So, the Navy had 35 years to plan their replacement, and failed to do so. Therefore, instead of accepting higher maintenance as a penalty for their poor planning, these ships will be retired, and without replacement for several years. I hope somebody asked the Chinese to slow roll their plans for Pacific conquest while we get caught up.
Ships wear out, from what I have seen the cost and time overruns for the refurbishment of these ships means it is just not worth it. As to not having a replacement, past mistakes will not make the ships any more viable. As for the china carrier group threats, the first carrier is just for training, the second is slightly better, but they have no viable carrier based aircraft at this time, that will change, but years away at present.
@@alandavis7987 China is not going head to head with the US using carriers. Why would they? Their smart enough not to dump $13 billion plus in a huge target that requires additional expensive weapon platforms just to operate. They'll build cheap quiet diesel electric subs and saturate the US task force. They already proven they can get within the perimeter of a US task force. The US let its ASW capabilities decay since the end of the Cold War.
My thoughts as well. Retiring these 48 vessels will leave the US Navy very short of ships, especially if China keeps building it naval fleet. It will outnumber the US fleet before the replacement ships are built. Have they even started planning the new vessels?
Yes, the Chinese has been very aggressive off the US coast! The PLAN has bases off the US and can strike at any time. The Chinese has been involved in the most number of wars in the last 50 years and clearly the most war mongering nation on the face of this planet! How Dare they!
Don’t park them without a suitable and comparable replacement. Failure of Zummwalt and LCS leaves a capability gap that won’t be filled by retiring current vessels.
They don’t need a replacement, the Burke can do everything this ship can do yeah the cruiser has some more VLS cell but overall the man goal of that ship was air defence and the Burke can do that today so there’s no need for a new cruiser.
@@Future-Preps35 this is what was going g to be done to 7 if them, the conditions found have increased the cost and time to an uneconomic level, even the US defence budget has its limits.
The Navy has been so poorly lead that it finds itself retiring billions in brand new littoral class ships and with nothing to show for it but wasted time and money. The replacement of the the Ticonderoga class should have been a cruiser with the capabilities greater than the Burke. No one is held accountable unless the offend the WOKE culture elites of the Navy these days
I pre-commissioned CG-56 USS San Jacinto. Even back then it was obvious the Spruance Class hull had reached finality. Very little room for growth. They were designed for a 30 year life span (or so I was recently told. But why would you build a multimillion dollar platform with only a 30 year lifespan? That makes no sense whatsoever.) and have exceeded their life expectancy.
You should know that salt water is a bitch!!! Unless you throw gobs of money at it, 30 years is about all you should expect!! That's the nice thing about ships on the Great Lakes. Fresh water is infinitely kinder!!!!
But the US will never hand over there Cruiser on any Country bro ! They will be placed as a Reserve it means in the time of Conflict or War they will be Activated again. 🙂
I do not understand why the USN doesn't simply just stretch a Burke Flight III hull, put in the power plant from the Zumwalt with its greater electrical production and quiet turbo-electric drives, increase the number of Mk. 41 VLS cells (128) to include the large diameter VLS cells (8+) for future hypersonic strike missiles. The standard Burke-class hull already has a wider beam than the CG-47 hull, so a hull plug to bring this Burke(+) hull the extra volume for more missiles and other systems would only bring the hull up to close to the same fineness ratio (and improved fuel efficiency) as the original CG-47 hull design.
Because the goal is not to improve our Navy but rather to make sure we do not have the necessary capability to fight a multi-adversary conflict on geographically separate fronts. The 2011 Budget that called for defense budget cuts was during the Obama administration that loved cutting/gutting military budgets while padding entitlement spending and other pet projects. Secondly, the Navy/Air Force never does anything that makes sense because it is all about getting as much of the military budget allocated to their respective pet projects as they can. Look at what occurred with Seawolf, Zumwalt, Ford Class carriers, F-35 program, etc. Technical advancements are great if we can make them reliable, cost effective (cheaper to maintain than their replacements), and add a significant improvement and capability to our fighting capabilities. When your enemy is building up their military so should you.
Or just put SPY-6 and some fire control radars to the Zumwalt class and integrate the Aegis system in. The design, hull, IPS, etc. are already validated. You can also replace one of the guns with 32 more VLS cells, getting it to a total of 112, and replace the other one with a 5 inch gun for CIWS. It also uses half the crew as Aegis, making it much cheaper to operate.
I've been think something along the same lines. The ships themselves would be built from the keel up with the stretch in them (and the additional equipment mentioned) rather than stretching existing hulls (to avoid having similar issues to what the Coast Guard experienced when they tried to stretch some of their vessels). I would also add to the equipment you listed aft radar areas, similar to what the Ticonderogas have. I think I would also give this series its own class name, rather than referring to them as Flight IVs (or similar). I think the name Ranger Class would be good (it's available now, and is one of the most storied ship names within the US Navy - right up there with Enterprise).
Arleigh Burke is a destroyer. Not a cruiser. And it yet have the sizes of a cruiser. To be precise, it's bigger than a Pensacola-class cruiser from WW2. On this way, an eventual new US Navy Cruiser will have sizes of a WW2 Battleship. 😑 Or even more bigger.
Mothballing is not cheap. Also no new navy ship is 100% new, a lot of equipment on these ships will be refurbished and go on new Arleigh Burkes being built.
@@CharlonClarke China has no say in the matter hence why we already provide Taiwan with weapons. Heck we don't even have to sell them to Taiwan, we could just base them there and use article 5 as a deterrent against China as they would then be attacking US military equipment.
I so agree. There needs to be accountability with some serious consequences for the waste and failure to deliver. I respect the Navy as a whole, but my God, heads need to roll.
The Zunwalts are what happens when you try to leapfrog tech. The Littorals are what happens when you try to do to much with not enough money. The Burkes and the Virginias are an example of when you get it right.
"An tee et em" 👎 that would be pronounced "Ant tee tam" the battle this ship was named after was the bloodiest single day in American military history! Who edited this?
Damn why can't any one pronounce the words right.It's pronounced Ty conderoga, not tick conderoga.It's Aagis not eegis.It's so irritating to hear every one miss pronounce the words.
I know beauty doesn't pay the bills but these are beautiful looking ships in a mean way. The Charles F Adams class would be right up there in the good looks also.
I hope General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin have something up their sleeve to replace the current Destroyer and Cruiser fleet. They're not getting any younger.
