Navy Ships To Be Decommissioned.

[USSWisconsin]

And how do we give that up by decommissioning 4 Cruisers?

We do need to decommision some obsolete ships - I don't have a problem with having a force the right size for the commitments our goverment makes, but there have been a lot of them in the past decade. I hope we don't overdo it and stop maintaining a powerful navy, perhaps with the right mix it can just as effective and smalller than it is now. That probably entails replacing ships with more capable ones as well as decommissioning the older ones.

I'm not critiizing our president either, there's enough of that going on these days - I have no interest in participating in it.

[HKDan]

The US Navy is larger than the next 13 largest Navies COMBINED.

It is and it isn't. The larger than the next 13 navies combined statistic is in tonnage, meaning that the USN operates bigger ships that other navies do. There is a very legitimate link between tonnage and capability, no doubt. However, one of the greatest challenges that the USN faces in the future is that as it replaces older ships with newer, more capable ones; the number of ships in the fleet is shrinking and the advantage that the USN holds in numbers of hulls is not anywhere near a 13 navy standard.

All of the services are in a position where sacrifices have to be made, I just hope that these sacrifices are really well thought out. ...or maybe this just really was a ploy to get Congress to step in and save the ships as some have speculated.

[Gun Grape]

The tonnage comparison, has always been the standard when comparing Navies.

As you stated, our ships are larger and more capable. No need to match the rest of the world hull for hull.

If you look at our two "Possible enemies" China and Russia we have

Aircraft Carriers. (Real carriers not the Stobar/STOVL ones)

United States = 10 (11 but only 10 airwings)

Russia = None, and none being built.

China = None and none being built.

Cruisers

US= 22

Russia = 4

China = 0

Destroyers

US = 61

Russia = 13

China = 14

And lets not even talk about the overmatch in throw weight the US Navy has.

Scrapping 7 Cruisers isn't going to decimate the Navy. In fact, the sailors on those decommed ships can go to other ships to flesh out a 3 watch bill.

The reason we are overstretched is that we never drop missions. Just keep adding new ones.

A new look at the missions is needed across the board.

[HKDan]

Gun Grape,

I mostly agree with you. The USN is bigger, much more capable than any potential opponent, and the loss of 7 cruisers isn't going to change that in the near term.

However, I still have some serious concerns with choices that the Navy is making/being forced to make. Retiring those cruisers makes sense to me if the Navy can show that it is going to use the money saved to fulfill maintenance requirements and that it has an achievable ship building plan that will allow them to maintain both capability and numbers. I don't think that there is strong evidence of this right now.

You are right, they need to take a long hard look at what missions are priorities and what are realistic expectations for the force. If they want to continue to be everywhere and do everything, then the number of hulls in the water is a real concern. The USN can point to its tonnage, number of VLS tubes, or the fact that ships like the recently commissioned Flight IIA destroyer, USS Spruance, can legitimately claim to be the most capable surface warships out there. But one ship can only be in one place at a time, if numbers are going to shrink, then either missions or capabilities will necessarily shrink with them. So far, no sign of cutting back on commitments.

[dundonrl]

The tonnage comparison, has always been the standard when comparing Navies.

As you stated, our ships are larger and more capable. No need to match the rest of the world hull for hull.

If you look at our two "Possible enemies" China and Russia we have

Aircraft Carriers. (Real carriers not the Stobar/STOVL ones)

United States = 10 (11 but only 10 airwings)

Russia = None, and none being built.

China = None and none being built.

Cruisers

US= 22

Russia = 4

China = 0

Destroyers

US = 61

Russia = 13

China = 14

And lets not even talk about the overmatch in throw weight the US Navy has.

Scrapping 7 Cruisers isn't going to decimate the Navy. In fact, the sailors on those decommed ships can go to other ships to flesh out a 3 watch bill.

The reason we are overstretched is that we never drop missions. Just keep adding new ones.

