ for a living have any idea what the fleet needs?? They dance their little dance based on what the true GENIUSES in the form of elected “officials” tell them. Of course they truely know what this country’s defense needs really are, right.…get re-elected at whatever cost. I“M JUST SAYING!!!

As long as we have a president who wants to give away as much money as he can. This is not going to stop!

This is totally nuts!!!!!! Why don’t we just get rid our our whole military. Mean while China builds their military with our money. If we do this we will not have much to defend our own country. What moron thought of this idea. Take the morons off WELFARE!!!!! This should free up enough money for our military. If we get 4 more years of this idiot Obama we are in Deep Crap. This country is in deep trouble.

In my 60 years I have never seen a bigger bunch of spineless JCS as we have now. Allow our Navy to shrink just when China is starting to challenge us on the open seas! Cut our aircraft inventory in both the AF and Navy on the hope that two weapon systems (F-22 & F-35) can somehow make up in technology what we will lose in numbers. Discuss openly our plan to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the world, by ourselves if neccassary, to prove a point to N. Korea and Iran. Substitute with drones what manned aircraf must do–penetrate enemy air defense.
And all the while maintaining an infrastructure of uneeded bases whose sole purpose they are is to get the local Senator or Congressmen re-elected. And all the while the JCS say yes sir yes sir three hats full.

I’d like to think the flag officers making these decisions have the nations best interests at heart, but I fear that “myi career” is so important,that I must support the elected and appointed officials to stay in and be promoted. A few years ago there was an article in Institute “Proceedings” titled “A Tale of Two Cities” which compared the careers and decisions of senior officers assigned to overseas posts and those assigned to D.C. Those assigned to D.C. seemed more oriented to their careers than the best interests of the Navy. If you don’t believe me, look at ADM. Mike Mullens’ last ten years on active duty. He became the consummate “yes” man.

Are you serious?

I guess you haven’t noticed the anti American Baboon in Washington telling the Reds to cool their jets, he’ll make them happy after the election?

You’re kidding right…what world do you come from…???

“Peace through strength”, ever heard that before?

Really? No Amphibious operations since WWII. General Macarthur is rolling in his grave in Norfolk. The Inchon landings were suppossedly undoable yet there were done successfully and changed the tide of the battle. In Desert Storm I, the reason that the attacks and coalition led invasion were so successfully from the Ground Route is that the Iraqi Army had several divisions pinned down on the coast from the simple threat of the amphibious threat from the embarked Marines. No single military option or force IS THE SOLUTION — However, our most expeditionary services are the Navy and Marine Corps. These two together enable the US to rapidly respond to crisis anywhere around the world until the Air Force and Army get there in heavy force. The advantage that the Navy and Marine Corps have is that the logistics tail/train of the Blue-Green force is on the ships when they deploy. The only additional log they need is food and fuel, and when dropping ordnance, more bullets.

The Navy now has the smallest number of ships since before WWI. While the mission (mostly in the Pacific) is increasing, the fleet is shrinking. Also, the Aegis cruisers were supposed to provide the backbone of what little ballistic missile defense we have left. This is NOT good.

Now Nicky how much do you really know about the LCS program to say such a thing? I am a fleet Sailor and have worked with both platforms and I must say that LCS is far more capable of defending our Navy’s interest today more than a broken down cruiser can.

I think we have subs for that!!

All the cruisers and destroyers couldn’t find us!!

Apparently , you are not and never have been in the U.S. NAVY. The PRIMARY mission of the U.S. NAVY is not to protect the U.S. mailand , but to “Keep the sea lanes opend for trade”.The earth is 75% water and the United States get most of it’s commerce from ships sailing the oceans and seas. If you can’t keep the sea lanes open , you pretty much stop the U.S. butt cold. All our oil comes in from the seas as well as other goods. If you really want to see a recession, cut off the sea lanes. That’s why we can not afford to have the worlds second or third largest navy. History has taught us that a 1000 times. Navy Vet

How about ASW capacity? All the flight 2 Burkes have no tail. As any submariner will tell you, active sonar, while finding the enemy, also serves to alert the enemy to your presence, and almost all submarine launched anti ship[ weapons have comparable or greater range than ship launched ASW weapons. Second, yes that better helo capacity matters too. Aside from the VLS launched weapons, its the best stand off weapon available to the underway commander. And the onboard processor, mod one mark zero human brain is still the most versatile and capable asset out there.

