GAO Report on LCS

[rickusn]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05255.pdf

[Bill]

Can't say that i'm too optomistic after reading the GAO report you posted.

Thanx Rick.

PS....Sorry about Mudd.

[rickusn]

It reminds me alot of the OHP class program. Helos are these ships main weapon system. If you cant afford the helos then what?

Hey BTW did you know the Stockton, CA Congressional represenative requested that USS IOWA be released from CAT B to become a floating museum ? In fact has a bill pending to do just that.

Im not sure what you mean:

"PS....Sorry about Mudd."

E-mail me if you care to discuss it.

[Bill]

I meant his little tirade directed against you at another board that will remain nameless.

[rickusn]

That part I knew. LOL But are you being serious or sarcastic?

Again E-mail me if you care to discuss it.

You will notice that Im not at another board you frequent for nearly the same reasons.

Maybe it doesnt matter except to me.



No comment on the IOWA? Its a far more important issue.

[TopHatter]

No comment on the IOWA? Its a far more important issue.

I would be much happier if Turret 2 would be completely restored. It seems somewhat incongruous to have a Category B asset left maimed like that.
I'm not being sentimental, simply wondering if repair of the turret would be done when she is (if ever) reactivated and probably urgently needed.
Remember the effort to get the Iowa back into service to relieve USS New Jersey off Lebanon? Admittedly, the American presence in Lebanon was terminated before she was actually ready, but just imagine her having to head off to a warzone with 1/3 of her main guns out of action?

[rickusn]

AFAIK all the materials are stored aboard to complete the restorration of the damaged turret.

The USN did strike these ships from Naval Register in 1995 but pressure from Congress got two placed back in reserve but even these were not back on the Navy List until 1997. The USN planned to again strike these in 2003. This hasnt happened yet.

The USN though has no intention of bringing them back.

Of course with a new CNO and SECNAV or on Congressional order this could change. But I dont see anyone with power driving the issue. No one really wants to come up with the funding as everyone has their own pet projects. Most of which are under intense scrutiny and tight(Not sure what that means when it comes to the defense budget LOL) fiscal restraints.

I just dont see it happening. But w/o an extended range munition for the 5" guns and the AGS(Advance Gun System) for the ever popular DD(X) NSFS is woefully inadequate for the broad range of its possible mission scenarios. Even with those programs volume sustainment will still be an issue.

At the end of this CY the USN will have 92 5" tubes on 70 CG/DDG ships along with 30 3" on the OHP frigates(Some include the OHP guns as NSFS assets but not me).

Its been thirteen years this month since the last BB(USS Missouri) was active. Nearly 14 and 15 years for USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa respectively(14 years for USS New Jersey).

The BB's proved their worth for NSFS in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon and Desert Storm. But it has never been enough to keep them in service.

Another issue is the USN's personnel policy. IE the virtual elimination of non-rated sailors. The BB's use vast amounts of just such people inherently because of there many labor intensive systems, maintenance, Battle-Station & DC requirements. This policy would have to change along with increased funding from Congress. I dont see this happenning either.

If you look at the budget personnel costs are already huge.

Another issue is the USN's continued push for total elimination of conventionally powered steam plants.

The last remaining ships are slated for retirement as or even before their replacements are available. Including one command ship this year(the other three either are or will be operated by the MSC with USN complements being what amounts to mission specialists), the four AOEs by the end of next year, one LHA next year, the LPDs as they are replaced even the JFK one of the last two conventionally powered aircraft carriers.

Many hurdles will have to be overcome to bring these ships back online.

Remember also they dont meet many of the USMC requirements for NSFS in and of themselves either. Accuracy and range come to mind.

Have I missed anything?

[sw55]

AFAIK all the materials are stored aboard to complete the restorration of the damaged turret.

The USN did strike these ships from Naval Register in 1995 but pressure from Congress got two placed back in reserve but even these were not back on the Navy List until 1997. The USN planned to again strike these in 2003. This hasnt happened yet.

The USN though has no intention of bringing them back.

