Share this comment
She was built in a government yard; the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.
There is no reason our ships cannot last for 50 to 60 years. Pushing a hole through the water is not that different from holes we pushed through the water in 1915. If we use gas turbines for propulsion; just drop in a new box. If properly maintained, a big if, our hulls …
She was built in a government yard; the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.
There is no reason our ships cannot last for 50 to 60 years. Pushing a hole through the water is not that different from holes we pushed through the water in 1915. If we use gas turbines for propulsion; just drop in a new box. If properly maintained, a big if, our hulls should be serviceable for half a century.
Electronics should be upgradable. Weapons should be upgradable. The hull, and the machinery in the hull, should last for decades.
Sure.
And I could still be driving my blue 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme.
Replace the upholstery, add in a Sirius Satellite radio and some new speakers and you are good to go.
..... Unless like many GM cars of that era, the body and frame haven't already decomposed into a pile of rust, the interior plastic hasn't already turned brittle and cracked, and the seat cloth isn't already faded and torn even though no one has sat in the seats for thirty-five or more years. (I called the last GM car I owned, a 1979 model, my 'disaster mobile'. It richly deserved the name I had given iit.)
I don't want to use the word "sea frame" because that is part of the patois used by the transformationalists, but, the hull and propulsion system of a warship ought to be constructed with an eye to durability. Profit-driven commercial enterprises use planned obsolescence, to keep demand for their products high. A sovereign building weapons should build solid, stable ships, upon which can be piled the latest in sensors, weapons, and electronics.
Takin my 69 Dart for its first drive in 15+ years last summer was pretty gratifying... !! We're getting to the serious resto, including replacing a quarter panel, outer wheelhouse and trunk floor this year.
Tom, you are smarter than that comment. have you been in a shipyard and seen the issues with a 30 year old Navy ship in ROH? It is simply mind-boggling to see the list of items NLA from the original supplier that closed their doors 15 years ago. Many private yards won't even bid on Navy contracts that want a Firm Fixed Price contract because they know under the 17 layers of paint lurks a plethora of problems. Look at the price of extending the CG 47 class. In 2022 we were going to extend the life of several Aegis cruisers. The cost exceeded the estimates by an average of 200%, and delays awaiting parts almost doubled the overhaul period. Gilday convinced Congress it was not money well spent.
I left a ship which was 25 years old to serve on a 36 year old FRAM can. She was a capable ship and served in Mexico until 2002; 57 years. With two 5"/38 twin mounts and ASROC, I would venture to say she was far more lethal than the LCS.
Even after 30 years of service, she got underway on time.
The Enterprise served for 51 years.
Get the name “Enterprise” out your mouth.
Enterprise.
Lol
Is she though?
Gilday was and remains a cuck though.
No disagreement there!
I recently went through a S/Y period for a 30 yo vessel and am currently working on a 15 yo vessel yard period. These are both commercial vessels but the amount of steel replaced on the 30 vessel was extensive. It was partially driven by the fact an engineer dropped a strainer the size of a water glass and holed the vessel on the port. Then a couple of months later the hull spontaneously failed at the same frame on the stbd side. Old vessels are OLD. The hulls are suffering metal fatigue, the plate is thinning from rust and wear, and wiring runs are choked with old wire that may or may not be attached to anything but is certainly prone to failure at the worst possible time (ie combat). If one was to plan for extended life hulls and build accordingly that's one thing but most of the current force is old and was never intended to be kept in service for 50 years.
Vessels that appear to be prime and less than a couple of decades old go to the breakers precisely due to what you describe. Without a deck crew to constantly maintain and without a yard period to fox basics such as steerage and thru hulls, it’s often cheaper to sink the costs in new builds and buy new.
That cruiser "modernization" program was a sham, and a way to push the Navys agenda of getting rid of them.