Aegis Cruiser Sunk as Target

[Bort]

This seems stupid and wasteful to me:
USS Valley Forge Sunk off Hawaii (http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2366000.php)
The four Aegis cruisers decommisioned in the last few years, largely because they have Mk.26 Missile launchers and not VLS, still have plenty of life left in them and are some of the worlds most fearsome surface combatants. If the US doesn't want them, they would make a great flagship for a smaller allied Navy, not to mention their value as reserve assets for the USN. What a waste.:nope:
This sort of thing has been happening alot more of late, and it is getting really disturbing.:huh:

[sonar732]

I think it would be better to see them as a museum w/o all the AEGIS stuff on them. That way, the groups who take a ship under their umbrella don't have to spend so much on makin' them look pretty. :up:

[Perilscope]

LOL, we need more corals nowadays! :D

[Kapitan]

Each year america's buget keeps getting smaller and smaller so far alot of 688's have been decomissioned early simply because the navy cant afford to refuel them.

[Sea Demon]

Each year america's buget keeps getting smaller and smaller so far alot of 688's have been decomissioned early simply because the navy cant afford to refuel them.

What kind of trash talk is this? Can you provide a link or source to prove your assertions?

[Takeda Shingen]

It seems silly to use a Tico for very, very expensive target practice. The Valley Forge was still a very capable ship with a very specific and relevant mission.

[Kapitan]

Sure CNN CNBC ABC most news networks that have reported on the issue not only that FAS.org bellona has had a report out.

and all the subs that have already been de commed from service quote" USS Portsmouth SSN 707 was taken out of service earlier this month as she was due for refueling but the current cost doesnt warrent her to have her core re fueled"

Not to menion the USS Honalulu SSN 718 USS Cincinati USS birmingham the list goes on for the 688

Due to the expence of refueling the USN seeing them as not cost effective to maintain them, 10 virginias are on order to replace the remaining 42 los angeles class, most of the 688's that have been decomissioned are only 18 to 22 years old thier lives were designed for at least 25 to 30 years so this is early retirment

[Takeda Shingen]

Sure CNN CNBC ABC most news networks that have reported on the issue not only that FAS.org bellona has had a report out.

and all the subs that have already been de commed from service quote" USS Portsmouth SSN 707 was taken out of service earlier this month as she was due for refueling but the current cost doesnt warrent her to have her core re fueled"

Not to menion the USS Honalulu SSN 718 USS Cincinati USS birmingham the list goes on for the 688

Due to the expence of refueling the USN seeing them as not cost effective to maintain them, 10 virginias are on order to replace the remaining 42 los angeles class, most of the 688's that have been decomissioned are only 18 to 22 years old thier lives were designed for at least 25 to 30 years so this is early retirment

Ticos run on gas turbines.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Ticos run on gas turbines.

He's working on the Subs Being Decomissioned Due to Lack of Fuel tangent.

Anyway, you are right. For example, they could lease them to South Korea, who are about building their KDX-III destroyers, so they are already "security-cleared" for Aegis. The ship will be a massive increase in capability (and thus complexity) over their KDX-II counterparts. While Valley Forge's Aegis is an earlier Baseline, it would surely be valuable as a interim training vessel to help the South Korens bridge the gap.

[GrayFox]

Guys, i think its a total waste, and yes the budget for the military is lowering. The US hasnt had any major naval combat since WWII. We dont have the need for 10 fast attack carriers anymore, or many battleships. For this reason they have cut the navys budget.

Now personally, Thought i hope this never happers, with the huge cutback on the budget, we have less personell, less ships, basically less fighting power. If we are in need of another carrier or submarine, we wont have many and our forces will be spread all to crap. Though we dont have the numbers, but better trained men and women, we still need reinforcments to back up the people on the front lines.

Though the 688Is are getting old, they can still be used.Training purposes is what comes to mind first, and it would be better on the ship instead of sitting at the dock, or like above with the Aegis and sink them like the Russians did with so many of their subs.

Basically we dont need as many ships as we did in WWII, but we still need enough ocean power to stop a threat to the country.

[Kapitan]

The USN buget has gone down by 25% over the last 15 years which means theres just enough to support what they got now and only just, so to save some money they git rid of the less capible units and bring in the more capible units ie the virginia's however i doubt the virginias will ever match the numbers of the 688 theres simply no need for a 65 strong fast attack fleet any more.