A new look at the missions is needed across the board.

ok, look at what we have to patrol.. the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean (and associated seas) sure we have a lot more ships than anyone else does, BUT we also patrol the entire planet with those ships.. sure the Russians have a lot less ships than we do, but then how often do they send ships into the Persian Gulf?

Having been on 3 ships and numerous deployments, we COULD get by with fewer ships, if you kept them constantly deployed overseas and forgot about any maintenance on them. The Navy tried that a few years ago, doing hull swaps, leaving the ships in place and swapping out the crew, PMS (preventative maintenance) was horrible, and the ships overall were in drastic need of repair after the short trial (a couple years)..

maybe we should go back to wooden sailing ships that could handle the weather for years on end, and the crew could fix them in a podunk island someplace...

[Gun Grape]

ok, look at what we have to patrol.. the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean (and associated seas) sure we have a lot more ships than anyone else does, BUT we also patrol the entire planet with those ships.. sure the Russians have a lot less ships than we do, but then how often do they send ships into the Persian Gulf?

And that's the key.

Why are we patrolling the entire planet?

What are we protecting it from?

Wouldn't it be great if we could have the 600 ship Navy that Webb wanted? But then we would be screaming for more. Because a fleet that size cannot be justified by staying in port. So we would take on more commitments. Then pretty soon we would want a 1000 ship navy.

There is the Navy that we need to have. One that can handle the present threats and those out 20 years. And those threats wouldn't include anti drug patrols off the coast of South America (for one example).

Am I the only person that thinks its stupid that we have a Carrier providing support in A-Stan? It was necessary when the war started. But 10 years later, the AF and MC have bases to fly from in A-Stan.

[TopHatter]

Why are we patrolling the entire planet?

90% of the world's commerce is transported via the ocean
A huge percentage of our energy imports and exports are transported via the ocean
53% of the world's population lives within 120 miles of a coastline. The number is expected to reach 75% by 2050.

"Control of the seas means security. Control of the seas means peace. Control of the seas can mean victory. The United States must control the sea if it is to protect our security." ~ John F. Kennedy

What are we protecting it from?

That is self-explanatory, given the above^^

Like it or not, the United States has interests the world over. And those interests have to be protected. And when it comes to the heavy lifting, that means the Navy.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have the 600 ship Navy that Webb wanted?

You meant Lehman but yes, it would be great...assuming that a 600 ship Navy was supportable, which you touched on below.

But then we would be screaming for more. Because a fleet that size cannot be justified by staying in port. So we would take on more commitments. Then pretty soon we would want a 1000 ship navy.

Personally I don't think that would be the case. There is a practical limit to the size of any navy and I believe that it would be apparent, both fiscally and logistically.

There is the Navy that we need to have. One that can handle the present threats and those out 20 years. And those threats wouldn't include anti drug patrols off the coast of South America (for one example).

I'm torn on this one...on the one hand, it stretches our resources but on the other hand, it provides relatively 'safe' and 'cheap' real-world OJT right in our own backyard.

In addition, much of the anti-drug patrols are handled by aging and essentially obsolete Perry-class frigates, at the end of their useful lives, that are now basically miniature helicopter carriers with a 76mm gun for self-protection.

Am I the only person that thinks its stupid that we have a Carrier providing support in A-Stan? It was necessary when the war started. But 10 years later, the AF and MC have bases to fly from in A-Stan.

Logistics.

Child's play, relatively speaking, to resupply a CSG via UNREP or just plain putting into a friendly port.

Supporting AF and USMC bases in Afghanistan itself: hideously expensive, extremely complicated both politically and logistically and occasionally outright deadly.

[Dreadnought]

IMO, It makes very good sense to have the CVN support operations for several reasons.

1) Base closures. Some of these were lost due to politics and the price of having them in some countries icreased greatly. With a CVN standing by the only politics that matters resides within the US. And the price of that airfield is justified as we own it indefinately.

