Home » Budget Industry » Stricken Destroyer USS Fitzgerald to be Repaired at Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Gulf Coast Shipyard


Stricken Destroyer USS Fitzgerald to be Repaired at Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Gulf Coast Shipyard

USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) returns to Fleet Activities (FLEACT) Yokosuka following a collision with a merchant vessel while operating southwest of Yokosuka, Japan on June 17, 2017. US Navy Photo

The guided-missile destroyer that suffered a collision with a merchant ship in June off Japan will be transported to Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Mississippi shipyard to be repaired, the Navy told USNI News on Wednesday.

USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) will be transported by a heavy-lift carrier from its current location at a dry dock in Yokosuka, Japan to Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss. for repairs.

A contract to reconstitute the destroyer will be completed by the end of the current fiscal year but the scope of the work has yet to be determined, the service said.

Earlier this month, the Navy issued a solicitation to contract a heavy lift ship to move Fitzgerald to the U.S. for repairs to repair the damage from the impact and subsequent flooding that resulted in the death of seven sailors. The ship could leave Yokosuka as early as next month.

The repair bill for Fitzgerald will easily top the $250 million cost to reconstitute USS Cole (DDG-67), which was hit by a terrorist bomb while docked in Yemen in 2000. Cole was also transported to Ingalls by a heavy lift transport for the repair work.

“The Cole was largely engineering, and it’s electronics that gets you,” retired Navy captain and naval analyst Chris Carlson told USNI News in July.
“An engine looks expensive, but it’s a pretty basic repair compared to electronic systems.”

The cost to bring Fitzgerald back could easily top $500 million.

As to the location of the repairs, the Navy determined that only an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer shipbuilder could make the fixes.

MV Blue Marlin transporting USS Cole from Yemen following the 2000 attack on the ship. US Navy Photo

“The Navy chose this course of action following a review of the capabilities and workload of new construction and repair shipyards. Given the complexity of the work and the significant unknowns of the restoration, the Navy determined that only an Arleigh Burke-class shipbuilder could perform the effort,” Naval Sea Systems Command said in a statement.
“Only HII has the available capacity to restore USS Fitzgerald to full operational status in the shortest period of time with minimal disruption to ongoing repair and new construction work.”

The Navy’s other guided-missile destroyer yard, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Maine, is currently behind schedule in delivering its current crop of destroyers and has been struggling with workforce capacity issues.

While the ship will be restored in Mississippi, it’s unclear how many upgrades the Navy will for the destroyer.

Fitzgerald, commissioned in 1995, is one of the earliest Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and was due for a $170-million basic hull, mechanical and engineering upgrade in Fiscal Year 2019, according to modernization information obtained by USNI News. The upgrade is meant to get an additional 10 to 15 years of life out of the hull.

The Navy could elect to upgrade the ship to a Baseline 9 standard that replaces legacy computers with modern servers and allows the ship a greater ballistic missile defense capability as well as the ability to simultaneously interdict aircraft and cruise missile threats.

The overhaul costs about $270 million, according to estimates obtained by USNI News.
A request for comment from USNI News if the Navy would elect to upgrade Fitzgerald to Baseline 9 was not immediately returned.

The following is the complete statement from Naval Sea Systems Command.

Navy Intends to Restore USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) at Huntington Ingalls Industries
From Naval Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communications

The Navy intends to award a contract initiating the restoration of USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) at Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) in Pascagoula, Mississippi, before the end of the fiscal year. The start date, scope, cost and the time required to fully restore the ship have not yet been determined.

The Navy chose this course of action following a review of the capabilities and workload of new construction and repair shipyards. Given the complexity of the work and the significant unknowns of the restoration, the Navy determined that only an Arleigh Burke-class shipbuilder could perform the effort. Only HII has the available capacity to restore USS Fitzgerald to full operational status in the shortest period of time with minimal disruption to ongoing repair and new construction work.

Additionally, the Navy is currently evaluating proposals to award a contract for the heavy lift transport of USS Fitzgerald from SRF-JRMC Yokosuka to the continental United States.

