The US Navy decommissioned four Ticonderoga-class cruisers, a fifth is on the way

The US Navy continues to retire the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, deeming it too costly to keep them operational. With the funds saved on the modernization of cruisers, it is planned to purchase new ships for the American fleet.

In total, according to the plans of the command of the US Navy, five Ticonderoga-class cruisers will be decommissioned this year, and today four of them have already been decommissioned. The first cruiser USS Vella Gulf (CG-72) was decommissioned in August, in the 20th of September - USS Monterey (CG-61), on September 22 and 23, the cruisers USS Anzio (CG-68) and USS Hue City were commissioned from the US Navy (CG-66) respectively. The ceremony was held at the naval base in Norfolk. Another cruiser, USS Port Royal (CG-73), is being "retired" on September 29th.

Earlier it was reported that in 2022 it is planned to decommission seven rather than five cruisers of this class. As stated in the command of the US Navy, the modernization of the Ticonderoga-class cruisers is too expensive, for example, to upgrade the two ships USS Anzio (CG-68) and USS Hue City (CG-66), it would take $ 1,5 billion.

The decommissioning of the Ticonderoga cruisers, which play a leading role in air defense as part of the AUG, has been talked about for a long time, it was stated that the ships cause too many maintenance problems due to outdated equipment and systems.

The cruisers have a displacement of 9800 tons, a length of 172 meters and a width of 16 meters. Armed with cruise missiles "Tomahawk", anti-submarine ASROC, anti-aircraft SM-2 and SM-3. They are considered the most heavily armed ships of the US Navy, as they have 122 vertical missile launch cells. Two MH-60R Seahawk helicopters are based on board.

Comments

[Fisherman]

As experience and practice show, new ships in the United States are many times more expensive than existing ones, but the latest bells and whistles make them ineffective. The United States has inflated its fleet without worthy enemies in the world's oceans, the use of such a huge fleet is no longer paying off - everything in the world is divided and it is impossible to capture something worthwhile to pay off a naval war of this magnitude - it is impossible, with the help of economic leverage, they already get a margin with every movement in the markets. So the fleet has so far lost its economic efficiency for the United States. The PRC will soon have more ships not only in terms of tonnage, but also in terms of efficiency, because the Chinese rely on the projects of the Soviet and Russian schools and carefully introduce new items into the Navy, only proven ones and do not make ships "revolutionary" in batches - economically and military - meaningless. So the "hegemon" is blown away on the water. That's when the Chinese and I make a new wide-body and start stamping it - the "hegemon" will also lose the advantage of air logistics ... the latest materials show that the Yankees and the Air Force are losing their advantage over China (based on the secrecy of China's programs - most likely already lost).

[Alexey RA]

Well, the last of these KR UROs - the same USS Port Royal (CG-73) - was accepted by the fleet in 1994. USS Monterey (CG-61) generally served 32 years.
No wonder it's cheaper to build a new ship than it is to upgrade 30 year old veterans.

[Negruz]

Upgrading two veterans, as stated in the article, would cost $ 1,5 billion ...

Burke of the "restart" of the 2A series cost $ 2,235 billion in 2013 prices (the dollar has fallen by 30 percent since then) ....

Somehow the economy is not visible ...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Negruz

Somehow the economy is not going through ...

If we take the full statement of Vice Adm. Jim Kilby, then there the savings are visible in full growth: an estimated 2,78 billion dollars were required to maintain seven UROs in the ranks for two years. And another one and a half billion - for modernization.

Keeping those seven cruisers in the fleet would cost the service about $5 billion throughout the Pentagon's five-year budget outlook, deputy chief of naval operations for warfighting requirements and capabilities (OPNAV N9) Vice Adm. Jim Kilby told Congress last month.
“If we were to retain those ships for two years – all seven ships – that's roughly $2.78 billion. The cost to modernize Hue City and Anzio alone is $1.5 billion approximately,” he said. “So that's the rough breakdown of figures for those ships.”

