Why it is Illegal to Retire This Ship

They are 100% blackout, comfortable, breathable, and come with lots of accessories!

0:00 Why US Navy wants to decommission cruiser, USS Vicksburg?
1:59 What was US Navy's cruiser modernization program?
3:58 Manta Sleep
5:12 Why USS Vicksburg would never be deployed again
7:36 What is the view of US Congress about the cruiser modernization program
11:34 What went wrong during US Navy's cruiser modernization program?
13:07 Why cruisers and LCS are not lethal to fight China or Russia
15:01 What is the US Navy replacing its old cruisers with?
16:42 What is going to happen to the US Navy cruisers?

Why the US Navy spent billions of dollars on old Cruisers, and then tried to get rid of them, is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs

MusicJust the Right Amount - Arthur Benson
Leaps - Jay Varton
3 AM - Lennon Hutton
Mortal Blow - Dream Cave
I Think I Was There
Heros Hand 5 - August Wilhelmsson
Danger Sun - Max Anson
Into Hiding - Marten Moses
Serious Development - Blackout Memories
Fuzzy Logic - Nihoni

Footage:
Select images/videos from Getty Images
Shutterstock
BAE
HII
US Department of Defense

Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."

Select References:

[NotWhatYouThink]

They are 100% blackout, comfortable, breathable, and come with lots of accessories!

[thenasiudk]

The ship hull number is 69, that's why the congress refuses to retire it

[zaco-kmsu]

Basically the US Navy didn't check the state of the ships before starting the modernisation programme. When they started repairing them they realised it's not worth it.

[life_with_bernie]

I did not expect to watch a video about a cruiser and see my old ship, USS El Paso, sitting waiting to be scrapped, but there she was at 1:47 and, I gotta say, it gave me a lump in my throat to know she was gone now. The first ship you serve on will always have a special place in the heart of a sailor.

[alice_muse]

Congress is so concerned about the number of VLS cells potentially being retired, but has been refusing to fund arsenal ships since the late 90's, only one of which (depending on hull size and missile type) could potentially replace 2/3rds of the "lost VLS capacity" by itself. A second would give an extra 100--200 cells, and a third would mean the navy now has potentially 700 new VLS cells, plus the original capacity.

[nicholasmarshall]

While the sensors on Tico's are far inferior to those on any Arleigh Burke class destroyer, the navy built in the capability decades ago for Arleigh Burke to fire missle and provide targeting info to other ships VLS systems. While Tico would have a hard time on its own, in a fleet with other DDGs they do act to provide additional vls capability. Thats part of the reason why you will never see a Tico deploy by its self these days

[thewonkygamer]

0:16 He really thought he could hide Borat

[connerh]

I don't imagine this is corruption. I play ultimate admiral dreadnoughts and I get into this exact situation often:

-have biggest fleet to fight war
-war ends, stop building ships
-tensions rise decade later, build a few advanced ships while scrapping older ones
-find out old ships are basically fishing boats compared to latest enemy tech
-panic
-scrap a bunch of old ships and try to build as many new ships as I can afford to fight new foe

Maybe we're screwed

[connecticutaggie]

For upgrading ships/cars/houses, there is a lot of incentive to underestimate the cost based on assumptions on things you can't readily inspect. A mechanic could tell you a price to repair your car to get your business but then, once the car in in pieces, they tell you they found some other pieces they need to repair. ... or maybe a rocket (cough-cough) SLS (cough-cough).

[Re.Configured]

There's an interesting photo of the USS Dwight D Eisenhower (CVN-69), USS Vicksburg (CG-69), and the USS Milius (DDG-69) all sailing together in formation in the Persian Gulf to support freedom of navigation/maritime security.

Edit: This channel did a video on it too, check it out below if you are interested.

[theelectricgamer]

It also doesn’t help that all branches of the military are having a recruitment deficit.