Trillions for welfare not a dime for defense but what do we expect with a marxist in the white house and a clintonoid secdef?

I understand the reasoning! My son is a SWO
And I am so proud! He says our new stuff is
Much superior in ordinance requiring fewer
Men to run them. Go Navy

What? You stupid? China has ICBM’S that can hit the U.S. Mainland. Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Turkmanistan, Kyrgykistan, Kazakistan all have ICMB’S that can hit the U.S. Mainland.

This is all part of this adminstrations defense plan. Abolish defenses.

Take your head out of the sand. Lest you learn to speak Chinese.

We have a bunch of Admirals that are politicians and listen to the yearnings of those that want this Navy to be small. I don’t trust them at all.

I guess you missed the part that China, Russia, etc have submarines. Countries don’t need a long range missile, just ones that can go vertical launch like our subs. In addition, in order to launch the many missiles in war you need a lot of ships or a lot of weapons depots around the world; which is not a safe option.

AEGIS cruisers provide NO BALLISTIC missile defense.… there is no real defense against an ICBM. Yes the AEGIS system can detect and track an ICBM, but the cruiser can not shot down an ICBM.

While I do think that SECNAV and the CNO should try to keep at least four out of the seven the budget guys want them to get rid of; I also think that we really need to redirect all the money we spend “rebuilding” countries we help out by getting rid of their Dictator or Fundamentalist Governing Bodies (Taliban).…. only to have their “security forces” kill American or U.N. personnel, just because we accidentally burned a Koran or two.

All the big real cruisers including the nuclear powered ones some with less than 10 years service were destroyed by Clinton back in 1999 . Now the Aegis cruiser equipped anti missile ballistic missile shield we need to protect us from Persia/Iran or Korea’s nuclear missiles is being destroyed by another Democrat . This is just to get more welfare money to help his buddies on welfare because he knows no-one will pass a bill giving more money out free just to buy that voting block for his OBAMAs re-election will ever pass

The DDG-51 class is fully Aegis capable and with the exception of fewer cells in the VLS and 1 less gun they are just as capable.

The damage came from sitting on the reef being pounded by the waves. In the open ocean the ship can roll with and ride the waves, on a reef it bounces up and down and repeatedly crashes into the reef.

It would be rude to just come right out and call you a moron. So, let me just say that there are a few things that you may be unaware. In 1961, the year I joined the Navy, there were approximately 900 ships in the fleet. Many were already in the process of being de-commissionned as the Navy was transitioning from the traditional all gun WWII era warships to guided missile capable platforms. Since that time, the fleet has continued to shrink from one capable of projecting force in depth anywhere in the world to today’s fleet of less than 300 that, in my opinion, is not capable of projecting sustainable in depth force anytime, anywhere. We are a nation bounded by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, Gulf of Mexico, and the Bering Sea. Believe it or not, we have enemies. The Chinese are building a world-class blue water navy with aircraft carriers. The Soviets and Islamic Bloc nations are cozying up to our enemies in the Americas. Do you pay attention to anything that is happening in the world other than the socialist propaganda coming from the White House and MSM?

You really need to work on your English composition, pal.
You obviously have an impassioned opinion but you need to learn to express yourself better so everyons can appreciate what you are trying to say.

Sorry — the military industrial complex is a good thing — it provides jobs, technological innovation, and security for our country. Do American companies benefit from this — Yes! and so does America. I’m tired of hearing the term used like the “boggy man” as if it is a hugh negative. Anything less than a 500 ship navy is an oxymoron.

It is sad how eternal vigilance and keeping the peace spawns its generation of idiotic leaders who, trying to save a couple bucks, cripple our defensive capability. It is very scary how many elements are working (shockingly, in an uncoordinated fashion) to bring this country down.

