The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:53 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 390 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Defense News

Quote:
Influential congressman calls on Navy to extend lives of oldest cruisers
By: David B. Larter   1 hour ago

The Navy’s oldest cruisers have a friend in Congress.

The influential head of the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee is calling on the Navy to enter its oldest 11 cruisers into a service-life extension program rather than retire them at the end of their 35-year hull life in the coming years.

Defense News recently reported that the Navy was planning to decommission the oldest 11 cruisers starting in 2020 at a rate of two per year. The newest 11 cruisers are currently being rotated through a lay-up and modernization program that will keep them in the fleet until the late 2030s.

“Instead of discussing the decommissioning of cruisers, we need to spend more time discussing the maintenance, modernization and service-life extension of all twenty-two cruisers,” said Virginia Republican Rep. Rob Wittman, the head of the HASC Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, in a statement to Defense News.

(...SNIPPED)

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Haijun watcher wrote:
Defense News

Quote:
Influential congressman calls on Navy to extend lives of oldest cruisers
By: David B. Larter   1 hour ago

The Navy’s oldest cruisers have a friend in Congress.

The influential head of the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee is calling on the Navy to enter its oldest 11 cruisers into a service-life extension program rather than retire them at the end of their 35-year hull life in the coming years.

Defense News recently reported that the Navy was planning to decommission the oldest 11 cruisers starting in 2020 at a rate of two per year. The newest 11 cruisers are currently being rotated through a lay-up and modernization program that will keep them in the fleet until the late 2030s.

“Instead of discussing the decommissioning of cruisers, we need to spend more time discussing the maintenance, modernization and service-life extension of all twenty-two cruisers,” said Virginia Republican Rep. Rob Wittman, the head of the HASC Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, in a statement to Defense News.

(...SNIPPED)
fascinating and very welcome news.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
Apparently the main approach for a 355 fleet would be the use of over-aged and outdated ships. And several programs for new ship classes failed, e.g. for cruisers and destroyers.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
NavyDaveSof,

Speaking of auxiliaries, don't you think the Sacramento class AOEs were scrapped too early? All 4 were scrapped by 2008, if I can recall correctly. The Sacramentos were not as old as the Iowas when scrapped, but then again, they saw at least 40+ years of continuous service.

Also, it seems two of the Supply class are inactive/in reserve as of this posting, with operational costs supposedly one reason why they were taken out of service.

As for regular warships, what do you think of the ideas to reactivate some mothballed Perrys and even the diesel carrier USS Kitty Hawk? Such ideas have been running across various defense blogs recently.

Instead of reactivating some mothballed Perrys, how about adapting the US Coast Guard's National Security Cutter design to US Navy requirements?

Regardless of the ideas floated above, the road to 355 ships doesn't seem to have a clear path for now, as this article states.

Defense News

Quote:
Neither Congress nor the Pentagon have a path to a 355-ship Navy
By: David B. Larter   22 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The great Navy buildup promised by U.S. President Donald Trump during his campaign is so far all talk and no action, and with progress on Capitol Hill stalled on almost all fronts, the Defense Department seems more likely to eat another round of sequester cuts than cut steel for a bunch of extra ships.

The defense appropriations bill — the means by which Congress sends money to the military — is stalled in the Senate, and experts say it’s likely to stay there until there is progress on a deal that would address the spending caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. And the dysfunction will almost certainly stymie any effort by the U.S. Navy to expand its fleet until Congress finds a way to resolve its internal conflicts or Defense Secretary Jim Mattis decides to strip funding from the other services to pay for a larger fleet.

But if navalists and shipbuilders are waiting for that, it may be a long wait. Mattis has told Congress that he thinks the fleet needs to grow but that he isn’t going to rob the other services to do it. Any substantial increase in the size of the fleet is contingent on 3 to 5 percent annual budget growth, which would be impossible under the current Budget Control Act.

(...SNIPPED)

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Hey, Haijun!
Haijun watcher wrote:
Speaking of auxiliaries, don't you think the Sacramento class AOEs were scrapped too early? All 4 were scrapped by 2008, if I can recall correctly. The Sacramentos were not as old as the Iowas when scrapped, but then again, they saw at least 40+ years of continuous service.

