US Navy ships and weapon systems

JohninMK wrote:The ammo lifts don't work, the arrester wire system is flaky and now this. Beyond parody yet they still ordered 4 more.

Anthony Capaccio
@ACapaccio
·
5h
We break: New toilets on the U.S. Navy’s two newest aircraft carriers clog so often that the sewage systems must be cleaned periodically with specialized acids costing about $400,000 a flush, according to a new congressional audit https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-24/unclogging-toilets-at-400-000-a-flush-among-navy-cost-overruns
via @bpolitics

$400k per flush!  Money floating on Shit Creek, and being flushed down the toilet. Holy Hell!

US food ...

For 400 000 $ they can get enough civilian toilets for 10 ships ...

This thing is another way of paying corrupted people.

Isos wrote:For 400 000 $ they can get enough civilian toilets for 10 ships ...

This thing is another way of paying corrupted people.

Sounds like they undersized the main sewage pipes or they had too many bend or the gradients were too shallow. Also looks like the simple solutions, rodding or reverse water jetting aren't an option.

Whatever it is it is pretty much designed into the core of the ship so very difficult to rectify.

They laugh at the K smoking but this is really bad basic marine engineering.

Promising American anti-submarine mine torpedo Hammerhead



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3992020.html

Fincantieri’s FREMM Wins US Navy FFG(X) Frigate Competition

Fincantieri was awarded a $795 mil US Navy contract for detail design & construction of the first ship at its Marinette shipyard in Wisconsin. Options for up to 10 ships could make the contract worth up to $5.6 billion. Fincantieri was competing with a frigate design based on the Italian Navy's FREMM frigate.

The US Navy awarded a contract to design and produce the next generation small surface combatant, the Guided Missile Frigate (FFG(X)) today. The contract for detail design and construction (DD&C) of up to 10 Guided Missile Frigates (consisting of one base ship and nine option ships) was awarded to Marinette Marine Corporation (MMC) of Marinette, Wisconsin, officials announced.

   “The Navy’s Guided-Missile Frigate (FFG(X)) will be an important part of our future fleet. FFG(X) is the evolution of the Navy’s Small Surface Combatant with increased lethality, survivability, and improved capability to support the National Defense Strategy across the full range of military operations. It will no doubt help us conduct distributed maritime operations more effectively, and improve our ability to fight both in contested blue-water and littoral environments.”

The FFG(X) will have multi-mission capability to conduct air warfare, anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare, electronic warfare, and information operations. Specifically FFG(X) will include an Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) radar, Baseline Ten (BL10) AEGIS Combat System, a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS), communications systems, MK 57 Gun Weapon System (GWS) countermeasures and added capability in the EW/IO area with design flexibility for future growth.

   “I am very proud of the hard work from the requirements, acquisition, and shipbuilder teams that participated in the full and open competition, enabling the Navy to make this important decision today. Throughout this process, the government team and our industry partners have all executed with a sense of urgency and discipline, delivering this contract award three months ahead of schedule. The team’s intense focus on cost, acquisition, and technical rigor, enabled the government to deliver the best value for our taxpayers as we deliver a highly capable next generation Frigate to our Warfighters.”

The acquisition process for FFG(X) began in 2017. Since then the Navy has worked closely with Industry to balance cost and capability. This approach was successful in achieving an Average Follow ship cost across ships 2 – 20 that is below the objective set in the CDD and aligns to the National Defense Strategy’s stated goal of achieving a more lethal, resilient, and agile force by pursuing acquisition strategies to build ships more quickly and affordably. For example, because the Frigate acquisition program promoted shipbuilding competition, included early industry involvement, and open communication between all stakeholders the program was able to accelerate almost 6 years as compared to normal shipbuilding programs.
Fincantieri’s FFG(X) scale model at SNA 2020

The Navy released the FFG(X) DD&C Request for Proposals to industry on June 20, 2019. Technical proposals were received in August 2019 and cost proposals were received in September 2019. This was a full and open competition with multiple offers received.

Fincantieri was competing against 3 shipbuilders:

• Austal with a frigate based on its Independence-class LCS
  

•  Bath Iron Works (partnered with Navantia of Spain) with a frigate based on the F100
  

• Huntington Ingalls Industries with an unknown design
  

The future frigate of the U.S. Navy will be based on the Italian Navy FREMM in its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) variant (Virginio Fasan type but quite heavily modified, especially top-side). The vessel will have a length of 496 feet, a beam of 65 feet for a 7,500-ton displacement. According to Fincantieri, the ship will be future proof as it will generate 12 megawatts of power.

