Home » Education Legislation » Navy Will Extend All DDGs to a 45-Year Service Life; ‘No Destroyer Left Behind’ Officials Say


Navy Will Extend All DDGs to a 45-Year Service Life; ‘No Destroyer Left Behind’ Officials Say

USS Preble (DDG-88), USS Halsey (DDG-97) and USS Sampson (DDG-102) were underway behind the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) in March. US Navy Photo

This post has been updated to include additional information from the hearing.

CAPITOL HILL – The Navy will keep every one of its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in service for 45 years, extending the life of the entire class. The move allows the Navy to reach a 355-ship fleet by 2036 or 2037, the deputy chief of naval operations for warfare systems said on Thursday.

The Navy currently has DDGs in multiple configurations – Flight I, Flight II and Flight IIA. Keeping each hull in the fleet for a 45-year service life equates to an extension of five to 10 years each, depending on the flight design.

Vice Adm. Bill Merz told lawmakers today every destroyer was already included in an Aegis modernization plan that would upgrade them each to Aegis Baseline 9 or 10 or Aegis BMD 5.4. The class-wide service life extension, as currently planned, does not include any combat system upgrades beyond what is already planned – though Merz said the Navy will be monitoring the threat set closely and retains the option to upgrade the combat systems later on.

“All of [those software variants] provide a ballistic missile defense capability, which is fundamentally the requirement we have to have,” he said in a House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee hearing.
“So whether that carries these through the life of the ship with the extension, we have time to work through that on what it will take, and the threat will get a big vote in how we do that.”

Merz told USNI News after the hearing that “this is an HM&E (hull, mechanical and electrical) extension, but every destroyer is already in the modernization pipeline, so every destroyer will be modernized. … The modernization they receive that’s already programmed may carry them through. Obviously, the threat’s going to get a vote on that, but one of the beauties is, instead of doing an individual ship-by-ship extension and extending the entire class, now we have the visibility to actually plan for that. We can pace it, plan it, fund it efficiently instead of one-and-done, one-and-done, one-and-done. We can be a lot more deliberate about how we handle this class. We’re big fans of this class of ship.”

Merz made clear, though, that this life extension would not absolve the Navy, Congress and industry of their task of finding an affordable way to ramp up shipbuilding. He told USNI News that this life extension gets the Navy to 355 ships in 2036 or 2037, but it’s the wrong mix of ships – the 355-ship goal is based on a particular blend of destroyers, attack submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious ships and more, and the attack submarine fleet, in particular, will be well below the requirement in the 2030s. He said the Navy is “very focused on getting the right mix of ships in the end.”

Additionally, he said, if destroyer acquisition doesn’t pick up the pace – lawmakers are trying to get the Navy to move from two a year now to three a year – “you cannot use [the life extension] as a surrogate for building the new ones, or when those things tap out then we go off a cliff, and we’ll never get there.”

He added that the Navy, with this life extension plan, would hit 355 ships and hover there for a couple years but then would dip back down before eventually getting to a stable fleet size of greater than 355.

But, Merz made clear after the hearing, “that’s just with the DDGs. We have a lot of other levers that we continue (to study). Our commitment to the shipbuilding plan is aggressive growth profiles working with Congress, service life extensions – the DDGs were part of that – and then industry response. We still have a lot of ground to plow here to continue to accelerate this, and we’re excited about this.”

Merz praised the engineers at Naval Sea Systems Command for their great effort to ensure the class-wide extension could be done safely and cost-efficiently. He said the Navy was eyeing this effort when the budget and the 30-year shipbuilding plan was released in February, but the engineering wasn’t 100-percent complete and leadership decided it was better to surprise Congress and the public with good news later on versus have to backtrack on when they could actually reach a 355-ship fleet.

NAVSEA Commander Vice Adm. Tom Moore told USNI News in a December interview that his command had spent the past six months studying life extensions of several ship classes, with the DDGs garnering the most interest within the Navy and on Capitol Hill.

“Both the secretary of the Navy and the [chief of naval operations] are very interested in a program that would extend the service life of the DDGs in particular. It has great interest from the Hill as well. I think we’ve come through the technical hurdles and it’s just at this point, like everything else, it’s balancing everything else we want to get done in the budget,” Moore told USNI News at the time.
“It’s got to be part of our overall strategy to get to 355. It’s the only way you can get there – instead of getting there in 30 years, it’s the only way you can get there in say maybe 10 to 15 years. So I think that’s something we really want to go look at.”

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson had said last summer while the technical work was still ongoing that extending the planned service life of the DDGs could help the Navy reach a 355-ship fleet 10 to 15 years faster than through new shipbuilding alone – and in fact, the DDG life extension plan bumps up the 355-ship mark from the 2050s to about 2036, a speed-up of at least 15 years.

The Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) launches a Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) during a live-fire test of the ship’s aegis weapons system on June 19, 2014. US Navy photo.

Asked about the cost of this class-wide life extension plan, Merz told USNI News that “there’s no specific modernization or maintenance period that goes with that, so I don’t want to say they’re free, because you still have to man them and operate them, but unlike an individual ship where you’ve got to put it in the yard and you’ve got to do all these upgrades, we’re doing this based on the performance of the class. So all of them are just, from an engineering analysis, extended based on their past performance. If we have to modernize beyond that then we’ll have to learn how to pay for that.”

Additionally, with regards to the combat systems, the cost of the DDG modernization plan is already incorporated into Navy plans, but “if we want to do more than that, that will be an opportunity cost decision as we go forward – but the ships will be there to be able to do that. So now we have the option to have that discussion.”

In contrast to how the Navy is handling the class-wide extension of the Arleigh Burke destroyers, NAVSEA and Naval Reactors have made a very deliberate effort to pinpoint five Los Angeles-class attack submarines that could be extended past their intended service lives. Moore said during the hearing today that it is hard to keep submarines in service longer than their intended 35-year life due to the forces on the boat while submerging and the stringent requirements for the hull to remain certified to submerge.

However, he said, “in this particular case we had five additional cores available, and it presented us with an opportunity to get some SSNs accelerated back into the fleet. So between Naval Reactors and NAVSEA we went and looked, found some hulls that we could sharpen our pencils on and we were confident technically they could get to the service life that they’ve been asked to get to.”

Navy acquisition chief James Geurts said during the hearing that the Navy would begin work on the first submarine this year to prove the concept, and that the hull-by-hull SSN life extensions, along with the DDG class-wide life extension, shows “we are committed to 355 at least” for the future Navy fleet.

