Home » Budget Industry » Navy Continues Advocating Cruiser Modernization Plan Despite Previous Rejections in Congress


Navy Continues Advocating Cruiser Modernization Plan Despite Previous Rejections in Congress

The Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Vicksburg (CG 69) transits the Strait of Gibraltar on March 31, 2015, as part of the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group. US Navy photo.

The Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Vicksburg (CG 69) transits the Strait of Gibraltar on March 31, 2015, as part of the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group. US Navy photo.

Navy leadership is continuing to push for its preferred guided missile cruiser modernization plan — which would put 11 of the 22 CGs in reduced operating status until the other 11 near retirement — despite Congress rejecting the plan during last year’s budget negotiations.

When Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert went to Congress last month to explain the Navy’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2016, his written testimony included, “we request Congressional support for Navy’s original plan” to remove 11 cruisers from active status.

However, lawmakers made their opinion clear last year: a Navy struggling to reach even 300 ships — compared to the famed 600-ship Navy of the 1980s — should not voluntarily take 11 ships out of the fleet. Combatant commander demand far outpaces the Navy’s ability to generate ready ships and crews, and Congress told the Navy it could not let 11 Ticonderoga-class cruisers sit pier-side instead of contributing to training and deployments.

A Navy official explained that, even though the Navy has begun implementing Congress’s plan – the 2/4/6 plan, which mandates that two ships go into modernization at a time, with the work lasting no more than four years, and no more than six ships in maintenance at any given time – it still isn’t too late for Congress to let the Navy change course.

“Our [2015 president’s budget request] plan to modernize 11 CGs over a phased modernization period provides the most flexibility and longevity for our cruiser fleet, especially during a fiscally constrained budget environment,” the Navy official told USNI News.
“While we are following what’s written in legislation, it is important to continue the conversation on cruiser modernization to ensure that we are maximizing efforts and resources to retain this air warfare capability in the long term.”

The Navy projects that it would have saved $4.4 billion over a five year period if it had been allowed to proceed with its plan last year instead of switching to Congress’s 2/4/6 plan, the official said. The savings come partly from not having to pay for manpower and operations costs while the ships are in reduced status, and partly from being able to defer the purchase of combat systems and other equipment – which could be bought in bulk several years down the road under the Navy’s original plan, instead of two at a time beginning immediately under Congress’s plan.

Those savings would be slightly smaller if Congress reversed its decision and supported the Navy’s plan this year, and even smaller next year – but Navy leadership still sees the benefit in keeping the discussion going.

Even if sequestration weren’t a factor, the Navy would still be facing a problematic shipbuilding budget. As the Ohio Replacement Program moves closer to construction, it is forcing other priorities out of the budget plans. The Navy already decided to cancel ballistic missile defense (BMD) upgrades for five destroyers, despite BMD ships being a top combatant commander request.

Greenert wrote in his testimony to Congress that the 11 cruisers must go through phased modernization to increase their capability and extend their service lives to “maintain force structure that provides Air Defense Commander support to the CSGs [carrier strike groups].”

The air defense commander oversees and coordinates the aerial protection of the entire CSG.

“Without any phased modernization program, the CG class will retire, without replacement, at the end of their service lives between 2020 and 2030,” the admiral wrote.

“Using the Congressionally directed 2/4/6 plan, the final retirements will occur between 2036 and 2039. Under the Navy’s original PB-15 plan, the final CG retirement would have occurred in 2045, at a significantly reduced cost to the Navy, and would have relieved pressure on a shipbuilding account largely consumed in the 2030s with building Ohio Replacement SSBNs and aircraft carriers.”

Both the Navy’s plan and Congress’s plan involve risk. Greenert is advocating taking risk now – in having only 11 active cruisers, one for each of the 11 CSGs, without any additional cruisers ready to take on solo missions or serve as a backup if one of the cruisers were rendered unfit for operations somehow. His plan reduces risk later on, though, by ensuring the cruiser fleet, though smaller, will be around longer, since it is unclear when the Navy will have money to begin a cruiser replacement program.