Right now america has only 45 at the most attack submarines russia has 48 both diesel and nuclear she too is down sizing to around 30.

Why do you need 65 attack submarines when the wars of today are fought by aircraft and men on the ground it seems a big waste of money to keep all thess obsolete submarines in service to provide cover, the SSN744's are fully capible of carrier battle group cover single handedly so are the seawolfs it makes more sence to reduce the fleet and concentrate on the area that does need the attention which is the newer carriers and destroyers and aircraft not to mention auxilaries mine warfare ships and patrol craft these are the ships that will be most needed in the future.

If iran mines the straight of hormuz its not going to be a submarine thats going to clear a path it will be the smaller mine warfare vessels however most of americas mine warfare vessels are nearing 20 or have gone over 20 years old they are pretty out of date they are in need of replacing.

Britiain maintains 22 mine warfare vessels that also double up as coastal patrol craft why because they can see that mine warfare is a very nessasery ship to have in a navy every one else has seemed to shun them even russia china france germany america and a fair few others.

So what do you do with the older less capible units you get rid then make way for the new but at the moment its 4x688's for 1x SSN744

[Kapitan]

The tico being sunk in question is not as capible as the newer tico's also these ticos are older than the modern ones port royal is what 10 years old i dont see america wanting to replace them for atleast another 30 years the carriers are to last 52 years the ohios 42 years each so they are building less units but they are making them last and they also build "future safe" vessles so in the future they can be changed to what the navy needs.

personaly i find that the units that waste the most money at the moment are

The origional 688's
The perry class FFG they need replacing by more capible modern ships
All the mine hunter force its not as capible as it should be it could be better
Auxilaries definatly need replacing most are 1970's 80's vintage
The spruance DD's are wasting money they have 31 Burkes and more building

[Takeda Shingen]

Ticos run on gas turbines.

He's working on the Subs Being Decomissioned Due to Lack of Fuel tangent.

This thread is about the sinking of the USS Valley Forge (CG 50) on 2 November. The decomissioning and handling of SSNs is a completely seperate matter, largely due to the fact that handling radioactive material is a lengthy and expensive process. As such, the two items cannot be adequately compared.

[Kapitan]

If the USN inserted a plug and gave them a VLS bank they would be upto date modern CG's simply because they dont have VLS they are seen as a burden and its too expencive to convert the now ageing hulls as the life they have left is short so whats the point of keeping an obsolete unit in service if you can do little with it? its a bit like the perrys

[Takeda Shingen]

If the USN inserted a plug and gave them a VLS bank they would be upto date modern CG's simply because they dont have VLS they are seen as a burden and its too expencive to convert the now ageing hulls as the life they have left is short so whats the point of keeping an obsolete unit in service if you can do little with it? its a bit like the perrys

That would probably be less expensive than cleaning up a decommissioned SSN.

[Kapitan]

It would be but what you rather spend your money on an old unit that has 20 years or so behind it and is ageing has about 10 years left on its clock or a brand new unit which has more capibility and a good 30 to 40 years life span in it?

Seems that the americans are taking the replace old with new route.

[Takeda Shingen]

It would be but what you rather spend your money on an old unit that has 20 years or so behind it and is ageing has about 10 years left on its clock or a brand new unit which has more capibility and a good 30 to 40 years life span in it?

Seems that the americans are taking the replace old with new route.

But the Ticos are not being replaced. In fact, the article stated that there were no plans to scrap the others. Not upgrading Valley Forge seems to be a waste to me.

[Kapitan]

If they upgraded the lot of them it wouldnt be a waste no quite right i know they are not going to replace them ive crossed the lines again but the ones that have been paid off have only got 10 years hull life left anyway there are more capible ticos out there, some one like South Korea or Australia or Canada might benefit from them but the USN wont get much out of them.

Theres always a good reason to get rid of ships sometimes its just the cost of crewing them not the acctual vessel.

Personaly i think the USN over crews its ships and submarines it could do the same with less people and it would save a fair bit of money with it.