  • Corporatski Kittenbot 2.0

    Because they have nothing to replace them.
    And these days designing a new coffee mug at the Pentagon canteen would take 15 years and several billion dollars…….. so a new class of destroyers will be time consuming!

    • Duane

      No … the Navy has working plans … the Future Large Surface Combatant … to replace the Ticos and ABs.

      This exercise is all about boosting raw numbers of ships to get to a magical number decreed by certain politicians as 355. Except those same politicians know well that Congress will never appropriate the funds to build and sustain a 355 ship fleet. Especially after Congress enacted a multi-trillion tax cut last December that will push annual deficits to a trillion dollars this year, and multi-trillions in the out years, making any military expansion in those out years unaffordable.

      This is a political game, not realistic planning.

      • Hank Wilson

        Wow… a true Russian intellectual…or just a Soros troll?!?

  • Ed L

    Building the 20 or thirty NSC FFGX would be a good start. Then build in concert with NATO shipyards a 100 of the FREMM Frigate

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      Hear, hear!

    • William Sager

      That or build them cheap with a simple slow diesel electric hybrid design waiting for drone and laser technology to be practical and cheap. For the life of me I can not see why we are building a water jet powered Frigate capable of going 45 knots. That and develop shipping containers with drones that can be slipped in on large container ships.

      • Duane

        40+ knots is to deal with the most likely adversaries in the littorals … fast patrols and swarming speed boats. Complaining about the LCS capabilities not being identical to trans-oceanic escort vessels is like complaining that fast attack SSNs are useless as aircraft carriers, or complaining that CVNs make lousy coastal surface combatants.

        • Todd

          brahahaha, yep, those slippery mines are really fast, that’s why we need a 40 knot minesweeper

          • Augustine’s Lion

            Lol

          • Rocco

            Kudos

        • Hank Wilson

          Hey kid, I told you already… your daddy isn’t coming home.

        • sid

          The LCS’s are too heavy to ever make that speed in an operational configuration.

          Besides, it makes no matter sitting alongside a pier, which is where thy spend nearly all their time.

      • Southernfriedyankee

        And systems that can be constantly moved about and set up in a few hours on a container ship to do what warships like the Arleigh Burke do. If you are firing a first salvo, why not fire it from a cheap rickety container ship, leaving the real warships with full loads, ready to finish the targets off with only 15% of its full load ?

      • Rocco

        Because the kids that played Nintendo are the ones in charge now!!

  • DaSaint

    This is good news for a very capable class, but what are the implications for where they get modernized? BAE, BIW, and Ingalls already do work on this class. Clearly there will be a steady stream.

    Can BIW handle DDG modernizations while building FFG(X), and while building Flight III Burkes?
    Can Ingalls handle DDG modernizations while building FFG(X), while building NSCs, while building LHAs/LHDs, while building LPD Flight IIs, and while building Flight III Burkes?
    Will other private yards, like Vigor or maybe Acker get into the DDG modernization game?

    Or does this tip the hand of the Navy regarding who does or doesn’t get the FFG(X)?

    • Sons of Liberty

      The Navy Yards hand modernization so not sure why it would impact yards like Bath.

    • Sir Bateman

      I was about to ask the very same thing. I guess the Navy Yards could play a part, but given that the only public yards still in operation are Norfolk and Puget Sound, not counting Portsmouth, I’d be curious to know if they have any surplus capacity to pitch in for what sounds like a fairly major undertaking.

      • SvD

        Head over to Youtube and watch:
        GAO: Poor Conditions at Navy Shipyards

        The Navy shipyards are falling apart, while they would only need the annual waste from one LCS being built.

        • Stephen

          Navy Shipyards suffered a political death; along with the nuke cruisers & Spruances. LCS should stop production & be re-designated Patrol Frigates. Let Naval Architects (if any still exist) submit proposals… Politicians designing ships? Not smart.

          • SvD

            I’m from Germany and I can assure you, it is almost the same over here. The buildings aren’t collapsing yet, but the floating dry docks are scrap metal, except for one.

            Even after the continuous debate over readiness, the MOD closed a Navy Arsenal. And closing one of two is a significant cut. The repair capacity for certain system was not replaced. Neither was the spare parts storage.

            The conservatives, in all their wisdom changed to a lean storage, like a discounter. The difference is obvious, one gets a daily supply of common goods, which are continuously produced and the other has to wait for months to get a few spare parts. They are manufactured in laughable low number with a huge price tag.

            And the ships are not waiting in a Navy drydock, no they are sitting in private drydocks for weeks at a time, causing excessive bills to be paid.
            The navy is trying to squeeze a drydock with a hall above into the last arsenal, but it will take time.
            And one drydock plus the current floating dock is not enough.

            The whole German sub fleet is sidelined and these clowns are trying to sell them. Norway agreed to get subs from Germany and Germany will buy a few new ones. But the subs are going to be maintained in Norway. 10 Years ago, the subs from Norway went to Germany for additional maintenance and hull pressure tests in a special dock.

            The spare parts storage on the ships is either almost empty or non-existent.
            I heard the same about the Burkes, with several commanders complaining that a spare part, worth a few hundred dollars, has to be flown in across the globe.

            On the other side, a lot of subsystems were demanded to be made in Germany, while there is enough on the market. These parts aren’t any better, but their supply chain is non-existent with a lean approach.

            Another common thing is civil infrastructure, which is neglected in the US and Germany. Politicians only waste money on a few new and shiny projects, which they can claim as their success. The rest is left to rotten over time.

            Infrastructure and logistics is the backbone of a society and a military. Ignoring it will cause severe trouble.

      • USNVO

        The people who work at Pearl Harbor Shipyard might disagree with you.

    • Scott

      Modernizations would probably be done during SRA’s in or near the ship’s homeport.