In terms of weapon systems, the frigate will be fitted with all the government furnished equipment as outlined by the U.S. Navy requirements:

• A Mk110 57mm main gun
  

• 32x Mk41 VLS
  

• Up to 16x NSM anti-ship missiles
  

• A RAM close in weapon system
  

The future frigate will be fitted with the future AN/SPY-6(V)3 radar by Raytheon and baseline 10 Aegis combat management system.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/04/fincantieris-fremm-wins-us-navy-ffgx-frigate-competition/

They found new use for Zumwalts: https://russian.rt.com/world/article/742856-zumwalt-korabl-ssha-flot

The P-8 with a new(ish) giant pod. Sorry its the Drive buts its a good article. Ignore the comments as usual

The pictures offer an excellent view of the underside of the AN/APS-154, as well as the P-8A carrying it. The pod is attached to the bottom of the aircraft using a special, extendable cradle known as the Special Mission Pod Deployment Mechanism (SMPDM), which Aviation Week was first to report on in July 2019. By extending the pod well below the fuselage while in flight, the radar's fields of view are no longer obstructed by the plane's two engines.

You can also see a pair of vertical strakes, one on either side of the bottom of the P-8A's rear fuselage. These are unique to aircraft that have been configured to carry the AN/APS-154. The two strakes are visible in this picture under the rear of the fuselage.

Specific details about the pod itself and the capabilities of the radar inside, all of which Raytheon developed almost entirely in secret, are limited. The radar is known to be an active electronically-scanned array (AESA) type with moving target indicator (MTI) and synthetic aperture functionality. What this means is that the system is capable of tracking moving targets below at sea and on land, as well as taking high-quality radar imagery of objects of interest for further analysis, even at night or in poor weather.

The AAS is also specifically designed to work in littoral regions where it might have to scan both water and land areas simultaneously. Traditional surface search radars are typically optimized for one environment or the other, or have dedicate modes for each, and generally have difficulty covering both at the same time.




https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33289/behold-these-awesome-shots-of-a-navy-p-8a-poseidon-carrying-its-big-secretive-radar-pod

kvs wrote:Hilarious.   The yanquis are buying Gorshkov type frigates from their EU vassals.   Somebody in Washington woke up
and smelled the coffee.  

These tin cans are not half of a Gorshkov thier anti ship missiles have about a 5th of the range (a 10th if you count the Zircon) and what exactly are they hoping to achieve with that little 57mm patrol boat gun.
The only capabilities they share with the Gorshkov are the ability to fire cheap subsonic CMs at static land targets (rather amusing as Kalibr/tomahawk type missiles are no good against any country with an IADS) and maybe they can defend themselves from enemy aircraft.

kvs wrote:This also indicates that the state of US industry is really, really bad.

Well we all knew that it was rotting away as is the inevitable fate of such a corrupt and poorly maintained system, the question is will they clear house and rebuild from scratch or will they just break out the bong and delude themselves into thinking that the case is worse in Russia.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

kvs wrote:Hilarious.   The yanquis are buying Gorshkov type frigates from their EU vassals.   Somebody in Washington woke up
and smelled the coffee.  

These tin cans are not half of a Gorshkov thier anti ship missiles have about a 5th of the range (a 10th if you count the Zircon) and what exactly are they hoping to achieve with that little 57mm patrol boat gun.
The only capabilities they share with the Gorshkov are the ability to fire cheap subsonic CMs at static land targets (rather amusing as Kalibr/tomahawk type missiles are no good against any country with an IADS) and maybe they can defend themselves from enemy aircraft.

kvs wrote:This also indicates that the state of US industry is really, really bad.

Well we all knew that it was rotting away as is the inevitable fate of such a corrupt and poorly maintained system, the question is will they clear house and rebuild from scratch or will they just break out the bong and delude themselves into thinking that the case is worse  in Russia.