USS Fitzgerald was involved in a collision with the Philippine-flagged merchant vessel ACX Crystal on June 17. The ship suffered damage on her starboard side above and below the waterline. Compartments that were affected include two berthing spaces, a radio room, a machinery space, and various lockers, passageways, and access trunks. In addition to the restoration effort, the Navy intends to incorporate previously planned modernization efforts into the availability that were to have taken place at SRF-JRMC Yokosuka in 2019.

  • Duane

    Interesting … perhaps the Fitz might even end up being the first AB to get the upgraded SPY-6 air and missile defense system that’s going on the Flight IIIs – if the new sensor system is ready for install. With the increased BM threat from NK and ASBM threat from China, the sooner we get those new radars deployed in the Pacific the better.

    • @USS_Fallujah

      There is a “spare” SPY-6 on order without a ship (yet) set to take it. However, this would likely require even more upgrades to the cooling and power grid aboard ship and may not be a wise investment in a 22 year old Flight I ship.

      • Duane

        The Navy is already having to replace the electronic guts on the Fitz, which were largely destroyed in the collision. Given the rapid upgrade of NK missile threat, as well as the Chinese ASBM threat to our carriers, all in the here and now and not decades out, the Navy is going to be very tempted to upgrade the Fitz to much better than new. It would fulfill a current need, and make a very strong statement of our commitment to contain if not destroy the NORK nuke ICBM threat as well as push back on China’s designs to push us out of the West Pac and SCS. If it were my decision, I’d be a definite “yes” on the upgrade for the Fitz.

        • @USS_Fallujah

          My understanding is the Aegis hardware wasn’t damaged in the collision, but the comms suite was totaled. That doesn’t even touch on the engineering work necessary to support the SPY-6, which would also be on top of the other repairs. I wonder if they’ll look into it or just go with the obvious plan to do a “simple” repair to the Fitz (and then McCain) or if they’ll look at upgrades (like the SPY-6) while they’re in the HII yard.

          • Horn

            What Duane fails to mention is that the support technology for the SPY-6 hasn’t finished testing yet, and won’t be done in time for the repair work on the Fitz and McCain.

          • @USS_Fallujah

            What is the timeline for completion of the testing for the AMDR, they have 2 ships (I believe) under contract for the Flight III/SPY-6 configuration, now those ships haven’t even had their keel laid (Again I’m going off the top of my head, could be wrong), but it’s not out of the question that the timeline might coincide with the repairs for the Fitz & McCain (again I think this highly unlikely, and possibly very unwise given the age of those two ships).

          • Horn

            From a previous article, it sounds like the planned delivery date of the first Flight III is in 2024. The keel hasn’t been laid yet.

          • Bubblehead

            Let me just put an end to this entire discussion about adding SPY6 to Fitz. IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN. PERIOD. End of story. And it isn’t even plausible. It would have to be completely re-engineered from the ground up.

            SPY6 was designed to go into Flight 2A but with a MAJOR Engineering Change Proposal. To this day they still have not fully engineered the changes. There are major structural changes that have to made or the ship will flip over after it meets its first Sea State 5. SPY6 weighs about same as SPY1 however the weight sits a lot higher up.

            There are NO engineering plans that exist to put SPY6 on Flight 1’s. And there never will be.

          • Horn

            Yeah. This guy just isn’t getting it. He thinks it’s just a plug-and-play install. The Flight IIA’s were the only Burkes designed with that ability. Even though they could operate it, the structural modifications would cost too much to make it worth it. It’s possible, but for the same time and money you could buy a new Burke without the hardware.

          • Rhino601

            Maybe I’m missing something here BUT:
            ECPs are forward leaning. SHIPALTS and ORDALTS are aft leaning.
            DDG 125, initially a BL IIA ship, will become the first BL III ship when a major ECP is incorporated.
            DDG 125 will be restraked aft and will receive three 4MW, 4160V generators AND five upgraded A/C plants.