© Navy Outlines Planning, Execution Failures in Cruiser Modernization Program
Moreover, these amounts are estimates, because the budget for modernization was calculated "historically", on the basis of previous contracts and did not take into account the sharp rise in prices in recent years. As a result, the real cost of modernization does not fit into the budget in any way and becomes known only at the stage of concluding a contract.

[Negruz]

If we take the full statement of Vice Adm. jim kilby,

Are you me or the Author of the article?

an estimated $2,78 billion was required to maintain seven URO missiles in service for two years

$2,78 billion / for 7 KR * 2 years = $0,2 billion per year per ship...
Therefore, if we upgrade 2 CR for 1,5 billion, then the cost of both ships (modernization + year of service) will be 1,5 billion + 0,4 billion = 1,9 billion...
While only construction one Burke "restart" series 2A cost 2,235 billion dollars in 2013 prices (since then, the dollar has fallen in price by 30 percent) ....
And, of course, the cost of Burke's year of service is also > 0...

If you divide the money into "cells", then something completely absurd comes out ...

No, if there is any savings here, then it consists in something else ....

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Negruz

No, if there is any savings here, then it consists in something else ....

There are savings here. You spend 1,5 billion and get two cruisers for another five to seven years. Then - all the same to deduce them in a sediment. Or you spend 2,3 billion and get a ship for 35 years. The cost of a "ship year" in the second case is much less

[Negruz]

That is, saving money will not begin very soon - yes ...
But!
You see, they could save 244 "cells" for 5-7 years, and then build a new ship ....
However, it was decided to have 96 cells right now for 35 years ahead....

Apparently, there was a reassessment of the role of such ships, or they stupidly reduced funds and offered to "save" on something (cut costs) ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Negruz

You see, they could save 244 "cells" for 5-7 years, and then build a new ship ....

But it will cost $3,8 billion...

[Negruz]

But it will cost $3,8 billion...

If not more ...

[NOMADE]

And how long does it take us to repair Kuznetsov?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: NOMADE

And how long does it take us to repair Kuznetsov?

Against the background of "Nakhimov" - for a relatively short time. And if you remember the Bratsk, which was put in for repairs in 2003, by 2013 they didn’t even carry out an inventory, they dragged it to Severodvinsk - and wrote it off in 2022.

[UAZ 452]

So in the fleet, the number of admiral posts is limited by the ship composition in the first place, therefore, since the days of the USSR Navy (I don’t know about RI), admirals have demanded new ships, and more, but they didn’t write off the old ones, even if its combat value was zero. Nobody thought that they would have to fight on this scrap metal.

[Alexey RA]

Pfff ... it's just that someone did not know how to correctly compose the OShS. Two ships - a division, two divisions - a brigade, two brigades - a division. And now we already have seven headquarters for eight ships.
And it is also possible to reorganize and reduce the "field" structures, but leave all the coastal headquarters intact and intact under them. So that the headquarters of the division commanded essentially one division.
They were able to create as many as 13 admiral posts with their naval staff.

[Saboteur_Navy]

O! Good news! These cruisers are the most combat-ready and most powerful in the US Navy.

[Asad]

Not an expert in this matter, but berks?

[Saboteur_Navy]

It’s also good, the most valuable thing is Aegis, there are significantly more than 122 cells on the missile cruiser, no one has that
The Aegis system made the US Navy the strongest, Aegis has the most valuable asset and a multi-channel duplication system

[solar]

Berks were built according to the principle "Two-thirds of Teak's capabilities for half its cost."
In practice, in terms of real parameters, Berks are not inferior to Tiki, and modern versions are superior.

[TermNachTer]

The tiki has three guidance channels, the björk has two. Tiki has 30% more b/c. No savings and nothing better. I am glad that instead of fully working ships, mattress covers will again come up with some kind of "zamvolt")))

[Alexey RA]

Quote: TermNachTER

The tiki has three guidance channels, the björk has two.

1 more: the Tiki has four AN/SPG-62 illumination radars. Burke has three.

[TermNachTer]

I will not argue, I remember that the "tiki" has one more.

