When you consider all that happy talk as Admiral Roughead was going out the door about making sure ships can make it 30, 35, 50, 75 years - this data point should provide the real Roughead legacy, in a fashion.
Via a forwarded email, Names removed to protect pretty much everyone involved. In part;
Based upon the ALT POM changes- the Department plans to inactivate the ships below:+/- a year or two, this is where we are:
CG (FY 13): 60, 68, 69, 71
CG (FY 14): 59, 63, 64, 65, 66
LSD (FY 14): 41, 43, 46
While there may be some further discussion with the CGs with respect to which ones in which year- these are the hull numbers (and OPNAV concurred).
Per 10 USC 2244A, any modernization (except safety modifications or modifications costing less than $100K) is not allowed within 5 years of retirement/disposal. NAVSEA (any SYSCOM) should not provide FY 12 (or remaining FY 11) procurement funds to any of the above platforms (except safety modifications). If funds are already spent on these platforms, that is okay given that these are recent changes. The key is to ensure no new money is being spent.
Please, let's build more 20-yr expected life LCS to tote around their 57mm gun and making waves instead of getting another decade out of an Amphib or Aegis Cruiser. There's your opportunity cost for the pig-headed desire to keep building a ship that is PPT deep and based on nothing but promises.
When you build small run, highly expensive ships - and the coming budget trainwreck that some have seen coming for decades (one of my ECON Profs explained it to me in the mid-80s) is knocking at the door.... Well - there you go.
There will be more. The questions is - how do we match a Maritime Strategy to our future capabilities?
Yes I said that - as we do not have the money or political will to have the capabilities to match our Maritime Strategy.