        • DaSaint

          The Fitz is going to be out of commission for at least a year. It’s not likely that they want to add additional engineering to shoehorn the SPY-6 on board the Fitz, when they’re already committed to the engineering for the newer vessels.

          • Duane

            What is “likely” is to be determined. The Navy will consider all of its options. What is known is that the performance of the new system is 35 times better than the existing SPY-1 systems, and that the Navy is prioritizing networked sensor and fire control systems, with the intent of eventually linking virtually all of its aircraft and warships, even auxiliaries, via NIFCCA. This isn’t just a matter of bragging rights – the perceived threats of NK ICBMs and Chinese ASBMs are orders of magnitude higher now than even 6 months ago.

            And the Navy has already stated its intention for life extension of the ABs to 40 years, leaving 18 years of life in the Fitz. That is a long time in an environment where the threats are multiplying, and getting more utility out of every hull is a huge priority of the Navy.

            I am not saying the Navy will put SPY-6 on the Fitz. I am saying it is a plausible option, with several compelling reasons to do so that also fit current US Navy priorities..

          • DaSaint

            Yes, it is plausible. Just not likely.

            It was plausible that a West Coast Yard could do the repairs and modifications to the Fitz, as the Navy first indicated may be possible. But it wasn’t likely.

            It was much more likely that a yard that had experience building modules for a Burke class vessel, Bath and Ingalls, would get the repair job.

            It was plausible that the build yard may get the repair job, but in this case Bath, again, didn’t appear to get it’s act together in terms of flexibility, availability, or whatever.

            It’s more likely that the Fitz gets a Baseline 9 upgrade than the SPY-6.

          • Rhino601

            It is Ingalls, had to be Ingalls. I doubt BAE or NASSCO could handle a job of that complexity, and BIW is two-blocked with behind-schedule Zumwalts and ABs.

    • Horn

      Not enough service life left on the ship to make it worth it for the SPY-6. Also, there are many internal changes that were made to fit and install the SPY-6. SPY-6 will only go on Flight III Burke’s, never on the Flight I, II, or IIAs.

      • Duane

        Not true at all. There’s a post over on Scout Warrior today with direct quote from Naval people engaged in development of the SPY-6 who not only say it will be retrofitted to earlier ABs but is scalable and will be eventually fitted to virtually all Naval warships, including LCS, the new FFGs, amphibs, and CVNs as part of the NIFCCA network. The components are designed to be smaller, more power efficient, more easily replaced in the field, and scalable. The new systems do require an upgraded power conditioner operating at 1,000 VDC. That’s part of the install. That doesn’t necessarily mean every single warship will get the retrofit, but the gallium nitride-based sensor design is intended to be compatible with any warship type.

        • Horn

          I read that article you mentioned. The exact words used were “entirely plausible.” That doesn’t mean they will equip it on all those ships you mentioned. Also, the writer of the article made that statement, not any “Naval people” or Ratheon officials. Congress will never authorize the amount of money needed, especially for the LCS, amphibs, or cruisers and DDGs with less than half their service life left. The LPD-17s weren’t built with VLS capability so it’d be pointless for them at the moment.

          It may be more energy efficient, but it still requires twice as much energy to power the new radar. That’s why the Flight III’s will have the turbines. Also, using twice as much power requires twice as much cooling. The radar array may be smaller, but the support equipment around it will take up that extra space, increasing electrical complexity for the surrounding structure. The Flight IIA’s were built with the Open Architecture Computing Environment which is essential for the SPY-6. You won’t see the SPY-6 on any previous Burke’s besides the Flight IIA design.

          End result: Fitz will probably be upgraded to Baseline 9.

          • Duane

            From the article, which directly quotes Raytheon:

            “Raytheon statements say AN/SPY-6 is the first truly scalable radar, built with radar building blocks – Radar Modular Assemblies – that can be grouped to form any size radar aperture, either smaller or larger than currently fielded radars.

            “All cooling, power, command logic and software are scalable. This scalability could allow for new instantiations, such as back-fit on existing DDG 51 destroyers and installation on aircraft carriers, amphibious warfare ships, frigates, or the Littoral Combat Ship and DDG 1000 classes, without significant radar development costs,” a Raytheon written statement said.”

