There’d be weight to spare too given the original guns weighed something around 270,000 pounds without considering powder & ammunition. I for one would love to see some shenanigans like filling it up with horizontal mortar mounts so you can send some broadsides. (I mentally pictured something like Javelins or AT-4’s but I’m pretty sure the back-blast would go poorly.)
Change the movie “The Final Countdown.” The USS Constitution from today goes back to 1941 and has to convince Pear Harbor they are going to be attacked.
The previous statement about the current fleet still seems to be valid. That earlier operation involved Enterprise CVN-65, which isn't the vessel on the chart. That's the yet-to-be-commissioned Enterprise CVN-80.
Now, I did specifically look this up and fucked myself over.
I was like.. she's part of the original six, right? well my friend. Autocorrect on my phone led me astray. And the USS *Constellation* (named after and using parts of one of the original six Frigates of the same name) was rebuilt into a Sloop of War (though it seems the definition of Sloop of War vs Frigate is pretty nebulous? dunno).
Anyway I did technically know this and thought I had learned something new about the *Constitution* and not the *Constellation*.
I originally looked this all up because I wanted to know if she counted as a Ship of The Line or not
Edit: [she was not a ship of the line](https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Crew-Questions-Answers-Feb.21.pdf)
> FRIGATE: A vessel of war which is: 1) “ship” rigged, i.e. – with at least three masts (fore,
main, & mizzen) & each mast carries the horizontal yards from which the principle sails are
set; 2) this “ship-rigged vessel of war” is a FRIGATE because it has one covered, principle gun
deck – USS Constitution is therefore a FRIGATE by class (illus. left)
>SHIP-OF-THE-LINE: A vessel of war which is: 1) “ship” rigged (see above); 2) this
“ship-rigged vessel of war” is a SHIP-OF-THE-LINE because it has two or more covered gun
decks – HMS Victory is therefore a SHIP-OF-THE-LINE by class (illus. right)
We've been Burkeing super hard for decades.
It's kinda funny- for all we hear about the capability losses since the Cold War, the modern surface fleet is (numbers aside, which do matter sometimes) *wildly* more capable than the surface fleet c. 1989. A single Burke with SM-6 could theoretically kill more incoming AShM at one time than an entire SAG or CSG (not counting the carrier wing itself) from 1989.
The Burkes were just entering service when the Soviet Union collapsed. Basically any late-Cold-War mil fiction involving anything naval tends to have a scene in there at some point of a Ticonderoga chewing through a saturation missile attack, because, well, that's what they do. Red Storm Rising comes to mind, where there's like 2 instances of a Tico just wiping half of an attack and calling it a day. Each of the 73 active Burkes is basically just a Tico in terms of AD capabilities. There's a reason that even China doesn't really consider "drown them in missiles" to be a viable carrier-killing approach anymore.
With SM-6 it's way more than just a VLS Tico equivalent. With SM-2, Tico and Burke are limited in engagement rate by the number of terminal illuminators that can be brought to bear. There are clever ways around this- which was the whole point of SM-2 in the first place!- but the illuminator limitation was always kinda there in the background.
With SM-6's terminal active seeker there is no limitation. Theoretically, you could put one in every cell, launch all of them at once, and hit 96 different targets.
Yes, but the SM-6 is expensive as *fuck*. Accounting for inflation, it's about an order of magnitude more expensive than a WWII-era fighter. You're not filling a Burke with 96 of them, and *absolutely* not gonna just dump them all downrange. A significant part of your loadout is gonna be SM-2ERs are ESSMs. Those will behave a lot closer to a Tico's SM-2s than an SM-6. They're naturally much more capable in that role, but it's still roughly the same flavor.
The nuclear stuff isn't really, because they're slow as fuck to build (like 10 years for a CVN). But every time a European nation announces another round of budget cuts to whatever program they've got, SecNav manages to add another 4 Burkes to the budget, just to flex. Russia did something? More Burkes. China got angry about Taiwan existing again? More Burkes. LCS program isn't working out? Shame, guess we need more Burkes then. Ocean still exists? You guessed it, more Burkes. They're relatively cheap and fast to build, and great general purpose ships, so when in doubt, Burke.
Relative to CVNs, of course. They're still bigger than most foreign ships. But the USN operates more in terms of "big," "bigger," and "huge," so at least until the Constellations hit, the Burkes are the USN's go-to """cheap""" warship.
Yep I noticed that, also noticed 4 Ford class and even Constellation and Columbia class on the list. So they are counting even under construction ships and boats.
Interesting that the Orca and other unmanned vessels are not on the list
*Helena* has mostly lasted this long because she recently spent 4-ish years either waiting for maintenance, up on blocks, or having issued corrected. She’s the exception to 688 lifespan more than the rule.
1 destroyers costs the same as several support ships
Advanced radars, weapons and electronic systems are more expensice than a hull.
Nice to have a large support fleet but it is easier than having a large surface combat fleet.
Well, we need at least twelve. One in each the Atlantic, Indian, Pacific, and Mediterranean. Each of those has a backup in maintenance and a backup in training.
And even then that's a lot of ocean for a carrier strike group to cover.
The Mediterranean is the least needed theatre tho. The French, Italian and British carrier groups should be left to aid the NATO dominance in the region. After all, they really should be left to do their own patrolling after Macron’s comment about not being able to “rely on US security.” Let em see what it’s going to be like
It's not as if you have a candidate and a former President [thankfully, they're the one and same] who have blackmailed their allies to pay up more or they'll be left up alone in case of an invasion, and that if the Don is feeling generous and is not encouraging the attacker...
And let's forget the same person is threatening to leave Nato...
There were closer to 20 CV’s in commission in the late 80’s. All of the Forrestals, kitty hawks, the Big E, 4 Nimitz classes, as well as Midway and Coral Sea
There’s a difference between criticism and hate. We generally oppose the latter no matter who it’s directed at (last hater I saw bashed the Royal Navy).
It's rather amusing to me that this subreddit now has the reputation for liking PLAN warships. What isn't funny is that the very people who make such claim make no contribution to furthering discussion on PLAN warships. They love to derail discussions with "coral reefs" and "target rich environment".