JUST NOT: original model being made by people that know how to make warships sport OTOMAT mk2 E missiles with 360km range, MILAS anti submarine missiles and an 127/64LW with a rate of fire of 40rds/minute, Vulcano guided rounds and a 400 ready to fire shots magazine PLUS an 76/62mm SuperRapido CIWS with guided AA DART rounds.

Blame the Idiotistan Navy for those 57mm shit they keep on putting on their ships, not us: if they cannot understand and above all admit from solar evidence that they were failing great time and so get to ruin even things that already worked super without any modification, they just cannot.

The Otomat kinda lame compared to even Kaliber missiles let alone Tsirkon. The only ? with all the impressive Russian missiles is how they will target them. I wonder when we will find out this secret. Its possible the seeker is not in the nose but on a protected section of the missile body, which is why they have a high/plunging profile,(that and thinner air) look down on target, ID location and heading, from 20,000m@ Mach 7, it will plung down in 8 sec!!! kaboom!!

mnztr wrote:The Otomat kinda lame compared to even Kaliber missiles let alone Tsirkon. The only ? with all the impressive Russian missiles is how they will target them. I wonder when we will find out this secret. Its possible the seeker is not in the nose but on a protected section of the missile body, which is why they have a high/plunging profile,(that and thinner air) look down on target, ID location and heading, from 20,000m@ Mach 7, it will plung down in 8 sec!!! kaboom!!

The "kinda lame" was for decades and still is , modernized as times goes by, the most powerful western ASM, with only RBS-15 coming close and the only one developed from beginning with middle course guidance.
It is not that EVERYTHING , EVERYWHERE has to be perceived as a male reproductive organ measurement contest.
Also because many have draw parallels noting how Sov/russian warships and Italian ones share many common traits beginning by the general appearance of their destroyers and frigate (and cruiser also until we both produced conventional ones) to the type and above all the impressive numbers of weapons we both fill our ships with.
Said so, Russia is a superpower, a real one, and so field both weaponries and even entire categories of military ships (let's say just one: nuclear submarines) we never eer even dreamt about.
Still, when we build some warship we built them at the highest possible standard (i.e. our own proprietary one, NATO standard is for pussies) and sporting by default systems that surpassed any contemporary NATO one.

The two things together, realism in programs and no compromise on quality, are actually working great as we have completed and launched all all our programmed FREMM a frigates and we are actually proceeding at full sails and perfectly on schedule with the most ambitious construction program our navy ever  started after the end of WWII...while RN , USN  and MN ...

Well the USN has always felt secondary need for such missiles as it always assumes airspace dominance in its conflict equations, the Italians alwasy assume they will be with Uncle Sam if fighting a scary opponent. Russia and the Chinese assume they will be facing either land based aircraft or a CBG or 3. Therefore they are preparing ways to neutralize the centrepiece of that force, at sea, the carrier, for land based, AWACS and Tankers. Take those main pieces out and the US fighting machine starts to struggle. Just like a chess game, the Queen (carrier) Rook and Bishop (tanker and AWACs) ...

The US military is a massive logistics engine, the strategy is built around extending and defending that logistics chain. Rip out the means of projecting that defence and they have to pull back. You are not gonna defeat them completely, but they cannot attack you with full force.

mnztr wrote:Well the USN has always felt secondary need for such missiles as it always assumes airspace dominance in its conflict equations, the Italians alwasy assume they will be with Uncle Sam if fighting a scary opponent. Russia and the Chinese assume they will be facing either land based aircraft or a CBG or 3. Therefore they are preparing ways to neutralize the centrepiece of that force, at sea, the carrier, for land based, AWACS and Tankers. Take those main pieces out and the US fighting machine starts to struggle. Just like a chess game, the Queen (carrier) Rook and Bishop (tanker and AWACs) ...

The US military is a massive logistics engine, the strategy is built around extending and defending that logistics chain. Rip out the means of projecting that defence and they have to pull back. You are not gonna defeat them completely, but they cannot attack you with full force.

Although I am agreeing with most of what you say I can assure you of just the contrary for what my own country's navy is concerned: our ships are built at the most compelling  constructive standard in NATO and are armed to their teeth EXACTLY because we always considered that in the our main theatres of operations (Sicily Strait, Adriatic sea, Red sea, Hormuz strait and Persian Gulf) each of our ship or task force would be basically alone to face enemy menaces of different nature popping up at very close distance due to the small spaces in which they would have to operate.
The idea of relying to american air cover was not even took into consideration when operating there.