    • tpharwell

      I think the hand is plain to see. The FFG[X] program is being managed by PEO-LCS, which I guess reports to head of NAVSEA, which reports to CNO. The LCS program has collapsed. And yet, like mother elephants, CNO, et alia refuse to limit it, let alone, stop it. They ignore its failures. They refuse to hold themselves, or anyone else, to account for it. They give it endless extensions of time and money. They let it slip by key milestones by watering down requirements, and by fudging tests. They tout the capabilities of both classes, as if they existed, when there are none. They refuse to make the model down-select between two competing offerings that was stipulated for in the original circulars. Indeed they allow both to be the basis for a frigate proposal for which neither is manifestly suited. They step down the requirements for that in unconscionably unrealistic, inconsistent, and contradictory ways, in order to make it possible for both to succeed. They excuse themselves from being ready now to have any of these ships deploy anywhere. They fail to arm them or to equip them for defense. They fail to prosecute to completion the development of weapons systems, without which they are useless and vulnerable to attack. They rush to get them built, commissioned, and home ported, and then do not finish fitting them out. They have little or nothing to fit them with. They consign them to training and testing roles as soon as they are built, or judged unfit for deployment, which in some cases, is both. They fail to provide them with crews ready to take them on as soon as they arrive. They continue to build them while critical systems and formulas for operation are still in development, rendering existing vessels obsolete or inferior, and requiring that they be rebuilt. They keep on ignoring key limitations and design failures. They keep changing the missions of the ships, and their operational regimes to compensate. In short, they manage this program as if they were being bribed.

      Given this obvious and overwhelming display of bias in favor of the LCS program, and the Freedom class LCS in particular, I believe that it is abundantly clear which offering the Navy intends to select for a follow on frigate class of vessels.

      • Hank Wilson

        Too bad building a combat ship isn’t as easy as building a Yugo, eh comrade?!?

  • This will get us to 355, but at what cost? The Burke was an excellent design, but it is beginning to show its age and will need to be replaced. Will the Navy have money to for the next generation of destroyer while simultaneously maintaining dozens of 40 year old ships?

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      Naw, the Burke just never really had to prove itself in combat but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t. An Arleigh Burke is still one of if not the best multirole surface platform on the oceans.

      • Today, yes. But with a 45 year service life the last Flight II Burke will decomission in 2044 and the last Flight IIA sometime around 2070! When you start accounting for the Flight III’s, the class is slated to serve for nearly 100 years – that’s the equivalent of having armored cruisers still in service today. It’s just not realistic to assume that the design will remain combat capable into the second half of the 21st century.

        • SvD

          While everybody is joking about the Chinese, they insert a redesign or a new design every few years.
          They are not the financially struggling Russians.

          Properly funded research, shipbuilding, an army of engineers and some spying will improve their navy pretty fast.

          Their last destroyer is basically a cruiser sized ship.
          The times of crappy frigates are long over.

          • David Oldham

            “Their last destroyer is basically a cruiser sized ship”

            So is ours.

          • SvD

            And which USN vessel would be on par with a Type 055?

            There is no replacement for the Ticonderogas in sight.

            In a few years, there might be a Type 55B and C on one side and Ticonderogas with duct tape on the other.

          • USNVO

            Well, since it is basically a DDG 51 Flt 2a or Flt III, perhaps a little bigger but not by much, you can start with that. That leaves what, 60 or so in the US Fleet?

          • SvD

            No, a Type 055 is in the Ticos league and not one lower where the Burkes are located. The Type 052D is a bit below the Burkes.

            The Chinese are calling the Type 055 a destroyer, with a big grin. It is a cruiser, and follow the common scheme, it will get a bigger more powerful brother within a few years.

          • USNVO

            112 missiles versus 96 missiles
            2 Helos each
            Radars and Sonars seem to be pretty equal in number
            They are even about the same size
            Just not seeing it

          • The difference is that the Burke is at the end of its life cycle and is running out of space for upgrades while the 055 is just entering service and has all the modern systems and room for growth.

          • USNVO

            So you are saying they are equivilent now, thanks.

            By the way, what are these mythical upgrades the DDG Flt III is not getting? A new long range ASCM like LRASM (oops, that fits in the VLS), Cooperative engagement or whatever they call it (oops, already has that), a new helo (oh, never mind), new SM3 maybe with a 21in booster (oh right, the whole VLS thing again but that software update must weigh a ton), can’t be a new long range AAW missile since SM-6 was just introduced, maybe a new land attack missile to replace Tomahawk (oh yeah, fits in the VLS) or maybe a new active towed array sonar or torpedo defense system (but doesn’t it already have space reserved for that though), and it certainly can’t be directed energy weapons like lasers or railguns since the Type 55 doesn’t have IED either. But I am sure there is something.

          • Equivalent in the way that a Colorado and an Iowa were both 16″ battleships. The 055 has undeniable advantages over the Burke:

            Modern radars – the Flight III required an enlarged hull and a complete redesign of the power and cooling just to fit the (scaled down) S-band portion while the X-band array appears to have been quietly dropped.

            More sonars – the 055 has the space for both a TAS and VDS while the Burkes only have a TAS.

            Larger helicopters – the 055 is sized for the 15 ton Z-18 while the Burkes can only accomodate the 11 ton MH-60. This could be critical with the next generation of helicopters being developed.

            30% more VLS cells – the Burkes were only designed for SM-2MR, TLAM, and VLA. Adding ESSM, SM-6, SM-3, and LRASM to the mix means that fewer missiles of each type can be carried.

            Power? – lasers don’t require an IED if you have enough generator capacity. The Burkes don’t, but there is no reason a 180m ship couldn’t carry enough generators. Also, the Chinese are known for building improved variants of ships and the 055 has enough room for an IED on a future version.

            While the Burkes are being modernized well, the above differences simply can’t be overcome without a new hull.

          • USNVO

            Hardly,
            Size of the radar doesn’t really matter. Once you have enough, you have enough. The SPY-6 radar on the Flt III is better than a SPY-1 by about 40x, and the SPY-1 is good enough. Processing is far more important and combat system is equally as important. No real difference, both are good enough.

            Sonar. The DDGs have space for a towed array or a towed sonar, about like the Type 055. It is not like you can have two operating at once, at least not if you want to

            Helicopters. First, it is Z-8, not Z-18. MH-60R is vastly superior to a Chinese copy of a Super Frelon in just about everything but carrying a bunch of troops. Much like radars, once you have enough, you have enough, all extra size does is get in the way. So somewhere down the road there might be a new bigger USN helo? Really, well not real soon since the USN is still buying MH-60s and nothing is currently planned that would have a bigger footprint.

            VLS – First 112 is not 30pct more than 96. Second, wouldn’t the Chinese ship suffer from the same problem as the Burke when it add new missiles? But unless you can make a compelling case that 96 and 112 aren’t roughly equivilent or enough, it is a wash.