Congress’s plan, on the other hand, pushes the risk down the road. Lawmakers want to know that ships are available today if operations require additional warships. Their plan accepts risk in the late 2030s and early 2040s, when the current cruiser fleet will have used up all its service life and a replacement fleet may or may not be ready.

Greenert made clear in his written testimony that he will follow the law: “Navy will induct two Guided Missile Cruisers (CGs) into phased modernization in FY 2015 and an additional two in FY 2016. This will place a total of four ships in modernization with the intent that each ship period will be limited to four years,” he wrote, putting his budget request squarely in line with the 2/4/6 plan.

But his testimony also makes clear the discussion isn’t over.

  • Is the US Navy out of it’s Mind. We need cruisers for Ballistic missile defense and Air defense in the region

    • James B.

      We have plenty of destroyers, which have newer radars and enough missile space.

      • Jiesheng Li

        destroyers are good, cruisers are still the work horse of air defence and strike.

        • NavySubNuke

          Flight III Burke’s will be nearly the same tonnage and equipped with a better radar (AMDR aka SPY-6).
          The loss of VLS cells is of some concern (122 vs. 96 according to open source reporting) but not exactly a game changer given how few CGs we even have.

          • Jiesheng Li

            Flight II’s are nice but they still do not offer the C2 facilities that US cruisers have given.

          • PB

            I read where a cell can hold a quad pack of ESSM missiles.

          • Curtis Conway

            The new capability is in the upgrade package.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            According to NavySite, 48 less crew members (4 Officers and 44 Petty Officers/Enlisted). And “Boiler’s” removal, in favor of “All Electric Drive” propulsion system…

          • Secundius

            @ PB.

            Keep in mind, when the Spruance class Destroyer (1975) and the Oliver Hazard Perry class Fast Frigate (1977) were commissioned. There was no Harpoon, ASM system. Harpoon, wasn’t even operational until 1978…

      • Their is a difference between a cruiser and a destroyer

        • Curtis Conway

          Size & Mission. Capabilities are similar if not exactly the same, but capacity is different. Destroyers can stand in for a cruiser in a pinch. BUT, one sleeps nights better knowing the cruiser is there.

          • Then again, the Burkes are not Cruisers and they can’t act like a REAL Cruiser.

          • Secundius

            @ Nicky.

            Unfortunately, the Next Cruiser class Build is suppose to be until mid-2030’s, according to Defense Daily…

          • The Next Cruiser should evolve from the Tico with a mixture of the Burkes

          • Secundius

            @ Nicky.

            I think the Next Generation Cruiser should be New Everything, even using Newer Alloyed Metal Hull’s. Learn from the Past, but Build for the Future. Remember, the Tico’s are basically updated WW2 ship design’s. Considering it’s going to be at least 20-years before the NXGen. Cruiser comes on line, It gives us time to decide want we DON’T what her too be. You’ll be there to see her, I on the other hand, most probably won’t…

          • I think the Next gen Cruiser should follow the Linage of the Tico

          • Secundius

            @ Nicky.

            Now, Nicky please don’t have a “Kniption” after what I’m about to tell you. But, according to DID (Defense Industry Daily) dated 6 April 2015. DoD Procurement Chief Frank Kendall has been given the “Green Light” to share EMAL/AAG Aircraft Carrier Technology to the Indian Navy…

          • India’s carriers are an issue

          • Secundius

            @ Nicky.

            The DID article doesn’t mention Selling or Giving them the Technology, It just say Share…

          • I wonder what’s the worth of sharing EMALS to India

          • Secundius

            @ Nicky.

            If were sharing the information with India, What did we ask of them that was worth the price???