2) Ops. If per say a juicy target such as a high ranking AQ idiot is spotted in convoy or if they recieve information and no drones in the area a fighter jet could more then likely be there faster then the drone.

3) Recon. Instead of holding a sat in orbit the cameras on some of those planes can gather excellent intelligence.

4) Keeping a presence in one of the worlds biggest hot spots.

These are just some of the benefits of having a CVN or even two in the area.

[Gun Grape]

90% of the world's commerce is transported via the ocean
A huge percentage of our energy imports and exports are transported via the ocean
53% of the world's population lives within 120 miles of a coastline. The number is expected to reach 75% by 2050.

"Control of the seas means security. Control of the seas means peace. Control of the seas can mean victory. The United States must control the sea if it is to protect our security." ~ John F. Kennedy

You haven't given a reason on why we need to patrol the worlds oceans all the time.

What is the threat? Where does it come from? The worlds major trade routes are secure. The countries around those choke points conduct anti piracy patrols with their own navies. If the situation becomes serious, like off Somalia, then we need to deploy.

Neither the Russian nor the Chinese Navies have blue water Navies. Look at the joke that was the Russian Navys "Major" deployment to the Caribbean.

Like it or not, the United States has interests the world over. And those interests have to be protected. And when it comes to the heavy lifting, that means the Navy.

But there is no need to be everywhere all the time. Its a waste of resources.
The ROTW knows that if they decide to bite off a chunk we can assemble a force quickly to put them down.

You meant Lehman but yes, it would be great...assuming that a 600 ship Navy was supportable, which you touched on below.

No I meant Webb. He was the strong proponent of the 600 ship navy. So much that he resigned when they (Sec of Def/White House) wanted to decommission 16 Frigates due to the budget deficit.

Personally I don't think that would be the case. There is a practical limit to the size of any navy and I believe that it would be apparent, both fiscally and logistically.

And thats the big question. What size Navy, and what deployments can we afford?

With our over match in ships and capability, now is the perfect time to scale back a bit. And get the ships we retain in for some much needed maintenance.

In addition, much of the anti-drug patrols are handled by aging and essentially obsolete Perry-class frigates, at the end of their useful lives, that are now basically miniature helicopter carriers with a 76mm gun for self-protection.

And why do we still have those obsolete ships at sea? To keep the numbers up and use them for Bullshit deployments/missions that are not needed.

Dump the ships, transfer the crews to other undermanned ships. Invest the savings in maintenance.

Instead, politicians will whine that we are "decimating the Navy", creating a "Hollow force" When the truth is, its them that are doing that. by not allowing the service to "Right size" for the budget they are given.

I know what a hollow force is. First few years of the Reagan administration.
One of the largest Artillery battalions in the free world. 6 firing batteries.
3 with newly upgraded M-110A2 8in howitzers and 3 with brand new M-109A3 155mm Howitzers. During a 18 month period we went to the field 1 time. The battalion fired 10 rounds total. Because, there was no money for maintenance
or training ammo.

But on paper, we looked awesome

Logistics.

Child's play, relatively speaking, to resupply a CSG via UNREP or just plain putting into a friendly port.

Supporting AF and USMC bases in Afghanistan itself: hideously expensive, extremely complicated both politically and logistically and occasionally outright deadly.

So you think doing a unrep of a CBG is less expensive for the firepower they provide than shipping the same amount of fuel and food for an equal number of aircraft sorties deployed in country?

The average Carrier sends 18-24 planes per day into the combat zone (average for the last 5 years) Behind those planes we have to provide not only Av gas but (using the Truman CBG )

Food for the compliment of an aircraft carrier,5 FFGs and 1 FFG.
Around 7700 Personnel.

Add fuel for the ships and the other flight ops that take place. (CAP/ASW/AEW, ect)

You really need to explain that math if you think its cheaper.

