maxim wrote:
The Kidd class were built in 1978-82 - an very outdated, expensive to operate design. Most ships from that period in major navies are already out of commission. There were two navies, which refused to get the Kidd class after they were decommissioned by the US Navy: the Australian and Greek one. I am sure they had very good reasons to do so.
They would be modernized and manned like the Ticonderoga-class CGs. Manning would be cut by approximately 20% through automation. The Ticonderoga-class HM&E upgrade would allow them another 20 years of service.
maxim wrote:
A bigger fleet can be only be only be afforded if cheaper ships, which are cheaper to operate, are bought - i.e. ships perhaps even cheaper than LCS... The USN appears to have today very similar problems than the Royal Navy after its peak of its might.
To a point, yes. The 600 ship fleet was built by mass producing the Perry FFGs, reactivating the battleships, buying more CVNs, building a larger amphibious fleet, and maintaining the current fleet. That is all pretty expensive work...except for the battleships. They were really cheap purchases. For the price of a Perry FFG we brought them back, and if we went through with the modernizations in 1993 as was planned, we would have had VLS capable BBs for 1.5 the cost of an FFG.
Today, if we underwent a similar fleet rebuild, we could have a large number of new ships and reactivated old ones. Yes manning would be increased, but we also need the ships fast, and those are the ships we need.