Gust, have you EVER served in the U.S.Navy? We NEED a Large Navy for projection, and to give/project an Image of what we need to do, that is: keep the seas free to traverse anywhere there is a passage! When I was in, there were almost 1000 ships, and now, less than 300. The ONLY other alternative is to Isolate this nation and protect this nation and the hell w/the rest of the world, will that happen? What are the alternatives? The congress and constitution does provide for a Navy/Army etc…so…lets have the best that can be provided.

I’ll tell you what the real problems are; 1. If it doesn’t make sense, there is money in it and the joint Chiefs will vote on the money 2. Getting this military under a Kenyan Born Foreigner who is a Muslim and who has NO Birth cert and who hates this nation and wants us destroyed, and who knows nothing about who we are! 3 Wasteful spending is the other problem, it is about pleasing the constitutants and not getting the job done! 4. NO CHARACTER, NO ACCOUNTABILITY, and NO DEPENDABILITY!!! Those are the real problems!!

yes DD836 right there on the gunline.

Please Homer…take the meds. Back away from the keyboard.

I agree w/Mike. The Admirals are doing the bidding of the Obama administration in their efforts to make America a weak Nation.

4 billion dollars, WooHoo!!! That amounts to almost 5/1000 of the last “porkulous” package, give or take a million or two. Think about it. But it isn’t just BHO (that poor excuse for whatever he’s supposed to be), it’s our own (the Navy’s) senior leadership. As I said before but nicer, they’re gutless PC politicians for the most part.

Don’t we have more admirals in Navy now than we do ship in commission? Perhaps thinning the overpaid underworked herd would help.

Yes, but now after they’ve fired how many CO’s this year, how many senior officers are going to make waves? It’s the Navy social experiment that’s been going on for decades finally taking it’s ultimate toll.

One must die so others can survive, is why the F-4 phantom was cut in the early 80’s after having gone through a really nice avionics upgrade. The fact that the replacement F18 was being built by McDonnel Douglas and Northrop in states whose Senators heavily pushed the DOD to purchase the aircraft was as important as the Brass’ desire to buy new shiny things pushed onto them by the greedy ass defense contractors. At the time the F-4 was and is the last truly “air combat tested” (dogfights with equal and sometimes superior aircraft/pilots) aircraft the the US had/has.

I just feel for the sailors who have to deploy on the ships replacing these in the schedule.
Fewer ships means more frequent deployments for those that remain. I guess they don’t care!!!

Here’s the question dose the US Navy’s LCS have the same Sea legs that the US Coast Guard Cutters National security cutter has. Can the LCS sail in rough waters as the NSC. I’ll bet you if you put the LCS on a Bering Sea, it would not survive the ride. How much Gas money is the LCS guzzling these days. I’ll bet you it would hurt you more if it was your expensive gas guzzling SUV and having to pay at the pump. The way Gas is going now, were all feeling the hurt at the pump. It’s why we should get rid of the gas guzzling LCS and go to a more economical national security cutter.

Hopefully they’ll have enough sense to mothball these seven cruisers in the event of unforeseen necessity, rather than waste them in a SINKEX like they did with most of the Spruance class and the previous decommissioned Ticonderoga class ships. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper and quicker to return these ships from the mothball fleet than it would be to build replacements to replace losses in the event of a war.

Should keep the cruisers and never should have gotten rid of the DD’s.

to keep the international sea lanes open. if the US were to pull out of the Persian Gulf the Tanker Wars would resume and we wouldn’t have any oil to use. Pirates would reek even more havoc on the horn of Africa

The new Arleigh Burke DDG’s are just as if not more than capable than the Original Aegis Cruisers. Yeah, they were great ships, but their time has come. Today, they are just what the article succinctly described. Platforms for At Sea Command for Full — Bird Captains looking for a star. That does not serve our country well in today’s time and age.

A great ship, but DDG-51’s can meet the need.

You, sound like somone who has never served. If you you did it wasn’t with the Navy. you forgot about N. Korea in 1997; they can hit the U.S. and how about China or Russia or anyone; you think no one has subs with nukes on them? Do you think the Airforce or the Army can sit off the cost and wait for days, weeks at a time and strike with in a minute notice? (no disrespect to any of my Brothers nor Sisters in the armed forces) When there is a desaster in the world who is there first 99% of the time.…the Navy, the Large US Navy.