[TopHatter]

Heading off to bed, I'll edit this reply with an actual response when I can tomorrow :)

[JRT]

Future of U.S. Navy Fleet - C-SPAN Video 21 May 2012 (follow this link) - Undersecretary Robert Work (and others) speaking at event hosted by the CATO Institute.

"Undersecretary Robert Work spoke about the future of the U.S. Navy's surface combat fleet. He focused on budgetary constraints and proposals to reduce the size of the surface combat fleet. One proposal under consideration would reduce the surface fleet by one aircraft carrier, six frigates, and four cruisers. He also talked about development..." of LCS.

[Guest]

USS Hue City...commissioned 19-effing-91. I was there

That one really hurt. She's one of the three active-duty warships I've ever visited.

My heart sank when I first heard about this, and I am still deeply saddened about it. This ship was my home for 3 years (1995-1998) and a couple of Mediterranean Sea deployments. I worked in several places on the ship, but mainly in the engine rooms. I had envisioned myself returning to see the ship and take a tour when I was quite a bit older; now I'm feeling pressured to take that trip before 2014 gets here (the year I'll turn 38, and when I probably would have retired from the Navy if I had stayed in). I'd really like my wife to get a chance to see the ship I worked and lived on until about 5 years before I even met her (incidentally, the ship's keel was laid on my wife's birthday in 1989).

Every home I've ever lived in is still standing today, but it looks like this one may not be for much longer.

Not only do I feel as though the Hue City has a lot of useful life left, but also I'd hate to see its legacy end, what with its connection to the Battle of Hue in 1968 and all the Vietnam War artifacts displayed aboard the ship, not to mention the Battle of Hue Memorial Service held each year by the ship and attended by veterans from that battle. The USS Hue City is the only ship named for a Vietnam War battle, and the only ship that flies the Marine Corps flag to honor the Marines that fought and/or died in that battle. If it must be decommissioned, I would rather see it become a museum where the annual Memorial Service could still be held than see it get mothballed or especially dismantled or sunk. What a shameful waste. I still can't get over all the Spruance class destroyers having been sunk. They were old, but still a very common sight during my tenure in the Navy.

[JRT]

Update...

U.S. Navy: 4 Missile Cruisers to Remain in Service

Sep. 26, 2012 - Four Aegis missile cruisers scheduled to end their active careers in March will instead be kept in service, the U.S. Navy said Sept. 26.

The ships — the Cowpens, Anzio, Vicksburg and Port Royal — were to be decommissioned as part of a budget drawdown.

But three of the four congressional defense committees objected to the cuts, expressing concerns about weakening the fleet.

The Navy, while acknowledging “fiscal and readiness implications” in keeping the ships in service, has agreed to keep the ships running — for now.

“The Navy will work with Congress to resolve these concerns,” Lt. Courtney Hillson, a Navy spokesperson at the Pentagon, said late on Sept. 26.

“The Navy intends to retain these ships in service pending completion of the fiscal year 2013 authorization and appropriation process, or other agreement with Congress,” Hillson added.

Completion of the 2013 defense bills has been put off and, before recessing for the elections, the House and Senate each approved a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government running for six months through March 31. The CR does not specifically address individual ship deactivations.

In addition to the four ships, three more cruisers and two amphibious ships are scheduled to be decommissioned in 2014. The new agreement does not address the 2014 ships.

In the markups for their 2013 defense bills, three of the defense committees offer variations on a plan to keep the ships running.

The House Armed Services Committee prohibits early retirement of six of the cruisers and the two amphibious ships. The exception is the Port Royal, heavily damaged after grounding in Hawaii in early 2009 and, despite expensive repairs, still experiencing problems.

The House Appropriations Committee provided funding to keep in service three of the cruisers scheduled to decommission in March.

The Senate Appropriations Committee funds all four cruisers through 2013.

Only the Senate Armed Services Committee is silent on the issue — by implication not objecting to the early retirements.

Each of the cruisers has a crew of about 350 sailors. News that the ships will be kept in service will affect numerous individual personnel assignments.