Also, it seems two of the Supply class are inactive/in reserve as of this posting, with operational costs supposedly one reason why they were taken out of service.
The Sacramentos show that the Iowa-class propulsion plant is extremely robust and reliable. I think while the Sacramentos could have served another 10 or so years, the Navy was tired of them, and in a non-combat environment felt it was okay to decommission them. The Supply-class, I cannot speak to too well. We certainly did shift to the T-AKEs quickly, that's for sure!

Haijun watcher wrote:
As for regular warships, what do you think of the ideas to reactivate some mothballed Perrys and even the diesel carrier USS Kitty Hawk? Such ideas have been running across various defense blogs recently.
I think putting some considerable money into the Perrys would be a good thing. An upgrade in weapon systems (16-32 Mk41 VLS in place of the Mk13 launcher and magazine and Harpoons topside) and electronics (a new mast designed and installed mounting the SPQ-9B and TRS-3D radars and the re-installation of the SPG-60 STIR and at least a SeaRAM in place of the CIWS, but preferably controlling two slaved Millennium Guns to provide both gun and missile point defense) with a solid HM&E (SLEP) upgrade would really make them formitable warships for another 15+ years. They could be excellent segways into the FF/FFG version of the Berthoff-class National Security Cutter. The Berthoffs can already accommodate 16 Mk41 VLS tubes. I wonder if that could be expanded without much trouble.

The reactivation of the Kitty Hawk would be excellent. It would cost super way more than reactivating 2 or even 3 Iowas, and we would have to buy at least one more air wing to support her. I think building a model of the Kitty Hawk fully modernized and fitted with a modern airwing, deck markings, and weapons suite would be really neat.

Haijun watcher wrote:
Haijun watcher wrote:
Regardless of the ideas floated above, the road to 355 ships doesn't seem to have a clear path for now, as this article states.
I agree. The Navy is really bad at thinking outside the box nowadays. They have become overly dogmatic.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
navydavesof wrote:
I think putting some considerable money into the Perrys would be a good thing. An upgrade in weapon systems (16-32 Mk41 VLS in place of the Mk13 launcher and magazine and Harpoons topside) and electronics (a new mast designed and installed mounting the SPQ-9B and TRS-3D radars and the re-installation of the SPG-60 STIR and at least a SeaRAM in place of the CIWS, but preferably controlling two slaved Millennium Guns to provide both gun and missile point defense) with a solid HM&E (SLEP) upgrade would really make them formitable warships for another 15+ years. They could be excellent segways into the FF/FFG version of the Berthoff-class National Security Cutter. The Berthoffs can already accommodate 16 Mk41 VLS tubes. I wonder if that could be expanded without much trouble.


Since you started the thread with the idea of buying back ex-US warships sold abroad such as the Kidd class DDGs, what about the idea of buying other ex-Perrys in foreign service? This includes those built abroad under license. The Royal Australian Navy's last 2 Perry class frigates will be retired soon. Taiwan, Turkey and Spain, etc. will probably keep theirs for much longer; perhaps looking at the custom upgrades these other navies have done to their FFGs might give ideas on saving costs.

Also, it seems 2 of early configuration Ticonderoga class cruisers (CG47-51) still haven't been scrapped yet. (namely USS Ticonderoga and Yorktown). Or it would cost too much to bring these two older ships up to the standards of their younger sister ships still in service?

I am also surprised that USS Kitty Hawk was de-commissioned later than USS John F. Kennedy considering she was the class leader; both these ships are the only members of this class not scrapped yet, though the JFK might become a museum soon. I'm assuming the cost of bringing back JFK is not that much different from the cost of reactivating her sister?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Last edited by Haijun watcher on Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
Haijun watcher wrote:
I am also surprised that USS Kitty Hawk was de-commissioned later than USS John F. Kennedy considering she was the class leader; both these ships are the only members of this class not scrapped yet, though the JFK might become a museum soon. I'm assuming the cost of bring back JFK is not that much different from the cost of reactivating her sister?

Was not John F. Kennedy already in a bad shape, when she was still in service?

