7 US Navy Cruisers to be Decommissioned.

[The Skipper]

The last 2 posts have summed it up very nicely. The military is indeed for the defense of the United States, and the huge budget deficit is due, at least in part, to the politicians mis-using it to interfere in other countries (probably to secure cheap oil). HOWEVER none of this justifies cutting it. The only way to deter foreign aggression is to maintain a substantially larger and better- equipped military than everyone else. The British made this mistake in 1982, when the Thatcher government made major cuts to the military, in order to cut the budget deficit. This prompted the Argentinians to invade the Falkland Islands, with the loss of 256 British lives. Unfortunately, many politicians seem to think that the military can be cut in peacetime, when, in fact, it is a strong military which guarantees peace. Remember Ronald Reagan's motto: 'Peace through strength'.

[BlackBat242]

Considering that the USN is larger (in ships above 1,500 tons) than the next-largest 3 (or 4) navies combined, I think there is room for some re-adjustment of numbers, don't you?

Even the British Empire only maintained a superiority over the next 2 largest navies... and then only for a couple of decades!

[The Skipper]

So America cuts its Navy down, while China builds hers up. Not very clever. We will all regret it, if China, with its communist regime, overtakes America as the World's dominant military nation.

[BlackBat242]

That would take a long time, and both a lot of cutting by the US and a lot of building by China.

Yes, China has to be the US' biggest long-term concern (in terms of national military strength), but the situation does not require panic or over-reaction.

[Don Boyer]

It's a repititive cycle in about every country of the modern world.

Got those nasty wolves with bared dripping fangs at the door that could take your relatively benign and peaceful lifestyle or your life away?? Clamor for military action! Save us, oh mighty warriors, from probably what was our folly to begin with!! Three cheers for our valiant men and women of the military -- lets throw a parade!

And, should yon peaceful citizens be blessed with their valiant warrior's victory on the fields of glory?? Oh -- we don't need YOU anymore. You are too expensive to maintain now that everything is hunky dory -- you take money away from important things like the greedy and avaricious pursuit of profits and privilege at all costs. We're cutting your weapons and pay and benefits because you're a drag on the economy and there's no war on anyway.

Funny, are those wolves I see on the horizon? And are they headed this way??

[WGVSr]

Originally Posted by Don Boyer

It's a repititive cycle in about every country of the modern world.

Got those nasty wolves with bared dripping fangs at the door that could take your relatively benign and peaceful lifestyle or your life away?? Clamor for military action! Save us, oh mighty warriors, from probably what was our folly to begin with!! Three cheers for our valiant men and women of the military -- lets throw a parade!

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll

Bill

[designeraccd]

Guess I missed out on the parade when I returned to CONUS from Viet Nam. As for the rest (posts #30 and #31): oh so true! One "good" thing about humans...we never learn.

The next time tho, the West will not have the luxury of time and infrastructure to rapidly build a massive war machine, but let's not worry about that minor detail those progressive social programs need "feeding".......DFO

[Surfgun]

The cruiser Vicksburg has deployed for her final cruise.


By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Nick C. Scott, Enterprise Carrier Strike Group Public Affairs

USS VICKSBURG, At Sea (NNS) -- Guided-missile cruiser USS Vicksburg (CG 69) departed its homeport of Mayport, Fla., March 9 to make its final deployment, this time as part of the Enterprise Carrier Strike Group.

Family members, friends and well-wishers gathered on the pier in the early morning hours to bid farewell to loved ones and wish them good luck.

"This is the first time I've deployed," said Cryptologic Technician (Technical) 3rd Class Ronnie Mathis temporarily assigned to Vicksburg from the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71).

"It was difficult to leave my six-week old daughter and wife behind, but the crew is really nice and is helping me get through it," said Mathis.

Deploying can be challenging for a lot of Sailors, even seasoned veterans who still must make sure all affairs ashore are in order.

"It doesn't really get any easier," said Navy Counselor 1st Class Brian S. Olinger, the career counselor aboard Vicksburg. "I've been in the Navy for 19 years and this is my fifth and final sea deployment. No one wants to leave their loved ones behind, but we have a mission."

This deployment marks the end of Vicksburg's 20 years of service since its commissioning in 1992.

"The mission must come first, the mission is why we are here in the first place," said Ensign Michael E. Fitzpatrick, first lieutenant for Vicksburg. "The crew understands that and they are very professional."

Although this is the last deployment for Vicksburg, mission readiness is still the key to success.

"We must not view this deployment in terms of being the last deployment," said Capt. Logan Jones, commanding officer of Vicksburg. "We are not looking for any final glory."