Arleigh Burke are receiving upgrading to Flight III, while for Frigates they have requested our designs for a multi-purpose but still mainly ASW frigate. Cruisers... that would be a challenge. GE have to design something really fine. I'm curious.
@@navyreviewer Well…tbh I think we should all focus more on building settlements on mrs and the moon…we, normal people, should globally consider what kind of leadership we really need. Besides that I agree with you.
They aren't going to be swept off the table. The navy's plan is to phase them out and use the money that would have been spent modernizing them on new flight 3 burkes. This is akin to stop dumping money into fixing your 35 year old car and just buying a new one.
Please handover the complete armaments, sensors and other parts of the Ticonderoga Class Guide Missile Cruiser to the Philippine Navy for it's additional fleet? Thank you
Since the end of WW-II, Congress has been extremely reluctant to build Cruisers for the US Navy. Ships like Long Beach, just reinforced the idea that Cruisers are too expensive to build. So the Navy asked for guided missile frigates. The Leahy and Belknap classes were built. Ships Congress later redesignated "cruisers." Later the Navy asked for Aegis escort for its Nuclear powered aircraft carriers. An aegis version of the Spruance class destroyer. As well as a Cruiser class nearly twice as large. Designed as a DDG, USS Ticonderoga was considered a top heavy and overloaded version, of the Spruance class destroyer. Using the same hull, and power plant. Congress refused to fund the cruiser design. Then redesignated the planned Aegis destroyers as cruisers. With a seventy year track record of not funding many cruisers. The Navy has learned to build ever larger "destroyers" while asking for new cruisers. The Navy's new frigate is the size of what was once the size of post war destroyers. New Arleigh Burke class destroyers are the size of WW-II cruisers! Today's Congress no longer has the luxury of defunding the US Navy. Realistically the US Navy needs two guided missile battleships, (18,000-20,000 tons) four cruisers, (10,000-12,000 tons) eight destroyers (6000 tons) and 12 frigates (3000 tons). To escort each aircraft carrier. Additionally the US Navy needs hundreds of sea going Corvettes 1,200-2,500 tons for convoy duty escorting merchant ships. Socialists never think that they can lose a war. Adolf Hitler and his National socialist party, didn't think that they would lose. The United States Government has been infiltrated by socialists today. Much like the German government in the 1930's. Because the US, and its allies won two world wars. Socialists lose the big wars. Because socialism is a fundamentally flawed, form of government. The people they need to fight the hardest? Have no reason to do so. Because socialism is fundamentally abusive, controlling and violent. Relying on fear, corruption, lies, and oppression to dominate the population. So the population has no reason to believe in, or to support it. Congress has no need for a powerful Navy, because they don't really think that they need one.
So , the Navy is retiring the Ticonderoga class cruisers because of their age and cost to maintain , some of the Arleigh Burke destroyers are 30 years old as well , what new designs does the Navy have planned ?
They may be old ships, but they're better than the brand new ships that the Chinese are building.I say.They should consider donating them or selling them to Taiwan.
@上官 竹喧 What are you laughing for wumao 😊 You should take care about your decreasing population and economic collapse first before learn to replied what human say 😊
How do the retirement portion of the Ticonderoga compare with those of the Russian Navy in the Black Sea? If comparable, why not train Ukranian sailors now and donate to Ukraine rather than retirement docked at possibly soon age expectancy? Just a question, worth disregarding if not fighting comparable to Russia's aging Black Sea fleet.
Modern weapons including hyperacurate long range torpedoes and Hypersonic missiles have made surface Fleet ships into nothing button floating coffins. The US has obviously realize this. But China is making cruises which subsequently are using copies of 40-year-old obsolete radar the United States never uses anymore. The reason China has to build these larger ships is their technology hasn't reached that stage yet. Considering Chinese technology is based off of stolen Russian technology. The United States has ohio-class submarines that can launch 155 Tomahawk or Surface attack missiles in one volley just think about that
@@Fauzanarief-n7i you realise that alot of companies needed for the construction and design are state-owned so costs are less? Different than the USA cause it brings more competition and so quality with it But yeh, Type 55s are cool
If you really wanted to replace the ticos with a off-the-shelf equipment put it on the modified San Antonio Hull. It's got more room than a stretched out AB. And I'm not saying like an arsenal ship but just like a 25k cruiser. You can have your hypersonics, lasers, and eventually your railguns. And then all destroyers should be just anti-air, we don't want them hunting submarines. That's what the cheaper frigates/Corvettes are there for.
Damn...'My Navy' is retiring... the idea of Ticonderoga class retiring was something I did not expect to see in my life time...And I dont think Ill be sober when we retire the USS Nimitz...CVN 68. Hell. USS Long Beach CGN 9 and USS Enterprise CGN 65, along with the California, Leahy, Belknap, Bainbridge, and Virginia class CG/CGN's were all still on the Front Line...When I left US Naval Service...Gonna miss em...
They should make Nimitz an active reserve carrier. Reduced crew but able to do things like flight qualifications, testing and all the other things the front line ships shouldn't be spending time on.
make the burke 3's bigger with a different power plant then build a true destroyer to replace the rest of the burke's for escort then turn the f1 and f2 burkes into am and anti sat ships that patrol vital areas.
The United States needs cruisers. For this country, it’s a two front war - the Atlantic and Pacific. The Navy needs cruisers large enough with room for growth, in technology and weapons, and ease of maintenance. There is a platform already in operation the Navy possesses and that’s the San Antonio class LPD. With modifications to the design of the hull and power plant as well as internal storage for weapons,the Navy can have a cruiser that’s nearly 700 feet long, packing lots of missiles, a large helicopter deck, powerful engines that provide long range and high speeds, which will give this type of cruiser the capability to defend the carrier strike group.
Refit the Ticonderogas for anti-satellite/ ballistic missile ships. Take the Arleigh Burke class ships scheduled for plugs out of the production run and turn them into Cruisers with extra length for deeper magazines and HEAVY self protection (4 ciws, 4ram, and 2 dual purpose 76mm fore and aft). Fit out a bunch of "commercial ferry" hulls with VLS engines to keep up to act as magazines for the Agis hauling ships. Oh spray the "Magazine Ships" down with Radar arborbing foam (A foot oughta do it) and load them so they barely float in a cat5 storm. (heck make tyhem semi-surface going with electrics if needed there is a German fuel cell sub out there....
I don't see the Ticonderoga class as the replacement for the Virginia class. The Ticonderoga class replaced the Belknap and Leahy classes, great ships but obsolete without the SPY-1 radars and severely limited by their missile launcher design. The Virginia class were nukes, a fast ship that could keep up with nuke carriers, but also obsolete without the SPY-1 radars and again limited because of their missile launchers. Nothing has replaced the Virginal class. The Navy has no nuke ships that can keep up with the carriers.
