FY07 Decommisioning Schedule

[RubiconNZ]

FY07 Ship Decommissioning Schedule and Remaining FY06 (U)

RTTUZYUW RUEWMCS0000 1431729-UUUU--RUCRNAD.
ZNR UUUUU
R 231729Z MAY 06
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC//N8F//
TO NAVADMIN
INFO RHMFIUU/CNO WASHINGTON DC//N8F//
RUENAAA/CNO WASHINGTON DC//N8F//
BT
UNCLAS //N03120//
NAVADMIN 150/06
MSGID/GENADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/-/N8//
SUBJ/FY07 SHIP DECOMMISSIONING SCHEDULE AND REMAINING FY06(U)//
POC/MRS. J. WILLIAMS/CIV/N8F112/LOC: WASHINGTON DC/TEL: 703
695-4892//
RMKS/1. NAVADMIN MESSAGE ISSUED FOR FY07 DECOMMISSIONING SCHEDULE
AND REMAINING FY06. SCHEDULE PROMULGATED TO FACILITATE FLEET
PLANNING; HOWEVER, DECOMMISSIONING DATES MAY BE CHANGED BASED ON THE
ONGOING OSD PROGRAM/BUDGET REVIEW AND/OR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.
2. NUCLEAR SHIPS REPORT TO INACTIVATION FACILITY FOR STANDDOWN
WITHIN GIVEN MONTH, FOLLOWED BY DECOMMISSIONING.
3. DECOM SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS:
SHIPS HULL DECOM DATE SHIP DISPOSITION
AUSTIN (LPD 4) 27 SEP 06 LOGISTICS SUPPORT
OSPREY (MHC 51) 15 JUN 06 LOGISTICS SUPPORT
ROBIN (MHC 54) 15 JUN 06 LOGISTICS SUPPORT
ORIOLE (MHC 55) 30 JUN 06 FMS
FALCON (MHC 59) 30 JUN 06 FMS
DOLPHIN (AGSS 555) 01 OCT 06 (NOTES 1&2) DISPOSAL
SALT LAKE CITY (SSN 716) 03 NOV 06 STRIKE
JOSHUA HUMPREYS (TAO 188) 30 NOV 06 OSIR
TRENTON (LPD 14) 07 DEC 06 FMS
OGDEN (LPD 5) 22 FEB 07 FMS
SAIPAN (LHA 2) 27 APR 07 EXPERIMENTAL
SHREVEPORT (LPD 12) 28 SEP 07 DISPOSAL
MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL
(SSN 708) 30 SEP 07 (NOTE 2) STRIKE
HYMAN G RICKOVER (SSN 709) 30 SEP 07 (NOTE 2) STRIKE
HONOLULU (SSN 718) 30 SEP 07 (NOTE 2) STRIKE
HERON (MHC 52) 30 SEP 07 (NOTE 2) FMS
PELICAN (MHC 53) 30 SEP 07 (NOTE 2) FMS
CARDINAL (MHC 60) 30 SEP 07 (NOTE 2) FMS
RAVEN (MHC 61) 30 SEP 07 (NOTE 2) FMS
NOTE (1) BEGINS INACTIVATION STANDDOWN.
NOTE (2) ACTUAL DECOM DATE TO BE ANNOUNCED. PROJECTED DATE FOR EACH
UNIT AT DISCRETION OF FLEET COMMANDER, WITHIN ANTICIPATED FISCAL
YEAR.
4. THIS MESSAGE WILL BE UPDATED SEMI-ANNUALLY.
5. RELEASED BY VADM L. W. CRENSHAW, N8//
BT
#0229
www.military.com


Found this while doing some trawling, I don't think this has been posted.
Shame to see some of those still newish ships go up for sale. Could anyone tell me who the planned purchasers of the MHCs are? I assume all the LA class subs are non VLS types as well. Finally the Saipan will used for experimental use, does that mean for demonstration capabilities for the LHA R

 

[Sea Toby]

I haven't a clue, they average around 10 years in age. But almost every nation in Latin America and Africa could use them as minehunters. You could also include the Philippines. I know, this is a very long list. They aren't that fast, 12-13 knots, so I doubt if anyone would want to use them as patrol boats.

What bothers me more is this is a long list of ships being stricken, with the ships being commissioned much much shorter.

 

[aaaditya]

I haven't a clue, they average around 10 years in age. But almost every nation in Latin America and Africa could use them as minehunters. You could also include the Philippines. I know, this is a very long list. They aren't that fast, 12-13 knots, so I doubt if anyone would want to use them as patrol boats.