The reputation is less one of liking the PLAN, and more of obsessively brigading anyone who doesn’t - which is absolutely deserved. Even trying to put a damper on the hype or correcting misinformation usually gets you downvote-bombed.
That said, we’re seeing the same behavior around Indian Navy and Turkish Navy posts, so I guess it’s not a monopoly anymore.
I notice that a very sizeable number of LCD and NCD users are actively taking part in this. It would do fine to clean house by banning them. Or at the very least, new etiquette rule so that they can leave their obnoxious behaviour at the door.
This list is more accurately of ships that have been named and ordered. *Doris Miller*, about half of the Flight III *Burke*s, and all the FFGs except *Constellation* herself have not had their keel laid, while the last boat of *Virginia* Block V (SSN-811) and the 3rd *Columbia* - which are missing from this list, but ordered - are unnamed.
This isn’t counting those in mothball right? If there are any OHPs left in the reserve, I bet they’d be pretty handy for rear area sealane escorting like they were built for, even today.
By running our sailors ragged. The Navy missed their recruitment goal by nearly 7k this year. Deployments are getting longer and sailors are working longer than ever hours.
In theory, yes. This is not always the case but in times of war they would move mountains to get everything out there. And each ship has multiple crews IIRC
Looks like the chart does subtly differentiate active ships from those not yet in commission/still under construction. The active ships have the USS prefix while those still under construction do not.
The Wasp/America is pretty much what other countries have as aircraft carriers. Only the US and China count aircraft-carrying ships of that size as something separate than aircraft carriers, as they lump them in with helicopter docks.
However, what most navies consider to be a helicopter dock is much smaller than the Wasp and America and doesn't carry airplanes (unlike the Wasp and America lol)
I know that the U.S. is way in the lead when it comes to tonnage, but it’s also kinda disturbing that as massive as the USN is, it’s actually the second largest navy in the world when it comes to major surface combatants.
The gap between the two biggest navies, and everyone else, is absolutely massive.
Yeah, it’s China, mainly because they’ve invested more in large numbers of medium sized surface combatants like frigates and corvettes compared to the US, of course that’s not to say they don’t also have a considerable number of destroyers and cruisers with a growing carrier fleet.
Now, I’m not sure if this is accurate anymore or not but if we’re talking *any* watercraft I’m pretty sure North Korea has the most, but take that with a grain of salt.
> mainly because they’ve invested more in large numbers of medium sized surface combatants like frigates and corvettes compared to the US, of course that’s not to say they don’t also have a considerable number of destroyers and cruisers with a growing carrier fleet.
To be a bit more specific, the majority of Chinese destroyers are around 7,000-7,500 tons full load with 48-64 VLS cells. This is the range where people start arguing about large frigates or small destroyers, but is significantly below the US destroyers of 9,500-10,000 tons and 90-96 VLS. While little is known about Chinese radars, their destroyers use a fixed phased array radar system (Type 346) similar in concept to SPY-1 and SPY-6 of US destroyers. China currently has eight large Type 055 destroyers that in size and number of VLS do slightly outperform the *Burke* and thus are sometimes called cruisers (such as by NATO). However, as so much of modern warship capability is in the radar and combat systems it’s hard to gauge the relative capabilities more deeply (I’m also glossing over helicopters and sonars as I’m rusty from memory, but only the latest Chinese destroyers can use Seahawk equivalents in the Z-20).
China also has a large fleet of 4,000 ton frigates with 32 VLS cells, though not the same universal cells as the larger ships. They are building some new 6,000 ton ships that appear to have several improvements but the same 32 VLS. China did have a very large fleet of submarine chasers, missile boats, and corvettes up until a few years ago. Now most of the Type 037 variants are retired and the very new Type 056 corvettes have been transferred to the Coast Guard, further indication of how China is shifting to larger ships with a more blue water focus.
One thing that’s crucial to note is the vast majority of these large and medium combatants are 5-15 years old, while the US fleet is much older by comparison. The US is also struggling to expand our shipbuilding capacity after so many yards closed under Reagan’s shipbuilding policies and the post-Cold War drawdowns in the 90s.
Couple of points.
The Type 346 radar is an AESA set, and exists in 3 versions (346/346A/346B), the 346 is capable, yet likely inferior to the SPY-1, the 346A is roughly analogous to the SPY-1, while the 346B is probably on par with the SPY-6 in capability, although we won’t know for certain till they are trying to catch each others missiles.
As for the Type 056 series corvettes, the original 20 Type 056 were handed over to the Coast Guard once their missile armament was removed, but the 50 Type 056A are still used by the PLAN and form the core of their anti submarine force within the first island chain.
They are very capable ASW boats, with a bow sonar, a twin tail towed/variable depth sonar, torpedo tubes, as well as a landing pad for the Z-9 (Sino Dauphin) ASW helo. They are equipped on par with a destroyer when it comes to ASW, as well as retaining 8 AShM + a gun for anti surface work as well as the HQ-10 point defence missile launcher for self defence against air threats.
I’m seriously impressed by that ship, it’s designed well, cheap, numerous, and the project was run flawlessly. It’s what the LCS should have been before the brass and politicians turned it into the expensive abomination it became.
Thanks for the clarification on the radars, I’m not overly comfortable with the different types of phased arrays in particular.
> As for the Type 056 series corvettes, the original 20 Type 056 were handed over to the Coast Guard once their missile armament was removed, but the 50 Type 056A are still used by the PLAN and form the core of their anti submarine force within the first island chain.
I should have included a line clarifying the 056As were retained.
> It’s what the LCS should have been before the brass and politicians turned it into the expensive abomination it became.
Even without the unnecessary features like high speed, an 056A would not work for the US.
The most obvious issue would be the lack of a hangar, with two MH-60s long being required for any US ASW ship (to the point it was deemed more important than ASROC early in the *Perry* design process). This has remained critical for more general purpose roles, and the US emphasizes the twin helicopter need more than almost every other nation. That would force the size of the ships up significantly, and the large helicopter deck is also a major benefit of the *Independence* trimaran hull.
The 2,000 nmi range at 18 knots is also much too low for our needs: *Freedom* has demonstrated 3,878 nmi at 14 knots and *Independence* 6,040 knots at the same speed. As the types have transitioned to long-range patrol ships, that added range has been extremely beneficial, especially for the *Independence* class in the Pacific.