And how much money would it be worth to spend for a conversion of more than 30 year old hulls of the Ticonderoga and OHP class?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
A notable update:

Defense News

Quote:
Congress set to authorize 13 ships in 2018, but don’t cut steel just yet
By: David B. Larter   2 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The House and Senate’s compromise version of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act authorizes the U.S. Navy to buy 13 ships — five more than the administration asked for in its budget proposal. But actually getting that money to the Navy faces headwinds.

A conference committee preserved three littoral combat ships that came out of the House Armed Services Committee, notable because the president’s budget initially requested just one. The fight over LCS funding spilled into the public sphere after White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told a conservative radio host that the Navy didn’t even want them.

The committee also added a destroyer, an amphibious transport dock, an expeditionary sea base and a cable ship, according to a congressional staffer who spoke on background.

(...SNIPPED)

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
maxim wrote:
Haijun watcher wrote:
I am also surprised that USS Kitty Hawk was de-commissioned later than USS John F. Kennedy considering she was the class leader; both these ships are the only members of this class not scrapped yet, though the JFK might become a museum soon. I'm assuming the cost of bring back JFK is not that much different from the cost of reactivating her sister?

Was not John F. Kennedy already in a bad shape, when she was still in service?
JFK skipped several overhauls. In 8 years, she went from the best super carrier too the worst. While she is in poor condition, in comparable economic scales, it would be waaaaay cheaper to rebuild and refit her to last another 20 years than to build another CVN. It is even less with Kitty Hawk. Refitting and SLEPing Kitty Hawk would be negligible adding 20 years of life and fixing her up to the nth degree.

maxim wrote:
And how much money would it be worth to spend for a conversion of more than 30 year old hulls of the Ticonderoga and OHP class?
The 3 remaining Ticos is an issue. The material condition of the ship is fine. The issue is removing the SPY-1B system and replacing it with the SPY-1D. That means ripping the superstructure apart and installing a whole new radar. Is it feasible? YES! In fact, it would be best for NAVSEA to design a modernized super structure forward and aft and install the new radars. Such a modification could inspire the next class of CG.

A NGFS/NSFS cruiser could greatly benefit from the original DD(X) design of a blistered and armored Spruance-class hull with 2x 8" guns and 122-128 VLS tubes and a Kidd-class electronics suite.

The 7ish OHP FFGs are ripe for reactivation. It has already been quoted that they could be reactivated for $61,000 a piece. Modernization I imagine would be several millions of dollars. I would go as far as SLEP them for another 15-20 years and give them 28-32 VLS cells in place of the Mk13 launcher, replace the 76mm gun with the new 76mmSR. The CIWS aft would be replaced with 3 systems. There would be a SeaRAM and 2 Millennium Guns, one on P and S side. The GFC Egg would be replaced with a SPQ-9B, and the STIR (SPG-60) would be re-installed. Harpoons would find their way on the super structure.

Sure, a class of only 7 ships is pretty small, but it still provides lessons to be learned by the horrifically unimaginative USN for future ships.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
The Spruance class was not really optimal: no stealth, not optimal if damaged, extra weight problematic (see bulwarks at the bow of the Ticonderoga class) - today very different hull forms are used.

I cannot imagine that completely rebuilding a 30 year old ship makes economically any sense. Everything, which is expensive in case of new ships, would have to be new, i.e. the rebuild would cause most of the costs of new ship. Hulls are cheap - why using an old hull with limited time left instead of new hull?

The rebuild would use up money for new ships, which would be in any aspect superior to a rebuilt.

@ carr: I think that the navy want to decommission all the old Ticonderoga and would prefer new ships, which need much less crew and less maintenance.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
But we are talking about ships at the end of their life span they were designed for - 30 year old ships, not 10 year old ships. Usually warships are replaced after 25-30 years in service - especially frigate to cruiser sized ships.

There is for sure also a price difference between modernisations of ships which were continuously upgraded as most Ticonderoga class ships still in service - and the first Ticonderoga class cruisers decommissioned more than a decade ago and scheduled for scrapping. navydavesof described a modernisation, which would be much more expensive than the last modernisations of the ships still in service.

By the way: the first modernised Australian OHP class frigate is already decommissioned: HMAS Sydney. They aimed at modernise 20 year old ships and in total they served c. 30 years (or will serve 30 years)...

