Tango01 | 12 Apr 2014 9:46 p.m. PST |
"USS Port Royal is one of the most powerful warships in the U.S. Navy, packing 122 vertical missile cells. She's a rarity—one of just five Aegis cruisers equipped with the technology to shoot down ballistic missiles. And at just 20 year old, she's also the youngest of America's 22 Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers. Port Royal could have another 20 years of useful service ahead of her. So it's a mystery why the Navy wants to decommission the 567-foot-long vessel as fast as possible. Especially since a Congress watchdog group insists there's nothing wrong with the ship
" link link Full article here. link Amicalement Armand |
Zakalwe64 | 13 Apr 2014 4:43 a.m. PST |
Maybe they could sell it to the Chinese? |
sgt Dutch | 13 Apr 2014 6:19 a.m. PST |
Not to sell it to the Chinese. Just to make the US defenseless. |
John the OFM | 13 Apr 2014 6:51 a.m. PST |
With the down-sizing iof the Military, the Navy wants to make sure there will be the proper ratio of ships to Captains. Congress will step in. They are so very cost-conscious. Always have been. |
Feet up now | 13 Apr 2014 7:17 a.m. PST |
Are they going to cannibalise this cruiser to use on the older ships?. Aegis ships I believe are very expensive so having instant replacement parts could be cost effective in the long term. |
Happy Little Trees | 13 Apr 2014 8:26 a.m. PST |
It's haunted. And Scooby-Doo can't get government clearance to board her
|
CorroPredo | 13 Apr 2014 8:29 a.m. PST |
The Navy has a bad habit of scrapping or sinking ships that have years left on their life spans, but keeping 70 year old ships in mothballs. I suspect it has to do with making sure they get money for new super ships instead of being told to use ones we already have built-like the Iowa's. Case in point- Navy sank all the Spruance class destroyers they had, as quick as they could when they were decommissioned. Even though they had 15 years left on their hulls. |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Apr 2014 10:32 a.m. PST |
It really depends on the material condition of the hull. Look at the 688 class. Some young ships have been scrapped at the ~20yr point because they didn't have but ~5 years left in the hull. They'd just been used too hard, and didn't have enough time being kept up in the shipyards. Another idea is the Ohio-class SSGN conversions. The US needed to remove 4 hulls from strategic service, but those hulls still had 20+ years of life in them! So the Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia each got a full refueling and had all the strategic control systems yanked out, plus a couple missile tubes removed and replaced by diver's trunks. |
David Manley | 13 Apr 2014 12:09 p.m. PST |
Didn't she have a coming together with the sea bed not long ago? That or an unfortunate timing in terms of maintenance schedules could be the reason |
Charlie 12 | 13 Apr 2014 12:35 p.m. PST |
David- You're right. She grounded on a reef off Hawaii back in 2009. Had damage to her sonar and prop shafts. That probably a major factor in her decommissioning. |
epturner | 13 Apr 2014 6:26 p.m. PST |
Every ship, no matter what "class", is unique in her own way. Each ship has it's own problems. I spent 10 years as a licensed Deck Officer in the Merchant Marine. Even ships built in the same yard, to the same specs, performed differently. My first ship as an Ordinary Seaman, was a USNS fleet replenishment oiler. She was different, according to my shipmates who sailed on a sister ship, that the others. She was a good sea boat, but had massive vibrations when going through one set of engine rpm's that her sister(s) did not. It was the Colt-Pielstick engines we had, so said my shipmates. One set had five cylinders, another had six. Apparently, that made a difference. Eric |