          • Curtis Conway

            Negative, the Arliegh Burkes are the new build, and the Aegis Cruisers were an extra heavy Spruance Destroyer hull. They both serve well at what they do. However, one tries very hard NOT ot send the cruisers above the Arctic Circle. They can go there, but they do not handle the heavy seas well. The Burke(s), with with the wider beam give them very good handling and survivability qualities in the heaviest weather. Trying to improve on heavy seas handling is why the DDG-1000s look the way they do with the Tumble Hull Bow. I await anxiously for the first deployment assessments from it going above the Arctic Circle. Perhaps a coast change across the Northern Passage in the mid to late summer.

            If risk and cost is the issue, then a double-ender (two gun) stretched Burke. They will probably be railguns & Directed Energy at that point anyway. Lowest Risk with the greatest bang for the buck.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            All I suggested was a new design, I never even mentioned a Tumblehome design.

          • Curtis Conway

            And . . . all I’m saying is the DDG-51 design was developed specifically to provide sustained engagement capability, good sea-keeping even in the Northern Latitudes, particularly in heavy seas, and over a long periods of time. It took us decades to get here with naval design, and influences of that design are apparent in the NSC.

            I rode the Tico Class in the Northern Latitudes, and it is not made for that job. It can do it, but it is nip & tuck.

          • Zaza Pensive

            how about the next cruisers being submersible?
            even if only a few dozen meters?
            that would be transformational
            plus they’d have the current subs nuclear propulsion which gives essentially endless range and no constant
            refuelng needed

          • Secundius

            @ Zaza Pensive.

            Sure, I have no problem with that. DARPA is toying with the idea of a “HeliCarrier” design concept, just like the one that S.H.I.E.L.D. uses in the Marvel Comic Book: The Avengers…

          • Curtis Conway

            Nicky, Nicky, Nicky . . . The differences are:

            1) The cruiser has two guns (double-ender), better to which support Marines with Naval Gunfire Support.

            2) The cruiser has more VLS cells making it a better land attack platform, and giving it more cells for SM-2s to protect the Carrier.

            3) The cruiser has the Flag spaces and expanded CIC areas for Flag watches to facilitate the embarkation of a Warfare Commander (Usually Anti Air Warfare).

            However, both platforms mirror each other in most all capabilities and equipment to facilitate fleet logistics support. Just all of the paltforms are not at the same level of mod & revision in same equipages. Makes for a very effective force, with the greatest combat capability, at the lowest support costs. We just don’t have a low end Aegis platform like an Aegis Guided Missile Frigate.

            Capisce?

          • The fact is Burkes can never act like Tico’s. Though they can stand in for Tico’s but Tico’s have more space for flag staff.

          • Curtis Conway

            “The fact is Burkes can never act like Tico’s.” Take out the word ‘never’ and the sentence is perfect. It just has some limitations. I could sleep nights on a Burke. I can sleep well on a Tico. I would never sleep on an LCS any version. I suspect that is why they work the crew to death with the PMS Schedule . . . so they will sleep, and if you have a sadistic individual for a commander he will call GQ just as they get well into their circadian rhythm. Take care of your people and they will take care of the tasking.

          • Curtis Conway

            If you take my list of the differences, and place them on the destroyer, they will act just like a cruiser. The Cruisers have SPY-1B radars. The destroyers have SPY-1D radars. Very capable sensor, and are being upgraded to Integrated Air & Missile Defense (IAMD) capability, so they can stare and track into space quite a distance. A lot of people boho the 5″ gun. They do not have Marine friends.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            The Baseline 7 Upgrade for the Ticonderoga class, is for the AN/SPY1C Aegis system…

          • Curtis Conway

            You date me Secundius. Touche!

          • Curtis Conway

            Once again . . . I’m looking for a reference. The SPY-1As on the cruisers were all upgraded to SPY-1B, and they have since been upgraded to SPY-1B(v). Not seeing any reference to SPY-1C anywhere I go. AMDR is the name of the game today for development, although I would like to see more on SPY-1F in an IAMD application. We are just power limitted on that 8′ array face, using the current technology.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            I would have wrote it in Geek Speak, but every time I do it, it gets. Reddit’d. The Ticonderoga (CG-47) – Class – Unofficial U.S. Navy Sight…

          • Curtis Conway

            Like I said . . . no SPY-1C.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            On the AN/SPY-1 systems, you might to try the followings:
            1. Global Security ORGanization.
            2. Military Times.
            3. Aviation Week and Space Technology
            4. Jane’s Defense
            5. Military & Aerospace Electronics, You might have to Spell It Out to them, their kind of Literal Minded (Dense).