[solar]

Tiki has 4, Burke has 3, but not a guidance channel, but a target illumination radar at the terminal section of the flight of anti-aircraft missiles.
Burke has 18 missile guidance channels, like Tiki.
The number of illumination radars has lost its relevance with the advent of SM-6 and ESSM Block 2 missiles with active seeker, for which target illumination is not required.
Burke has 96 cells, Tiki has 122, that is, Burke has 20 percent fewer cells. Tiki has 2 guns, Burke has 1.
All in line with the idea of ​​"three-quarters of the features for half the price"

[TermNachTer]

The active head is turned on only at the final stage, before that, the target must be "highlighted", so the number of illumination radars is still relevant.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: TermNachTER

The active head is turned on only at the final stage, before that, the target must be "highlighted", so the number of illumination radars is still relevant.

The new American ship-based missiles with ARLGSN have a combined guidance system borrowed from the AIM-120: INS + RKTU on the march section and ARL on the final one. Actually, their GOS itself is modified from AMRAAM.
The backlight remained relevant only for SAM models with PARLGSN.

[solar]

It is necessary to highlight only at the terminal section, before that the rocket flies on an inertial system with radio correction.

[TermNachTer]

And radio correction is not "highlight"? No need to keep track of where the target and the missile are? AGRLS - it shot and forgot.

[solar]

Of course not.
AN / SPG-62 target illumination ensures the operation of the GOS with semi-active homing - the radar signal reflected from the target is received by the GOS of the missile. Works on the last seconds when approaching the target.
And radio correction is the transmission of information about a change in the course of a rocket's flight on the marching section

[TermNachTer]

And in order to correct the flight of a rocket over a radio channel, you don’t need to see the target? Rocket control still comes from PU. And ARLSN is "shot and forgotten", is the difference really not visible?

[solar]

GOS works at the terminal section. Therefore, radio flight correction is used on the marching section for both semi-active GOS and active ones. The difference is that illumination is not required for the second radar (although it can also be used).
Illumination is not used for radio correction of the GOS; for this, the main multifunctional radar station is used at Berki.

[Skipper]

Berkova has 3 packages of 96 cells versus 4 and 122 cells for Ticonderoga ... and is cheaper to maintain

[Pereira]

Grigorovich has 8 calibers. In arms 1 Burke = 12 Grigorovich.
Issue price 500 million (Price for India 2016) x 12 = 6 billion.
How much is Burke worth?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Pereira

Grigorovich has 8 calibers. In arms 1 Burke = 12 Grigorovich.

On Grigorovich, there are 8 UKKS and 24 cells for missiles, in total - 32 cells against 96 on the berk.

Quote: Pereira

Issue price 500 million (Price for India 2016)

Multiply by 3 = 1,5 billion versus Burke's 2,3 billion, despite the fact that our fleet received these frigates cheaper

[Alexey Nikolaevich_2]

Quote: ASAD

and berks?

less cells for uro probably

[Two]

Good version! They will write it off and give it to the Svidomites... Ships are like a long time, new systems will run in. And the Turks will let them through, between the lines, into the Black Sea! The Sultan will not offend himself ...

[TermNachTer]

They won't transfer. The ships are really shabby. An error or miscalculation was still at the design stage - the hull designs were "re-lightened", their hulls cracked all the time during operation. They are put out of action ahead of schedule, apparently the situation is quite awful.

[Zadok]

Quote: NOMADE

And how long does it take us to repair Kuznetsov?

the question is not correctly posed. it is necessary "how long have they not repaired Kuznetsov?"

[UAZ 452]

In light of the success of the fleet in the Northern Military District, especially large ships, no one will seriously repair the Kuznetsov, they will write it off quietly. Yes, this is right - for this money, if it is properly disposed of, you can do a lot that actually saves the lives of our military and increases the combat capability of the Armed Forces, and not cut show-offs, restoring a ship suitable only for parades and displaying the flag in peacetime.

[Ivan_Krasnov]

Soon, aircraft carriers will also be added to the write-off.

[Charik]

At first it seemed Cyril, but no