            Power – So a future, new varient is going to have more power? Wouldn’t it be something other than a Type 055.

            Your argument boils down to,

            Sure, they are currently equivilent but someday, someday the Chinese might come up with something even better.

            But the fallacy of your argument is that the question was which USN ship is equal to a Type 055, not what future version of each will be superior. Even then, since a future conflict will not be ship on ship, it doesn’t matter.

          • If radar size doesn’t matter, than why is the Navy spending millions to put a 14′ AMDR on the Flight III when a 10-12′ array would have probably fit without issue? Further, remember that the initial requirement was for 20′ AMDR. Finally, having both S and X band radars is increasingly important with the proliferation of stealth technology.

            The Burkes have no provision for a VDS and even a TAS is stretching it on the IIA’s. If there was no advantage to having both, then why is the USN doing exactly that with LCS and FFG(X)?

            If the MH-60 is perfect, than why are the British and Canadians going with 15 ton helicopters of their own (Merlin and Cyclone)? If the Burkes were going to decommission in the next decade or two there wouldn’t be an issue – but the new plan if for them to serve until at least the 2070’s, by which point MH-60 will likely be long out of service.

            I double checked and you’re right that the 055 only has 112 VLS – I was going off earlier reports that it has 128. However, that is still a 16-24% advantage over a Burke. Is it the largest problem? Hardly. Is it another sign of the Burke falling behind? Yes.

            I included power with a question mark because we don’t know. However, putting more power into a Burke is a well publicized problem and a 180m ship has a lot more room available.

            My argument is that today, a 3rd generation Burke and a 1st generation 055 are a fairly even match, although the Burke does come up short in a number of areas. But what’s it going to look like in 20 or 30 years when those same Burkes are facing off against 3rd generation 055’s? And this is hardly a hypothetical given that China has done an incredible job improving on basic designs – just look at the progression from the 052 to the 052D.

          • SvD

            The VLS cell number is the same difference between the Burkes and Ticos

            A Type 055 is longer, wider and displaces over 3000 tons more than a Tico. There is room for growth.

          • The Tico, Burke, 055, KDX III, Atago, and Kongo are all in the same league regardless of whether they are called destroyers or cruisers (remember, the reason the missile cruiser hull number series jumps from 41 to 47 is that Ticonderoga was laid down as DDG-47). I also seriously doubt China has anything bigger than the 055 planned as it just doesn’t make sense given modern weapons and sensors.

            The being said, the Burkes are running out of space to accomodate the latest generation of systems and need to be replaced with something like the 055.

          • Duane

            Yes there is. The Navy is already, and for the last several years, been working on design concepts for a Future Large Surface Combatant as a replacement for both the Ticos and the ABs. It will likely combine some design elements from the Zums such as the oversized electric plants, electric drive, the improved VLS, along with some form of improved AEGIS, and likely feature railguns and directed energy weapons. Accommodation of unmanned systems will also be a key feature set of FLSCs. The Navy is likely also to build upon the modularity concept in this type so that future weapons and sensor developments can be more easily integrated.

            The Navy plans to begin procurement of the FLSC by the mid 2020s, in plenty of time to begin replacing the older ABs and Ticos, with the SLEPs now planned for both types.

          • The Navy’s been talking about various destroyer/cruiser replacements for over a decade and there is still no concrete plan. Even if you are right and they began procurement of the FLSC in the mid 2020’s, that’s an in service date of the early 2030’s at best, which is right when the first Burkes start retiring (if they manage to last 45 years). However, we were built the early Burkes at a rate of 4+ a year – are we going to do the same with FLSC?

            Thus, even if everything goes according to plan, we will still lose a large number of destroyers over the late 2030’s / early 2040’s. If things don’t go according to plan (Burkes start retiring at 35-40 years or FLSC hits delays), that drop off could occur in the mid 2020’s. The only real solution I’m seeing is to re-imagine FFG(X) as a Burke replacement (~16 RMA radar & ~64 VLS) and build a lot more than 20 of them.

          • SvD

            There is nothing but some thoughts. A Tico replacement can be traced back to the 90’s and what happened was the 3 Zumwalts.

            At defensenews, there is a vague article about getting a hull that is already proven. There is no such thing on the market, except for a new Japanese design, the 27DD class “destroyer”, which was not even mentioned.

          • Rocco

            It’s in the works

          • Warren Fox

            I cannot see the USN ever having to face a Chinese Navy by itself. The Chinese have forced a Naval arms race in the Asia Pacific region and I cannot see Japan or it’s neighbours sitting back as China militarises.

          • SvD

            China with its shipbuilding plan is on a path to outnumber the USN and China would have the advantage to fight in their front garden.

            Submarines matter – when an old Type 206 sub was able to take a photo of the Enterprise’s stern with a carrier strike group around it, the Chinese should be able to get on that awesome German 60’s tech level.

            Remember that the USN throw their S-3 Vikings into desert storage. On top, a carrier strike group nowadays is smaller, with less ASW capability. An LCS has no ASW suite, but it replaced the OHP frigates…

          • Retired

            The fleet admiral claims the LCS is BAR NONE the best ASW platform with it’s mythical towed sonar. So prepare for a full broadside of “you don’t understand,” “you’re too old,” “you’re a Russian,” etc etc. Of course what the admiral always fails to address is how the noisiest ship in the fleet is going to be a sub hunter and not the hunted.

          • SvD

            One cannot reinvent the wheel of war when tactics and technology do not change big time. Reinventing physics is also doomed to fail.

            The LCS is not alone, what’s up with these speedboat ferries? The Spearhead-class is kinda under the radar. I read years ago, that it also suffered from cracking hulls. And they still suffer from maintenance issues.

            Today’s containerships can drive up to 28 knots, cruise ships can reach 30 and still they though a tiny ferry should exceed 40 knots. Seafighter, the LCS class number 3 gets up to 55 knots… Except when there is weather at sea… with waves and such.

            Besides from their speed, the Freedom, Independence, Sea Fighter, and the Spearheads are useless.
            At least SeaFighter is a single sailor and was not directly put into series production.
            The USN is fiddling around with the speedboats since 2002 and still, nothing come to fruition.

    • Duane

      The Navy has been working on design concepts for several years for the Future Large Surface Combatant.

      • Retired weps

        Yep, it’s going to be a super stretched 600 foot version of the LCS-but it’ll be have waterjets!!!