What bothers me more is this is a long list of ships being stricken, with the ships being commissioned much much shorter.

india is trying to acquire upto 8 osprey class of mine hunters,though currently the deal for the us trenton is taking the priority,however i find the osprey class to be virtually unarmed for a vessel of her size.

 

[contedicavour]

The USN is going nuts or what ? Its minehunter fleet is already relatively small compared with most other Western navies (12 Ospreys and 14 Avengers)... Belgium and the Netherlands combined have more MCMs !!

Now what do I read ... that the Ospreys (more modern and better equipped than the Avengers) are being disposed of ? :flaming

Unless the USN has decided to outsource MCM to other NATO navies, this is nonsense.

 

[Jtimes2]

I haven't a clue, they average around 10 years in age. But almost every nation in Latin America and Africa could use them as minehunters. You could also include the Philippines. I know, this is a very long list. They aren't that fast, 12-13 knots, so I doubt if anyone would want to use them as patrol boats.

What bothers me more is this is a long list of ships being stricken, with the ships being commissioned much much shorter.

If I'm not mistaken, two Ospreys are going to Egypt and one to Greece.

 

[rickusn]

"that the Ospreys (more modern and better equipped than the Avengers) are being disposed of ? :flaming "

LOL The above is not true.

It is true the Ospreys are somewhat newer but the Avengers are far more capable.

The Ospreys were a cold-war design slated to keep US harbors open.

They have suffered from inadequate funding and manning in service.

Nine are not even included in the BattleForce Ship count.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Ok

Nine are not even included in the BattleForce Ship count.

I wondered how all these ships were been deomm'ed and it wasn't affecting the numbers I though they were just doing that as a result of the Sec NAv saying (i think) wont go below 281 ships.

 

[contedicavour]

"that the Ospreys (more modern and better equipped than the Avengers) are being disposed of ? :flaming "

LOL The above is not true.

It is true the Ospreys are somewhat newer but the Avengers are far more capable.

The Ospreys were a cold-war design slated to keep US harbors open.

They have suffered from inadequate funding and manning in service.

Nine are not even included in the BattleForce Ship count.

This reinforces the point the USN seems to be outsourcing MCM warfare to its allies. The Avengers by themselves are not enough numerically to defend all the waters where the USN operates. Belgium and Holland have more MCM ships than the USN !! :drunk

 

[rickusn]

"This reinforces the point the USN seems to be outsourcing MCM warfare to its allies. "

Its been that way for decades.

Whether its right or not is a different issue.

However it is a relatively cheap mission that the smaller NATO allies could handle quite well not to mention that they were nominally more susceptible to this type of warfare because of geography/oceanography etc..

In addition the USN is attempting to make mine warfare an integral function of all warships in particular the LCS.

The outfitting of the A Burke DDGs with an organic capability this task has run into a # of snags.

Not least of which is to we really want those platforms performing the mine warfare mission?

And how efficient and effective would they be?

How this will work out is certainly an important topic of debate.

The USN certainly expects the LCS to be the major player.

 

[Sea Toby]

Unlike many European and Asian nations the United States of America is an ocean away from most credible mine threats. It appears the American navy don't want to man these ships, the brass perferring to man other warships instead, such as large aircraft carriers. And I doubt whether any mine threat would involve every American port either.

 

[contedicavour]

Unlike many European and Asian nations the United States of America is an ocean away from most credible mine threats. It appears the American navy don't want to man these ships, the brass perferring to man other warships instead, such as large aircraft carriers. And I doubt whether any mine threat would involve every American port either.

Trouble arises when USN ships are in dangerous areas on missions which are not multi-lateral, starting with the Persian Gulf and the waters around North Korea.
If I remember correctly the USN Inchon (an Iwo Jima LPD) hit a mine in the first Persian Gulf War. Back then Iran had no Kilo SSKs to deploy mines.

 

[contedicavour]

"This reinforces the point the USN seems to be outsourcing MCM warfare to its allies. "

Its been that way for decades.

Whether its right or not is a different issue.

However it is a relatively cheap mission that the smaller NATO allies could handle quite well not to mention that they were nominally more susceptible to this type of warfare because of geography/oceanography etc..

In addition the USN is attempting to make mine warfare an integral function of all warships in particular the LCS.

The outfitting of the A Burke DDGs with an organic capability this task has run into a # of snags.