          • Horn

            Nowhere in there does it say “it will be fitted” onto existing platforms by any “Naval people.” The SPY-6 would be next to useless on the LCS and amphibs because they don’t have any VLS cells to utilize the extended capability. That quote also fails to mention the added costs of installation. It only talks about it in relation to radar dev costs. Again, the Navy isn’t going to spend more money on another round of refits on ships that are already halfway past their hull lifespan. Maybe, maybe, this will be installed on the LPD-17s or Flight IIAs during their midlife refit, but the Navy isn’t going to spend money on older hulls. That’s completely unrealistic for today’s Navy, or tomorrow’s with the increased number of hulls they need to build. Where’s the money going to come from?

          • Duane

            You’re not getting the point of NIFCCA or distributed lethality – it’s about providing wide area blanket coverage of a theater of operations with interlinked sensors and networked weapons platforms. In other words, it leaves no safe space for the enemy to hide and evade attack or counter attack, and does not allow the enemy to concentrate its fire on a limited number of platforms because virtually any platform can return fire. The sensor can be anywhere, the counter-weapon can come from anywhere.

            Aircraft – anything from a P-8 to an F-35 or Super Hornet to a MQ4C drone – and vessels from an LCS to an amphib to a DDG to an FFG to a CVN. The counter fire can also come from an aircraft or a ship, and does not need to be a VLS-launched missile. For instance, the AIM-120D is a great anti-missile missile, and can be fired from aircraft (manned and unmanned) and from ground launchers and can easily be adapted to fire from virtually any ship, even something as small as a PC.

            The platform that initially senses the threat is not necessarily the one that launches a counter-attack. This has already been proven a few months ago when an F-35C sensed a target, provided initial targeting data to an AB, and then continued to provide mid-course data to the missile until it acquired its target.

            The whole point of the scalability of the SPY-6 is specifically to implement NIFCCA and distributed lethality.

          • Horn

            I understand distributed lethality; I keep up with the news. An amphib is going to be in the middle of the task force, surrounded by escorting ships. It’s not necessary to have an amphib with the SPY-6 right now. The LCS will never work in a lethal environment by itself; it will most likely be paired with the new frigate or a DDG as added ASW or ASuW support. The LCS is already designed with networking in mind so there is no need to waste money on a new radar for it when it can link with another ship equipped with it.

            You seem to be skipping over my main point though, which is cost. There is no money for older hulls to be equipped with a scaled back SPY-6. That’s not going to get you the best value for your dollar, which is what I keep repeating.

          • Scott Ferguson

            Don’t waste your time with him.

          • Horn

            This is from a previous USNI article on the Flight III.

            “The award of the first Flight III -– named for Marine Capt. Jack H.
            Lucas — comes as the service has been in negotiations for more than a
            year with HII and Bath over the engineering change proposals to modify
            the current Flight IIA design to accommodate the Raytheon-built AN/SPY-6
            radar with the necessary power, cooling and an adequate margin for
            growth for future systems.”

            These aren’t minor modifications required. These are structural changes which makes it extremely unlikely that the SPY-6 will be installed on existing Navy vessels. This doesn’t sound like a simple plug & play installation.

          • Duane

            It’s not a choice between running down to Ace Hardware or not retrofitting at all.

            The ship was already planned for a major overhaul and update, requiring a drydock availability and whatever alterations the Navy planned. This repair process will be a highly invasive process, one that a ship might not experience but once, if ever, in its career. The Navy and Raytheon have already given a great deal of thought to retroifitting older DDG-51s, as stated by Raytheon in the article I quoted.

            The Navy will consider its options, and make a reasoned decision.

          • Horn

            Read into what is actually done for a Baseline 9 refit. You’d be surprised what you find, and why I keep stressing that adding SPY-6 (which isn’t ready yet) to the mix would be prohibitively expensive.