      • RunningBear

        FLSC, redefine the Zumwalt destroyers as the new cruisers, by removing an AGS (save and reuse on next new ship) as required to accommodate the 40ish newly required VLS tubes and plan for a future Laser, Railgun, (Directed Energy Weapon)/ etc. technology to supplement or replace the AGS as shipboard defense/ attack. Maintaining the tube compatibility with the Army/ Marines insures the latest technologies for the 155mm./ 6in. gun. Eventually the Zumwalt hulls will evolve into a nuclear powered ships driven by the new reactors on the Virginia/ Columbia subs; to hang with the carriers; expand to 12 – 24 ships, as required.

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot

        But let’s fixed it to ensure Lockmart get’s the contract. That way they’ll ensure that the price will increase 10x, they’ll take 20 years to build it, and when they do deliver it it won’t be fully operational because it’ll need software upgrades for the next 10 years (aka the JSF model).

  • Kypros

    I wonder if the USN couldn’t have found a use for all those Spruances they were in such a hurry to sink?

    • Ser Arthur Dayne

      Literally a crime. The Spruance destroyers were some of the most useful ships we had and would be *IDEAL* today for a bit of sprucing up, modernizing, and patrolling. Even as is they’d be great. Just such a stupid thing to do, literally, a crime to the US Navy sailors and certainly taxpayers.

      • Kypros

        Agreed! Dozens of perfectly operational Spruances were sent to the bottom with at least 50% or more life left in them for political reasons and dozens of LCSs were built which are not equipped to fight nor even be deployed for political reasons – and now the USN has a ship shortage. People should go to prison!

      • jack anderson

        Not sure i agree with you, the decommissionings that stunned me were for the entire both classes of California and Virginia class nuclear cruisers. Retrofitted with VLS these ships have the hull volume to carry hundreds of missiles and with nuclear power can transit to the trouble site efficiently. How much fuel, and how many times, do the escorts of the Harry Truman Strike Group have to gas up to get to Syria this week?

        • Kypros

          Those would have been powerful ships with VLS. No Aegis though, and the navy didn’t want to pay to add it.

        • Duane

          Gas is cheap, nuclear isn’t. And 60 year old designs aren’t going to hack it in the mid 21st century.

          • Retired

            Gas is cheap, so that why we built a fleet of gas guzzling jets skis in the LCS that need their own individual oilers just to cross any body of water. Makes perfect sense to us real Navy types here. It’s a good thing we have dozens of oilers to go around.

          • Rocco

            Indeed!! & He claims he’s a sub guy!

          • Retired

            The only sub he’s ever served on was the one in his bathtub

          • Rocco

            Lol don’t forget the Ducky’s!🦆🐥🐤

          • jack anderson

            Gas is cyclical, the reactors were the same as we use today, and hull design hasn’t changed much

        • Ser Arthur Dayne

          oh I agree 100% with you. When I was a kid in the late ’80s and early 90s, I dreamed of being a Virigina-class CGN cruiser captain. Hated their decommissioning. (Which was PURELY based on $$$). And you’re right, add in VLS, they’d STILL be formidable offensive & defensive multirole platforms.

        • Rocco

          Those ships date back to the 60’s !!

          • Curtis Conway

            If you budget and conduct maintenance you can make mechanical things last a long time. Aircraft are somewhat different, but ships not so much. Steel and moving parts require care. Stop taking care of it, and it falls apart quickly. Attention to detail and discipline in maintenance schedules. The arguments made above are used every time the maintenance budget was truncated, but the units were used as though they did get their maintenance.

        • Lazarus

          They were NTU cruisers in need of significant combat systems and HM&E refit, Just too expensive to retain.

          • Rocco

            Agreed

          • ElmCityAle

            Nostalgia and mythology about capabilities seem to be the driving force behind several of the regular comments on this topic. I’m just waiting for the “WW2 destroyers were better than all modern ships because they had more guns and real ships have lots-o-guns!”

          • Duane

            Oh, such comments usually show up in LCS threads. Usually in reference to the old tin cans having “much bigger guns”. I shut them down when I write lets put a DD and its 5 in gun with 13 nm range and 76 pound warhead up against an LCS with a 70nm range Harpoon with a 500 pound warhead, and a MH-60 chopper to sense the tin can from more than 100nm out while the tin can’s radar is good out to maybe 15-20 nm.

            No contest.

          • LT Rusty

            Duane, let’s try that contest in a real-world sort of environment, where VID is required because you can’t afford to shoot neutral shipping and cause civilian casualties. GEARING or FLETCHER has emcon set, or uses a comnav radar, neutralizing your MH-60’s ESM. You’re not going to get weapons release on Harpoon in a crowded waterway, because you have no idea if it’s going to go after the right target. You’re going to be limited to using your helos… which, obtw, cannot score a hard kill (or even a mission kill) against a well-crewed warship before they’re within range of the 5″/38’s with VT fusing. You’ve got a hostile warship posing a threat to neutral shipping or to an HVU, and you’re ordered to stop the threat. You don’t have time to wait for air support. What’s your play, using LCS?

          • Todd

            “I shut them down” now that’s funny, but of course in Dueenee’s world he is Master.

          • Chesapeakeguy

            Ummm, Duane, I’m gonna let you in on a little secret. The Spruances had Harpoon missiles too. They could carry two Seahawk helicopters. They had Tomahawk missiles, both the land attack and the anti-ship versions. They had THE most effective sonar suite on the planet. They had the very best in ‘quieting’ apparatus. They had effective point defense systems. They were much bigger than a LCS, and built to actual Navy survival standards. Tell me again how the LCS is superior to them?

          • USNVO

            I was embarked on a NTU cruiser in the Gulf during Earnest Will for a little over three weeks, they had 4 major fuel oil leaks and a steam cut in a turbine that eventually had them sent home. Great combat system upgrade, did not spend a dime on HM&E during the upgrades and the ship’s engineering plant was falling apart.

          • Lazarus

            Yep. Sounds very similar to the NTU CG I served on in 1989.

        • USNVO

          Well, assuming they want to arrive with 50pct fuel and travel at the same speed as the ship with the gas, exactly once. It is a little over 5000nm, how far did you think it was?

          • jack anderson

            nearly 6,000 NM, maybe an Iowa class (8,000 Metric Tons of oil) could make the run at flank but any other fossil fueled ship is gonna have to gas up enroute. I am not convinced that high speed has much tactical advantage today, the reason for going fast is strategic, and for that nuclear is hard to beat.