That's was the reason of a lot of ad Hoc designed systems like OTOMAT, DARDO, ASPIDE launcher and all the different version of 76mm gun we introduced, to put it simply american equivalent ones , widely used by other NATO navies were just not enough for what we asked for.

And no, our Navy will not struggle if USN is not around, while others NATO navies (see previous post) are actually struggling even in peacetime due the conflict between their deluded ambition of retaining a long bygone status (see QE and CDG white elephants) and the idiotic idea of compensate such an imbalance adopting cost saving measures of the rest of their own fleet with the result of getting ships not up to their minimum task and so to have their own programs cut in half or even cancelled.

Actual ntroduction of very long range ASM, supersonic or not, transforming the whole Mediterranean in a Green Sea operation scenario would just confirm us in our path.
A path, I repeat, that has always been the most similar to the Sov/russian one between all NATO Navies.

marcellogo wrote:

mnztr wrote:Well the USN has always felt secondary need for such missiles as it always assumes airspace dominance in its conflict equations, the Italians alwasy assume they will be with Uncle Sam if fighting a scary opponent. Russia and the Chinese assume they will be facing either land based aircraft or a CBG or 3. Therefore they are preparing ways to neutralize the centrepiece of that force, at sea, the carrier, for land based, AWACS and Tankers. Take those main pieces out and the US fighting machine starts to struggle. Just like a chess game, the Queen (carrier) Rook and Bishop (tanker and AWACs) ...

The US military is a massive logistics engine, the strategy is built around extending and defending that logistics chain. Rip out the means of projecting that defence and they have to pull back. You are not gonna defeat them completely, but they cannot attack you with full force.

Although I am agreeing with most of what you say I can assure you of just the contrary for what my own country's navy is concerned: our ships are built at the most compelling  constructive standard in NATO and are armed to their teeth EXACTLY because we always considered that in the our main theatres of operations (Sicily Strait, Adriatic sea, Red sea, Hormuz strait and Persian Gulf) each of our ship or task force would be basically alone to face enemy menaces of different nature popping up at very close distance due to the small spaces in which they would have to operate.
The idea of relying to american air cover was not even took into consideration when operating there.

That's was the reason of a lot of ad Hoc designed systems like OTOMAT, DARDO, ASPIDE launcher and all the different version of 76mm gun we introduced, to put it simply american equivalent ones , widely used by other NATO navies were just not enough for what we asked for.

And no, our Navy will not struggle if USN is not around, while others NATO navies (see previous post) are actually struggling even in peacetime due the conflict between their deluded ambition of retaining a long bygone status (see QE and CDG white elephants) and the idiotic idea of compensate such an imbalance adopting cost saving measures of the rest of their own fleet with the result of getting ships not up to their minimum task and so to have their own programs cut in half or even cancelled.

Actual ntroduction of very long range ASM, supersonic or not, transforming the whole Mediterranean in a Green Sea operation scenario  would just confirm us in our path.
A path, I repeat, that has always been the most similar to the Sov/russian one between all NATO Navies.

Well, at least the russians use their ship appropriately... what is the good point of having modern FREMM frigates, if our government uses them only to escort (and in some cases to transport) illegal immigrants in our country? I mean, it is not like a couple of years ago we could have used one of them to protect an italian oil and gas ship off the coast of Cyprus from a Turkish frigates (one of 2 generation older than our ships by the way).

Italy has ships but the navy has no senseful missions and the military is lead (since ages) by people that hate our country and the military. The last few ministers of defence were all trying to shame everything military related...

marcellogo wrote:

Although I am agreeing with most of what you say I can assure you of just the contrary for what my own country's navy is concerned: our ships are built at the most compelling  constructive standard in NATO and are armed to their teeth EXACTLY because we always considered that in the our main theatres of operations (Sicily Strait, Adriatic sea, Red sea, Hormuz strait and Persian Gulf) each of our ship or task force would be basically alone to face enemy menaces of different nature popping up at very close distance due to the small spaces in which they would have to operate.
The idea of relying to american air cover was not even took into consideration when operating there.

That's was the reason of a lot of ad Hoc designed systems like OTOMAT, DARDO, ASPIDE launcher and all the different version of 76mm gun we introduced, to put it simply american equivalent ones , widely used by other NATO navies were just not enough for what we asked for.