          • Bubblehead

            The current SPY6 as designed for the new AB’s will not go into older AB’s. There are major structural design changes to allow for the greater weight, which sits a lot higher up on the superstructure, making the ships top heavy.

            Not to say in the future the Navy will not be able to upgrade existing AB’s to SPY6, but as of now, it can’t be done.

        • Rhino601

          The Baseline III’s will get 5 300-ton chillers vs, 5 200-ton chillers. She will also get 3 4MW 4160V generators vs 3 3MW 450V generators. Plus she will be restraked.

    • DaSaint

      Not likely. Not enough power and cooling capability for a hull that probably won’t be extended much beyond 15 to 20 years. Baseline 9 seems much more likely.

    • Rhino601

      I just called the Ace Hardware store in Ocean Springs, they have a SPY-6 in stock, but will have to order the upgraded generators and A/C plants.

      • Horn

        LOL, I’ve actually been to that specific store before.

        • Rhino601

          me too

    • Bubblehead

      SPY6 is only going on new builds. Current AB’s cannot house the SPY6. There were quite a few engineering changes to allow for the SPY6.

  • @USS_Fallujah

    I wonder if they can fit two DDGs on one ship to save money transporting the Fitz & McCain back to Mississippi?

  • Ernesto Arceo

    Fitzgerald radio room area was hit. critical area as it looks for any ship . Just noting as a news reader.

  • Salvatore Mercogliano

    In looking at the tracks of the commercial ships, since USS John S. McCain is AIS dark, I noticed a few things.

    Alnic MC is on course for the traffic separation scheme at about 9-10 knots. She is in line with some tense traffic. She is being overtaken from behind and then on her starboard side by Team Oslo (an 8,550 grt Bahamian-flagged chemical tanker), with Guang Zhou Wan (an 11,081 grt Chinese-flagged asphalt tanker) on her starboard quarter.

    Team Oslo threads the needle between Alnic MC and Guang Zhou Wan, with Team Oslo overtaking on Alnic MC’s starboard side and Guang Zhou Wan falling in astern of Alnic MC.

    There is a moment when it appears that Guang Zhou Wan attempts to overtake Alnic MC to her port side, but the approach of Hyundai Global (a 94,511 grt British-flagged container ship)
    overtaking on Alnic MC’s port side at 15.5 knots in the separation buffer, forces Alnic MC to hold course.

    At the moment of the collision (this is just an assumption but it has to be when Alnic MC shears to port and drops speed), she is in the middle of triangle. At the top is Team Oslo in the front at 11 knots. To Alnic MC’s starboard is Guang Zhou Wan which is overtaking. Finally to Alnic MC’s port quarter is Hyundai Global is coming up her port side.

    For USS John S. McCain to be hit on her port quarter by Alnic MC’s starboard bow, she had to be crossing from north to south, or perpendicular northwest to southeast across the traffic separation scheme and in front of Guang Zhou Wan and Alnic MC.

    Was USS John S. McCain returning to Singapore from her Freedom of Navigation operation in the South China Sea? Was she trying to get in the inbound lane – if so, why not stay to the north end of the lane? Was the Hyundai Global a bigger obstacle as she was slowing down for her approach into Singapore and could not swing further south into oncoming traffic?

    The biggest question is how USS John S. McCain found herself in the midst of four ships as it does not appear that Alnic MC ever deviated from her course (she is heading approximately southwest the entire time), she maintained position in the traffic separation scheme, and did not alter course (approximately 10 knots). It is true that since Alnic MC hit USS John S. McCain on her port side, that Alnic MC was the giveway vessel, but if she was constrained by her ability to maneuver due to traffic, then the issue becomes more complex.

    • waveshaper1

      That’s pretty much the way I interpreted the Alnic automated AIS track. One other thing to consider in this collision is what factor or combination of factors did the USS John McCain steering loss play in the sequence of events.
      Note; You should also review the automated AIS track of the ACX Crystal (it reveals a lot of info).

      • Salvatore Mercogliano

        I just heard about the steering loss and that could explain why she veered across the traffic separation scheme. Also, why Guaug Zhou Wan was steering more to the west than south west after she cleared the stern of Alnic MC

        Note: I agree with your comment about ACX Crystal.