Of course with a new CNO and SECNAV or on Congressional order this could change. But I dont see anyone with power driving the issue. No one really wants to come up with the funding as everyone has their own pet projects. Most of which are under intense scrutiny and tight(Not sure what that means when it comes to the defense budget LOL) fiscal restraints.

I just dont see it happening. But w/o an extended range munition for the 5" guns and the AGS(Advance Gun System) for the ever popular DD(X) NSFS is woefully inadequate for the broad range of its possible mission scenarios. Even with those programs volume sustainment will still be an issue.

At the end of this CY the USN will have 92 5" tubes on 70 CG/DDG ships along with 30 3" on the OHP frigates(Some include the OHP guns as NSFS assets but not me).

Its been thirteen years this month since the last BB(USS Missouri) was active. Nearly 14 and 15 years for USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa respectively(14 years for USS New Jersey).

The BB's proved their worth for NSFS in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon and Desert Storm. But it has never been enough to keep them in service.

Another issue is the USN's personnel policy. IE the virtual elimination of non-rated sailors. The BB's use vast amounts of just such people inherently because of there many labor intensive systems, maintenance, Battle-Station & DC requirements. This policy would have to change along with increased funding from Congress. I dont see this happenning either.

If you look at the budget personnel costs are already huge.

Another issue is the USN's continued push for total elimination of conventionally powered steam plants.

The last remaining ships are slated for retirement as or even before their replacements are available. Including one command ship this year(the other three either are or will be operated by the MSC with USN complements being what amounts to mission specialists), the four AOEs by the end of next year, one LHA next year, the LPDs as they are replaced even the JFK one of the last two conventionally powered aircraft carriers.

Many hurdles will have to be overcome to bring these ships back online.

Remember also they dont meet many of the USMC requirements for NSFS in and of themselves either. Accuracy and range come to mind.

Have I missed anything?

There is much controversy and nostalga over these ships. I know the 16" shell did one heck of a job on anything that pissed it off, but given the latest in warhead technology, and cluster warheads, I question if while impressive, these ships belong in a museum for future generations to learn from instead of trying to make them relevent today. The costs alone are staggering, and I doubt there are many powerplants like those in the Iowa class left in today's navy, which is one of the most compelling arguements for their disposal from active inventory, not to mention the physical condition of a 50 year old hull which can't be great.

[Bill]

The ships are actually still in excellent shape.

[rickusn]

The ships are actually still in excellent shape.

You are correct. Hull fatigue is not an issue. And CAT B procedures are excellent.

[TopHatter]

AFAIK all the materials are stored aboard to complete the restorration of the damaged turret.

Yes, I remember several people in the know saying the same thing (Dick Landgraff comes to mind, but hold me to that one.)



The USN though has no intention of bringing them back.

Nope, not high-speed low-drag enough.



Another issue is the USN's personnel policy. .

If you look at the budget personnel costs are already huge.

Another issue is the USN's continued push for total elimination of conventionally powered steam plants.

Yep, 2 reactivation killers right there

The last remaining ships are slated for retirement as or even before their replacements are available. Including one command ship this year(the other three either are or will be operated by the MSC with USN complements being what amounts to mission specialists), the four AOEs by the end of next year, one LHA next year, the LPDs as they are replaced even the JFK one of the last two conventionally powered aircraft carriers.

Have there been an announcement as to which LHA? A former LBNSY gent that I correspond with mentioned the USS Peleliu was...well, not quite as finely built as the preceeding Tarawas, being the last one.

Oh, by the way, do you know anything about this pic?

[rickusn]

On decommissionings:

Slated for retirement in FY 2006 are a Ticonderoga-class cruiser (USS Thomas S. Gates), an unnamed Los Angeles-class attack submarine(USS Salt Lake City), a Tarawa-class amphibious assault ship (USS Belleau Wood), an amphibious transport dock ship (USS Austin) and a fast combat support ship(USS Camden)..

On the picture I vaguely remember seeing it before but thats it.