Navy wants to decommission 24 ships, some of them almost new
130222-N-DR144-174
PACIFIC OCEAN (Feb. 22, 2013) The littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1) is underway conducting sea trials off the coast of Southern California. Freedom, the lead ship of the Freedom variant of LCS, is expected to deploy to Southeast Asia this spring. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class James R. Evans/Released)
In the US Navy’s 2023 budget, much like the Army’s that I reported on previously, they’re looking to make some cuts. While they are cutting a few sailors from the budget, the bigger news is they want to decommission an astonishing 24 ships. Eight of these ships are at or past their service life, with commissioning dates ranging from 1986 to 1988. They are;
- USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) 09/20/1986
- USS Mobile Bay (CG-53) 02/21/1987
- USS San Jacinto (CG-56) 01/23/1988
- USS Lake Champlain (CG-57) 08/12/1988
- USS Chicago (SSN-721) 09/27/1986
- USS Key West (SSN-722) 09/12/1987
- USNS John Lenthall (T-AO-189) 06/25/1987
- USNS Walter S. Diehl (T-AO-193) 09/13/1988
What is more surprising is the list of ships they want to axe that aren’t old. Some of them still have wet paint! The list of 16 they want to get rid of early includes all nine of the Freedom-class. That’s literally all of the litoral combat ships. The most recent was commissioned in August 2020.
- USS Vicksburg (CG-69) 11/14/1992
- USS Germantown (LSD-42) 02/08/1986
- USS Gunston Hall (LSD-44) 04/22/1989
- USS Tortuga (LSD-46) 11/17/1990
- USS Ashland (LSD-48) 05/09/1992
- USS Fort Worth (LCS-3) 08/06/2012
- USS Milwaukee (LCS-5) 11/21/2015
- USS Detroit (LCS-7) 10/22/2016
- USS Little Rock (LCS-9) 12/16/2017
- USS Sioux City (LCS-11) 11/17/2018
- USS Wichita (LCS-13) 01/12/2019
- USS Billings (LCS-15) 08/03/2019
- USS Indianapolis (LCS-17) 10/26/2019
- USS St. Louis (LCS-19) 08/08/2020
- USNS Montford Point (T-ESD-1) 05/14/2013
- USNS John Glenn (T-ESD-2) 03/12/2014
The inclusion of the LSDs and the two T-ESDs seems rather shortsighted as both are critically needed for amphibious operations. The kind of operations that the Marine Corps would need should we have to invade some place like Ukraine or….I don’t know…Taiwan.
I’m not a naval warfare expert by any stretch, but the whole LCS concept was a massive boondoggle without much of a goal and beset by major systems problems (the sister LCS Independence-class have already seen two decommissioned well ahead of schedule). I’m not surprised to see them go. Billions of wasted dollars though. The inclusion of the other ships, in particular the two relatively new T-ESDs is a surprise I can’t understand.
Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Big Pentagon, Navy
Sail them all to Pacific coast cities to house the homeless.
Call it the “street fleet”.
Plus cuts to military healthcare:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hour-long-drives-weeks-until-171521206.html
Fortunately, the Russkies are suckin’ at war right now… but that’s luck and counting upon luck is not a good plan:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-failure-down-kyiv-defeat-043154457.html
Thats why my wife and I rarely GO to the doc anymore. Spend weeks trying to make contact, MONTHS to get an appointment, just to be seen for MINUTES. Meanwhile, you get rescheduled sometimes the day of, and if you are more than 5 minutes late, they bump you off the schedule. But then you get there 15 minutes prior….and sit waiting to be seen for over an hour. Good times.
I finally gave up trying to get an MRI to diagnose a TBI after a little over three years of twice-weekly calls for an appointment.
Funny.
Elections have consequences.
Wisestest words ever spoken.
That and “Don’t underestimate Brandon”.
LCS was created so that O-4 SWOs could get a Command Afloat Badge. Other than that, they’re pretty useless.
Actually both Captain and Executive officer on LCS are O-5s. And with two crews per LCS that’s 4 O-5s per LCS.
Not only useless but defective.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2021/01/20/biden-faces-new-shipbuilding-crisis-must-move-fast-and-kill-freedom-class-lcs/
BOHICA
Why not take the U.S. back to pre-WWII strength. I mean, it’s not like this President has any major financial ties to the two biggest countries in the world that are currently invading their neighbors and claiming territories outside of their borders or anything. Oh, wait.