      • Duane

        Yes,that’s a huge factor, if indeed the unofficial reports of a steering failure are correct. Which if that is what happened, it leads to a bunch of other questions, such as:

        What was the nature of the steering gear failure – a jammed rudder, a hydraulic plant failure, an instrument and control system failure, or something else? What is the vessel’s specific conning procedure for response to a steering gear failure, and did the OOD break out the book and follow the procedure? Did the ship employ the emergency steering gear, and how long did it take to get it in operation? Did OOD employ differential thrust on the the two shafts to overcome, at least in part, the steering gear failure? Did the ship ever run drills on steering gear failures? How recently?

        • Dave Henk

          I’ve never heard of a “jammed” rudder. Usually the chief culprit is an electrical control issue. You have a port and a starboard control to select. If you fail to see a response to a rudder order input you can shift to the opposite control. In the event of neither working then you can have after steering take control. They have a gyro repeater and rudder angle indicator and can take verbal orders via sound powered phones. Usually this space is only manned during General Quarters and Sea and Anchor details. It does takes a finite amount of time to recognize a problem and attempt to correct. Sometimes you simply run out of time.

          Here’s an example that happened to one of my ships (Perry Class FFG). While entering the Mayport Naval station an order was given to go from 1/3 ahead to 2/3 astern. The engines responded to the speed change but not the pitch change. Therefore the ship instead of stopping sped up. The pitch pump had tripped a breaker and before it could be reset the USS Vreeland had a serious gash (zero damage to the FFG other that bent jack staff and paint scratches. Afterward all FFG’s were required to man the pitch pump space during sea and anchor details. Chief culprit on these ships for awhile was the austere minimum manning concept. Crew sizes were increased.

    • DaSaint

      Excellent analysis. Will be interesting to hear how this all plays out, and what the findings are of the investigations.

    • Gerald G. Dackert

      Good analysis, but, as a retired Naval officer, qualified OOD underway, GQ OOD, Sea Detail OOD on a 692 Sumner class WWll destroyer, we were required to read and sign the CO’s standing orders prior to relieving the OOD watch. These orders generally required notifying the CO, or XO or navigator in questionable situations, i.e., crossings, close proximity, etc.
      Is this procedure still used, and if so, what were the OOD and JOOD doing? What about the bridge staff lookouts? Cannot wait to learn the results of the investigation.

      • Salvatore Mercogliano

        Gerald, I agree on all points. McCain must have been on the north side of the scheme heading into Singapore when the failure occurred. However, if the OOD was not prepared to make the switch to the secondary steering motors, alter propeller pitch, or enact any other measures, there was obviously very little time for her to react.

        In re-examing the data, it is also fortunate that it was Alnic MC that struck McCain, versus the inbound Hyundai Global. It will be vital to find out what actions the bridge crew took to prevent the collision.

  • Horn

    We Mississippians took great pride in repairing the USS Cole. We’d be honored to do the same for the USS Fitzgerald. HII Pascagoula has been telling the Navy & Congress that they can increase capacity. Completing the repair work in a timely fashion would go a long way towards proving it.

  • Duane

    Nope. NIFCCA already exists in elements that have already been successfully demonstrated in an end to end test shoot involving a F-35, an AB, and an anti ship missile, and a target that was successfully intercepted. The F-35 will be a centerpiece of NIFCCA, along with networked distributed radar sensors from ships and drones.

  • Rhino601

    More like behind schedule on everything they are doing…DDG 1000 really whacked them.

  • Southernfriedyankee

    About the comments saying it is not worth upgrading a ship that “only” has 20 or thirty years left. GOOD GRIEF !

    As I served on 3 Fletcher class WWII destroyers in the late 60’s, they told us one, that the average life of a destroyer in wartime was 4 or 5 minutes. That’s it. On the William Wood, had we launched a nuclear depth charge against a Russian “boomer” opening its hatches to launch, we might have launched that Asroc Nuc only 2 miles off our port bow ! You don’t survive that ! (Trade off is 170 US Destroyer men to save Washington DC) (Tanks are similar) Review what transpired in the Falklands conflict off Argentina.