Almost every product that we use in our daily life depends upon foreign trade, which is required survive in our current world economy. Our Navy is extremely necessary to protect our sea lanes and insure a continuous flow of goods around the world. One only needs to look no further than the damage to trade that the Iranians could cause by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. I might go as far to suggest that the threats to our sea lanes might require an even larger “Blue Water Navy” to protect our way of life.

It would seem that the current administration’s plan to dismantle our military is well underway and it may only take a few years of a diminished American military presence around the world for another nut case (like Khadafy, Bin Laden, etc. ) to emerge and start threatening our allies, or targeting our embassies in other countries and we’ll have to crank up the old military production line at shipyards, and other military contractors to meet the new threat. And the beat goes on…

When will we as a people and a government ever get a clue about what history has tried numerous times to teach us? We have been running this same drill for over two hundred years and we still haven’t got it right. Ronald Reagan is the only president in the last hundred years that understood that you maintain peace through strength, not weakness and isolationism. Our allies in Europe and Asia have to be extremely nervous right now hearing this type of talk because it means they will be forced to invest a lot more in their own militaries if the U.S. is not there to take care of the bad guys. That will equate to higher prices for everyone in this country as the cost of imports will skyrocket as our allies have to take on additional costs to protect themselves. As Einstein said…“for every action there is a reaction.” You can bet as we downsize our military the reaction by the rest of the world will be astronomically costly for everyone in this country.

Well, cut spending, retire ships early, angry sailors, lost whitehouse, and no prior threats?
Sound like more of the same, history keeps repeating itself! Let’s go take over IRAN and North Korea first! I would use the ships one last time as a final blowout…;) hee hee

You got to be a Democrat…only crap like that comes out of their mouths.…the Navy is America’s first line of defense. Have you read that China has a carrier.…All they have to do is sit 300 miles off the coast.…so let’s downsize the arm forces.…I can almost bet if we were ever attacked I now know where you would be .….

If we got rid of all Obama’s programs and Czars that he implemented, I’m sure that we could afford to keep all of our Armed Forces intact. This man is out to destroy America as we know it and the sooner people wake up and vote him out, the better this country will be!

Considering that we sold the best ASW/AAW platform we had to Taiwan, the USS Scott (DDG-995) and the rest of her sisters of the Kidd class, I’m not really surprised at this

Obama driving this? Horse pucky. Entitlements causing this? More horse Pucky. You haven’t been examining the budget. Keep the political crap out of this for a moment and contemplate it from a readiness standpoint.

Flatly, the Navy is trying to fight the *next* war, not the *last* war. The Aegis vessels were optimized to deal with Soviet era threats and in spite of upgrades are tied to that doctrine. They have demonstrated some inherent flaws, and are expensive to run. They *can* be saved against a ‘rainy day’ through mothballing, which would be in my view the optimal solution.

Further, with the evolution of more capable and smarter missiles, drones, sensing capabilities, etc., those old cruisers are becoming even more vulnerable than ever before. We have new weapon systems (rail guns, dye-pump lasers, ship-launch-able sensor and attack drones) for which these vessels are not easily adaptable. They were built around sensor platforms and weapons systems that were designed 40 years ago. Our most likely strategic opponents already have weapons systems (tactical, non-nuclear ballistic missiles, long range cruise missiles, etc.) that would make these ships a liability rather than an advantage if they were in-theatre. We are moving into a combat space where, if you can see it, you can hit it, where ever it happens to be. Best use for these ships would be against 2nd eschelon/disorganized opponents, and frankly, I think we have many other better options for that than keeping Aegis cruisers hanging around.

They are no longer efficient.

Are the LCS’s any more useful? That’s a separate question, and possibly a good one, but so far, the *concept* is very good, and has built in flexibility and designed in ability to reconfigure for different missions, which the Aegis vessels doesn’t. The $500 million vs $2 billion is also a bad comparison as well; the ships being considered have far different missions; the new ship is being designed for the threats Pentagon planners are looking ahead to, rather than the ones in our wake, which the cruisers were built for.