I want one. I can park it at Navy Pier and take people for rides on it and go fishing and everything. Buy me one, willya?
Will the mid-rats be sausage gravy and biscuits? If so, I think I know of a Marine that will be your FIRST Charter.
So would these ships be put in “standby mode”, maintained but not used? Or does decommission mean not to be used again? I can see the T-ESDs since they are so specialized of a mission, and maybe the T-AOs if they just have too many. The CGs and the LCS if they are trying to get down to a specific size as long as they are just put in standby for when Taiwan kicks off (not if).
Heck if we get into a slug fest, it seems the CGGs and LCS would be better for dispersing the fleet but maintain combat power. Keep the carriers back and lots of small ships with big fire power in the fight.
They could give them to the USCG. Fix them and Cancel the Heritage, which is roughly the same size and capability. Then the navy could say; “don’t ever say we didn’t give you anything….”
Based on some articles and blogs I have read, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Berger, has been working hard to reorient the Marine Corps into sort of an island raid and defense force as opposed to a “kick the door in” force that can perform amphibious assault. Dropping amphibious assault capability isn’t surprising in that light. Not all are happy, as seen here: https://tinyurl.com/y5r32xde
(Not sure what Berger is thinking. Defending islands didn’t work too well for the Japanese in the early 1940’s.)
What hurts is losing the blue-water combatant capability of the Aegis cruisers. As for Littoral Combat Ships (aka “LCS”, aka “Little Crappy Ship”), there’s been a lot in the press that the ships didn’t really live up to expectations and the project was pretty much botched from start to finish. The GAO reported on this recently: https://tinyurl.com/mr3j5few
The inability to procure new weapons system is our biggest failure.
Yeah, he got rid of their tanks, obviously there’s never a need for tanks(Fallujah, Baghdad). If the Marines are assaulting a city, just send the ground pounders, no tanks needed. If they’re trying to keep the Chicoms from landing on an island, who needs tanks.
From what we’re seeing happen in Ukraine, Berger may be on the right track in getting rid of Marine Armor and shifting from traditional artillery to missiles.
Armor and helicopters are looking particularly vulnerable to the fire and forget infantry antitank and MANPAD missiles like the Stinger, Javelin and NLAW. Also, UAV’s and loitering munitions are showing themselves to be highly effective against traditional ground forces.
We are witnessing a major shift in how future wars will be fought. And you can bet the farm that the big defense contractors like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Saab, who produce many of these systems, are watching and greedily calculating how to best exploit the new battlefield doctrine.
I mostly agree. Only problem is that missiles are expensive. Artillery is cheap, on a round-by-round basis. Of course, if you can get surface-to-surface man-portable missile systems to provide accurate, devastating firepower where needed, then the artillery’s indirect fire seems pointless.
Uh-oh. KoB is inbound and pissed…
“Only problem is that missiles are expensive.”
Agree, but when you can destroy an enemy five-to- twelve-million-dollar main battle tank with a single missile that costs a coupla hundred thousand, you have the odds are working for you.
Those odds increase seriously when you’re talking $20mil to $30mil+ combat helicopters.
And lastly, you can much more easily mass-produce such missiles than tanks or choppers, further driving down your per-unit costs.
“From what we’re seeing happen in Ukraine, Berger may be on the right track in getting rid of Marine Armor and shifting from traditional artillery to missiles”
Back in the 50’s and early 60’s they thought that Tanks would soon be obsolete due to the emergence of the Guided Missile and they were wrong back than as well.
Agree, API, but that was then, and this is now, with new missile technology coming on line at a dizzying pace. It appears the tank active defense systems are being defeated frequently by anti-tank missiles with dual warhead technology: the first to destroy the active defenses and the second to follow immediately behind with the lethal strike.
The impressive performance of missiles against armor in Ukraine is being observed and digested by military leaders around the world. Betcha there’s a whole lot of rethinking of battle doctrine going on.
Also a lot of rethinking the wisdom of buying any more Russian weapons systems or equipment just because they’re cheaper. Putin may have unwittingly gutted future foreign sales of Russian arms.
in 1973 the Israelis (and the world) were also surprised at the effectiveness of AT missiles. Lessons were learned then too, probably the same ones.
