I have a hard time believing this is accepted as a legitimate plan.In a nod to budget concerns and the needs of the future fleet, the Navy is planning to nearly double the service lives of its two flagships.USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20) was originally expected to retire sometime in the next 12 months, and now we are supposed to believe that with minimum funding and maintenance, the ship will last another 18-28 years?
The Japan-based USS Blue Ridge and Italy-based USS Mount Whitney were commissioned in 1970 and 1971, respectively, and slated to be replaced in coming years.
But with other needs within the fleet and the Navy facing potential budget cuts, the current 7th Fleet and 6th Fleet flagships will be in service until at least 2029, with plans being developed to extend their use to 2039, according to the Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plan and other assessments.
Does that pass the smell test?
This is the place where Congress can make a constructive contribution to the Navy by supporting construction for these type of specialized, much lower cost shipbuilding programs. The cost of the command ships is mostly electronics and communications, not the actual ship. This is a jobs program on par with almost any in the US today, and can be bid out to any number of yards. It also doesn't necessarily have to be a new ship.
Why wouldn't the Navy charter a few less expensive ships to operate for conversion? Old amphibious ships are expensive to operate, wouldn't there be savings in converting a newer ship and simply paying the conversion costs? One would think there would be, but I am not sure.