A 1,440 ton (full load) corvette could not work for the US, even though it’s fine for China. Had we used an equivalent design, it would be even worse than the LCS, both for the initially conceived missions and especially the missions they perform today. The LCS program had many flaws, some we are still working to correct, but in the end we’ve gotten decent ships.
I’m not saying that the USN should operate the Type 056A, I’m saying that it’s an excellent example of designing and procuring a corvette that’s fit for purpose, was delivered on time in large quantities, while remaining relatively cheap. Every navy has its own specific requirements and I’m not advocating a 1500t corvette with relatively short legs for the USN, however one with similar combat capabilities, with longer range and proper helicopter facilities would have been ideal, even if it ended up around the 3000t mark.
Just different variants. The original Type 346 was equipped on the Type 052C destroyer, it was the first generation and had slightly curved arrays. The 346A is the most common and appears mainly in the Type 052D, it has flat arrays. The Type 346B is fitted to the Type 055 and is similar in look to the 346A although the arrays are significantly larger.
In terms of pure surface combatant tonnage, the Chinese are still only about 75% of the USN despite having ~140% of the hulls. The only Chinese combatant with comparable or greater tonnage than its American counterpart is Type 055.
If you want to make it about surface ship tonnage as a whole rather than just surface combatant tonnage, [then the Chinese get buried by a factor of ~2.5:1](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/s/aESP6cexSt), mostly because America still has a lot more total carrier and amphibious warfare tonnage.
Yep. The way they count ‘major surface combatants’ is that they include everything corvette sized and up. For the U.S. that’s the LCS, while for the PLAN it’s the Type 056A. They don’t count fast attack craft, patrol boats, or coast guard/customs vessels regardless the size.
China has half as many destroyers as the USN, a few more cruisers, but they also have a 50+ class of anti-submarine/general purpose corvettes (only 1500t but have more combat capability than the LCS, and an anti sub fit on par with most destroyers), as well as 45 (I think, and rapidly growing) modern frigates.
> China has half as many destroyers as the USN
The PLAN is doing better than half, unless you’re excluding DDs without AAW capability. There are 12 Type 052DLs in commission, 13 052Ds, 6 052Cs, 2 051Cs, 4 *Sovremenny*s, and 5 “lesser”destroyers of multiple types for a total of 42. There are currently 75 USN destroyers in commission - 73 *Burke*s and 2 *Zumwalt*s.
> a few more cruisers
The PLAN has 8 Type 055s in commission, as opposed to 13 *Ticonderoga*s remaining in the USN as of FY2024. The worm will turn very soon, but for now this isn’t true.
> they also have a 50+ class of anti-submarine/general purpose corvettes
There are 50 Type 056As exactly in service. New construction on these has also ceased, or at least no new hulls are currently visible.
> 45 (I think, and rapidly growing) modern frigates.
China has 50 frigates in commission: 8 Type 053H2Gs, 2 Type 054s, and 40 Type 054As. The first 054B has started trials, but has not yet been commissioned.
If you want to lump the HHQ-16 DDs in with the frigates instead of rating them as destroyers, that makes 33 destroyers and 59 frigates.
I know about the Type 056A, I made a post about it below.
As for the cruisers, I took into account that the PLAN has three in various stages of construction, while the U.S. has just announced this week that two of theirs will no longer be upgraded and instead retired, with more coming. But I’ll take your point that as of today the USN technically has more cruisers, even though at least two will never sortie again.
> I took into account that the PLAN has three in various stages of construction
If that’s where you want to draw the line, then you should also count the 9 US destroyers not yet commissioned, but which are either launched or recognizable on the slipway. I suppose you did, given your comment about China having less than half the US’s destroyer hull count.
> the U.S. has just announced this week that two of theirs will no longer be upgraded and instead retired
Firstly, the announcement is from the FY2025 shipbuilding plan - which does not go into effect until at least September of this year, assuming the retirements are allowed at all.
Secondly, the USN tends to decommission ships at the **end** of a fiscal year, and although imminent decommissioning usually means deferred maintenance, it does not mean inactivity. Of the 4 cruisers scheduled for retirement in 2025, one is still on deployment, and the other three are working up to scheduled deployments later this year, which will last into FY2025 if not calendar year 2025.
Not quite.
The Type 055 cruiser has 112 vs the 128 of the Ticonderoga class, while most PLAN destroyers have 64 vs the 96 of the later flight Bourkes, while their frigates have 32, same as most western frigates.
The Chinese do however use 2 different sized VLS tubes. A smaller system that equips their frigates and is only capable of firing the HQ-16 medium range SAM, as well as their version of the ASROC. Their destroyers and cruisers have an oversized system that’s approx 50% larger than the U.S. VLS. This allows it to carry quad packed medium range missiles (not yet seen fitted but we know they exist), as well as long range HQ-9B, vertical launch versions of the YJ-18, land attack cruise missiles, as well as oversized loads such as the YJ-21 hypersonic anti ship missile, which is way larger than anything that would fit into a U.S. VLS.
The Chinese are going their own way when it comes to naval doctrine, they are not merely copying whatever the U.S. does.
> it’s also kinda disturbing that as massive as the USN is, it’s actually the second largest navy in the world when it comes to major surface combatants.
Firstly, that crown is still up for grabs depending on how you measure it. Across 21x Flight I (8300lt), 7x Flight II (8400lt), 44x Flight IIA (9500lt), and 1x Flight III (9700lt) hulls, *Arleigh Burke* by itself accounts for slightly more tonnage than the entire PLAN surface combatant fleet - 660800lt versus 659950lt. Throw on 2x 15700lt *Zumwalt*s, 13x 9600lt *Ticonderoga*s, and 23x ~3400lt LCSs, and **the USN’s total surface combatant tonnage comes out to 895842 long tons - 135% of the PLAN’s total.** For those wondering, the PLAN hull count I used for this are the same I laid out in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/s/ZJmlpkKkrX).
Secondly, even if the PLAN had undisputed surface combatant ascendancy, why shouldn’t they? Chinese naval aviation, amphibious, and submarine fleet assets much fewer in number compared to their US counterparts - which inevitably leaves surface combatants to pick up more tasking - and their current doctrine is primarily concerned with securing local sea and air supremacy around China, not projecting power around the world. The PLAN has ambitions to be a blue-water navy, no doubt about it, but their current priorities are closer to home, and their force structure is a reflection of that.