These ships suffer from maintenance issues which means they are often unavailable, they are costly to operate and maintain, and their radar and battle management systems are dated. It makes sense to retire these early and buy more Flight 3 destroyers a frigates. Distributing sensors and missiles to more ships probably makes sense anyways. I wonder if these could be anchored at Okinawa or Guam to provide stop gap anti aircraft defence. 4 ESSM missiles per VLS tube is a lot of missiles. They would need to increase production of ESSM missiles.
She should research how to pronounce some of those names. It is pronounced "an-TEE-dum"....not "Aunty M". I swear she got half the names wrong!! Or more!!!!
The DDG-51 class already comes out to the size of a World War I battleship in tonnage. Quibbling about whether we can call a stretch DDG-51 a CG seems to be splitting hairs at this point. Hell! Flight III weighs in at more than CG-47. I think a new production stretched Burke would be an excellent low-risk cruiser design. Not much R&D to amortize or technical risks to speak of. Hey just spitballing here. Our idiot Admirals have to go proven design or these idiots will stick us with another debacle like the Ford or LCS. classes. These halfwit flag officers have proven time and again that they can't be trusted with the taxpayer's money.
The US Navy should do what Japan did with their Kongos an Atagos ( both variants of the DDG-51s) and ad an extra deck in the super structurefor more command and control facilities. They are often referred to as cruisers in the media here already.
I cringed when I first heard her pronounce it the way she does, and every time thereafter! Glad you brought it up...I thought as a scrolled down and saw no one had mentioned it that I was the only one who thought her pronunciation was off. Within the English language she needs to say it using the "long I". Journalism is dead, can knowledgeable and correct narration by far behind?
The cost of that ended up being prohibitive. They found that it costs three times their projections to maintain them. Plus the aluminum superstructure became a big problem with cracks because the alloy was brittle. They found over 2200 cracks in the 27 ships of the class. Repairing them is a game of whack-a-mole because there's nothing to stop other areas from cracking after a repair is done.
Could it be that the same people who planned and executed our withdrawal from Afghanistan did some of the planning for our 21st Century Navy? Maybe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on such good terms with his Chinese counterpart we no longer need a robust Navy. We could just dock our carriers until we build some new ships to protect them.
That couldn't of been presented in a more boring and dry fashion without any mention of their capabilities or what the predicted challenges the navy is going to face from our potential enemies and what ships they are planning to build to meet them head on. With the Chinese seemingly launching a new ship every week and their fleet size now exceeding the US it would be good to hear about the strategy to deal with them and neutralise their superior numbers. Despite the vast number of ships the Chinese have I don't see where the experience and know how is going to come from to utilise them. The US navy has over 70 years of experience in Naval operations and fighting and is accustomed to running the biggest and most powerful fleet in the world - just like the British before them and that kind of expertise is not something you get from a text book.
I thought that they should go with a modernized version of the 1970's-1980's Strike Cruiser concept. And if they keep 2 large caliber guns perhaps have one of them be larger like the MCLWG (Major Caliber Light Weight Gun) they tried on the Hull in the 1970's. An 8 inch gun would give a stronger shore bombardment capacity or sink a ship cheaper than a missile if in range. Then keep the 2nd one as a 5 or 3 inch gun. Plus enough missiles to AT LEAST equal the Ticos capacity. I'd say that would be a good start!!
@@steven4315 , I agree with you on scrapping the 8" gun project being stupid. I don't know if bringing back the Iowas was a bad idea at the time. I saw them fire during the Gulf War and they were pretty spectacular!! Of course, maintaining and finding repair parts for 80 year old ships is pricy even for an outfit like the Navy that spends money like a guy taking a piss after drinking a keg of beer!!!!😱
This is going to be hard to cover the navys need till they can build more ship China may soon have 2/1 over the US navy but as we have all seen with what going on with Russia/Ukraine ships days might be numbered with all the drones and anitship stuff we should just be working on unmanned stuff.
Then BBM will send them to China for scrap and put the cash in his pockets. Philippines elected a dictator and kleptocrat. These ships are too good for that fate.
Under ordinary circumstances. Retiring old ships to make way for new ships. Is the way the Navy has to be run. While there is a point of diminishing returns. Given the low rate of new construction, and the rapidly growing Chinese navy. Older hulls need to be restored and modernized. Ultimately the individual capacity to build and rebuild ships must be greatly improved.
All the Ticonderoga’s will be retired by 2028. In adition to this, it is expected also that the first batch of Burke’s (11 ships) to be retired. This ships will be replaced with the DDG X.
Ticonderoga is pronounced Tie-con-der-o-ga... Leyte Gulf is pronounced Lay-tee Gulf... Hue' City is pronounced Way City... Antietam is pronounced An-tea-tum... Say it right.
If retiring Ticons as fast as possible is more practical, so why can't the USN just add some space & deadweight for the Flight 3 Burkes to house flagship equipment & so they can replace Ticons w/out waiting for DDGX to materialize esp since they might stumble delays again Anyways, is the flagship equipment really that large & heavy that even the 8000+ tons Flight 1 Burkes can't fit it? Or easily be modified to fit it? If not, how about the 9000+ tons Flight 2?
The navies recent track record sucks...we need a strong navy..we are essentially a island nation, the navy and air force should get more funds...but only if used effectively.. The lcs and zumwalts are a joke. Please 🙏 tell me people did prison time???
the arleigh burke class tin can is basically a cruiser, so we have 112 arleigh burke class cruisers in reality plus the CG-47 class cruiser has an aluminum superstructure (which burns well in combat)(and top heavy, if no fin stabilizers, the ship would fall over underway), versus DDG-51 class destroyer which has a steel superstructure (much safer) and the DDG-1000 class boat is bigger than the CG-47 class cruisers (but still sort of developmental). just one more note: that most frigate/destroyer/cruisers get retired around 30-35 years because the hulls wear out. for instance: the two boats i was stationed on only lasted 30 years +/-, then decommed, then sinkex or razorblades.
Where did you get the idea the Ticos would "tip over" underway? I have been on them doing 30+ knots with 30 degree rudder and they certainly do not tip over. Also been on them while going through hurricane Hugo with some 30 ft waves, yes she rocked and rolled but tipping over was not something any of us thought was a concern.