          • USNVO

            Need to check your units, more like 5400 Nautical Miles unless you go through the Suez Canal, then it is 12000+. Since a T-AO travels about 20kts and the DDG is widely reported to have a 4000nm range at 20kts (Hull speed is more than 20kts so the ship is actually somewhat more efficient going that speed as opposed to going slower), so one refueling on the way before Gibraltar and arrive at 50pct fuel. But yes, a nuclear ship has much better strategic mobility than conventional ships unless you have a relay of tankers. I don’t think even a battleship can go the entire distance at flank speed.

          • jack anderson

            your nav numbers are correct but i also recall that we UNREPPED long before running dry, usually at over 50% capacity and UNREP is at 10 to 12 knots, and the whole Task Group is running slow for fueling, meanwhile a nuclear task force is humping along at flank, Norfolk to Haifa probably save at least 3 days.

          • USNVO

            Usually you like to get topped off frequently, but I have seen ships run down to under 20pct before when required. And you are correct that you have to slow to refuel although on gas turbine ships UNREP speed is faster, more like 13-14kts to keep the UNREP speed above the speed where the props begin to change speed by pitch instead of RPM. However, maintaining a 20+kt transit is possible if you have something like a T-AOE that can keep up or gas is waiting for you. Still nothing like the 30+kts a nuclear force can go but even then, the ASW escorts could not keep up.

          • jack anderson

            my last ship had the SQS-26, state of the art for it’s day, and flow noise at 18 or more knots took us out of the passive game, we could go active but you seem like you grok the issues with that. And yes, we steamed once from the SOCAL OPSAREA to Anchorage independently, got there on fumes and fueled from tanker trucks, about 30 of them! And fueling fast is scary, again due to strategic reasons we were humping across the IO with Kitty Hawk and Chicago and after we left the AO we would gas from Chicago at 14, very scary, a twitch of the helm and you are going to hit or drop the hose in the drink, my hat is off to these gas guys if they do it all the time.

      • Lazarus

        The DD 963’s were falling apart after less than 30 years of hard service. Their HM&E was in serious trouble going into the mid 1990’s.

    • Curtis Conway

      The DD-963 was the base hull and propulsion system for the USS Ticonderoga Class (CG-47) Aegis Cruisers. Someone should go to jail for this one.

      • Rocco

        Agreed! BTW Hobby Master just came out with a nice CG-47!

    • Southernfriedyankee

      I believe that they also had overall wear, corrosion, and age issues. Can’t just send em out with a twenty miles an hour speed limit. In war they would be pushed full throttle.

      • Kypros

        That’s true. Some were beat, from years of no maintenance.

      • LT Rusty

        Funny how things suffer from wear and corrosion when you make the choice to stop taking care of them, innit?

  • Duane

    The way it was explained in this post, and from comments made by Navy officials, it sounds like we’ve been baffled by BS. They claim that by extending the entire class, individual hulls will magically be extended without any shipyard overhaul or refurb and at no cost … or at least they have no freaking idea what the cost will be. And thus during the same week, we have SecNav saying no 355 ships by 2048 … and a couple days later Navy officials claim 355 ships in the mid 2030s.

    The SecNav better get with his uniformed leaders and get their stories straight. It’s bad enough that our President changes his mind every 5 minutes .. but when the uniformed service leaders do it, it does not build confidence.

    • David Oldham

      “It’s bad enough that our President changes his mind every 5 minutes ..”

      Hyperbole is the refuge of a liar.

      • Rocco

        The only thing you said I agreed with!! Both Trump & Duane!

    • Retired

      We’re all keenly aware of your illogical hate for the POTUS, so let’s move on and be adults eh?

    • Frank Blangeard

      You exaggerate. More like every five hours or even days not every five minutes.

      • Rocco

        Lol agreed

    • RunningBear

      The SecNav has to represent the plan as agreed to by Congress ($$money source) but that agreement does not limit the Navy Department from applying the progress of technology that improves the “Goal” (national defense) from a 20-30 year old political environment. All of these boats can float and fight for 50 years, as a plan. Each type (by age) will require similar upgrades for the type and all for planning (mitigating expenses) can be standardized and scheduled per requirements. Now this forces our politicians to reassess how they will “skin this new cat” for their sake of their constituents.

  • PolicyWonk

    Yet more evidence of the failure that is LCS…

    • Duane

      Yet more evidence that LCS haters have nothing to say or think but “Me no like LCS”.

      There is not a post or thread on USNI that the LCS trolls fail to hijack to express their unrequited ship hatred.

      Very weird way to live.

      • Jonesy

        You’d be a good case study for students of psychology.

        • Scott Ferguson

          Abnormal psychology.

        • Mk-Ultra

          Mostly you people. Bizarre the level of obsession you people display

      • ShermansWar

        The only thing the LCS is useful for is SINKEX

        • OS1

          Actually, it’s would make a terrible Sinkex practice target-it’s would sink from shear fright.

      • Rocco

        The only thing that’s weird is you!!

      • Lazarus

        Yes. Mostly people with a 1980’s outlook.

        • LT Rusty

          … you mean people who remember a time when USN ships took heavy battle damage and actually still came home with most of their crew still alive?

          Let’s see LCS take a hit like SBR or STARK, and see what happens.

      • Scott Ferguson

        How long was your Little Crappy Ship tied up in Montreal?

    • Lazarus

      Really? How does one gain that assertion? Perhaps the right solution is to more frequently replace the Navy’s surface combatant force with larger numbers of cheaper, less complex vessels. A 40+ year old ship is an HM&E mess regardless of how well its care is.

      • PolicyWonk

        Cheaper, as in the these so-called “littoral combat pier queens (LCPQs)?”.

        Those aren’t fit to fight much of anything other than a non-naval opponent, and have such little room for growth, that adding ordnance, firepower, or protection is out of the question mainly because the “mission packages” can only barely meet their weight requirements (if at all).

        A naval ship that cannot fight, take a punch, or reach out and touch someone isn’t an asset – its a liability. And its got to be hard to defend a class of ships so lacking in value that the USN calls LCS “the program that broke naval acquisition”. Being fundamentally useless makes these LCPQs the most expensive boat in the inventory.

        The USN would’ve been better off to buy unarmed ships constructed to the level-2 standard that could be outfitted with weapons if times started getting too interesting. At least then we’d have a decent foundation to build on, that would have value as a warship.