(I would surprise if the Spruance class would be still one of the best ASW ships - that is a more than 40 year old design and for sure there was some substantial progress since then. Anyway, they were worn out and in a bad shape when decommissioned).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
maxim wrote:
But we are talking about ships at the end of their life span they were designed for - 30 year old ships, not 10 year old ships. Usually warships are replaced after 25-30 years in service - especially frigate to cruiser sized ships.
In order to grow the fleet, you have to maintain what you already have. As NAVSEA has stated in congressional hearings, warships can be modernized beyond their "expected life span" by up to 20% with proper maintenance, upgrades, and care.

maxim wrote:
There is for sure also a price difference between modernisations of ships which were continuously upgraded as most Ticonderoga class ships still in service - and the first Ticonderoga class cruisers decommissioned more than a decade ago and scheduled for scrapping. navydavesof described a modernisation, which would be much more expensive than the last modernisations of the ships still in service.
While I don't necessarily suggest the 3 Ticos be brought back without serious funding, the hulls are fine. If the Navy wanted to pour money into them, the design already exists. The hulls would simply need to be reactivated in NNSY with their super structures removed and towed to Bath and have a new super structure that was already built inverted and lowered onto the hull. That would be incredible and a huge step forward toward a new cruiser.

maxim wrote:
(I would surprise if the Spruance class would be still one of the best ASW ships - that is a more than 40 year old design and for sure there was some substantial progress since then. Anyway, they were worn out and in a bad shape when decommissioned).
In bad shape? Whose responsibility was that? Who carries the blame? Oh, yeah, the USN in their garbage SeaSwap program. The Navy should be fined by having to repair and modernize the ships they screwed over with that grossly implemented program. If the Sprucans were still around to be reactivated, they would receive the most modern ASW equipment. The thing that would make them super effective and "most modern" would be their singular focus. They would no be worried about BMD. They would not be worried about area AAW. They would not be worried about fleet command. Sure, they would have other responsibilities such as NSFS with 8" and 5" support, but it would be primarily an ASW ship sharpening those skills.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
To extend the lifespan of old ship, has to be expensive. For sure it is possible, but the consequence are increasing costs for maintenance of the old ship. To produce completely new superstructures plus new sensors, electronics and weapons for 30 year old hulls appears to be a massive waste of money.

This money should be reserved for the Arleigh Burke Flight III or better ships - much better and more economical to operate and based of a hull one generation younger. For sure a little bit more expensive, because a new hull would have to built, but that hull could serve for 30 years - and not for just 6 years (20% of 30 years, the extended expected life span).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
maxim wrote:
To extend the lifespan of old ship, has to be expensive.

Perhaps! But in the long term, unlikely.

maxim wrote:
For sure it is possible, but the consequence are increasing costs for maintenance of the old ship. To produce completely new superstructures plus new sensors, electronics and weapons for 30 year old hulls appears to be a massive waste of money.Via testemonies, no, that is not the case. For instance the Kidds could be modernized to well beyond LHD standards with 128 VLS tubes...that is not even considering their modernized configuration.


maxim wrote:
This money should be reserved for the Arleigh Burke Flight III or better ships - much better and more economical to operate and based of a hull one generation younger. For sure a little bit more expensive, because a new hull would have to built, but that hull could serve for 30 years - and not for just 6 years (20% of 30 years, the extended expected life span).
What would you suggest those Burke IIIs embark? Would you suggest any cheaper ships to perform the normal Navy tasks including NFSF/NFGS?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
navydavesof wrote:
What would you suggest those Burke IIIs embark? Would you suggest any cheaper ships to perform the normal Navy tasks including NFSF/NFGS?

There should be some high quality surface fighting ship and many cheap ones.

For the first there is a new development necessary. The Burke Flight III can be an intermediate design. I am not sure, what they will get, but an active phased array radar (SPY-3/SPY-4) plus perhaps two 96 cell VLS could be possible.