I wish you would pronounce the name Ticonderoga properly. “Tye-kon-der-oga”. And Huè city is pronounce “way city”. It’s an insult otherwise. I served on the Tico.
In time when Chinese navy is rising, US navy is shrinking. It should not be. Ticonderonga could still serve for ten maybe twenty years if having a refit that would allow them. But when you see decisions that US navy made in last decade, well its not surprising. You have some Burkes that are 30 years in service, none of them received big refits (and i talking about Flight Is that still missing its hangars), then a building those tin cans Freedom and Independence which were useless. Spending billions on those ships with half of them been retired after only few years in service due many problems. Why not build a proper frigate to replace Perry class directly. Now US navy is building Constellations. So many crazy ideas, half that didnt work. Burke class which is over 30 years old is not a state of art ship, no matter what someone says. Yes it may have best of best electronics, but there is a limit how much new stuff you can put on 30+ years hull. In a way US navy may still be the "most mightiest" in the world but Chinese navy operates new ships, and they are quite capable of building them fast. Unfortunatly it seems that US naval command cant prioritize what they need the most.
I can understand why the navy has gone for scraping instead of refurbishment again. The running gear and the ships structure are fatigued and worn out "your average car is worn out after seventy thousand miles" , these ships must have steamed thousands of miles in their fourty years of service, which is probably something like five times around the earth or more. It's probably cheaper and makes more economic sense for the US navy, just to start with a new platform with new designs and, new idea's and the latest technologies,than to refight a already aged ship that's mechanically and structurely at it's end of life and service. As long as they can keep these new ships in budgets and try to keep cost over runs down and they pick the right companies to do the job, it could be a good thing for everyone. I hope one of these old cruiser go to a good home and become a museum piece for the public to come and see.
Sure, let's cut more warships so the remaining ships and crews rarely come home, cut the training (which has already happened with junior officers) and forget about essential maintenance. And no plans to replace this marvelous ships with an equivalent type.
The Ticonderoga-class is showing similar problems to what HMS Hood was experiencing before her fate was sealed in the Battle of the Denmark Strait back in World War 2, only they're a modern-day guided missile cruiser and not a Post World War 1/Interwar Period built and commissioned battlecruiser. Age is a friend to nothing and nobody. But let's appreciate the fact that the Ticonderoga-class has served as long as it has. Hell, the first batch of them served alongside the Iowa-class battleships when THEY were recommissioned in the 80's, long after the golden age of the battleship died. Speaking of which, who here believes the battleship still can be relevant in a modern-day navy?
So, the Navy had 35 years to plan their replacement, and failed to do so. Therefore, instead of accepting higher maintenance as a penalty for their poor planning, these ships will be retired, and without replacement for several years. I hope somebody asked the Chinese to slow roll their plans for Pacific conquest while we get caught up.
Get caught up. We still are far ahead of China’s navy. 11 carrier groups vs 2 chinese (which aren’t as good as ours)
Ships wear out, from what I have seen the cost and time overruns for the refurbishment of these ships means it is just not worth it. As to not having a replacement, past mistakes will not make the ships any more viable. As for the china carrier group threats, the first carrier is just for training, the second is slightly better, but they have no viable carrier based aircraft at this time, that will change, but years away at present.
@@alandavis7987 China is not going head to head with the US using carriers. Why would they? Their smart enough not to dump $13 billion plus in a huge target that requires additional expensive weapon platforms just to operate. They'll build cheap quiet diesel electric subs and saturate the US task force. They already proven they can get within the perimeter of a US task force. The US let its ASW capabilities decay since the end of the Cold War.
My thoughts as well. Retiring these 48 vessels will leave the US Navy very short of ships, especially if China keeps building it naval fleet. It will outnumber the US fleet before the replacement ships are built. Have they even started planning the new vessels?
Yes, the Chinese has been very aggressive off the US coast! The PLAN has bases off the US and can strike at any time. The Chinese has been involved in the most number of wars in the last 50 years and clearly the most war mongering nation on the face of this planet! How Dare they!
Don’t park them without a suitable and comparable replacement. Failure of Zummwalt and LCS leaves a capability gap that won’t be filled by retiring current vessels.
They don’t need a replacement, the Burke can do everything this ship can do yeah the cruiser has some more VLS cell but overall the man goal of that ship was air defence and the Burke can do that today so there’s no need for a new cruiser.
Arleigh Burke class destroyers have the same capability.
@@Future-Preps35 this is what was going g to be done to 7 if them, the conditions found have increased the cost and time to an uneconomic level, even the US defence budget has its limits.
The Navy has been so poorly lead that it finds itself retiring billions in brand new littoral class ships and with nothing to show for it but wasted time and money. The replacement of the the Ticonderoga class should have been a cruiser with the capabilities greater than the Burke.
No one is held accountable unless the offend the WOKE culture elites of the Navy these days
@@bradleywoods1999 the Burke is a old platform through.
The Navy clearly has its head up its backside. How has the littoral class worked out? P.S. please learn how to pronounce the names of these vessels….
Its an AI. lol of course it is gonna mispronounce names
It's pronounced "Tie-con-dah-rogue-ah..." TICO for short pronounced just like Jupiter's moon.
Thank you! I've been fucking spazing.
And Hue City is pronounced
Whey
"Late" Gulf was my favorite. 🙄
And don't forget Antie-AT-Umm @3:21..... She's KILLING my OCD!!!
@@jd1420 LOL calm down spazz, it's annoying though you're right.
In Spain we have the Alvaro de Bazán frigates. We could use a couple of Ticos to supplement our aegis frigates
Retiring old ships before tye replacements are available is a huge risk. Not one I would take, given the current situation.
I pre-commissioned CG-56 USS San Jacinto. Even back then it was obvious the Spruance Class hull had reached finality. Very little room for growth. They were designed for a 30 year life span (or so I was recently told. But why would you build a multimillion dollar platform with only a 30 year lifespan? That makes no sense whatsoever.) and have exceeded their life expectancy.
You should know that salt water is a bitch!!! Unless you throw gobs of money at it, 30 years is about all you should expect!! That's the nice thing about ships on the Great Lakes. Fresh water is infinitely kinder!!!!
I concur,Shipmate !
Victory Is Certain 🫡🇺🇸💪🏽
I watched your first shot in Desert Storm. Was on CG-58 in our little box in Red Sea.
Our navy in Taiwan definitely need some ships with Aegis capability, acquisition of these could be mutually beneficial.