One of the lessons is that missile crews are vulnerable to suppression by artillery, especially VT fuzed artillery, and CAS.
Nah, tube artillery is here to stay.
They could buy a shitton of crack pipes and CRT courses with the money they would save. Maybe a Chinese oligarch could buy those amphibious assault boats at a surplus sale just in case you know, he wanted to go visit a breakaway island province somewhere with several thousand of his party mates….
These boats is just a reminder of patriarchy, be they an offensive shape, so the Penta-going-going-gone is just given’ the roster space for a new shape of craft, something in a twin hull catamaran-style with a round helm located somewhere, unlocatable by the average man.
Ol’ Poe is wondering if the crews of those Twat-rockets will be required to wear Code Pink pussy hats… 😜
Firstly Id be concerned about an accidental collision with a Russian Rocket. If they had baby rockets would they belong to the US or Russia? Could the rocket one day be President of NASA?
Next we have an issue with transgendered rockets. If the rocket still had genitalia that appeared male even though she identified as female would they be allowed to compete for contracts? It may turn out the best female rocket is shaped like a penis.
If they put the controls in the clitoral section, no male astronaut will be able to find it.
Sounds to me like y’all been taking trips with some of those to-be-retired LSDs . . . . (smile)
They haven’t figured out the problem, of being unable to fly four days each month…
The LCS program sounds like the Iwo Jima class LPH MacNamara boondoggle where due to budget cuts, they were supposed to be 100 feet longer with 2 screws and ended up a 100 feet shorter with 1 screw.They were used to fly Marines behind the lines which at the time was called vertical enveloment. That was it.
Attrition due to end-of-life cycle and obsolescence is expected. Shit-canning the LCS class is long overdue- that program was a disaster from the beginning, and those responsible should be recalled and held accountable.
What is telling here is there are very few replacements on line. This is the consequence of the current administration and the result is a hollow military. It’s the 1970s all over again.
Getting rid of a bunch of ships might solve the fleet manning issues. But why are we having an issue in the first place? How could we float 500-600K through the end of the Cold War and suddenly can’t find 300K sailors? That is less than 0.09% of the US population.
Would you want to join this politically correct shitshow that also includes the bonus of a zero defect mentality? I would do it again but not in this day and age.
What? People don’t want to join to serve on Harvey Milk or the forthcoming Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
And don’t forget the USS Gabby Giffords!
That baby is an LCS, so maybe not
I think the Navy can replace the Aegis & -688 class boats with Burke-class DDG’s and Virginia-class boats, but the LSD’s will be missed because I read the Navy was not going to build as Many new LPD’s and LHA/D’s in the future.
Our ability to project power relies on our Marines & their gear being ready to go “to the hot spots”. Limiting out amphibious fleet seems short sighted.
The littoral ships seemed like a good theory, but not good in practice.
My old oiler only served 24 years, so the Navy got its money’s worth out of those 2.
Will anybody in the Navy or in civilian areas answer for this 40-year boondoggle? The US House passes a law that makes discrimination of “natural hair” illegal, but politicians will likely ignore the billions upon billions spent on ships that aren’t going anywhere. With USMC rid of all its tanks and the Navy dropping ships, it’s “Go Army!”
No comment until retirement finalized. And then maybe not much afterwards….
but I believe there has to be a relevant parable about a bad gambler doubling on his losses instead of knowing when to leave the casino.
Tortuga, Ashland and Germantown? No! That means all the small decks I worked with at the 31st MEU are to be axed (USS Denver already decommissioned, but she was a Operation Frequent Wind veteran so it was probably time.) I spent 2 weeks on Germantown (Folgen Sie unseren Fusspuren!) during Operation Damayan in the Philippines. Great ship.
Serious mistake on the CG’s. Those are the modern day battleship equivalents.
USNS Harvey Milk ought to top the list!
Edit: or re-name her.
What are the odds that the next Navy vessel to be commissioned will be named for Admiral Rachel L. Levine?
Asking for a friend… 🙄
This is the person who christianed the USS Harvey Milk…
You Be The Judge:
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/profiles/details/paula-neira
This is what that person looks like..
Can pass for Levine’s twin…
You Be The Judge…
A real fuckin pioneer