And no, our Navy will not struggle if USN is not around, while others NATO navies (see previous post) are actually struggling even in peacetime due the conflict between their deluded ambition of retaining a long bygone status (see QE and CDG white elephants) and the idiotic idea of compensate such an imbalance adopting cost saving measures of the rest of their own fleet with the result of getting ships not up to their minimum task and so to have their own programs cut in half or even cancelled.

Actual ntroduction of very long range ASM, supersonic or not, transforming the whole Mediterranean in a Green Sea operation scenario  would just confirm us in our path.
A path, I repeat, that has always been the most similar to the Sov/russian one between all NATO Navies.

If you are in these areas, massive amounts of US air power are not very far away. I seriously doubt the US will not assist an Italian ship under attack. Also these are not particulary scary opponents except maybe for Iran. In terms of scary Naval powers you are pretty much limited to Russia or China the rest are friends (Japan, Taiwan, Korea etc etc ) I even seriously doubt Russia would intentionally attack an Italian vessel, I just don't see it happening..nor China. I even cannot see a situation where Iran would attack an Italian vessel

mnztr wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Although I am agreeing with most of what you say I can assure you of just the contrary for what my own country's navy is concerned: our ships are built at the most compelling  constructive standard in NATO and are armed to their teeth EXACTLY because we always considered that in the our main theatres of operations (Sicily Strait, Adriatic sea, Red sea, Hormuz strait and Persian Gulf) each of our ship or task force would be basically alone to face enemy menaces of different nature popping up at very close distance due to the small spaces in which they would have to operate.
The idea of relying to american air cover was not even took into consideration when operating there.

That's was the reason of a lot of ad Hoc designed systems like OTOMAT, DARDO, ASPIDE launcher and all the different version of 76mm gun we introduced, to put it simply american equivalent ones , widely used by other NATO navies were just not enough for what we asked for.

And no, our Navy will not struggle if USN is not around, while others NATO navies (see previous post) are actually struggling even in peacetime due the conflict between their deluded ambition of retaining a long bygone status (see QE and CDG white elephants) and the idiotic idea of compensate such an imbalance adopting cost saving measures of the rest of their own fleet with the result of getting ships not up to their minimum task and so to have their own programs cut in half or even cancelled.

Actual ntroduction of very long range ASM, supersonic or not, transforming the whole Mediterranean in a Green Sea operation scenario  would just confirm us in our path.
A path, I repeat, that has always been the most similar to the Sov/russian one between all NATO Navies.

If you are in these areas, massive amounts of US air power are not very far away. I seriously doubt the US will not assist an Italian ship under attack. Also these are not particulary scary opponents except maybe for Iran. In terms of scary Naval powers you are pretty much limited to Russia or China the rest are friends (Japan, Taiwan, Korea etc etc ) I even seriously doubt Russia would intentionally attack an Italian vessel, I just don't see it happening..nor China. I even cannot see a situation where Iran would attack an Italian vessel  

When those standards were set and those weapon first developed, situation was completely different, Cold War was still full raging when Lupo and Maestrale classes was introduced and we already have had Doria and Vittorio Veneto classes showing a radical departure from other NATO navies. Plus jugoslavia, whith which we had a strictly nationl feud

and we designed and still design our ships to be able to operate in small group and even standing alone, in consideration of the ambiental features in which we expect them to operate, not expecting support neither from our own other ships in the area, let's figure from American CV fleets that have to stay hundreds of miles away from them just to survive.

Obviously, the fact that when they decided to design a class of ships specifically intended to operate in the same operative scenarios they came out with that (those) absolute. cosmic level abomination called LCS, showing how absolute suckers they are when it came to littoral areas operations, is just a proof that we were absolutely right to stand up in our way and that spending those 25% more for our ships in comparison with foreign analogues in order to keep our intended standards.

In the long run, we can say it now by having some of those above mentioned ship still active and running after more than 35 years of service, it's also the most economically wise choice to do.