有道理
But the US will never hand over there Cruiser on any Country bro ! They will be placed as a Reserve it means in the time of Conflict or War they will be Activated again. 🙂
Why buy these dated stuff with limited air defense capability? The fate of the old big Russian ship is a lesson to learn.
@@ALWH1314 "Limited air defense capability" lmao just say you don't know what your talking about
could NOT afford to maintain and run them
coming from a cruiser it definitely has some wear and tear on it. But at the same time it did get the job done
I do not understand why the USN doesn't simply just stretch a Burke Flight III hull, put in the power plant from the Zumwalt with its greater electrical production and quiet turbo-electric drives, increase the number of Mk. 41 VLS cells (128) to include the large diameter VLS cells (8+) for future hypersonic strike missiles. The standard Burke-class hull already has a wider beam than the CG-47 hull, so a hull plug to bring this Burke(+) hull the extra volume for more missiles and other systems would only bring the hull up to close to the same fineness ratio (and improved fuel efficiency) as the original CG-47 hull design.
Because the goal is not to improve our Navy but rather to make sure we do not have the necessary capability to fight a multi-adversary conflict on geographically separate fronts. The 2011 Budget that called for defense budget cuts was during the Obama administration that loved cutting/gutting military budgets while padding entitlement spending and other pet projects. Secondly, the Navy/Air Force never does anything that makes sense because it is all about getting as much of the military budget allocated to their respective pet projects as they can. Look at what occurred with Seawolf, Zumwalt, Ford Class carriers, F-35 program, etc. Technical advancements are great if we can make them reliable, cost effective (cheaper to maintain than their replacements), and add a significant improvement and capability to our fighting capabilities. When your enemy is building up their military so should you.
Or just put SPY-6 and some fire control radars to the Zumwalt class and integrate the Aegis system in.
The design, hull, IPS, etc. are already validated. You can also replace one of the guns with 32 more VLS cells, getting it to a total of 112, and replace the other one with a 5 inch gun for CIWS. It also uses half the crew as Aegis, making it much cheaper to operate.
I've been think something along the same lines. The ships themselves would be built from the keel up with the stretch in them (and the additional equipment mentioned) rather than stretching existing hulls (to avoid having similar issues to what the Coast Guard experienced when they tried to stretch some of their vessels). I would also add to the equipment you listed aft radar areas, similar to what the Ticonderogas have. I think I would also give this series its own class name, rather than referring to them as Flight IVs (or similar). I think the name Ranger Class would be good (it's available now, and is one of the most storied ship names within the US Navy - right up there with Enterprise).
Because it makes too much sense.
Arleigh Burke is a destroyer. Not a cruiser.
And it yet have the sizes of a cruiser. To be precise, it's bigger than a Pensacola-class cruiser from WW2.
On this way, an eventual new US Navy Cruiser will have sizes of a WW2 Battleship. 😑 Or even more bigger.
We need one in Australia would make a great flagship for our Australian navy
The Hobart class look to be a fine class of destroyer
They're falling apart and technologically obsolete. Do you really want pigs with lipstick on them?
Your air warfare destroyers are bad-ass ships. They'll make a fine flagship for the RAN.
Better off put them in the reserved fleet they are still useful
Mothballing is not cheap. Also no new navy ship is 100% new, a lot of equipment on these ships will be refurbished and go on new Arleigh Burkes being built.
Should donate them to Taiwan and other friendly nations who need BM defense or want to use it as an anti-air platform as they age further.
would be a good idea but i dont think THAT country will allow that to happen
@@CharlonClarke China has no say in the matter hence why we already provide Taiwan with weapons. Heck we don't even have to sell them to Taiwan, we could just base them there and use article 5 as a deterrent against China as they would then be attacking US military equipment.
Donate? Stop making people laugh. The US would have sold them to Taiwan at a premium instead
@@Chickenworm9394 who would buy an outdated ship in this era of almost constant upgrades?
@@danielefabbro822 the navy with Kidd class as their flagship
At one time, I expected the first five ships (CG-47 thru -51) would get Mk41 VLS in place of the Mk26 twin arm launchers
It is down right frightening the failures of Zumwalt Class, Littoral Class, the amount of money wasted and the amount of time wasted.
I so agree. There needs to be accountability with some serious consequences for the waste and failure to deliver. I respect the Navy as a whole, but my God, heads need to roll.
The Zunwalts are what happens when you try to leapfrog tech. The Littorals are what happens when you try to do to much with not enough money. The Burkes and the Virginias are an example of when you get it right.
The US Navy is almost twice as big as China and Russias navy combined, despite that we also have the technological edge.
"An tee et em" 👎 that would be pronounced "Ant tee tam" the battle this ship was named after was the bloodiest single day in American military history! Who edited this?
In the south it's the Battle of Sharpsburg.
@@steven4315 I'm well aware of that Steven but the ship isn't named Sharpsburg is it?
I would plan on hanging on to these awhile longer. Not like we have alot of replacements.
I worked on these ships at Ingall’s in my opinion it’s is a lot cheaper to refurbish them to build a new ship
I served on CG 47, brilliant ship.
Like the Navy knows what they are doing.
They dont
Bring back the new improved Baltimore class heavy cruiser like the Canberra, she was the first missile cruiser.
Damn why can't any one pronounce the words right.It's pronounced Ty conderoga, not tick conderoga.It's Aagis not eegis.It's so irritating to hear every one miss pronounce the words.
Hugh? It *is* pronounced Eegis. What the heck are you navy boys drinking? ;)
Please learn how to correctly pronounce the names of the ship and their class.
I know beauty doesn't pay the bills but these are beautiful looking ships in a mean way. The Charles F Adams class would be right up there in the good looks also.
I hope General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin have something up their sleeve to replace the current Destroyer and Cruiser fleet. They're not getting any younger.
Arleigh Burke are receiving upgrading to Flight III, while for Frigates they have requested our designs for a multi-purpose but still mainly ASW frigate.
Cruisers... that would be a challenge. GE have to design something really fine. I'm curious.
We do, I just can't talk about it here. What I can say is the Arleigh Burkes have quite a few hull numbers coming.
It really detracts from the videos to hear so many historical names so badly mispronounced.
US this is not the time to get rid of valid defense tools!Get rid of that budget control act of 2011 instead
Unless a ship is classified as a battleship, reserve means scrapyard. It’s sad.
The philippines must need this!!!!!
I come from Poland and seeing what USA puts on a junkyard is like whuuut?!? 😂
Poland’s NAVY is nothing compared to USA’s NAVY…
please, do tell... im interested in knowing the difference
And there is a good reason for that. Poland needs to focus on its land and air power.