            And as a By The Way, the Orel, an Oscar-II SSN caught fire a couple of days age. Looks like Putin, is ONE Krutz at the Zvyozochka Shipyards…

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            You didn’t actually READ IT, did you Sir. It clearly states that all Baseline 2,3 and 4 ship’s will mount the Lightweight AN/SPY-1B system. That’s from CG-52, Bunker Hill through to CG-73, Port Royal. “Eye’s Wide Shut”…

        • Secundius

          @ Nicky.

          One of the BIG differences between the Arleigh Burke class Destroyer and the Ticonderoga class Cruiser. Is the way the CIC, Combat Information Center is layed-out. On a Tico, during High-Speed Maneuvers, crew’s tend to get Sea-Sick, because of their inability to orientate themselves. Because their facing the Sides of the Ship, instead of facing the Bow of the Ship…

      • Curtis Conway

        I suspect when the shooting starts in the Pacific, no one will have enough missiles.

        • James B.

          True, but VLS ships aren’t carrying 100% SM-2s, at least half the cells are carrying Tomahawks.

          • Curtis Conway

            Well, let’s hope some ESSMs are in there too. Gotta have some SM-6s for the airborne assets. That is your proactive measure (hopefully).

          • Secundius

            @ James B.

            Not even that. On a Flight I AB it’s ~23%, on a Flight II AB it’s ~35% and on a Flight III AB it’s ~41% Tomahawk per Total Missiles Carried…

          • James B.

            Loadouts vary, and are classified, so I couldn’t tell you exactly how many SM-2s or TLAMs a given ship has at a given time.

          • Secundius

            @ James B.

            The Baseline 7 conversion on the Tico’s, About 1/3-Tomahawks, SM-2’s retained and ESSM VLS installed. Crew reduction form ~400 to ~356 (4 officers/44 rates), “Boilers” are going to be removed and replaced with “All Electric Drive” propulsion. For now the BAE 32-MJ Railguns will be mounted, it’s doubtful that the General Atomics 64-MJ Railguns are even being considered. No mention on Gas-Turbine selection…

        • Zaza Pensive

          and not enough counter-measures either

        • Secundius

          @ Curtis Conway.

          At current usage of Tomahawks against ISIS targets and whatnot’s. Best guesstimate is by 2016, the Stock Pile of Tomahawk Missile will be ~4,000…

  • Ctrot

    Are there any plans for replacing the Tico’s at some point?

    • Jiesheng Li

      not with the SSBN replacement sucking up most of future budgets.

      • Ctrot

        I look at the entire budget as a whole, and as a whole what is sucking up funds is the US welfare state. A months worth of means tested welfare program spending would pay for the entire SSBNX program.

        • On Dre

          Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953

          • NavySubNuke

            Eisenhower was able to cut down the defense budget by building over 10,000 nuclear warheads during his time in office — a factor of 10 more than every other nuclear power on the planet. He also promised that any invasion of the US or one of our allies would result in a full nuclear attack against the attacking country. This stance allowed us to demobilize our land forces to a far greater extent than the soviet union did.
            Do you really want to go back to a time where our only response to an invasion of the US or one of our allies is an all out nuclear attack? It seems such a movement wouldn’t exactly be welcomed by most people even if it would allow us to cut the Army and Marines down even lower than currently planned.

          • Curtis Conway

            During this drawdown, the administration has been doing what with the nukes? It ain’t growing them.