For the low end some cheap frigate design would be good, e.g. TRS-3D in combination with a 16-32 cell VLS plus a big helicopter hangar plus space for towed array sonar, which some ships should get. As the British Type 23 and the Italian FREMM there could be some general purpose frigates and some dedicated ASW ships. Perhaps an even cheaper OPV could be option, e.g. something similar to the Dutch Holland class, to make up numbers for patrol duties. Traditionally large navies always had also such ships, usually called gunboats, sloops, or aviso. Today only a few of the larger navies have such ships, e.g. the French Floréal class or the British River class.

carr wrote:
You seem to have the notion that an older, upgraded ship has to wind up being the exact performance equivalent of a brand new ship. [...] You're still clinging to vague, unsupported claims of high costs for upgrades.

That was a comment to the very extensive modernisation proposal for the oldest, out of commission Ticonderoga class ships ;) It was not a comment to all kind of upgrades, but one aimed on very old ships!

The main problem with the older 1970s designs are their sensors and command systems. They are outdated and expensive to replace, in some cases the older ships have limited capacities for updates (e.g. the OHP class). The Australian modernisations were limited regarding the sensors, the Turkish ships got SMART-S radars plus the VLS launcher. The Australian program was planed for 20 year old ships - one decade ago. Now these ships are 30 years old and at the end of their life span. Why waste any money on them?

The US Navy had continuously built only high end ships (Arleigh Burke class destroyers) and continuously upgraded the old Ticonderoga class ships. For sure for these ships the modernisation costs are lower compared to older, long decommissioned ships. The US Navy had stopped to built low end ships for some time until the LCS program. The last one before the LCS was USS Ingraham (FFG-61) in 1989 - 28 years ago. There was a 17 year gap, in which no low end ships were built. There are no 15-20 year old low end ships, which would be worth an upgrade, except if the US Navy could buy ships from other navies!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
navydavesof wrote:

The reactivation of the Kitty Hawk would be excellent. It would cost super way more than reactivating 2 or even 3 Iowas, and we would have to buy at least one more air wing to support her. I think building a model of the Kitty Hawk fully modernized and fitted with a modern airwing, deck markings, and weapons suite would be really neat


navydavesof,

It seems like we might have to settle with just making a what-if model of "reactivated Kitty Hawk", since it appears she will definitely be scrapped, as posted by dragon53 in another thread:

USS Kitty Hawk to be dismantled

I'm not sure about her sister ship JFK's status or if any group finally raised enough money to make her a museum.

Anyways, to stick to topic, there are still at least 3 Tarawa class LHAs left in mothballs, although Tarawa herself is being considered for preservation as a museum ship. That leaves Nassau and Peleliu, although the former was the target of a drive by the non-profit group "Coalition of Hope" to turn her into a humanitarian vessel.

I assume the LHAs would have no problem handling the F35Bs?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
navydavesof wrote:
I think putting some considerable money into the Perrys would be a good thing. An upgrade in weapon systems (16-32 Mk41 VLS in place of the Mk13 launcher and magazine and Harpoons topside) and electronics (a new mast designed and installed mounting the SPQ-9B and TRS-3D radars and the re-installation of the SPG-60 STIR and at least a SeaRAM in place of the CIWS, but preferably controlling two slaved Millennium Guns to provide both gun and missile point defense) with a solid HM&E (SLEP) upgrade would really make them formitable warships for another 15+ years.


It seems there's opposition to reactivating the available, mothballed Perry class frigates:

Defense News

Quote:
Don't reactivate the old frigates, internal US Navy memo recommends
By: David B. Larter   16 hours ago

WASHINGTON — A move gaining traction in the upper echelons of the Navy to bring back mothballed Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates would cost billions, cut into modernization accounts for other ships and add little to the Navy’s capabilities, according to documents obtained by Defense News.

The Navy estimates that bringing back 10 of the Perry-class frigates would cost in excess of $4.32 billion over 10 years, and take away from money needed to modernize the Navy’s existing cruisers and destroyers. In return, the Navy would get a relatively toothless ship only suitable for very low-end missions such as counter-drug operations.

“With obsolete combat systems and aging hulls, these vessels would require significant upgrades to remain warfighting relevant for another decade,” the document reads. “Any potential return on investment would be offset by high reactivation and life-cycle costs, a small ship inventory, limited service life, and substantial capability gaps.

(...SNIPPED)

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 390 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group