@@navyreviewer Well…tbh I think we should all focus more on building settlements on mrs and the moon…we, normal people, should globally consider what kind of leadership we really need. Besides that I agree with you.
Listening to this announcer butcher the names of these ships is like listening to fingernails scratching on a chalkboard
So what do we get instead? Zumwalt destroyers and LCS boats both of which are best described as JUNK.
I hope to give all the retired ships and sabmarince and aircrap carriers in the phillippines to further strengthen the navy of the phillippines
Downsizing the fleet without immediate replacement doesn’t sound to smart.
They aren't going to be swept off the table. The navy's plan is to phase them out and use the money that would have been spent modernizing them on new flight 3 burkes. This is akin to stop dumping money into fixing your 35 year old car and just buying a new one.
Keep them running. It’s a Fascinating warship.
Please handover the complete armaments, sensors and other parts of the Ticonderoga Class Guide Missile Cruiser to the Philippine Navy for it's additional fleet? Thank you
@baileyboy73 baileyboy73 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
In our dreams,mas mabuti ang pa ang South Korea at Japan kysa sa US.Wlang kwenta ang mutual threaty ng Pilipinas at US..
Since the end of WW-II, Congress has been extremely reluctant to build Cruisers for the US Navy. Ships like Long Beach, just reinforced the idea that Cruisers are too expensive to build. So the Navy asked for guided missile frigates. The Leahy and Belknap classes were built. Ships Congress later redesignated "cruisers." Later the Navy asked for Aegis escort for its Nuclear powered aircraft carriers. An aegis version of the Spruance class destroyer. As well as a Cruiser class nearly twice as large. Designed as a DDG, USS Ticonderoga was considered a top heavy and overloaded version, of the Spruance class destroyer. Using the same hull, and power plant. Congress refused to fund the cruiser design. Then redesignated the planned Aegis destroyers as cruisers.
With a seventy year track record of not funding many cruisers. The Navy has learned to build ever larger "destroyers" while asking for new cruisers. The Navy's new frigate is the size of what was once the size of post war destroyers. New Arleigh Burke class destroyers are the size of WW-II cruisers!
Today's Congress no longer has the luxury of defunding the US Navy. Realistically the US Navy needs two guided missile battleships, (18,000-20,000 tons) four cruisers, (10,000-12,000 tons) eight destroyers (6000 tons) and 12 frigates (3000 tons). To escort each aircraft carrier. Additionally the US Navy needs hundreds of sea going Corvettes 1,200-2,500 tons for convoy duty escorting merchant ships.
Socialists never think that they can lose a war. Adolf Hitler and his National socialist party, didn't think that they would lose. The United States Government has been infiltrated by socialists today. Much like the German government in the 1930's. Because the US, and its allies won two world wars. Socialists lose the big wars. Because socialism is a fundamentally flawed, form of government. The people they need to fight the hardest? Have no reason to do so. Because socialism is fundamentally abusive, controlling and violent. Relying on fear, corruption, lies, and oppression to dominate the population. So the population has no reason to believe in, or to support it.
Congress has no need for a powerful Navy, because they don't really think that they need one.
So , the Navy is retiring the Ticonderoga class cruisers because of their age and cost to maintain , some of the Arleigh Burke destroyers are 30 years old as well , what new designs does the Navy have planned ?
Out of fear of the Chinese type-055 cruiser
Uh ok and what next?
They may be old ships, but they're better than the brand new ships that the Chinese are building.I say.They should consider donating them or selling them to Taiwan.
@上官 竹喧 What are you laughing for wumao 😊 You should take care about your decreasing population and economic collapse first before learn to replied what human say 😊
The new navy cruiser: 12 Estes rockets with firecrackers and a single 22 caliber pistol.
How do the retirement portion of the Ticonderoga compare with those of the Russian Navy in the Black Sea? If comparable, why not train Ukranian sailors now and donate to Ukraine rather than retirement docked at possibly soon age expectancy? Just a question, worth disregarding if not fighting comparable to Russia's aging Black Sea fleet.
On the other hand China is building more Type-55 cruisers..
Modern weapons including hyperacurate long range torpedoes and Hypersonic missiles have made surface Fleet ships into nothing button floating coffins. The US has obviously realize this. But China is making cruises which subsequently are using copies of 40-year-old obsolete radar the United States never uses anymore. The reason China has to build these larger ships is their technology hasn't reached that stage yet. Considering Chinese technology is based off of stolen Russian technology. The United States has ohio-class submarines that can launch 155 Tomahawk or Surface attack missiles in one volley just think about that
Just need ships With A shit ton of anti ship missiles And A ship escorting it against air And sub threats
Which are worse then AB class destroyers, its nothing to worry about.
Fun fact that it only cost china half of burke class to build type 055, that mean china dan build 2 type 055 with the budget of single burke class
@@Fauzanarief-n7i you realise that alot of companies needed for the construction and design are state-owned so costs are less? Different than the USA cause it brings more competition and so quality with it But yeh, Type 55s are cool
Can't decommission them. There are no ships to replace them. Naval capabilities aren't easily replaced.
If you really wanted to replace the ticos with a off-the-shelf equipment put it on the modified San Antonio Hull. It's got more room than a stretched out AB. And I'm not saying like an arsenal ship but just like a 25k cruiser. You can have your hypersonics, lasers, and eventually your railguns. And then all destroyers should be just anti-air, we don't want them hunting submarines. That's what the cheaper frigates/Corvettes are there for.
Damn...'My Navy' is retiring... the idea of Ticonderoga class retiring was something I did not expect to see in my life time...And I dont think Ill be sober when we retire the USS Nimitz...CVN 68. Hell. USS Long Beach CGN 9 and USS Enterprise CGN 65, along with the California, Leahy, Belknap, Bainbridge, and Virginia class CG/CGN's were all still on the Front Line...When I left US Naval Service...Gonna miss em...
They should make Nimitz an active reserve carrier. Reduced crew but able to do things like flight qualifications, testing and all the other things the front line ships shouldn't be spending time on.
We need that ship more urgently 6 ship compose 2 ticonderoga 4 arliegh burke
make the burke 3's bigger with a different power plant then build a true destroyer to replace the rest of the burke's for escort then turn the f1 and f2 burkes into am and anti sat ships that patrol vital areas.
So were 28 or 27 built? Because in your graphic 2:14 you list 27 by shipyards and write 28 on the screen.
