Smells like they will need to deactivate another ICBM unit to have enought missile for testing.
Accelerated failure rate means more test launch required, means leftover stock will exhausted faster.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Accelerated failure rate means more test launch required, means leftover stock will exhausted faster.
Not exactly a US Military News story, but I found this video about model ship builders interesting!
Good article that goes over what is going on at some of the shipyards in the US, including number of ships under construction and capital investment.
Between decomission or becoming a dead in the water Moskva... way better to get rid of these old ships and having more money to maintain the others. Having more ships that are obsolete and not working is just unconstructive.
Last edited:
By decommissioning the old ships like Ticonderoga cruisers the USN will free up resources that it can channel into building new ships. On the other hand, politically it has bad optics: retiring capital ships at a rate far above replacement will instill doubt in the US and its allies over the administration’s commitment to counter China in the Western Pacific.
The unfortunate part for the USN is that they don’t have a replacement design ready. While at the same time PLAN appears quite happy with its Type 055 cruise. By one estimate I saw PLAN might operate 16 such ships by the end of the decade.
Particularly embarrassing for the USN is that they intend to retire LCS ships less than a decade old and that they are sending brand new Zumwalts back to the shipyard for mission respec.
You forgot to mention they're decommissioning and commissioning LCS's at the same time.
This whole LCS business is just so baffling when the very reason to retire those ships (with more planned retirements for fiscal 2022) is to save cost, but the USN keeps building them just so they get to keep the yards running (it's not like Austal and Marinette are short of work either). So how does that save them money?
And what are they gonna do with those LCS's then, retire even more older ones? *shakes head*
Smaller and more efficient is not a bad thing, it look bad on paper but a rusting nonfunctionning fleet is way worse... not a long time ago the navy was focusing on trying to have working airplanes on their carrier with more than 50% non flyable. Why bother to carry so many when they don't even fly... That's a paper tiger problem when you look at it.
The most embarassing parts is trying to be everywhere with a shrinking forces and manpower and keeping a strait face.
Sounds like the UK in the 1945-70 period.