Why dont we just give these Tico’s to our allies who needs it badly like Taiwan and the Philippines. They just gave Philippines the Hamilton but took away the radar and Phalanx. It’s like making a 99 year old man walk without a cane or a wheelchair. Our leaders are so pathetic. China is laughing and just fell off her chair.

At the end of April, our leaders led by Hillary and Panetta will meet their counterpart from the Philippines to discuss the request of the Philippines for a squadron of used F-16’s and another 45-year old USCG Hamilton retiree. Panetta refuses to give them F-16’s (Block 25 mind you) and will think about giving them a third ex-Hamilton in exchange for access to their bases close to the South China Sea. Philippines is willing to pay for the upgrades and is willing to allow access to any bases and airports they have. My question is why don’t we give all our excess like the Tico’s to a strategic flash point country like the Philippines to keep China in check instead of using the Tico’s for target practice.

As a follow-up to my previous posts, Japan just announced that it is giving for FREE the Philippines brand new 1000-ton OPV’s and 10 180-ton patrol boats to to be used in the Spratly’s and for patrol purposes. This is to keep China in check for its ambitious dominance of the whole Far East especially the South China Sea. That’s what an ally is.

My point is we are giving a hard time the Philippines’ request for refurbished F-16’s and an old clunker USCG Dallas and is willing to pay for it. I think the US Gov’t is still pouting for being kicked out of Subic Naval Base and Clark Airforce Base but can’t see the transformation of these bases as it has catapulted the Philippines as being the next economic tiger. CNN​.com featured an article by HSBC about the top 50 economies by 2050 and guess who will be the most dynamic? The Philippines. Leapfrogging from 43rd place to 16th, ahead of Australia and Indonesia and almost as big as Russia the 15th. If this is a potential ally(Have we forgotten it was a commonwealth of ours), I would help them arm and protect themselves from China’s bullying tactics. Their 80 billion in the coffers can pay a few Tico’s for sure and especially those F-16’s in the boneyards of Arizona desert. Wake up leaders!!! China will eat our lunch!

asswipe, ARMY was first.

I thought that the aegis class crusiers were needed to link up the missle defense systems? If that is the case then it makes sense that the Pentagon under orders from Obozo would want to scrap them. If reelected Obozo wants to dismantle not only our nukes but also the missle defense system to appease Ivan.

As a Brit, I need to stand aside from this argument to a degree — but if I might be so bold as to say, please do not go down the same road as we have. At the end of WW II the RN had over 6,000 ships in commission. I wonder if any you who read these posts know how many surface vessels the RN has now? The answer may surprise you — just 19. That, by the way, does not include any things with flat decks at all. We only have one small carrier, and she is alongside in Portsmouth and will probably never go to sea again. It will be at least another four or five years before the first of our new generation of large carriers is commissioned — and the second one will in all probability be mothballed before she ever gets to sea. Thirty years ago we carried out a naval assault to recover our Falkland Islands. Today this would be impossible for us to even think of trying again. We now deploy just single ships around the sea-lanes of the world. Think about this, people. There were no walls around the city of Rome until quite late on — because those walls were on the borders of the empire.

In response to 20YearNavyVet:

Brian B’s post is entirely reasonable and accurate if you read it in its entirety.
He actually said: “…no one has made an amphibious attack on any other country since WW2
***without the US government’s tacit approval.***” [Emphasis mine] That clause is essential.
We really DO need to read the entire sentence before we contradict it. And he’s right.

And he’s also right about the “military-industrial complex” Eisenhower wisely warned us of
in his Farewell Address. The Navy Brass are beholden to the politicians who are beholden
to the B-school boys that bought them their jobs, for the most part, and the Brass are often
in line for other bonuses, benefits and booby prizes like lobbyist/consultant gigs as soon
as they retire… IF they played ball with the 1%‘s agenda, and sold the simple sailor (and
Security) down the drain for fewer boy and more toys.