The United States needs cruisers. For this country, it’s a two front war - the Atlantic and Pacific. The Navy needs cruisers large enough with room for growth, in technology and weapons, and ease of maintenance. There is a platform already in operation the Navy possesses and that’s the San Antonio class LPD. With modifications to the design of the hull and power plant as well as internal storage for weapons,the Navy can have a cruiser that’s nearly 700 feet long, packing lots of missiles, a large helicopter deck, powerful engines that provide long range and high speeds, which will give this type of cruiser the capability to defend the carrier strike group.
I like this strong ships
When I served on valley forge and Chancellorsville we where always struggling to keep it running it was a fiasco
How about a history of USS NORTON SOUND(AVM-1)The test platform for AEGIS???
Refit the Ticonderogas for anti-satellite/ ballistic missile ships. Take the Arleigh Burke class ships scheduled for plugs out of the production run and turn them into Cruisers with extra length for deeper magazines and HEAVY self protection (4 ciws, 4ram, and 2 dual purpose 76mm fore and aft). Fit out a bunch of "commercial ferry" hulls with VLS engines to keep up to act as magazines for the Agis hauling ships. Oh spray the "Magazine Ships" down with Radar arborbing foam (A foot oughta do it) and load them so they barely float in a cat5 storm. (heck make tyhem semi-surface going with electrics if needed there is a German fuel cell sub out there....
😂 what?!
I served on CG56 so sad to see her go! 😢
I was on 58, she is supposed to go in 25
Agree, I did also.
I was on 64. Plankowner.
I don't see the Ticonderoga class as the replacement for the Virginia class. The Ticonderoga class replaced the Belknap and Leahy classes, great ships but obsolete without the SPY-1 radars and severely limited by their missile launcher design. The Virginia class were nukes, a fast ship that could keep up with nuke carriers, but also obsolete without the SPY-1 radars and again limited because of their missile launchers. Nothing has replaced the Virginal class. The Navy has no nuke ships that can keep up with the carriers.
These ships suffer from maintenance issues which means they are often unavailable, they are costly to operate and maintain, and their radar and battle management systems are dated. It makes sense to retire these early and buy more Flight 3 destroyers a frigates. Distributing sensors and missiles to more ships probably makes sense anyways.
I wonder if these could be anchored at Okinawa or Guam to provide stop gap anti aircraft defence. 4 ESSM missiles per VLS tube is a lot of missiles. They would need to increase production of ESSM missiles.
Hue City is is pronounced weigh city not hugh.
They should donate them or sell them to Taiwan.
She should research how to pronounce some of those names.
It is pronounced "an-TEE-dum"....not "Aunty M".
I swear she got half the names wrong!! Or more!!!!
If there is any discussion how about you replace all remaining ships but make a nuclear Cruiser six ships RR stealth 500 missiles.
The DDG-51 class already comes out to the size of a World War I battleship in tonnage. Quibbling about whether we can call a stretch DDG-51 a CG seems to be splitting hairs at this point. Hell! Flight III weighs in at more than CG-47. I think a new production stretched Burke would be an excellent low-risk cruiser design. Not much R&D to amortize or technical risks to speak of. Hey just spitballing here. Our idiot Admirals have to go proven design or these idiots will stick us with another debacle like the Ford or LCS. classes. These halfwit flag officers have proven time and again that they can't be trusted with the taxpayer's money.
The US Navy should do what Japan did with their Kongos an Atagos ( both variants of the DDG-51s) and ad an extra deck in the super structurefor more command and control facilities. They are often referred to as cruisers in the media here already.
How about you pronounce the class of the cruiser correctly before making a video about decommissioning.
I cringed when I first heard her pronounce it the way she does, and every time thereafter! Glad you brought it up...I thought as a scrolled down and saw no one had mentioned it that I was the only one who thought her pronunciation was off. Within the English language she needs to say it using the "long I". Journalism is dead, can knowledgeable and correct narration by far behind?
Hope you will give it to Philippines. We still use 80yrs old plus ships. Floating Museum indeed.
How old are the Jose Rizal class frigates?
It was painful to hear you mispronounce the names of most of the ships
Can they be upgraded and refitted? They are great ships and shouldn't be scrapped yet.
The cost of that ended up being prohibitive. They found that it costs three times their projections to maintain them. Plus the aluminum superstructure became a big problem with cracks because the alloy was brittle. They found over 2200 cracks in the 27 ships of the class. Repairing them is a game of whack-a-mole because there's nothing to stop other areas from cracking after a repair is done.
Could it be that the same people who planned and executed our withdrawal from Afghanistan did some of the planning for our 21st Century Navy? Maybe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on such good terms with his Chinese counterpart we no longer need a robust Navy. We could just dock our carriers until we build some new ships to protect them.
Please learn how to pronounce ship and place names, starting with Ticonderoga.
For future videos, you don't need to say Bunker Hill (CG-**) just say Bunker Hill or even USS Bunker Hill
That couldn't of been presented in a more boring and dry fashion without any mention of their capabilities or what the predicted challenges the navy is going to face from our potential enemies and what ships they are planning to build to meet them head on. With the Chinese seemingly launching a new ship every week and their fleet size now exceeding the US it would be good to hear about the strategy to deal with them and neutralise their superior numbers. Despite the vast number of ships the Chinese have I don't see where the experience and know how is going to come from to utilise them. The US navy has over 70 years of experience in Naval operations and fighting and is accustomed to running the biggest and most powerful fleet in the world - just like the British before them and that kind of expertise is not something you get from a text book.
My brother served on USS Hue City in the mid/late 90s
I thought that they should go with a modernized version of the 1970's-1980's Strike Cruiser concept. And if they keep 2 large caliber guns perhaps have one of them be larger like the MCLWG (Major Caliber Light Weight Gun) they tried on the Hull in the 1970's. An 8 inch gun would give a stronger shore bombardment capacity or sink a ship cheaper than a missile if in range. Then keep the 2nd one as a 5 or 3 inch gun. Plus enough missiles to AT LEAST equal the Ticos capacity. I'd say that would be a good start!!
I was a gunners mate in the 70's the 8" gun was one of several projects scrapped so Reagan could have his battleships, dumb.
@@steven4315 , I agree with you on scrapping the 8" gun project being stupid. I don't know if bringing back the Iowas was a bad idea at the time. I saw them fire during the Gulf War and they were pretty spectacular!! Of course, maintaining and finding repair parts for 80 year old ships is pricy even for an outfit like the Navy that spends money like a guy taking a piss after drinking a keg of beer!!!!😱
This is going to be hard to cover the navys need till they can build more ship China may soon have 2/1 over the US navy but as we have all seen with what going on with Russia/Ukraine ships days might be numbered with all the drones and anitship stuff we should just be working on unmanned stuff.