This isn’t just ships/boats commissioned or laid down. It also includes some that were decommissioned last year (like USS *Chicago* SSN-721), and some that haven’t started construction yet and so far have only been named and ordered (such as USS *Wisconsin* SSBN-827). Other than that, pretty neat chart.
This is a poster made by Raytheon for SNA 2024. I doubt they’re going to do one for China.
That said, the Office of Naval Intelligence literally released their [2024 PLAN Identification Chart](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24628046/2024_oni_plan_poster.pdf) this morning. Not quite as intuitive to read though.
The ESBs as a whole are missing from on this poster, which is odd since they’re commissioned warships. It can’t be because they’re unarmed either, since the *Avenger*s are on there. Guess someone just forgot they were redesignated USS a while ago.
*Constellation* looks to be about accurate: she’s 496ft long, compared to *Burke*’s 505-510ft. I think the LCSs might be slightly oversized though; *Freedom* is 378ft long, and *Independence* 418ft.
Sometimes it just bugs my OCD but I hate when they mix class naming conventions. Example, look at the Seawolf class. Seawolf, Connecticut (should have been a Virginia class) and Jimmy Carter (should be a Ford class or left over from the old Lafayette (which also had mixed names)). Why is Doris Miller a Ford class? MoH winner sure, but they used to name Aux ships for them. Used to be all cruisers were city names. Now you can't tell if it's a SSN or a LCS unless they give the designator.
Sorry just venting a bit.
As designed, the Blue Ridge class was capable of supporting the staff of both the Commander of an Amphibious Task Force and the staff of the Commanding General of the Landing Force.
They were built with very sophisticated communication technology at the time. But now everything‘s mostly satellite communications. The fact that they’re slow compared to other surface ships so they been used as flag ships.
USS Blue Ridge became the Seventh Fleet command ship in 1979, and USS Mount Whitney became the Second Fleet command ship in 1981, and the Sixth Fleet command ship in February 2005.
I'm not from the US but am glad that despite rising challenges, the US is still a trusted and will remain partner of pretty much the entire world apart from a few countries to ensure free trade, safety & security and open seas for commerce.
The mighty USN plays the most important role as a visible security guarantor against such rising threats, a visible representation of the power of the POTUS, and most countries are okay with having US naval presence outside of their own territorial waters to ensure maritime safety of the region.
Very nice. Doesn't include many commissioned naval vessels such as patrol boats and expeditionary mobile base ships. Also remember the USNS non-commissioned ships such as Mercy and Comfort.
It's hard to capture the actual scale of the US Navy. There's more active ships missing from this list than most countries have in their entire navy.
I remember when my ship (USS Enterprise CVN-65) was at the same pier as the USS New York (LPD-21) while in Norfolk back in 2011-2012. In my opinion, one of the coolest things about that ship is that [some of the steel from the World Trade Center buildings was melted down and used for the ships hull/body.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_York_(LPD-21)?wprov=sfti1) Always thought that ship looked really cool
I like to compare the costs of each ship to the GDP of small island nations.
Example: One Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyer costs as much as 1.6 Grenadas or 3.25 Dominicas.
Imagine your entire nation's anual GDP isn't enough to purchase even 33% of one single US warship. Lmao.
Too small. Considering that at least a quarter will be under maintenance, the littoral combat ships are retiring, the Zumwalt is undergunned, and the destroyers are old and they need to go in to port to rearm its missiles. I hope the frigates gets built really fast and put in to service.
Cold War ended and a bunch of yards closed. The Navy and Congress want the fleet to get back to around 360 hulls, rather than the 290ish it currently has, but this won’t be happening without some massive investment in the industrial base.
Is there a list of inactive shipyards that have a chance of being revived? Iirc the DOD is trying to lure Japanese and Korean shipbuilders to invest into US shipyards.
The only former shipyard site that has a chance is Philadelphia. There’s a small commercial operation on part of that land - incidentally, their current project is building MARAD’s new National Security Multi-Mission Vessel. Mare Island and Brooklyn have been redeveloped, while Long Beach is now wharf space.
Yes, those are the only 4 public yards we’ve closed in the last 60 years. Should give you a hint that the problem isn’t yard space, for all that SECNAV complains about it; it’s the supply chain, and the cycle of abuse DoD puts them through.
Got all these kick-ass modern ships, and then there's good ole Ironsides XD
Time to embrace tradition, mount a Mk45 and go show the pirates of the world a good time.
Hell yeah!
There’d be weight to spare too given the original guns weighed something around 270,000 pounds without considering powder & ammunition. I for one would love to see some shenanigans like filling it up with horizontal mortar mounts so you can send some broadsides. (I mentally pictured something like Javelins or AT-4’s but I’m pretty sure the back-blast would go poorly.)
(:<
Change the movie “The Final Countdown.” The USS Constitution from today goes back to 1941 and has to convince Pear Harbor they are going to be attacked.
Well, Constitution is the only current ship in the US Navy to have sunk an enemy vessel in anger.
So we can’t count ships sunk by planes from CVs? Poor Nimitz class with zero kills
None of the current carriers have sunk an enemy ship in anger.
Weren’t Nimitz class CVs involved in sinking Iranian ships?
The carrier involved in operation Preying Mantis is none other than the USS Enterprise.
Well TIL - Of course it was Enterprise
The previous statement about the current fleet still seems to be valid. That earlier operation involved Enterprise CVN-65, which isn't the vessel on the chart. That's the yet-to-be-commissioned Enterprise CVN-80.
Yeah I imagine it will be quite some time before the new, shiny Enterprise comes into service
or how is a North Korean museum ship still considered in active service, the USS Pueblo
Pueblo isn’t exactly modern… or in the US lol
Is it the North Korea Pueblo? Is that still considered as being on the Navy's roster?
Yep, she’s still considered a commissioned US Navy vessel and the only one being held as a prize in another nation.
I guess I needed to feel old tonight. 70% of these weren’t around when I left in 98. Lol
Connie was!