Of seven conflicts since WWII we’ve only been successful in Desert Storm, where we had
a fixed objective, got in, got out, used the minimal force to accomplish the maximum gain,
had no unrealistic expectations like “bringing American democracy” to people who didn’t
need or want American-style “democracy” in part because they had their own ideas and
in part because they didn’t buy the Kool-Aid we drink — thinking we’re in a democracy but
actually living in a plutocracy owned and operated by the 1% to the detriment of the 99%.

And the part of the 99% even more at risk than the homeless or the poor are the service
wives and children and dependents that can’t make the mortgage and can’t buy groceries
and don’t know when or if their loved ones will make it home from guaranteeing that the
government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% shall no perish from the earth.

In response to vballbob:

Please see my response above to 20YearNavyVet regarding Brian B’s post, but specifically:

Brian B’ is right about the “military-industrial complex” Eisenhower wisely warned us of
in his Farewell Address. The “innovations” you praise are very real but come from DARPA
and NASA and NSF (all indirectly) NOT the MIC. Once an F4-driver in Vietnam, I work in
high-tech and know the realities. The MIC is NOT concerned with military effectiveness,
let alone cost-effectiveness (which hurts the bottom line, which is all that matters in
“We have a responsibility to our stockholders, but, truly, our Nation comes right next in line!”

Can you really blame it on the Navy Brass are beholden to the politicians who are beholden
to the B-school boys that bought them their jobs, for the most part? Too, the Brass are often
in line for other bonuses, benefits and booby prizes like lobbyist/consultant gigs as soon
as they retire… IF they played ball with the 1%‘s agenda, and sold the simple sailor (and
Security) down the drain for fewer boy and more toys.

Of seven conflicts since WWII we’ve only been successful in Desert Storm, where we had
a fixed objective, got in, got out, used the minimal force to accomplish the maximum gain,
had no unrealistic expectations like “bringing American democracy” to people who didn’t
need or want American-style “democracy” in part because they had their own ideas and
in part because they didn’t buy the Kool-Aid we drink — thinking we’re in a democracy but
actually living in a plutocracy owned and operated by the 1% to the detriment of the 99%.

And the part of the 99% even more at risk than the homeless or the poor are the service
wives and children and dependents that can’t make the mortgage and can’t buy groceries
and don’t know when or if their loved ones will make it home from guaranteeing that the
government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% shall no perish from the earth.

They should give these cruisers the latest in AEGIS BMD upgrades — and then park them near targets: Guam, Honolulu, Darwin, Diego Garcia, etc.

They would not need a full crew or missile load out and could be also be used for training and general air defense.

No, dont retire it. We spend billions of dollars on this and now we were retiring it? Are you out of your mind?

Are you Ben Gay? or do you know him. He was a mentor back in 1966.

George Winters MMCS(SS) Retired SSN590 Sculpin AS17 Nereus SSN672 Pintado SSN590 Sculpin SSN613 Flasher SSN670 Drum

every admiral onboard a carrier wants to know where the cruiser at. Burke destroyers are good and can fight, don’t get me wrong. But, If I was in a fire fight, any fire fight, I want to be on a Aegis Crusier. Cause I know i’ll come home. Mothballing a ship that has no equal is ridiculious. There is nothing in any country that can match it. So why get rid rid of a “big dog” and keep poodles? sorry, i’ll take the big dog anyday of the week over a poodle.

We do NOT want these ships in ANYBODY else’s hands but ours. Do NOT sell these ships to any country.
Our sailors will pay for it. Don’t give another country this kind of power!

The Navy is now feeling the screw job the Mullins and Roughhead gave it. Where are all the Spruances? At the bottom of the sea. Along with all those VLS cannisters that provided hundreds of additional missiles for the Ticos. Thanks morons.

Back “in the day” they DID have to have these because the threat was a Soviet fleet with large waves of Backfire bombers carrying Kitchen anti-ship missile. That day is done, and so is the Ticos.

You people are playing right into Obama’s hands. He doesn’t need a strong sea-going force because I think he’s going to be our dictator soon !! He will then be able to concentrate on being a police state with what remains of the military in control. He’s following the Cloward Piven strategy to make the conversion. God help us all if Mr. charisma gets re-elected in November. We’ll be just like the North Koreans — horribly poor and third world won’t take very long !!!!!