    ONE torpedo would have cracked a US WWII destroyer hull in two pieces. Under wartime conditions you want to take the offensive. Today you don’t wait for the first volley of 15 missiles coming towards you and your two sister ships ! Once you have a state of war/hostility, if I was captain, I want to launch 80% of what I have against a strong enemy task force compared to being hit by four missiles unexpectedly and sinking in 2 minutes with 120 of my Tomahawk missiles loaded or sitting idle in missile magazines !

    To win an action, all I need is a reliable ship with reliable weapon systems (doesn’t have to be the very best ship ever made) with a well trained, loyal, competent, crew. If we go down, we go down slugging with an empty magazine ! So imagine the Fitzgerald, or McCain, repaired and back to fleet duty. Get this. Their mission and their purpose is not to remain rust free and be retired on the Coast of Florida as a flawless museum exhibit, Their purpose is to give their best during the last 7 minutes of their ship’s life, or to intercept a missile launch against Guam, Japan, or Hawaii ! Addendum: And this is also an argument for the emergency activation of “mothballed” ships. To win a war your ships just have to last “long enough” !

    • wilkinak

      How does the Fitz possibly have 30 years left in her? She’s 23 now. The expected service life for ABs is 30 years. So 7 +10-15 if they do the SLEP work, is 17-22 years, almost a decade shy of 30.

      • Secundius

        Technically in 31 January 2026. Life Expectancy STARTS at “Sea Trail” Date of Vessel. In USS Fitzgerald’s case that was in 31 January 1996, though she was Officially Commissioned in 14 October 1995…

  • Emily_Entwistle

  • Duane

    Just read the numerous articles in defense media about the AMDR.

    Why are you so argumentative and negative about it? What’s your problem? AMDR is what it is. If you choose to disbelieve the published information, readily available, then that is your problem.

  • Duane

    Without getting into discussions of profit by defense contractors, which are public companies who have to report their profits, and which are not especially high compared to other public companies, this is how we produce weapons, this is how we’ve always produced weapons, because if the government produced weapons we’d all be dead and our nation destroyed long before now.

    The descriptions of the performance increases of the SPY-6 are definitely not about coolness. There’s nothing cool about sensors, nobody is going to make Hollywood movies about sensors.

    But the performance increase available with this new unit are impressive. And not especially mind-boggling either – they’re in line with other performance increases by other systems, such as aircraft (F-35) and munitions and so forth.

    In any case, testing is already underway, design nearly complete, the first three SPY-6’s have been ordered and IOC is anticipated by early 2023. We’ll know within a couple years if performance meets specs.

  • DaSaint

    And now with another DDG damaged, Bath won’t likely get this either.

  • DaSaint

    That’s exactly what I was trying to convey to Duane. Thanks for your much more technical points 716.

  • Rhino601

    Sorry, I didn’t have Schedule A with me.

  • Frank Langham

    Does anyone know the route that the Fitz will take to the Shipyard ? … Suez? … Panama? … Around the horn ? … What makes the most sense ?

    • Secundius

      i would suspect the Panama Canal!/? The “Lock’s” in the Panama Canal were Modified to Accommodate a “Super Panamax Container Ship”! Approximately 1,050-feet in length by 104-foot beam by 85-foot draft…

      • Frank Langham

        Thank You, very much, for your response.

        • Secundius

          As I recall CVN-65, “Enterprise” was the First Nuclear-Power Aircraft Carrier to Transit the Panama Canal in 28 July 2012. Though not under her own power, but Towed. The Heavy Lift-Ship “Vanguard” is incapable of Transiting the Panama Canal because of her ~70-meter beam…

          • Frank Langham

            Thanks, Again … The impression I got, from cursory searches, was that the Panama Canal is currently nearing the end of the final phase of a major expansion upgrade … It was unclear (to me) exactly WHEN that article was written, though.