Jones also said that "at the end of the day we know that we will have served with honor, but we must not react differently than we normally would in any given situation."

Vicksburg's commanding officer is just one of the ship's crew looking forward to completing a successful deployment as part of the Enterprise Carrier Strike Group team.

"I look forward to a deployment of working with maritime partners, flying missions and providing security," said Jones. "My job is to leave with 370 Sailors and return with 370 Sailors and that is what I intend to do."

Vicksburg is scheduled to decommission in 2013.

The Enterprise Carrier Strike Group is comprised of Enterprise, Carrier Air Wing 1, Destroyer Squadron 2, Vicksburg (CG 69), and guided-missile destroyers USS Porter (DDG 78), USS Nitze (DDG 94), and USS James E. Williams (DDG 95).

[Surfgun]

An update with the vessels to be decommissioned in fiscal year 2013.

11 ships to be decommissioned in fiscal 2013
By Jacqueline Klimas - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Mar 14, 2012 16:53:59 EDT
Six frigates, four cruisers and an aircraft carrier are set to be decommissioned during fiscal 2013, according to a Navy message released Monday.

NAVADMIN 087/12, released by Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Vice Adm. John Blake, includes deactivation dates and the fates of the ships. The six frigates will be sold to foreign militaries, while the four cruisers will be dismantled.

Enterprise, the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the oldest active-duty warship in the fleet, will move to a shipyard March 15, 2013. There, it will await a date for decommissioning.

Enterprise left on its final deployment Sunday.

FISCAL 2013 DECOMMISSIONING SCHEDULE
Oct. 31: frigate Crommelin.

Feb. 15: frigate Underwood.

Feb. 27: frigate Curts.

March 15: carrier Enterprise and frigate Carr.

March 22: frigate Klakring.

March 31: cruisers Cowpens, Anzio, Vicksburg and Port Royal.

Aug. 30: frigate Reuben James.

[WGVSr]

Originally Posted by Surfgun

An update with the vessels to be decommissioned in fiscal year 2013.


Aug. 30: frigate Reuben James.

Yet another proud name to be gone.
Bill

[designeraccd]

Further clarification from USN:



2. THE PROJECTED FY13 SHIP INACTIVATION SCHEDULE FOR INACTIVATING U.S. NAVAL VESSELS IS PROMULGATED AS FOLLOWS TO FACILITATE FLEET PLANNING EFFORTS TO CONDUCT A DECOMMISSIONING CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE AVAILABILITY (CMAV) OR INACTIVATION AVAILABILITY (INAC):

SHIP NAME INACTIVATION POST DECOM STATUS
USS CROMMELIN (FFG 37) 31 OCT 2012 SEE NOTE 1
USS UNDERWOOD (FFG 36) 15 FEB 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS CURTS (FFG 38) 27 FEB 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS CARR (FFG 52) 15 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) 15 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 2
USS KLAKRING (FFG 42) 22 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS REUBEN JAMES (FFG 57) 30 AUG 2013 SEE NOTE 1
USS COWPENS (CG 63) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3
USS ANZIO (CG 68) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3
USS VICKSBURG (CG 69) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3
USS PORT ROYAL (CG 73) 31 MAR 2013 SEE NOTE 3

NOTE 1: VESSEL IS DESIGNATED FOR FOREIGN MILITARY SALE (FMS). PER REF A, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NON-TRANSFERRABLE TECHNOLOGY IDENTIFIED BY NAVSEA AND NAVY IPO UNDER SEPCOR, NO ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT REMOVALS ARE AUTHORIZED ON THE FRIGATES EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY OPNAV N8F IN RESPONSE TO A RECORD MESSAGE REQUEST THAT INCLUDES JUSTIFICATION FOR REMOVAL AND INCLUDES COORDINATION VIA THE APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS COMMAND. TYCOMS ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS DIRECTION. PER REFS A AND B, IT IS NAVY POLICY THAT SHIPS DESIGNATED FOR FMS TRANSFER SHALL NOT BE STRIPPED. STRIPPING OF SHIPS PROVIDES DIMINISHED OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY TO MARITIME PARTNERS AND CORRODES OUR EFFORTS TO BUILD MARITIME PARTNER CAPACITY. SEE PARAGRAPH 3 FOR ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT REMOVAL GUIDANCE.

NOTE 2: DATE INACTIVATION BEGINS IN A NAVAL SHIPYARD AND THE UNIT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR OPERATIONAL TASKING. FINAL DECOMMISSIONING DATE SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE CNO AND NVR CUSTODIAN IAW REFS B AND C.