Not least of which is to we really want those platforms performing the mine warfare mission?

And how efficient and effective would they be?

How this will work out is certainly an important topic of debate.

The USN certainly expects the LCS to be the major player.

Thks for the information on the LCS' MCM capabilities, I wasn't aware of that. I'm still convinced it's a dangerous decision to have a small number of MCM-dedicated ships and to rely on allies which aren't always around...
cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

America sent a few of their minesweepers to the Persian Gulf for both Gulf wars. America was also able to demine Haipong harbor during Vietnam, with minesweepers and with their minesweeping helicopters. I don't know of any other navy that has minesweeping helicopters? America has plenty of minesweeping assets to meet its threat.

Saying America is not doing its share with minesweepers is as misleading as if America claimed that other allied nations aren't doing their share with long range bombers, or with long range missiles.

 

[contedicavour]

America sent a few of their minesweepers to the Persian Gulf for both Gulf wars. America was also able to demine Haipong harbor during Vietnam, with minesweepers and with their minesweeping helicopters. I don't know of any other navy that has minesweeping helicopters? America has plenty of minesweeping assets to meet its threat.

Saying America is not doing its share with minesweepers is as misleading as if America claimed that other allied nations aren't doing their share with long range bombers, or with long range missiles.

Sorry but I disagree. Given the USN's size, it has invested an insufficiently small budget in MCM. With the Ospreys leaving service, the USN will remain with 13 Avengers. Belgium and the Netherlands have just as many each. The Royal Navy has 25 MCM ships between Sandown and Hunt. France and Italy each have a dozen modern MCM ships. See my point ?
It is true the USN uses some heavy helicopters in MCM role, though the sensors & weapons installed aboard and the autonomy are nowhere comparable with a 700-ton dedicated ship. I am interested in other readers' expertise on this subject.

cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

As mentioned above, the LCS ships can carry three different modules for three different roles. It appears America will be building in the near future replacement ships with a multi-role capability. This information below comes from naval-technology.com

The mission modules will be able to be changed, tested and working within 24 hours. Northrop Grumman has been appointed as mission package integrator and the mission packages will be: mine warfare (MIW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare (SUW). The mission modules may be integrated into standard sized containers that can be installed in the ship and other systems will be transferred onto the ship on pallets. The mission systems will be connected to the ship's network and communicate with the other ship systems and other surface ships and aircraft.

The MIW module includes: the AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System, AN/AQS-20A Sonar Mine Detecting Set, Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep, Airborne Laser Mine Detection System and Airborne Mine Neutralization System.

The ASW module includes the Advanced Deployable System (ADS), being developed by Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors. The ADS is a rapidly deployable bottom array acoustic surveillance system. The ASW module also includes a multifunction towed array, a remote towed active source and systems to be deployed from the MH-60R helicopter and unmanned surface vessels.

The SUW module includes a 30mm cannon (also used in the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System and the US Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle) and a version of the US Army's Non-Line of Sight - Precision Attack Munition missile system.

 

[contedicavour]

As mentioned above, the LCS ships can carry three different modules for three different roles. It appears America will be building in the near future replacement ships with a multi-role capability. This information below comes from naval-technology.com

The mission modules will be able to be changed, tested and working within 24 hours. Northrop Grumman has been appointed as mission package integrator and the mission packages will be: mine warfare (MIW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare (SUW). The mission modules may be integrated into standard sized containers that can be installed in the ship and other systems will be transferred onto the ship on pallets. The mission systems will be connected to the ship's network and communicate with the other ship systems and other surface ships and aircraft.

The MIW module includes: the AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting System, AN/AQS-20A Sonar Mine Detecting Set, Organic Airborne Surface Influence Sweep, Airborne Laser Mine Detection System and Airborne Mine Neutralization System.

The ASW module includes the Advanced Deployable System (ADS), being developed by Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors. The ADS is a rapidly deployable bottom array acoustic surveillance system. The ASW module also includes a multifunction towed array, a remote towed active source and systems to be deployed from the MH-60R helicopter and unmanned surface vessels.

The SUW module includes a 30mm cannon (also used in the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System and the US Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle) and a version of the US Army's Non-Line of Sight - Precision Attack Munition missile system.

Thks for the information. This will stepchange the USN's MCM capabilities. I'm only a bit disappointed to see land-attack capabilities are replacing the better ASUW capabilities Harpoon II would have offered...
ASW gear instead is a very good replacement of the equipment on the stretched OHPs.

cheers