          • NavySubNuke

            For all the naive nonsense this admin has spouted they actually have been pretty good about doing what needs to be done to sustain the nuke forces and get us inline with the New START treaty.
            I am certainly no fan of Obama and his stooges but the OHIO Replacement, new bomber, and new ICBM are all on track so far. The ALCM replacement is running a bit late but that is probably the last important of the nuke modernization programs so I’ll give a pass on that one. In some ways Obama has actually done a better job taking care of the nuclear forces than Bush did – which is pretty crazy when you think about it!

          • bobbymike34

            Under the current budget battles you are more optimistic than I am. Also, Bush did push for the RNEP, RRW & ACI programs which Congress first defunded and then forbade even R&D.

            But I would even go back to Bush 41, when the Cold War ended it was pretty obvious nuke arsenals would shrink dramatically but Bush 41 also cancelled every modernized warhead, new Triad delivery system and shut down all modern warhead production.

            A better approach would have been to draw down older forces while slowing modernization. At least we might have avoided the current situation where “the bill is due” for all systems nearly all at once.

          • NavySubNuke

            Agreed on what bush 41 should have done.
            My comments on Bush 43 were based on the canceling of the 2018 bomber and the LBSD (replacement ICBM), the D5 life extension and extending the life of the OHIO — all of which is what really caused us to have the overlapping replacement programs. If even one had been done during Bush 42 (especially the bomber or a new SSBN which are the two most costly) things wouldn’t be nearly as bad.

          • Secundius

            @ NavySubNuke.

            If it makes you feel better, the Scuttlebutt is they want to keep the Arleigh Burke Flight III’s around until 2072…

          • bobbymike34

            Agree wholeheartedly, I was disappointed when the replacement ICBM, scheduled for 2020, was cancelled we would be close to flight tests by now. Although and not to excuse Bush43 maybe he saw the writing on the wall after RRW, RNEP, etc. got cancelled by Congress?

            Overall the nation has made terrible decisions about our strategic deterrent forces since about 1991 that’s why I am not optimistic about these programs going forward as the nation’s finances are far worse than in 2003 and all three legs are in need of modernization. You already see article after article about how modernization is unaffordable (which is a fabrication given a $4 trillion federal budget but that is a debate for another time)

          • NavySubNuke

            Agreed.
            I think the current planned force structure (12 ORPs, 80-100 bombers, 400 ICBMs with 450 ready silos) is sufficient. But I doubt we will get there. The OR program seems safe – maybe not 12 but certainly at least 8 and probably 10. The bomber also seems safe – certainly not the 80 – 100 the Air Force is looking for but probably 40 – 60. The ICBM though…… Which is really too bad since we need ICBMs to help SSBN surviveability. Hopefully we can at least mange to hold on to 200 – 300 of them if only to complicate adversary targeting.

          • Secundius

            @ Curtis Conway.

            Currently as of 31 December 2014, there are ~5,113 Nuclear Weapons stored in ~12 sites across the Lower 48-States. Out of those ~1,920 are in service with the Air Force and Navy…

          • Ctrot

            “A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.” – President Eisenhower, 1-17-61

          • Curtis Conway

            How much our government and society has changed. How did the United States survive HiStory? The primary function of
            government is to preserve our legal system and defend the country. All politics are local, and until recently, when the catholic (universal) Church taking care of the population has been abrogated into taxes being equivalent to tithing at church, and the government takes care of more than just our safety and security. Now the government has been perverted into a nanny state, and the extension of the American mission to maintain ‘Peace Through Strength and Presence’ has been abrogated to the point to where those who want your money are now raking off their living by tapping into the flow along the way in health care, welfare (not the safety net part, we must always take care of the widows and orphans), taxes and fees levied against business, and yes even defense. When are people responsible for themselves? The Founding Fathers with Divine guidance, who created this system of government, stated more than once, that this nation will not long persist without a moral citizenry who take care of more than just themselves, a Christian Concept, not a communist one.

            Has the Industrial Military Complex created problems for the
            country and the economy . . . yes, but the effect is a function of Leadership, not exploitation. So change the leadership.