NOTE 3: VESSEL WILL BE DECOMMISSIONED AND DISPOSED OF BY DISMANTLEMENT. REQUEST USFFC AND CPF COORDINATE REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILIZING VESSELS IN A LOGISTIC SUPPORT STATUS PRIOR TO THEIR DISMANTLEMENT WITH OPNAV N8F VIA N86.

3. AN OPNAV WORKING GROUP WILL BE REVIEWING THE LOGISTICAL NEEDS OF THE NAVY AND THE CAPABILITY NEEDS OF OUR MARITIME PARTNERS. FLEET REPS, PROGRAM OFFICES, AND FMS STAKEHOLDERS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUSTIFY THEIR REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT REMOVALS AND EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO MITIGATE IMPACT TO FLEET AND INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS AS PART OF THAT REVIEW. DETAILS OF THE WORKING GROUP FORUM WILL BE PROVIDED VIA SEPCOR.


Looks like the "cruisers" will be rapidly put to the cutting torch.......DFO

[designeraccd]

More on the "cruisers":

"•USS Cowpens (CG 63) will be 24 years old at retirement. She is currently homeported in Yokosuka, Japan and should still have at least 11 good years in her. The ship was in a Selected Restricted Availability (SRA) maintenance period last month, and fields the AN/SPY-1B radar capable of being upgraded to the latest AEGIS ballistic missile defense baselines with the Cruiser modernization program.
•USS Anzio (CG 68) will be around 22.4 years old at retirement. She is currently homeported in Norfolk, Virginia and should still have at least 13 good years in her. Also fielding the AN/SPY-1B radar, the ship was expected to be upgraded to a ballistic missile defense cruiser with the cruiser modernization program.
•USS Vicksburg (CG 69) will be around 21.6 years old at retirement. She is currently homeported in Mayport, Florida and should still have at least 14 good years in her. USS Vicksburg (CG 69) departed with the USS Enterprise Strike Group this week on what is scheduled to be her last deployment. Also fielding the AN/SPY-1B radar, the ship was expected to be upgraded to a ballistic missile defense cruiser with the cruiser modernization program.

•USS Port Royal (CG 73) will be around 20.3 years old at retirement. She is currently homeported in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and should still have at least 15 good years in her. USS Port Royal (CG 73) ran aground in February 2009 and a great deal of money was spent repairing the ship over 7 months from the damage of that incident, and an additional $14 million was spent at the end of 2010 repairing cracks found in the ships hull. It is unclear if the ship is still suffering from serious problems related to that grounding incident, or simply a product of poor maintenance by the Navy. USS Port Royal (CG 73) is one of a handful of existing US Navy AEGIS Cruisers with Ballistic Missile Defense capability.
In my opinion, unless there are serious undisclosed material condition problems on (Port Royal?) these ships, this is a Bullshit Popsicle. The over 500 VLS cell missile capacity of these 4 warships exceed the combined missile capacity of the Royal Navy, the French Navy, the Italian Navy, the Spanish Navy, the Dutch Navy, the German Navy, the Turkish Navy, or the Danish Navy. These four ships are about equal in total missile capacity to the existing surface combatant force of the Royal Navy today."

Brilliant isn't it? However, those obama social programs must be paid for and who better to "CONTRIBUTE" than US Military, especially the Navy? DFO

[Alex Mandel]

Designeraccd, thank you for your information. And, I totally agree with your points... with every word.
In June 2011 I was aboard the USS Anzio and it looked like the ship is in a great shape, and her CO and crew were proud of her. So what happens is just a shame...
Still, it seems to me there's still some hope (if even small one). As we can see these decommissioning dates are scheduled for a period after January 2013 - i.e. after the date of inauguration of the new President, if the current President will not be re-elected.
So if this will happen and if the new leaders will be more attentive to the needs of national defense, they will have some time to stop this nonsense... if they will want, it will not take too much time, there's nothing impossible in it. Remember, the USS Ponce was recently saved virtually in the last moment! As far as I remember Romney strongly criticized the weakening tendencies about the US Navy a couple months ago and promised (if being elected) to reverse this trend, and particularly to increase the new shipbuilding orders up to 15 new ships yearly.

[designeraccd]

Now that is indeed real HOPE for worthy CHANGE!!: "i.e. after the date of inauguration of the new President, if the current President will not be re-elected."
DFO

[Alex Mandel]

Originally Posted by designeraccd

Now that is indeed real HOPE for worthy CHANGE!!: "i.e. after the date of inauguration of the new President, if the current President will not be re-elected."
DFO

Sounds like a ray of Hope maybe?