The Philippines are happy to accept that ships. What are friends are for.
I have to high a regard for the Phillippines to wish that on them. What the Philippines needs is fighters and pilots.
Then BBM will send them to China for scrap and put the cash in his pockets. Philippines elected a dictator and kleptocrat. These ships are too good for that fate.
Under ordinary circumstances. Retiring old ships to make way for new ships. Is the way the Navy has to be run. While there is a point of diminishing returns. Given the low rate of new construction, and the rapidly growing Chinese navy. Older hulls need to be restored and modernized. Ultimately the individual capacity to build and rebuild ships must be greatly improved.
The military industrial complex sure is mind boggling.
All the Ticonderoga’s will be retired by 2028. In adition to this, it is expected also that the first batch of Burke’s (11 ships) to be retired. This ships will be replaced with the DDG X.
Why the missile didn't pop-up just like Russian Cruiser Missile?
like Fort Ticonderoga
Ticonderoga is pronounced Tie-con-der-o-ga...
Leyte Gulf is pronounced Lay-tee Gulf...
Hue' City is pronounced Way City...
Antietam is pronounced An-tea-tum...
Say it right.
I don't think the text to speech program will take any note of your corrections.
The US Navy is getting two AB destroyer each year so I makes sense to retire costly cruisers at the end of their life service cycle
Here you PHILIPPINES
Continue the life of leyte gulf
Wow, I've never heard TI-CON-DE-ROGA pronounced like that before. Is that like Tigger from Winnie the Poo?
If retiring Ticons as fast as possible is more practical, so why can't the USN just add some space & deadweight for the Flight 3 Burkes to house flagship equipment & so they can replace Ticons w/out waiting for DDGX to materialize esp since they might stumble delays again
Anyways, is the flagship equipment really that large & heavy that even the 8000+ tons Flight 1 Burkes can't fit it? Or easily be modified to fit it? If not, how about the 9000+ tons Flight 2?
The navies recent track record sucks...we need a strong navy..we are essentially a island nation, the navy and air force should get more funds...but only if used effectively.. The lcs and zumwalts are a joke. Please 🙏 tell me people did prison time???
the arleigh burke class tin can is basically a cruiser, so we have 112 arleigh burke class cruisers in reality
plus
the CG-47 class cruiser has an aluminum superstructure (which burns well in combat)(and top heavy, if no fin stabilizers, the ship would fall over underway), versus DDG-51 class destroyer which has a steel superstructure (much safer)
and
the DDG-1000 class boat is bigger than the CG-47 class cruisers (but still sort of developmental).
just one more note:
that most frigate/destroyer/cruisers get retired around 30-35 years because the hulls wear out. for instance: the two boats i was stationed on only lasted 30 years +/-, then decommed, then sinkex or razorblades.
It would be nice to see us sell them to a country like Australia.
Where did you get the idea the Ticos would "tip over" underway? I have been on them doing 30+ knots with 30 degree rudder and they certainly do not tip over. Also been on them while going through hurricane Hugo with some 30 ft waves, yes she rocked and rolled but tipping over was not something any of us thought was a concern.
And this will be the end of Old Navy that has 'Cruisers'
New Navy will comprise of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers, and Subs
Is the US getting rid of CG’s?
Sure the U.S navy are ditching both types of the littoral combat ship?
That would account for the required reduction in surface ships...
I wish you would pronounce the name Ticonderoga properly. “Tye-kon-der-oga”. And Huè city is pronounce “way city”. It’s an insult otherwise. I served on the Tico.
Ticonderoga is pronounced Tie-con-der-or-gra.
In time when Chinese navy is rising, US navy is shrinking. It should not be. Ticonderonga could still serve for ten maybe twenty years if having a refit that would allow them. But when you see decisions that US navy made in last decade, well its not surprising. You have some Burkes that are 30 years in service, none of them received big refits (and i talking about Flight Is that still missing its hangars), then a building those tin cans Freedom and Independence which were useless. Spending billions on those ships with half of them been retired after only few years in service due many problems. Why not build a proper frigate to replace Perry class directly. Now US navy is building Constellations. So many crazy ideas, half that didnt work. Burke class which is over 30 years old is not a state of art ship, no matter what someone says. Yes it may have best of best electronics, but there is a limit how much new stuff you can put on 30+ years hull. In a way US navy may still be the "most mightiest" in the world but Chinese navy operates new ships, and they are quite capable of building them fast. Unfortunatly it seems that US naval command cant prioritize what they need the most.
So these destroyers and cruisers are going to be super Navy Ships, like Agents of Shield?
I can understand why the navy has gone for scraping instead of refurbishment again. The running gear and the ships structure are fatigued and worn out "your average car is worn out after seventy thousand miles" , these ships must have steamed thousands of miles in their fourty years of service, which is probably something like five times around the earth or more. It's probably cheaper and makes more economic sense for the US navy, just to start with a new platform with new designs and, new idea's and the latest technologies,than to refight a already aged ship that's mechanically and structurely at it's end of life and service. As long as they can keep these new ships in budgets and try to keep cost over runs down and they pick the right companies to do the job, it could be a good thing for everyone. I hope one of these old cruiser go to a good home and become a museum piece for the public to come and see.
Ticonderoga: TIConderoga? TIE conderoga? Hue: hew? or WAY? Antietam: Ant e etam? or An teet um?
Sure, let's cut more warships so the remaining ships and crews rarely come home, cut the training (which has already happened with junior officers) and forget about essential maintenance. And no plans to replace this marvelous ships with an equivalent type.
And no new cruiser type nowhere to be seen, just more LCS craps 😒
Just moor them in the Ryukyus with skeleton crews as in theater bm&cm defense. More cells on station.
The Ticonderoga-class is showing similar problems to what HMS Hood was experiencing before her fate was sealed in the Battle of the Denmark Strait back in World War 2, only they're a modern-day guided missile cruiser and not a Post World War 1/Interwar Period built and commissioned battlecruiser. Age is a friend to nothing and nobody. But let's appreciate the fact that the Ticonderoga-class has served as long as it has. Hell, the first batch of them served alongside the Iowa-class battleships when THEY were recommissioned in the 80's, long after the golden age of the battleship died. Speaking of which, who here believes the battleship still can be relevant in a modern-day navy?
If you want the videos to be more professional please stop saying “anyway” :)