            The world in your mind is not one in which I would live, and
            certainly not one I defended during my Naval Career.

    • NavySubNuke

      Burke flight III is the closest we will come. CG(x) was cancelled due to being far to unaffordable.

      • Secundius

        @ NavySubNuke.

        That, and possibly the three Zumwalt’s too…

        • Ctrot

          I predict that on some future date not too far hence that the US Navy will re-designate the Zumwalts as cruisers.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            No sarcasm intended on age. But, weather or not Official or Unofficial. Most people probably, “Grudgingly” have all ready have come to that same conclusion that the Zumwalt’s are in fact Cruisers. Besides who ever heard of a three-ship, 16,312-ton Destroyer class, with the exception of the four Kidd class Destroyers.

            I almost forgot, but there’s the three BMD/Arsenal Ship’s based on the San Antonio class GatorFreighters. While techology not Cruisers, their Size, Single Rail-Gun and 288-Cell VLS. Would make them a “Formidable” Heavy/Strike Cruiser…

        • NavySubNuke

          Sorry but I don’t consider 3 Zum’s to be a replacement for anything – they will at best be expensive showpieces since with only 3 we can’t even maintain a continuous Zum deployment in a region. Maybe if we had had the will (and the budget) to build a few more.

          • Secundius

            @ NavySubNuke.

            Frankly, I just don’t see the Zumwalt’s operating Independently. Most like scenario either in a Carrier Battle Group as Carrier Escort or MEU Amphibious Group Protection/Shore Fire Support Ships. Each Rail-Gun Magazine hold’s a 1,000-projectiles…

          • NavySubNuke

            Oh certainly they will be part of a battlegroup – every so often when one of them is available to deploy – but with only 3 we won’t even be able to have 1 constantly deployed with whatever battle groups are out there even if we wanted to say always make sure there was one at sea and in theatre with whichever carrier is in the 5th fleet AOR.
            Also, they don’t actually have the rail guns yet — 5-10 years (at least) until those get put on.

          • Secundius

            @ NavySubNuke.

            Currently there’s only one ship in the US. Naval Fleet with an operational BAE 32-MJ Railgun System. And that’s the JHSV-3, USS. Millinocket.

            DDG-1000, USS. Zumwalt currently mounts two BAE (Rheinmetall GmbH) 6.1-inch 155mm/62-caliber Lightweight-T (Titanium), Gun Mounts with standard range of 63nm. and maximum range of 83nm with the LRLAP projectile. Both DDG-1001, USS. Michael A. Monsoor and DDG-1002, Lyndon B. Johnson, are still under construction.

            Because of Power Limitations, only the Zumwalt class will mount the General Atomics 64-MJ Railgun system, sometime in 2020 to 2025 range. Uprated Arleigh Burke class Destroyers, Ticonderoga class Cruiser, and the yet Un-named BMD/Arsenal Ship are going to mount the BAE 32-MJ Railgun system. It is also possible that both Freedom/Independence classes might also mount the BAE 32-MJ Railgun system.

            As far a USMC Field Artillery, NO Railgun system is going to be available any ime in the foreseeable future…

          • NavySubNuke

            No offense but if you think what they have on JHSV-3 is “operational” you have read one to many contractor press releases!

          • Secundius

            @ NavySubNuke.

            I stand corrected, testing will begin in 2016…

          • Zaza Pensive

            maybe a better way to handle these railguns is to require contratcors and mil staff to develop them ON BOARD.
            that’s where they are going at some point hopefully.

          • Secundius

            @ Zaza Pensive.

            The Main Problem is Power Output, the General Atomics 64-MJ Railgun requires a Minimum of 40-MW of Electrical Power and a Standard of 60-MW of Electrical Power to operate efficiently. The Zumwalt’s can generated that much power, Unfortunately the Tico’s, AB, Freedom and Independence classes can’t. Their Maximum Power Output is ~15-MW of Electrical Power, but the BAE (United Defense) 32-MJ railgun can operate on 12-MW of Electrical Power. Replacing the LM2500PC Gas-Turbines with LM6000 Gas-Turbines, effectively doubles the “SHP” rating and boost’s the Power Output to between 43-MW to 50MW of Electrical Power..

