World Affairs Board - View Single Post

rickusn · 12-19-2006, 18:34 PM

"All nations navys are going down in size, and major surface combatants. Same with the UK, down sizing its navy. Russia, has nothing.

Rickusn, let me change the subject here for a second. What did you think about the Pegasus hydrofoil patrol craft? I think that would make a great little lattirol craft. I think the navy does not seem to get its money worth out of ships anymore."

1.) All nations are not.
2.) The UK & Russia have financial problems. Russias by all accounts are abating, the UK's not. WARNING: Dont go to the Warfare.ru froum and say "Russia has nothing." LOL The UK it has been reported will soon try a Sea Swap test for the Falklands deployment commitment. The Russians still have seven(8?) Udaloy I/II operational but only three(5?) Sovremmennny. But proper maintenance has been problematic especially as regards the latter. They have type 20380 and 22350 frigate classes building with a new destroyer of 6-7 thousand tons building.
3.) Too small, Too expensive among many other Too's.
4.) Why?
5.) Dont know about that. And suerly started many decades ago. Not just recently. If you mean seeming to retire more ships around 16-22 years(more or less) thats only because more people are aware sooner than ever before.

Its been standard operating procedure for the the UK for slightly longer than the USN in fact a thirteen year old County class DDG(Commissioned 1963) was scrapped(service 1963-1973)(Although from 1972-1976 she was in special reserve) in 1976.

Other classes with very short service lifes Blackwood, Whitby, Salisbury, Leopard, Tribal as were some Rothesay and Leanders but not so blatantly as many had been expensively modernized. More recently some units of the Type 22 class, Type 42 class and even the much respected Type 23 class was only to serve for 18 years!!!

The USN forced first some of the WWII era destoyers to soldier on far longer than their actual effectiveness would indicate they should.

The same can be said for the CF Adams destroyers of which only a few were belatedly modernized. But thye were marginally effective during the 1980's.

Then we expensively modernised the leahy/Belknap class ships only decommission them many years ahead of schedule.

Some USN 50's& up built classes that come to mind Mitscher, F. Sherman, Dealey, Jones, Brooke, Garcia, Knox, Virginia, S. Carolina, OHP, Kidd and then extending to some of the Spruance and Ticonderoga classes. The latter I assume to which you are referring.

OTOH the OHP's left in service are of marginal effectiveness. Their only useful combat capabilities are those which reside in the abilities of the two helicopters they carry. But they complement the A. Burke flight I/II quite well. But its probably not particularly cost effective. But I feel they should be deccommissioned as they reach 22 years of service.

Now UK posters dont get in an uproar. I wasnt disparaging the Royal Navy but there history is useful for illustration/cmparison purposes among many other exceedingly wondrous attributes. And Ive spent a great deal of time analysing the Post-War Royal Navy

Now if anyone feels that putting sailors in harms way on ships that are only marginally effective is getting its "money worth". So be it.

IF you feel expensive mid-life modernization is the way to go. Im sure that ther are those both for and against for any # of reasons.

Master Chief thanks for the points and questions you presented. I look forward to a rebuttal of my thoughts.

I stand ready to try and clarify any of the points Ive attempted to make. Or correct if neccesary.

12-19-2006, 18:34 PM	#253 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	"All nations navys are going down in size, and major surface combatants. Same with the UK, down sizing its navy. Russia, has nothing. Rickusn, let me change the subject here for a second. What did you think about the Pegasus hydrofoil patrol craft? I think that would make a great little lattirol craft. I think the navy does not seem to get its money worth out of ships anymore." 1.) All nations are not. 2.) The UK & Russia have financial problems. Russias by all accounts are abating, the UK's not. WARNING: Dont go to the Warfare.ru froum and say "Russia has nothing." LOL The UK it has been reported will soon try a Sea Swap test for the Falklands deployment commitment. The Russians still have seven(8?) Udaloy I/II operational but only three(5?) Sovremmennny. But proper maintenance has been problematic especially as regards the latter. They have type 20380 and 22350 frigate classes building with a new destroyer of 6-7 thousand tons building. 3.) Too small, Too expensive among many other Too's. 4.) Why? 5.) Dont know about that. And suerly started many decades ago. Not just recently. If you mean seeming to retire more ships around 16-22 years(more or less) thats only because more people are aware sooner than ever before. Its been standard operating procedure for the the UK for slightly longer than the USN in fact a thirteen year old County class DDG(Commissioned 1963) was scrapped(service 1963-1973)(Although from 1972-1976 she was in special reserve) in 1976. Other classes with very short service lifes Blackwood, Whitby, Salisbury, Leopard, Tribal as were some Rothesay and Leanders but not so blatantly as many had been expensively modernized. More recently some units of the Type 22 class, Type 42 class and even the much respected Type 23 class was only to serve for 18 years!!! The USN forced first some of the WWII era destoyers to soldier on far longer than their actual effectiveness would indicate they should. The same can be said for the CF Adams destroyers of which only a few were belatedly modernized. But thye were marginally effective during the 1980's. Then we expensively modernised the leahy/Belknap class ships only decommission them many years ahead of schedule. Some USN 50's& up built classes that come to mind Mitscher, F. Sherman, Dealey, Jones, Brooke, Garcia, Knox, Virginia, S. Carolina, OHP, Kidd and then extending to some of the Spruance and Ticonderoga classes. The latter I assume to which you are referring. OTOH the OHP's left in service are of marginal effectiveness. Their only useful combat capabilities are those which reside in the abilities of the two helicopters they carry. But they complement the A. Burke flight I/II quite well. But its probably not particularly cost effective. But I feel they should be deccommissioned as they reach 22 years of service. Now UK posters dont get in an uproar. I wasnt disparaging the Royal Navy but there history is useful for illustration/cmparison purposes among many other exceedingly wondrous attributes. And Ive spent a great deal of time analysing the Post-War Royal Navy Now if anyone feels that putting sailors in harms way on ships that are only marginally effective is getting its "money worth". So be it. IF you feel expensive mid-life modernization is the way to go. Im sure that ther are those both for and against for any # of reasons. Master Chief thanks for the points and questions you presented. I look forward to a rebuttal of my thoughts. I stand ready to try and clarify any of the points Ive attempted to make. Or correct if neccesary.