[Takeda Shingen]

If they upgraded the lot of them it wouldnt be a waste no quite right i know they are not going to replace them ive crossed the lines again but the ones that have been paid off have only got 10 years hull life left anyway there are more capible ticos out there, some one like South Korea or Australia or Canada might benefit from them but the USN wont get much out of them.

Bingo.

[Kapitan]

LOL got there in the end thats what ive been trying to say for a while you best thank my girl friend for that she is the one who broke it all down into tiny simpleton chunks and explained it too me with thanks to her doodleing :D

[bookworm_020]

If they upgraded the lot of them it wouldnt be a waste no quite right i know they are not going to replace them ive crossed the lines again but the ones that have been paid off have only got 10 years hull life left anyway there are more capible ticos out there, some one like South Korea or Australia or Canada might benefit from them but the USN wont get much out of them.

Australia looked at buying a second hand Tico or a New Burke, but found they were too big and would cost too much maintain. Austalia is now going to build a Aegis destroyer (smaller than the burke).

The Sprunce Destroyers no one wanted as they cost a lot to run and maintain, as well as a large crew, compared to newer designs.

[em2nought]

Whoa, expensive target for sure. Newer than anything I ever set foot on from '86 to '92. Might as well have sold it to the Chinese, "we" probably let them steal all the tech already anyway. :damn:

[Konovalov]

Australia should have made an offer for one if they were going cheap. If we have plans to purchase a carrier of some description in the future then we must invest in an Aegis ship of some type. At present we really don't have much an air defence umbrella for our navy. :down:

Edit: I wasn't aware of the news that bookworm_020 posted above of Australia building it's own smaller Aegis destroyer. About time is all I can say. :yep:

[SkvyWvr]

I commissioned the Ticonderoga and spent 5 years aboard her. When they came out with the first VLS ships there was alot of talk and even some planning to convert her during her first major overhaul. It wasn't as simple as dropping a box in. It would have involved and entire gutting and reconfiguration of several lower decks. The project would have involved a 3 year overhaul. It was more cost effective to build a replacement which could serve for another 30 years than to retro fit the 4 lead ships for only 20 years of service.

[wound]

heh I know this is an old old thread, but I just happened to run into it googleing my ships name and thought I'd throw a reply out there to you all.

I served aboard the valley forge from 94 to 98.

I'm pretty amazed at some of the commments in this thread as some of them are spot on, almost too spot on haha.

The lack of a VLS system was the real nail in the coffin for the valley girl. As was also mentioned her spy and sonar arrays were early models and not up to date.

She would have been relegated to crack pacs and UN sanctions bording duties if she was kept in commission. Her ability to act in her original capacity as an anti-air platform was still somewhat viable but because she lacked the latest spy and VLS systems it pretty much put her miles behind the capabilities of the latest tyco's. The lack of flexiblity and the cost of operations (at least in my opinion) justified taking her off line.

The way they did it though seems like a waste to me. I put a lot of blood in to that hunk of steel and to think it was used as target practice makes me snicker and cry at the same time.

4 years of your life tied to a ship tends to create a bond that never quite leaves you no matter how old you get hehe.

[baggygreen]

some one like South Korea or Australia or Canada might benefit from them but the USN wont get much out of them.


We're already buying a couple, but i believe that they're a hell of a lot older than valley forge!

going slightly OT, as far as the decommissioning and downsizing of the attack sub fleet goes its silly when you get nations such as china, india, pakistan hell even indonesia massively upgrading and increasing their fleets. sure they're not needed right now, but in 5 or 10 years, they will be again! and lets face it, later model 688is and whatnot extend the potential threat. They can keep capital ships in harbour for fear of being sunk by an unseen, unheard adversary - and as subsim members, we all know how seriously good an asset that is!

[SUBMAN1]

Smaller faster cheaper - THis all rings of Rumsfelds idea of the future military, and one that I think is of flawed logic. The new Defense secretary doesn't follow this flawed logic, and yes we need more subs.

-S

[bookworm_020]

The sub issue for Australia is one that's causing some worry for Australia. Quite a few countries in the region are buying sub's and new equipment. China is part of the reason, as it's doing such a big upgrade and expansion program, other nations seem compeled to boost there spending. The other part of the equasion is the boom in Asia is give the chance to many nations to upgrade old equipment and expand there presence.