    • Secundius

      @ Ctrot.

      According to Defense Daily, mid-2030’s for New Cruiser class…

      • Ctrot

        By which time the oldest Ticos’s will be approaching 50 years old.

        • Secundius

          @ Ctrot.

          Actually, CG-52, USS. Bunker Hill, commissioned in 1986 would be the oldest at 49-years old. And CG-73, USS. Port Royal, commissioned in 1994 would be 41-years young…

          • Ctrot

            Hence “approaching 50 years old”. 😉

  • Pingback: Navy Continues Advocating Cruiser Modernization Plan Despite Previous Rejections in Congress | NOSI – Naval Open Source Intelligence™()

  • Curtis Conway

    A stretched double ender Flt III with expanded flag spaces is what is needed to replace the cruisers. The VLS population should be preserved for the replacement CG platform.

  • Secundius

    Thank’s for the Reddit’mt you guys…

  • Michael Nunez

    We could have our 600 Ship Navy if WE put in check all of the Foreign Aid that is wasted /contributing to corruption/ or just giving it ( Tax-Payer ) away….. . WE need GRAVE CONSEQUENCES for any AID that do’es not BENEFIT the American Tax-Payer/ The U. S. A. …….

    • Secundius

      @ Michael Nunez.

      OK, but one slight problem. The “Jones Act” of 1920, prevent the US, Government and the US. Navy from buying directly from a foreign source. There is a “Loophole”, to get around that act. Have either the US Air Force or US. Army buy the ship’s. Next “hurdle”, trying to convince Congress to stop with there “By Only American Mind Set”. And the odds of that happening is between NIL and NONE…

  • Secundius

    Somebody on this Website was talking about Air Launched Cruise Missiles. Well, not exactly a “Cruise Missile”, but a “Stand-Off Strike Missile”. Called the HSSW, High Speed Strike Weapon., to be used on B-2’s and F/A-35’s. But can be Booster Launched as well, so possible Naval Deployment possible. ~25-feet long and weighing ~4,000-pounds, with a range of only ~460-miles at Mach 5.1 (~1,500m/s.)…

  • Pingback: HASC Bill Would Speed Up Cruiser Modernization Plan, But Not All Members Agree | Aircrew Systems()

  • Pingback: Mabus: Navy Would Sign Contracts Now if Congress Allows Cruiser Phased Modernization | Aircrew Systems()

  • Secundius

    Tyco’s were planned to be retired in 2044. But, new Congressional retirement dates run from 2036 to 2039…

  • Gary Spencer

    I served aboard USS LEAHY DLG/CG 16. in my humble opinion they retired these as well as the BELKNAP DLG/CG26 ships way too early. At the time of their retirement they had just undergone millions of dollars in upgrades, (NTU) which appreciably increased their all ready potent abilities. These ships would still be usefull in bridging to gap between the Tichonderogas and the next gen cruisers. At the time of their retirement they were still among the most powerfull ships of their type in the world, with only ships belonging to our allies being comprable. what a waste of good ships.

  • Pingback: T/titanium Wedding Ring-related-3.txt 3 | locate - jeweler online()

  • Pingback: T/titanium Wedding Ring-direct-17.txt 17 | shop - gold engagement ring()

  • Pingback: T/titanium Engagement Ring.txt 3 | safe - whitegold engagement rings()

  • Pingback: T/titanium Wedding Ring-related-3.txt 3 | discounted - blue diamond earrings()

  • Pingback: C/cz Engagement Ring-direct-3.txt 3 | silver - diamond engagement ring()

  • Pingback: M/moissanite Engagement Ring.txt 3 | silver - engagement rings ideas()

  • Pingback: G/garnet Gold Ring-direct-3.txt 3 | gold maple leaf()