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/0...nding-031912w/

[The Skipper]

Originally Posted by designeraccd

Now that is indeed real HOPE for worthy CHANGE!!: "i.e. after the date of inauguration of the new President, if the current President will not be re-elected."
DFO

So Mitt Romney says that he will reverse the decline of the Navy. Brilliant. Mitt for President!

Also I am confused when I hear that six more Perry class frigates are being sold overseas; I had read that the remaining Perrys were being refitted to remain in service indefinitely, and that the refits would include installing a 25-mm gun on the foredeck where the Standard missile launcher used to be. Can anyone clarify what is going on here.

[CGRET]

The current budget cuts in the US Armed Forces are sadly the end result of the last sitting president, NOT the current. We spend more time playing the blame game with the current president. And yet no one is willing to do the research to verify or even understand how US ended up in this economic crisis. It appears to me that the current president is an easy target.

Also lets look at the historical facts behind running up the deficit in the US, who among our US colleague can answer this question:

Which President run the national deficit up to almost 100%?

And it's not the current President.

Regards
Charles

[Surfgun]

True, if one plays the game of percentages. The current President did in three years what the last one took eight (in deficit dollars spent and this one is just getting warmed up).
We went from the frying pan, and straight into the fire.

[designeraccd]

An astute, accurate and succinct observation: "The current President did in three years what the last one took eight (in deficit dollars spent and this one is just getting warmed up).
We went from the frying pan, and straight into the fire."

Meanwhile the USN (and the other Services) suffer to help pay the bill for dear leader's socialist agenda. However, from what I've gleaned, despite pouring major money into "repairing" the PORT ROYAL after her Pearl Harbor grounding, the ship is basically a floating junk pile not worth "saving". DFO

[CGRET]

Yes, it is fair opinion on the current president.

Now let's look back in time which President had the Iowa Class brought back into service?

Once you answer the above question then you will see who holds the record for Deficit spending. This is documented as far which President had the most deficit spending during there term/s in office.

Moreover this is off topic, SORRY!

Regards
Charles

[Brian Wentzell]

The US Navy Shipbuilding Report of 28 March 2012 indicates that the 7 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers will be placed "Out of Commission In Reserve" and not dismantled as previously reported. It will be interesting to see how long they remain in that state in view of the ever increasing obsolescence that occurs in our high technology world. At least ships with considerable hull life remaining are not prematurely discarded.

The two Whidbey Island Class LSD's and USS Peleliu (LHA 5) will be placed in reserve as well. This action would seem reasonable to preserve a mobilization base for the Marines.

Brian

[BlackBat242]

More likely spare parts reserve, unless war with Iran (or China) comes soon.

[The Skipper]

Originally Posted by Surfgun

True, if one plays the game of percentages. The current President did in three years what the last one took eight (in deficit dollars spent and this one is just getting warmed up).
We went from the frying pan, and straight into the fire.

As my knowledge of budgetary matters is far less than my knowledge of naval matters, could anyone please tell me the last time that Congress actually passed a balanced budget?

It seems to me, that the more the government borrows, the greater the percentage of tax revenue spent on debt repayment; therefore, if the government continues to borrow more money every year, eventually 100% of its annual revenue will be spent on debt repayment and there will be nothing left to fund essential services. Britain is experiencing such a situation at present; she hs no navy left of which to speak, and is also making major cuts to fire and police departments. Allegedly, 67% of all taxes raised in Britain are spent on debt repayment, and I have also heard that the British government repays to the banks, every day of the year, enough money to build an aircraft carrier.

[CGRET]

Just in case no one got the answer to my question the President in question was Ronald Reagan, his deficit spending was 110%.


Just some information most are unaware.

Regards
Charles

[WGVSr]

Originally Posted by The Skipper

As my knowledge of budgetary matters is far less than my knowledge of naval matters, could anyone please tell me the last time that Congress actually passed a balanced budget?

It seems to me, that the more the government borrows, the greater the percentage of tax revenue spent on debt repayment; therefore, if the government continues to borrow more money every year, eventually 100% of its annual revenue will be spent on debt repayment and there will be nothing left to fund essential services. Britain is experiencing such a situation at present; she hs no navy left of which to speak, and is also making major cuts to fire and police departments. Allegedly, 67% of all taxes raised in Britain are spent on debt repayment, and I have also heard that the British government repays to the banks, every day of the year, enough money to build an aircraft carrier.

Seems like one of Clinton's was 'called' a balanced budget, although I had my doubts at the time. I think the last official balanced budgets were in the Eisenhower years [56 and/or 57 ?].
Bill