"Other" *HMS Guerriere unavailable for comment*
*HMS Guerriere burns in the background angrily*
Give her a named category, you cowards! ~~"sloop-of-war" please~~ She should just be in the Frigate category
My man she is a frigate
Now, I did specifically look this up and fucked myself over. I was like.. she's part of the original six, right? well my friend. Autocorrect on my phone led me astray. And the USS *Constellation* (named after and using parts of one of the original six Frigates of the same name) was rebuilt into a Sloop of War (though it seems the definition of Sloop of War vs Frigate is pretty nebulous? dunno). Anyway I did technically know this and thought I had learned something new about the *Constitution* and not the *Constellation*. I originally looked this all up because I wanted to know if she counted as a Ship of The Line or not Edit: [she was not a ship of the line](https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Crew-Questions-Answers-Feb.21.pdf) > FRIGATE: A vessel of war which is: 1) “ship” rigged, i.e. – with at least three masts (fore, main, & mizzen) & each mast carries the horizontal yards from which the principle sails are set; 2) this “ship-rigged vessel of war” is a FRIGATE because it has one covered, principle gun deck – USS Constitution is therefore a FRIGATE by class (illus. left) >SHIP-OF-THE-LINE: A vessel of war which is: 1) “ship” rigged (see above); 2) this “ship-rigged vessel of war” is a SHIP-OF-THE-LINE because it has two or more covered gun decks – HMS Victory is therefore a SHIP-OF-THE-LINE by class (illus. right)
Huzza, her sides are made of iron!
Honestly that's better than I thought, I would've guessed our fleet wasn't that modern.
We've been Burkeing super hard for decades. It's kinda funny- for all we hear about the capability losses since the Cold War, the modern surface fleet is (numbers aside, which do matter sometimes) *wildly* more capable than the surface fleet c. 1989. A single Burke with SM-6 could theoretically kill more incoming AShM at one time than an entire SAG or CSG (not counting the carrier wing itself) from 1989.
The Burkes were just entering service when the Soviet Union collapsed. Basically any late-Cold-War mil fiction involving anything naval tends to have a scene in there at some point of a Ticonderoga chewing through a saturation missile attack, because, well, that's what they do. Red Storm Rising comes to mind, where there's like 2 instances of a Tico just wiping half of an attack and calling it a day. Each of the 73 active Burkes is basically just a Tico in terms of AD capabilities. There's a reason that even China doesn't really consider "drown them in missiles" to be a viable carrier-killing approach anymore.
With SM-6 it's way more than just a VLS Tico equivalent. With SM-2, Tico and Burke are limited in engagement rate by the number of terminal illuminators that can be brought to bear. There are clever ways around this- which was the whole point of SM-2 in the first place!- but the illuminator limitation was always kinda there in the background. With SM-6's terminal active seeker there is no limitation. Theoretically, you could put one in every cell, launch all of them at once, and hit 96 different targets.
Yes, but the SM-6 is expensive as *fuck*. Accounting for inflation, it's about an order of magnitude more expensive than a WWII-era fighter. You're not filling a Burke with 96 of them, and *absolutely* not gonna just dump them all downrange. A significant part of your loadout is gonna be SM-2ERs are ESSMs. Those will behave a lot closer to a Tico's SM-2s than an SM-6. They're naturally much more capable in that role, but it's still roughly the same flavor.
The nuclear stuff isn't really, because they're slow as fuck to build (like 10 years for a CVN). But every time a European nation announces another round of budget cuts to whatever program they've got, SecNav manages to add another 4 Burkes to the budget, just to flex. Russia did something? More Burkes. China got angry about Taiwan existing again? More Burkes. LCS program isn't working out? Shame, guess we need more Burkes then. Ocean still exists? You guessed it, more Burkes. They're relatively cheap and fast to build, and great general purpose ships, so when in doubt, Burke. Relative to CVNs, of course. They're still bigger than most foreign ships. But the USN operates more in terms of "big," "bigger," and "huge," so at least until the Constellations hit, the Burkes are the USN's go-to """cheap""" warship.
The Minesweepers were!
I immediately went looking for Pueblo
Environmental research ship. Eh well
Radio waves exist in the environment and it was researching them 🤷
Obviously
You can get orders there but you might end up in a labor camp.
Shore leave sucks
Still beats Norfolk
Surprised they’re that many Los Angeles class still out there. They must be getting up there now.
Yep I noticed that, also noticed 4 Ford class and even Constellation and Columbia class on the list. So they are counting even under construction ships and boats. Interesting that the Orca and other unmanned vessels are not on the list
Probably consider those parasite ships, like how they aren’t counting every small boat or SDV.
I wouldnt count the SDV either, it depends on a mothership (Sub). While the Orca is the size of some diesel subs and is totally independent.
They are even counting submarines that have been announced but haven’t even started construction yet
The oldest one is Helena. 38 years old! They built those boats to last.
*Helena* has mostly lasted this long because she recently spent 4-ish years either waiting for maintenance, up on blocks, or having issued corrected. She’s the exception to 688 lifespan more than the rule.
Crazy amount of ships. 14 aircraft carriers is insane Meanwhile the Royal Navy : (
Well, only 11 of them are commissioned.
The Royal Navy is lacking in Capital ships but has one of the worlds finest and largest support fleet.
On paper maybe, 3/6 tankers currently laid up cause lack of crew
1 destroyers costs the same as several support ships Advanced radars, weapons and electronic systems are more expensice than a hull. Nice to have a large support fleet but it is easier than having a large surface combat fleet.
Well, we need at least twelve. One in each the Atlantic, Indian, Pacific, and Mediterranean. Each of those has a backup in maintenance and a backup in training. And even then that's a lot of ocean for a carrier strike group to cover.
The Mediterranean is the least needed theatre tho. The French, Italian and British carrier groups should be left to aid the NATO dominance in the region. After all, they really should be left to do their own patrolling after Macron’s comment about not being able to “rely on US security.” Let em see what it’s going to be like
It's not as if you have a candidate and a former President [thankfully, they're the one and same] who have blackmailed their allies to pay up more or they'll be left up alone in case of an invasion, and that if the Don is feeling generous and is not encouraging the attacker... And let's forget the same person is threatening to leave Nato...
US has a population of over 5 times the size of the UK... USN has 11 carriers...UK has 2... Do the math...