        The new FFG(X) class is cause for some small amount of hope. But given that the people running the new small surface combatant PEO are the same incompetents that ran the LCS PEO, there isn’t much reason for optimism.

        • Rocco

          Agreed except the 4th paragraph.

          • PolicyWonk

            Fair enough.

            But I’d rather the navy build ships with sea frames that would be useful in combat, than as opposed LCPQ’s which have such a poorly designed sea-frame, one would suspect the LCS PEO was working for the Russians.

          • Rocco

            Agreed on this! We can’t put all our eggs in one basket! A new Cruiser hull is on the table as well as FFG/X. You know how I feel about the Ford class lol!

          • PolicyWonk

            The USS Ford… Sigh. ‘Nuff said.

            I’m guessing that if the Zumwalt’s are determined to perform well (despite the obvious shortcomings and expense), I think we’ll see new destroyers and/or cruisers with a lot of similar features, just like the Seawolf/Virginia SSN’s.

            I truly hope we end up with a successful FFG(X). But considering who’s overseeing the effort, the odds are less than great.

          • Rocco

            Agreed…. The CNO on another site had a lengthy talk on the new proposed cruiser platform that can grow with new developments as time moves along because the Burke’s even in Flight 3 won’t be big enough.

          • PolicyWonk

            The main problem with the Burkes is that they simply don’t generate enough power – at least not without redesigning the entire propulsion and electrical generation system.

            This is partially why there’s at least reason for hope from the Zumwalt’s – the sea-frame, propulsion system, and electrical generating capabilities (at least in that combination) are pretty new. So while the guns might be useless, they (DDG-1000’s) were intended to mount rail-guns and/or directed energy weapons, both of which require a lot of electricity.

            If these (or some other combination of of the concepts) perform well, we could see entirely new classes of destroyers and cruisers leveraging the lessons learned, similar to that of the Seawolf/Virginia SSN example.

          • Rocco

            Spot on!! Even the Hull for 10 LPD was considered for multi purpose platforms but deemed to slow to keep up with carriers! On the other hand may make a good escort for MEU task force.

          • PolicyWonk

            I like the idea of using the LPD-17 sea-frame as an arsenal ship… Huge amount of deck space, and plenty of volume and room for growth.

          • Rocco

            They have 3 platforms I believe ! Seen an add in Naval proceedings magazine.

  • Tony

    Step back a second. We only need this expansion because we are tasked with defending half the world. Our obligations to western Europe, and east Asia, and the Persian Gulf, and New Zealand for God’s sake require us to omnipresent. These countries certainly do not seem to appreciate our sacrifice. Europeans have made a national sport of mocking America and all things American. How about letting these nations worry about their own defense rather than forcing us to shell out the big bucks?

    • Warren Fox

      Coming from a country that relies on the generosity of the US defence system, I would tell you that the people in my country appreciate what the US has done and is doing to protect Democracy through out the world. I know my country as stepped up to the plate and appropriates a lot of treasure to defence and is aware of and loyal to its obligations to the US. I would like to add that in the modern era the US has rarely stood alone in any conflict, but has had allies at it’s side throughout.

      • Rocco

        Really where???

        • Scott Ferguson

          Desert Storm, Yugoslavia, Balkans, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam….

          • Rocco

            Countries of conflict not Alie’s!!

          • Scott Ferguson

            ???

            You asked “where”.

            I told you.

          • Rocco

            1st of all I didn’t ask you!! 2nd not in agreement!

          • Scott Ferguson

            First of all, so what?

            Second, try posting a coherent comment.
            YOU asked “Really where???”.

            I told you.

  • Todd

    Well, there one good thing that comes out of this, by the time the Burke’s finally retire, the LCS class will be but a faint and bad memory (since they only have, at most, 10 more years of life left).

  • Kypros

    I’m not even sure what that means. It’s no secret that the Spruances were all quickly sunk so Congress would keep the funds flowing for more AB’s.

    • Duane

      The Spruances were a mid Cold War design that could not be updated to the post Cold War era. It was not politics but technological obsolescence that overtook the Spruances .. just as it did many platforms and weapons designed in the 60s and 70s. It’s normal.

      • Kypros

        Does that explain why they were all so quickly sunk in target practice? It’s like the navy couldn’t decommission and sink them fast enough. In fact, I can’t remember the last time the USN worked so quickly! I get the fact that they weren’t Aegis equipped, but they still had years of usefulness left in them, especially the VLS equipped ones.

        • Rocco

          Agreed as well as the Perry class!

          • Kypros

            The USN has determined that it could make 10 (TEN!) OHPs operational again and pay for years of operation, all for the cost of one new LCS, but has decided not to do it.

          • Rocco

            Yes now actually going to sink one again. It took over 12 hrs to sink the last one. On utube

          • Duane

            Your numbers are off literally by an order of magnitude.

            The Navy decided not to do it because the cost was way higher than you claim. $432M PER SHIP, just to get 10 more years out of an old obsolete hull that lacks any OTH missiles, and with antiquated sonar, non-networkable (no CANES), and antiquated battle management systems (no COMBATTS-21),
            and no unmanned systems.

            The Navy was only willing to even consider resurecting the old OHPs to perform a mission that really belongs to the Coasties, i.e., drug interdiction in the Caribbean. And even for that they didn’t justify the cost.

            The $432M per hull for the OHP refurb is more than the cost of a brand new Freedom class LCS with either a SuW or ASW MM installed.

            That’s why the Navy said “no thanks” to the OHP.

          • Retired

            You can strap Harpoons on anything nowadays and call it a warship-you’ve said that over and over yourself. Heck, the ALDD (Attack Littoral Dry Dock) with 16 Harpoons is a far far more powerful warship than the LCS-since it can only carry two without tipping over. In fact, the ALDD is even more powerful than an Arleigh Burke destroyer.

      • Retired

        What a joke! “could not be upgraded” Do you not realize that they were upgraded several times during their lifespan. Heck, when I was in, even my old Knox was constantly getting upgraded with new black boxes in the sonar equipment room, etc. Why do we have to correct you so often?

        • Duane

          The Sprus could not be upgraded to anything close to what an AB can do. Why do I have to correct you so often?

          • LT Rusty

            Duane, not everything needs to be AEGIS. They still had a damn good sonar, a bunch of VLS cells, some sweet 5″/54’s, a useful hangar, and places to stuff Harpoon tubes. And HAYLER, at 18, was less than half the age they’re projecting the BURKEs to be at decom. SPRUANCE herself wasn’t really that much older, and still well shy of 45.