Well the Italian carriers were using British planes. Carriers are kinda useless in a European conflict as land based planes, missile and subs would take them out pretty quick. For power projection they are kinda useless. even the Argies cam pretty close to beating the UK. with similar carriers. If they had more Exocets, properly fused their bombs and recharged their torpedoes properly it woulda been carnage. The only European countries that can really defend themselves are France and the UK, because they have nukes. End of story.

mnztr wrote:Well the Italian carriers were using British planes. Carriers are kinda useless in a European conflict as land based planes, missile and subs would take them out pretty quick. For power projection they are kinda useless. even the Argies cam pretty close to beating the UK. with similar carriers. If they had more Exocets, properly fused their bombs and recharged their torpedoes properly it woulda been carnage. The only European countries that can really defend themselves are France and the UK, because they have nukes. End of story.

No.
Harrier II is an american plane and we acquired them in the IIplus configuration i.e. the one with radar, that was the result of a joint development program partecipated from its beginning by us and Spain as full partners while Bae was just a subcontractor in the production of original model...

With exception of the first three all ours were assembled in Italy at Caselle.

Note however that our first carriers dates to twenty/thirdy years before the arrival of Harrier i.e. the Doria Class and the Vittorio Veneto like first russian ones were Moskva class, another similar parallel development followed by another one i.e. the Garibaldi and KIEV classes, both carrying STOVL planes and an heavy conventional armament at the same time.

That's because of what about carrier, we like Russian doesn't look at them for power protection but as a support of the rest of our Navy.
Good for a real world superpower, good for us also.

And because of that, actually we have a well balanced and functioning navy, capable to meet its own intended spectrum of mission and actually expanding both it than itself while France and UK having both acquired power projection carriers to support their deluded great power status obsessions are actually struggling even to ensure them a decent escort with the remaining part of their surface fleets.

Now, back to topic or moderators would get angry.

Maritime patrol aviation of U.S. Navy fully re-equipped with Poseidon P-8A aircraft

On May 28, 2020, the U.S. Navy announced that they had completed the rearmament from Lockheed P-3C Orion aircraft to the new Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, of the last, 13th, its VP-40 Fighting Marlins based combat patrol squadron at Whidby Island Air Force Base (Washington State). This marked the complete rearmament of the regular parts of the American maririme patrol aviation with R-8A aircraft.

The VP-40 squadron, which has operated Orion aircraft since 1967, surrendered nine of its full-time R-3Cs in 2019, and since November 2019 began re-equipping and retraining on the R-8A, completing it on May 14, 2020. Earlier, by the end of 2019, the re-equipment on the P-8A was completed by the VP-46 squadron.

Now the U.S. Navy aviation has 13 combat patrol squadrons on the new R-8A base patrol aircraft - including six uadrons (VP-1, VP-4, VP-9, VP-40, VP-46 and VP-47) 10th wing (control on Whidby Island) on the West (Pacific) coast of the United States, and seven squadrons (VP-5, VP-8, VP-10, VP-16, VP-26, VP-45 and training VP- 30) to the 11th wing (control in Jacksonville) on the East (Atlantic) coast of the United States.

Now, several R-3C Orion aircraft serving in regular parts of the US Navy remain only in the special secret reconnaissance squadron VPU-2 Special Projects Patrol Squadron. It was previously reported that VPU-2 was also supposed to be re-equipped on the P-8A, starting from the end of 2019, however, according to the latest data, this did not happen. In addition, until 2023, the R-3C Orion aircraft will remain in the reserve patrol squadrons - VP-62 in Jacksonville, and VP-69 on Whidby Island. Also in service for a few more years will remain aircraft radio and electronic intelligence ER-3E ARIES II.

Lockheed P-3 Orion aircraft in the R-3A (P3V-1) version began to enter the U.S. Navy aviation in 1962.

In total, the U.S. Navy plans to receive 120 R-8A aircraft, of which about 110 have been delivered from 2011 to the present.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4044446.html

The American fleet will withdraw the first four ships of the LCS type

As the American edition of Defense News reported in David B. Larter's article, "US Navy's first 4 littoral combat ships to leave the fleet in 9 months", according to a statement by Admiral Mike Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations (Commander) of the United States Navy on June 20, 2020 years, the first four American "littoral" warships - LCS 1 Freedom, LCS 2 Independence, LCS 3 Fort Worth and LCS 4 Coronado - will be withdrawn from the US Navy on March 31, 2020 and transferred to conservation. All of them were commissioned from 2008 to 2014.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4076448.html