  • Pingback: M/moissanite Engagement Ring.txt 3 | title here()

  • Pingback: P/pave Engagement Ring.txt 4 | search - search for jewelry()

  • Pingback: A/antique Wedding Ring-direct-17.txt 17 | jewelry - certified jewelry()

  • Pingback: A/antique Engagement Ring.txt 43 | news - order jewelry live()

  • Pingback: M/moissanite Engagement Ring-direct-4.txt 4 | designs - exclusive engagement ring()

  • Pingback: C/cz Engagement Ring-related-3.txt 3 | title here()

  • Pingback: M/moissanite Engagement Ring-direct-4.txt 4 | stores - search for jewelry()

  • Pingback: A/antique Wedding Ring-direct-17.txt 17 | title here()

  • Pingback: P/platinum Engagement Ring.txt 49 | exclusive - extensive jewelry collection()

  • Pingback: A/antique Engagement Ring-direct-44.txt 44 | title here()

  • Pingback: E/emerald Cut Engagement Ring-direct-4.txt 4 | search - search for jewelry()

  • Pingback: A/antique Engagement Ring-related-29.txt 29 | rings - luxury jewelry pieces()

  • Pingback: T/titanium Engagement Ring-direct-4.txt 4 | exclusive - extensive jewelry collection()

  • Pingback: D/discount Engagement Ring-direct-4.txt 4 | search - search for jewelry()

  • Pingback: T/titanium Wedding Ring-direct-17.txt 17 | designs - exclusive engagement ring()

  • Pingback: G/garnet Gold Ring-direct-3.txt 3 | blog - gold maple leaf()

  • Pingback: C/create Engagement Ring-related-4.txt 4 | review jewelry shops()

  • Pingback: A/antique Engagement Ring.txt 43 | club - thejewelryclub()

  • Pingback: E/emerald Engagement Ring.txt 9 | auction - luxury jewelry pieces()

  • Pingback: A/antique Diamond Engagement Ring-direct-4.txt 4 | club - thejewelryclub()

  • Pingback: A/antique Engagement Ring-related-29.txt 29 | title here()

  • Pingback: T/titanium Wedding Ring-direct-17.txt 17 | search - search for jewelry()

  • Pingback: A/antique Wedding Ring-direct-17.txt 17 | rings - luxury jewelry pieces()

  • Pingback: A/antique Wedding Ring-direct-17.txt 17 | auction - luxury jewelry pieces()

  • Pingback: D/discount Engagement Ring-direct-4.txt 4 | types - jewelrycatalogs()

  • Pingback: A/antique Engagement Ring.txt 43 | review jewelry shops()

  • Pingback: A/antique Engagement Ring.txt 43 | jewelry - certified jewelry()

  • Pingback: M/moissanite Engagement Ring-direct-4.txt 4 | exclusive - extensive jewelry collection()

  • Pingback: P/pave Engagement Ring-direct-3.txt 3 | designs - exclusive engagement ring()

  • Pingback: A/antique Diamond Engagement Ring-related-7.txt 7 | title here()

  • Pingback: C/cz Engagement Ring-direct-3.txt 3 | jewelrycatalogs()

  • Pingback: C/create Engagement Ring-related-4.txt 4 | title here()

  • Pingback: M/moissanite Engagement Ring-direct-4.txt 4 | title here()

  • Pingback: C/create Engagement Ring-direct-9.txt 9 | title here()

  • Pingback: D/discount Engagement Ring-direct-4.txt 4 | auction - luxury jewelry pieces()

  • Pingback: T/titanium Wedding Ring-related-3.txt 3 | fresh - exclusive engagement ring()

  • Pingback: E/emerald Engagement Ring.txt 9 | reviews - review jewelry shops()

  • Pingback: P/pave Engagement Ring.txt 4 | jewelrycatalogs()

  • Pingback: D/discount Eye Glasses-related-21.txt 21 | prescriptionsunglasses()