            The difference? They were neglected. Intentionally.

          • Dean687

            Why does anyone, except for the person you see in the mirror, listen to you?

          • Chesapeakeguy

            The Spruances were the very epitome of what ‘upgrading’ is all about. They started out with two 5 inch guns and an ASROC box launcher, as well as some ASW torpedoes. They had a hangar and flight deck to handle up to 2 small helicopters. In the years following the commissioning of the USS Spruance itself, they received (and I think the order is correct here, but the order is also irrelevant) Harpoon missiles, Seahawk (LAMPS III) helicopters, Phalanx, Cruise missiles (in armored box launchers), Sea Sparrow, and ultimately a 64 cell VLS system. A ship is always going to be as good as its sensors, communications, and weapons are. And the Navy, if and when they make the commitment, are pretty good at keeping their ships ‘current’. You say the Spruance is not an AB. For once, you are correct about something. Guess what, the LCS is not an AB either. With the LCS and the vaunted, mythical ‘future frigate’. the Navy is going to have a fair number of non-Aegis ships again. And it will be OK, because all those Aegis equipped ships will be there to protect them. Just like how the Spruance was protected by them, as well as the Perrys!

  • Leatherstocking

    I need some of VADM Merz’s magic fairy dust that can extend a ship’s life. With it I can build electronic and electromechanical systems with parts built from Unobtainium. 20% of the DoD supplier base has quit, retired or merged since 2011. Many are hanging on by a thread, going deep into debt. There was no DoD authorization in place for 15 of the last 20 months so second and third tier suppliers are going broke. They don’t have the funds to buy and store components for future builds as we have in the past, offsetting the Navy’s continuing failure to ensure logistics support for the lifetime of its ships.

    • RunningBear

      Thanks for identifying “some” of the results of our politicians playing in their sand-box for these last 100 years, ‘nough said. A plan, the anathema of a politician, for the Burkes can now allow the Navy to source the materials and components required to “update” these now 120ish ships. As the strengths of each type I/II/IIA/III and hull are defined, the type update can be standardized (ala Henry Ford) and planned projects for scope, schedules and budgets. This supports all of the suppliers and removes the political budgeting yoyos from impacting the Navy and the support system. Standards for Aegis and BMD can be updated as technology evolves per a
      plan and optimizes the expenses without the political yoyos. Protecting our international trade lanes and our role in the “World Cop” and ……No fairy dust required.

  • Dean687

    “Here’s a Russian, there’s a Russian, oh lookie comrade, there’s another Russian hiding behind that posting.” Give it up comrade Dueneeski, your Russian antics were funny the first time, but they do get old after the 1,246th time. Come on man, get out of your Cold war mentality it’s 2018 after all.

  • Hank Wilson

    45 years. How many trips to Bremerton?

  • Dan O’Brian

    Your hate is overriding any sense of decorum and logic. You can’t post anything here without hate and insult on your mind. You have a g o d complex where ‘everyone’ is ‘wrong’ but you. You have zero credibility here-go away and leave us adults alone. Perhaps you’ll be happier in North Korea with your own “dear leader.” We’ll all gladly chip in and buy you a one way ticket.

  • Hank Wilson

    Your ignorance must be bliss. Been on watch in the “CIC” of a Russian or Chinese boat? Or maybe you’re just too full of yourself to be concerned about “technicalities.”

    • Rocco

      He is!! Had to tell him off yesterday!! He claims he served on subs 40 yrs ago.

      • Duane

        I did. You’re the same guy who claimed in anither USNI thread I was obviously lying in saying I served on a 637-class SSN, because the 637 was a boomer. Really, dude, look it up on the web before posting obviously incorrect comments. You claim to be a wise old Navy salt and yet did not even recognize the class number of the Navy’s lead SSN platform in the late 60s, 70s, and early 80s. Some “salt”!

        SMH

        • old guy

          What the heck, he’s only off by 100 numbers.

    • Duane

      What ignorance, dude? In your world, apparently, 50 year old ship designs are not obsolete? Hmmm … in the real world, progress marches a lot faster than that. And ships also just wear out. Happens to all of them, both obsolescence and wear and tear.

      • Hank Wilson

        3rd world countries have cast-offs from old REAL navies. Chinese have copird OLD tech, as well as the Ruskies. Take a hot shower on a Rusky ship.

  • RunningBear

    Amen, Amen!!

  • publius_maximus_III

    I do love those Arleigh Burkes. Now I think I can safely say I won’t out-live that versatile class of U.S. warship. More destroyers, more destroyers, more Arleigh Burke DDG-51 Flight III destroyers… and hold onto all those Flight IIA, II, and I’s, too.

    Tin Can sailors forever.

    • Rocco

      Atta boy!! BTW flt 2&1’s will not be upgraded just read yesterday.

  • Rocco

    Lol

  • Rocco

    Agreed…. However as per the CNO yesterday stated that by 2030-40 the Burke’s will be outdated & too small of a hull to accommodate laser technology. Hence for the need of a new Cruiser!!

    • Todd

      Nah, the fleet admiral will argue, until he’s purple, that the upcoming “Frikken-laser” module for the LCS is better and more powerful and any other out there.

  • Western

    What are we doing “right now” to train the welders, pipefitters, electricians, carpenters, machinists, and computer techs that we will need to build and maintain the fleet? Yes, we need these skills now for the nations infrastructure, but I like to think we need the top ten percent of welders for ship hulls, and the top electricians for radar and sonar and ECM.

  • Scott Ferguson

    Seek help.

  • Mk-Ultra

    You have issues

    • Rocco

      Sorry all out of tissues!!

  • Yamanote

    USCG 378’s Hamilton class were in use for over 50 years. Still a couple going strong. Welcome to our world.

  • Scott Ferguson

    Lead by example.

  • Scott Ferguson

    LMAO!

    “Your a poor example!”?

    I know that the word to use is “you’re”, not “your”…

  • siempre44

    These are plans to attain needed fleet size – but not until 20 years from now. Is that really a realistic view of the threat? Is that to be taken as a sign that no serious peer conflict is anticipated for the foreseeable future?

  • Gundog15

    This is their plan for today until the next administration decides otherwise. Nothing worth getting worked up over. 50/50 chance the DDG 51 class will see +35 years of service.