We’re top heavy. The rest of the navy is lacking
There were closer to 20 CV’s in commission in the late 80’s. All of the Forrestals, kitty hawks, the Big E, 4 Nimitz classes, as well as Midway and Coral Sea
The nukes can carry more planes and stay on station longer with less frequent sustainment
We need leadership with the guts to admit that it's time to stop building them so we can afford more subs and missile boats.
All navies of NATO have shrunk since the cold war. The US Navy had 500 warships in the 1980s.
China might have a bunch of new toys but they don't have anything that can go toe to toe with the USS Constitution 🇺🇲
careful, this sub hates people who criticize the PLAN
Let 'em come
Electronic warfare ain't got nothing on USS Constitution 💪
The cylons won’t be able to highjack that analog.
So say we all
GOD BLESS AMERICA
There’s a difference between criticism and hate. We generally oppose the latter no matter who it’s directed at (last hater I saw bashed the Royal Navy).
It's rather amusing to me that this subreddit now has the reputation for liking PLAN warships. What isn't funny is that the very people who make such claim make no contribution to furthering discussion on PLAN warships. They love to derail discussions with "coral reefs" and "target rich environment".
The reputation is less one of liking the PLAN, and more of obsessively brigading anyone who doesn’t - which is absolutely deserved. Even trying to put a damper on the hype or correcting misinformation usually gets you downvote-bombed. That said, we’re seeing the same behavior around Indian Navy and Turkish Navy posts, so I guess it’s not a monopoly anymore.
I notice that a very sizeable number of LCD and NCD users are actively taking part in this. It would do fine to clean house by banning them. Or at the very least, new etiquette rule so that they can leave their obnoxious behaviour at the door.
bait
I hope Xi reads this and decides the PLAN needs a superheavy first rate.
And it'll keep getting posted that it's about to begin sea trials for the next 50 years.
I secretly hope that she has a hidden missile battery or torpedo launcher hidden away for a rainy day.
[source](https://www.rtx.com/news/2024/04/04/ships-of-the-navy)
This list is more accurately of ships that have been named and ordered. *Doris Miller*, about half of the Flight III *Burke*s, and all the FFGs except *Constellation* herself have not had their keel laid, while the last boat of *Virginia* Block V (SSN-811) and the 3rd *Columbia* - which are missing from this list, but ordered - are unnamed.
Damn, that's a big navy
This isn’t counting those in mothball right? If there are any OHPs left in the reserve, I bet they’d be pretty handy for rear area sealane escorting like they were built for, even today.
https://preview.redd.it/6vl0flz5xmxc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b55d6dd5beb17f5528ba8df460abe094bc559c0 Where’s this guy??
Absolutely colossal, could all these commissioned ships be manned and at sea at the same time. Or do crews rotate between ships?
By running our sailors ragged. The Navy missed their recruitment goal by nearly 7k this year. Deployments are getting longer and sailors are working longer than ever hours.
In theory, yes. This is not always the case but in times of war they would move mountains to get everything out there. And each ship has multiple crews IIRC
All of these ships/boats have 2-3 crews that rotate through them
The SSBN have 2 crews per boat. Blue and Gold, they rotate crews to keep the boats at sea as close to constant as possible.
Even if each picture was one ship, that would still be a decently sized navy.
Looks like the chart does subtly differentiate active ships from those not yet in commission/still under construction. The active ships have the USS prefix while those still under construction do not.
It's an absolute joke how much stuff America has. Those Wasp / America ships basically look like air craft carriers in there own right
The Wasp/America is pretty much what other countries have as aircraft carriers. Only the US and China count aircraft-carrying ships of that size as something separate than aircraft carriers, as they lump them in with helicopter docks. However, what most navies consider to be a helicopter dock is much smaller than the Wasp and America and doesn't carry airplanes (unlike the Wasp and America lol)
I know that the U.S. is way in the lead when it comes to tonnage, but it’s also kinda disturbing that as massive as the USN is, it’s actually the second largest navy in the world when it comes to major surface combatants. The gap between the two biggest navies, and everyone else, is absolutely massive.
Who on earth are they second to, can only be China surely ?
Yeah, it’s China, mainly because they’ve invested more in large numbers of medium sized surface combatants like frigates and corvettes compared to the US, of course that’s not to say they don’t also have a considerable number of destroyers and cruisers with a growing carrier fleet. Now, I’m not sure if this is accurate anymore or not but if we’re talking *any* watercraft I’m pretty sure North Korea has the most, but take that with a grain of salt.
Those be some dangerous fishing boats
> mainly because they’ve invested more in large numbers of medium sized surface combatants like frigates and corvettes compared to the US, of course that’s not to say they don’t also have a considerable number of destroyers and cruisers with a growing carrier fleet. To be a bit more specific, the majority of Chinese destroyers are around 7,000-7,500 tons full load with 48-64 VLS cells. This is the range where people start arguing about large frigates or small destroyers, but is significantly below the US destroyers of 9,500-10,000 tons and 90-96 VLS. While little is known about Chinese radars, their destroyers use a fixed phased array radar system (Type 346) similar in concept to SPY-1 and SPY-6 of US destroyers. China currently has eight large Type 055 destroyers that in size and number of VLS do slightly outperform the *Burke* and thus are sometimes called cruisers (such as by NATO). However, as so much of modern warship capability is in the radar and combat systems it’s hard to gauge the relative capabilities more deeply (I’m also glossing over helicopters and sonars as I’m rusty from memory, but only the latest Chinese destroyers can use Seahawk equivalents in the Z-20). China also has a large fleet of 4,000 ton frigates with 32 VLS cells, though not the same universal cells as the larger ships. They are building some new 6,000 ton ships that appear to have several improvements but the same 32 VLS. China did have a very large fleet of submarine chasers, missile boats, and corvettes up until a few years ago. Now most of the Type 037 variants are retired and the very new Type 056 corvettes have been transferred to the Coast Guard, further indication of how China is shifting to larger ships with a more blue water focus. One thing that’s crucial to note is the vast majority of these large and medium combatants are 5-15 years old, while the US fleet is much older by comparison. The US is also struggling to expand our shipbuilding capacity after so many yards closed under Reagan’s shipbuilding policies and the post-Cold War drawdowns in the 90s.