[Idahoguy]

I was a submariner. I could look at navy aviation and understand their decisions. Not so with the surface warfare community. They wasted hundred of billions on the useless LCS programs. When they needed an actual warship to replace their frigates

[firefox]

Technological advantages can compensate for lack of numbers. But it's a diminishing return rate. And you can ask Germany how having better vs having more works in war

[ryanc]

USN - This program has issues and is way to expensive so we want to shut it down.
Congress - You're misusing money, so you can't shut it down.
USN - So you want us to spend more money on ships we don't think are worth it?
Congress - How dare you try to retire ships that you've spent so much money on? (sunk cost fallacy)
USN - Cause they are bad ships, and we have more newer ones that we want to spend on.
Congress - No

Got to love when politicians have the ability to tell Admirals and Generals (who worked hard to get promoted to those positions) how to do their jobs. Congress should only be allowed to set the budget and then it should be up to the Admirals and Generals. Yeah investigate when money was wasted, but micromanaging is not going to fix wasting money.

EDIT: For the like 10 ppl who are trying to say Admirals and Generals are promoted by the Senate:
1. They had to get through the proceeding ranks based on skill and merit
2 They are selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Similar to the cabinet level positions. They still had to meet the requirements to be promoted and be the preceding rank (if you're going to "technically" me, at least be right)
3. Since the Senate confirms the appointed officers, and then doesn't listen to what they are saying, it sounds an awful lot like MICROMANGEING PEOPLE WHO SHOULD KNOW HOW TO DO THEIR JOBS. Which was my main point. My point is I trust them more than politicians. If an Admiral told you ship option A is better and a politician said option B was, who would you listen to?

So thanks for missing the point of my post. If you disagree with the point fine, I have no problem with that. If you don't trust those officers again that's fine. I trust them significantly more than the politicians, but that's my opinion. And yeah, figure out why they (prob different officers and defiantly a different SecNav) started this program in the first place if it's a failure. But that doesn't mean that them telling you it's a failure should be rejected.

[redrolo]

Ship-building, aircraft, and other weapons system manufacturers get away with /Way/ too much. These companies should be held accountable for cost overruns and missed schedules for the programs they tell the govt they can complete in x amount of time for x amount of money. And top brass in the military should be held accountable for failures to adequately manage funds for their services and prevent this kind of wasteful spending on things.

[doctordoom]

Just toured New Jersey in drydock today. Yeah she's 80, but she only had 21 years of non consecutive active service and was CONSTANTLY maintained during her service. She's in far better condition than probably all the Tico's and most of the older Burkes.

[dantea]

the answer to this issue is more education, and also more programs and meetings, and when there are too many meetings, have more meetings about having too many meetings.

[gilbertnadeau]

@notwhatyouthink, The USN has been using steel hull and aluminum superstructures since the 1950s. The reason the Arleigh Burkes used steel was more than a way of fixing joint leaks. The DDG37 and DDG2 ships suffered from joint leaks as well. When the USS Belknap collided with the USS Kennedy the entire super structure caught on fire and melted. Going back to steel was a way to avoid this problem in the future. The LCS ships got away from this in a very big way. Toss out lessons learned for the sake of saving a few bucks.

[skyden]

As the saying goes, "A ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."
-If the warship isn't deployable, then it is useless. Spending money on a useless ship does not make financial sense. It is unfortunate that so much money was put into these ships, but do not compound the expense by continuing to pour money into an open well that will never be filled. Cut the loses so they no longer siphon money from the budget. The politicians who are saying, (in effect) "These boats in the drydock still have weapons that can be added to the number of weapons in the USN." those politicians are obviously too stupid to understand that weapons that cannot be used in a fight cannot be counted as weapons.

[navret]

Out in the fleet we see this kind of stupidity on almost a daily basis. I never really understood just how bad it was until I got shore tour in DC. I used to drive home at night praying that Ivan was as screwed up as we were. It’s scary.