Most of the weapons that you list are not available or fielded by any nation at this time. Loko at RailGun for instance. It is a lab system that has promise but still has the issue of blowing up every few hundred shots.
As a Surface Warfare Officer and Naval Analyst, I can tell you that the Aegis cruisers are amond the most capable vessels ever fielded across a very broad spectrum of threats. Those threats include the sensing and weapons drones that you mention as well as long range cruise missiles, etc. There is no better platform available to escort our aircraft carriers in a high threat environment.

Refit the BB’s with reactors,this frees up space for larger weapons storage while freeing up the DFM they would use for other surface ships. Go back to ship design that has worked in the past. I am a plankowner from CG-26 recom crew, they were tough ships and served well where ever they were stationed. Don’t sell any of our ships to any country just reuse them for our own shipworks.

Development cost. And that sticker is a lie. The ships cost far more in maintanence. Wear out crew to levels were they will be fucking up baddly and are basicly broken in every way.

The ships are wreaks. To weak to fight. to dependent on speed they cant even achieve to be rebuilt.

Add in to that another 150-200mil per vessel for mission moduals (which wont be ready till 2017 at the very least) and the price climbs to the same as a burke flight II.

To put it in a better picture.

The Absolon class comand vessel (the real class of what the LCS has become) can do everything the LCS was supposed to (minus the speed which is just a luxury item now as its impossible to make anyways)-which it cant do– and carries roughly 5 times as much firepower, more range, less people nessesaryu to operate it as the truth is the LCS IS GOING TO REQUIRE 95–120 personel to operate with mission moduals (btw they lack the space for these people.….….oops).

OH i forgot to mention.….….they are around 300 mil per copy.…..

Flight II Burkes are all getting the AN/SQQ-89A(V)15 sonar suite with the new Multi Function Towed Array (MFTA) sonar. Combine that with two ASW helos and the new Burkes have a game-changing anti-submarine capability.

They still lack Harpoons, but google the LRASM program (which is being fast-tracked) for info on that front.

The Navy has its issues (manning and OPTEMPO being the most glaring to me (a 21 year SCPO)), but all is not doom and gloom.

Uhh where have most of you been? The first flights of Tico’s (non VLS) have long since been decommissioned. Vally Forge was sunk in a SINKEX and one or two have been completely scrapped. The cruisers they want to kill off are the later flights, which have not yet had SLEP done.
If you read about the problems the Ticos have had with cracking and larger crews I suppose you could see the navy’s point, just don’t scrap them. Keep them in reserve in case some other idiot wants to hit a reef or Bishops rock or something else stupid.
We should of long since sold-off the OH Perry class FF/FFG’s and used the large crews to man up new Burkes and the Ticos but we didn’t. OHP’s currently have the firepower of a LCS so what is the point? Without SM1 they are like 1960’s frigates, only good for ASW. Can they still operate SH60’s?
I agree that all Flight 2/2a ships should be brought up to the flight 3 baseline. All flight 1 should be replacing the Ticos that are gonna mothball. And get rid of the Zumwalt. Gold-plated eyesores.
We should really be developing a new hull for the next real generation DDG’s minus the gold-plating

par the course, some one who doesnt know anything. who do you think transports and guards the troops to a war zone. also who do you think gies in and helps areas that have been destoyed by natural disasters.

well, a good start would be the Keystone oil pipeline, that your friends in the White House and Senate are blocking. Well Canada is going to build a pipeline, and it’s looking like it will head west to feed China, instead of south to feed the USA..

Since YOU brought it up, a better place to start would be hydrogen fuel cells. A big reason the “1%” don’t want us to kick the oil habit is it takes a massive infreastructure to suck the precious comodity (oil, coal and natural gas) out of the ground, refine it, and then transport it to your filling station. See, strict control of the means of production and PROFIT CENTERS.

Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. If we switch to that, in 10 years any Tom Dick or Harry will be able to make their own automotive fuel in their back yard with water, rock salt and a solar panel. Where would ecconomics like that leave Mr. Industrialist?


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.