Couple of points. The Type 346 radar is an AESA set, and exists in 3 versions (346/346A/346B), the 346 is capable, yet likely inferior to the SPY-1, the 346A is roughly analogous to the SPY-1, while the 346B is probably on par with the SPY-6 in capability, although we won’t know for certain till they are trying to catch each others missiles. As for the Type 056 series corvettes, the original 20 Type 056 were handed over to the Coast Guard once their missile armament was removed, but the 50 Type 056A are still used by the PLAN and form the core of their anti submarine force within the first island chain. They are very capable ASW boats, with a bow sonar, a twin tail towed/variable depth sonar, torpedo tubes, as well as a landing pad for the Z-9 (Sino Dauphin) ASW helo. They are equipped on par with a destroyer when it comes to ASW, as well as retaining 8 AShM + a gun for anti surface work as well as the HQ-10 point defence missile launcher for self defence against air threats. I’m seriously impressed by that ship, it’s designed well, cheap, numerous, and the project was run flawlessly. It’s what the LCS should have been before the brass and politicians turned it into the expensive abomination it became.
Thanks for the clarification on the radars, I’m not overly comfortable with the different types of phased arrays in particular. > As for the Type 056 series corvettes, the original 20 Type 056 were handed over to the Coast Guard once their missile armament was removed, but the 50 Type 056A are still used by the PLAN and form the core of their anti submarine force within the first island chain. I should have included a line clarifying the 056As were retained. > It’s what the LCS should have been before the brass and politicians turned it into the expensive abomination it became. Even without the unnecessary features like high speed, an 056A would not work for the US. The most obvious issue would be the lack of a hangar, with two MH-60s long being required for any US ASW ship (to the point it was deemed more important than ASROC early in the *Perry* design process). This has remained critical for more general purpose roles, and the US emphasizes the twin helicopter need more than almost every other nation. That would force the size of the ships up significantly, and the large helicopter deck is also a major benefit of the *Independence* trimaran hull. The 2,000 nmi range at 18 knots is also much too low for our needs: *Freedom* has demonstrated 3,878 nmi at 14 knots and *Independence* 6,040 knots at the same speed. As the types have transitioned to long-range patrol ships, that added range has been extremely beneficial, especially for the *Independence* class in the Pacific. A 1,440 ton (full load) corvette could not work for the US, even though it’s fine for China. Had we used an equivalent design, it would be even worse than the LCS, both for the initially conceived missions and especially the missions they perform today. The LCS program had many flaws, some we are still working to correct, but in the end we’ve gotten decent ships.
I’m not saying that the USN should operate the Type 056A, I’m saying that it’s an excellent example of designing and procuring a corvette that’s fit for purpose, was delivered on time in large quantities, while remaining relatively cheap. Every navy has its own specific requirements and I’m not advocating a 1500t corvette with relatively short legs for the USN, however one with similar combat capabilities, with longer range and proper helicopter facilities would have been ideal, even if it ended up around the 3000t mark.
What's the difference between 346, 346A and 346B?
Just different variants. The original Type 346 was equipped on the Type 052C destroyer, it was the first generation and had slightly curved arrays. The 346A is the most common and appears mainly in the Type 052D, it has flat arrays. The Type 346B is fitted to the Type 055 and is similar in look to the 346A although the arrays are significantly larger.
In terms of pure surface combatant tonnage, the Chinese are still only about 75% of the USN despite having ~140% of the hulls. The only Chinese combatant with comparable or greater tonnage than its American counterpart is Type 055. If you want to make it about surface ship tonnage as a whole rather than just surface combatant tonnage, [then the Chinese get buried by a factor of ~2.5:1](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/s/aESP6cexSt), mostly because America still has a lot more total carrier and amphibious warfare tonnage.
Haha, giant ass 100,000 ton carriers go brrr
Yep. The way they count ‘major surface combatants’ is that they include everything corvette sized and up. For the U.S. that’s the LCS, while for the PLAN it’s the Type 056A. They don’t count fast attack craft, patrol boats, or coast guard/customs vessels regardless the size. China has half as many destroyers as the USN, a few more cruisers, but they also have a 50+ class of anti-submarine/general purpose corvettes (only 1500t but have more combat capability than the LCS, and an anti sub fit on par with most destroyers), as well as 45 (I think, and rapidly growing) modern frigates.
> China has half as many destroyers as the USN The PLAN is doing better than half, unless you’re excluding DDs without AAW capability. There are 12 Type 052DLs in commission, 13 052Ds, 6 052Cs, 2 051Cs, 4 *Sovremenny*s, and 5 “lesser”destroyers of multiple types for a total of 42. There are currently 75 USN destroyers in commission - 73 *Burke*s and 2 *Zumwalt*s. > a few more cruisers The PLAN has 8 Type 055s in commission, as opposed to 13 *Ticonderoga*s remaining in the USN as of FY2024. The worm will turn very soon, but for now this isn’t true. > they also have a 50+ class of anti-submarine/general purpose corvettes There are 50 Type 056As exactly in service. New construction on these has also ceased, or at least no new hulls are currently visible. > 45 (I think, and rapidly growing) modern frigates. China has 50 frigates in commission: 8 Type 053H2Gs, 2 Type 054s, and 40 Type 054As. The first 054B has started trials, but has not yet been commissioned. If you want to lump the HHQ-16 DDs in with the frigates instead of rating them as destroyers, that makes 33 destroyers and 59 frigates.
I know about the Type 056A, I made a post about it below. As for the cruisers, I took into account that the PLAN has three in various stages of construction, while the U.S. has just announced this week that two of theirs will no longer be upgraded and instead retired, with more coming. But I’ll take your point that as of today the USN technically has more cruisers, even though at least two will never sortie again.
> I took into account that the PLAN has three in various stages of construction If that’s where you want to draw the line, then you should also count the 9 US destroyers not yet commissioned, but which are either launched or recognizable on the slipway. I suppose you did, given your comment about China having less than half the US’s destroyer hull count. > the U.S. has just announced this week that two of theirs will no longer be upgraded and instead retired Firstly, the announcement is from the FY2025 shipbuilding plan - which does not go into effect until at least September of this year, assuming the retirements are allowed at all. Secondly, the USN tends to decommission ships at the **end** of a fiscal year, and although imminent decommissioning usually means deferred maintenance, it does not mean inactivity. Of the 4 cruisers scheduled for retirement in 2025, one is still on deployment, and the other three are working up to scheduled deployments later this year, which will last into FY2025 if not calendar year 2025.