The Cowpens, based in Japan, is currently underway in the Western Pacific.

The Norfolk-based Anzio is taking part in an international exercise in the Caribbean, while the Mayport-based Vicksburg is escorting the aircraft carrier Enterprise deployed around the Arabian Sea.

The Port Royal is believed to be at her homeport of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Carrier Work Continues
Congress and the Navy have also agreed on a measure to avoid a serious funding problem caused by the lack of a regular budget that could have caused work on one aircraft carrier to come to a halt and prevented work beginning on another.

At issue was the refueling overhaul of the carrier Theodore Roosevelt. The ship is now in the later stages of a three-and-a-half-year nuclear refueling overhaul at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia. Without congressional approval for extra money to complete the work, funds would run out around mid-January for a job that will take until June to finish.

The next carrier to be refueled, the Abraham Lincoln, already has arrived in Virginia from her West Coast base, and her overhaul is to begin with fiscal 2013 funds.

But before adjourning for recess, Congress approved a Sept. 18 Navy reprogramming request, allocating $219.1 million for the two carrier overhauls along with some other work.

“With Congress’ assistance, we have sufficient funding to keep the aircraft carrier refueling overhaul program for USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) on track through the completion of the six-month CR period,” Hillson said.

According to a Congressional source, the reprogramming request included $68 million for the Roosevelt and $96.1 million to get the Lincoln overhaul started.

Another $55 million has been re-allocated to the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program to cover increased labor and overhead costs.

Congress agreed to the requirement for the additional destroyer program funds in the 2012 omnibus funding bill, but did not provide money for the program.

The funds for the programming, the Congressional source said, came from personnel accounts where budgeting assumptions “turned out to be lower than budgeted for.”

The accounts funding the $219.1 million reprogramming are Military Personnel Navy ($138.1 million), Military Personnel Marine Corps ($70 million) and Military Personnel Marine Reserve Corps ($11 million).

No programs are being reduced because of the reprogramming moves, the Congressional source said.

USS Cowpens (CG-63) launching two Standard SM-2 missiles simultaneously during exercises last week in the Western Pacific.

[zraver]

You haven't given a reason on why we need to patrol the worlds oceans all the time.

What is the threat? Where does it come from? The worlds major trade routes are secure. The countries around those choke points conduct anti piracy patrols with their own navies. If the situation becomes serious, like off Somalia, then we need to deploy.

Right now China is at the center of 2 possible flashpoints- the Spratlys and Japan. China doesn't have our number of destroyers and no cruisers but has a lot of land based air and a large force of submarines and missile boats.

Iran is another hot spot, while Iran's surface navy in terms of conventional ships is an absolute joke, in terms of missile boats and boghammers it is a credible threat.

Egypt, while likely not a direct threat, the MB's control of the country poses a serious threat to our ability to shuttle forces around using the Suez. This means either longer response times, or that we have to keep more assets at sea closer to potential hot spots.

Pakistan, that nutjob country's coast line has a huge percentage of the worlds shipping passing just off shore. A Indo-Pak war or a Jihadi Pakistan are both threats to that shipping.

Drug cartels and Pirates, the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, west coast of South/Central America, Indian Ocean off the coast of East Africa and the Straits of Malacca are all hubs of maritime organized crime.

Levant and North Africa, no real threats there right now, but in an unstable region we need to be able to respond quickly and effectively.

[JRT]

You haven't given a reason on why we need to patrol the worlds oceans all the time.

What is the threat? Where does it come from? The worlds major trade routes are secure. The countries around those choke points conduct anti piracy patrols with their own navies. If the situation becomes serious, like off Somalia, then we need to deploy.

Neither the Russian nor the Chinese Navies have blue water Navies.

For reasons of strategy, not tactics.

If you leave a power vacuum, then someone aggressive will not only fill it, but will also likely continue to push boundaries.

You are far more likely to have to engage in naval warfare when you provide incentive for someone else to develop a navy.