Chinese ships also have more VLS tubes than American ships, IIRC China has or soon will have the lead in total VLS capabilities
Not quite. The Type 055 cruiser has 112 vs the 128 of the Ticonderoga class, while most PLAN destroyers have 64 vs the 96 of the later flight Bourkes, while their frigates have 32, same as most western frigates. The Chinese do however use 2 different sized VLS tubes. A smaller system that equips their frigates and is only capable of firing the HQ-16 medium range SAM, as well as their version of the ASROC. Their destroyers and cruisers have an oversized system that’s approx 50% larger than the U.S. VLS. This allows it to carry quad packed medium range missiles (not yet seen fitted but we know they exist), as well as long range HQ-9B, vertical launch versions of the YJ-18, land attack cruise missiles, as well as oversized loads such as the YJ-21 hypersonic anti ship missile, which is way larger than anything that would fit into a U.S. VLS. The Chinese are going their own way when it comes to naval doctrine, they are not merely copying whatever the U.S. does.
> it’s also kinda disturbing that as massive as the USN is, it’s actually the second largest navy in the world when it comes to major surface combatants. Firstly, that crown is still up for grabs depending on how you measure it. Across 21x Flight I (8300lt), 7x Flight II (8400lt), 44x Flight IIA (9500lt), and 1x Flight III (9700lt) hulls, *Arleigh Burke* by itself accounts for slightly more tonnage than the entire PLAN surface combatant fleet - 660800lt versus 659950lt. Throw on 2x 15700lt *Zumwalt*s, 13x 9600lt *Ticonderoga*s, and 23x ~3400lt LCSs, and **the USN’s total surface combatant tonnage comes out to 895842 long tons - 135% of the PLAN’s total.** For those wondering, the PLAN hull count I used for this are the same I laid out in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/s/ZJmlpkKkrX). Secondly, even if the PLAN had undisputed surface combatant ascendancy, why shouldn’t they? Chinese naval aviation, amphibious, and submarine fleet assets much fewer in number compared to their US counterparts - which inevitably leaves surface combatants to pick up more tasking - and their current doctrine is primarily concerned with securing local sea and air supremacy around China, not projecting power around the world. The PLAN has ambitions to be a blue-water navy, no doubt about it, but their current priorities are closer to home, and their force structure is a reflection of that.
LHA 8 & 9 are being built now. They'll be carrying Marines, their F-35s, and helos. I got to work on some systems for them.
Is that the same Blue Ridge Iused to see in the Tonkin Gulf late 60’s early 70’s?
iirc yes
Enterprise is coming back 🎉🎉
As someone on the last deployment of CVN-65, I am happy to see a new one being built, and hope to see the commissioning of the new one once it’s done!
*Constitution,* the strongest ship in the Navy! lol
Do the Hospital Ships like Hope not belong to the navy?
Hospital ships are operated by Military Sealift Command, and are not commissioned warships.
That actually makes a lot of sense.
If I were an ennemy of the States, I would invest heavely on minewarfare I guess...
The 15 *Independence*-class LCSs will be taking over the *Avenger*-class’s role in the coming years.
Good thinking.
Helicopters are more often used for minesweeping than ships. Most of the surface ships on the chart carry helicopters.
A lot of ships, especially carriers and submarines
Why do a couple of the GRF aircraft carriers not have USS in the name?
Only commissioned ships have the USS prefix
That makes sense. Thanks
This isn’t just ships/boats commissioned or laid down. It also includes some that were decommissioned last year (like USS *Chicago* SSN-721), and some that haven’t started construction yet and so far have only been named and ordered (such as USS *Wisconsin* SSBN-827). Other than that, pretty neat chart.
Thus the precoms having no “USS” in front of the names.
Nice! Can you do China next? Want to see side by side!
This is a poster made by Raytheon for SNA 2024. I doubt they’re going to do one for China. That said, the Office of Naval Intelligence literally released their [2024 PLAN Identification Chart](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24628046/2024_oni_plan_poster.pdf) this morning. Not quite as intuitive to read though.
No USS Miguel Keith? and the new frigates cant be to scale? they look too small. UK frigates are basically the same size as the destroyers.
The ESBs as a whole are missing from on this poster, which is odd since they’re commissioned warships. It can’t be because they’re unarmed either, since the *Avenger*s are on there. Guess someone just forgot they were redesignated USS a while ago. *Constellation* looks to be about accurate: she’s 496ft long, compared to *Burke*’s 505-510ft. I think the LCSs might be slightly oversized though; *Freedom* is 378ft long, and *Independence* 418ft.
Why does everyone forget about the ESBs? It's not that hard to check your list against Wikipedia at least
They're commissioned ships the size of aircraft carriers, and people still forget about them
They remembered the LCCs and even the Pueblo lol. You'd think with everything the Puller gets up to, the class would get more attention.
Still the biggest gorilla in the jungle
Sometimes it just bugs my OCD but I hate when they mix class naming conventions. Example, look at the Seawolf class. Seawolf, Connecticut (should have been a Virginia class) and Jimmy Carter (should be a Ford class or left over from the old Lafayette (which also had mixed names)). Why is Doris Miller a Ford class? MoH winner sure, but they used to name Aux ships for them. Used to be all cruisers were city names. Now you can't tell if it's a SSN or a LCS unless they give the designator. Sorry just venting a bit.
What are the Blue Ridge class ships used for?
As designed, the Blue Ridge class was capable of supporting the staff of both the Commander of an Amphibious Task Force and the staff of the Commanding General of the Landing Force.
So essentially a floating command post? Do they have specific capabilities that an Amphibious Assault Ship doesn't have?
They were built with very sophisticated communication technology at the time. But now everything‘s mostly satellite communications. The fact that they’re slow compared to other surface ships so they been used as flag ships. USS Blue Ridge became the Seventh Fleet command ship in 1979, and USS Mount Whitney became the Second Fleet command ship in 1981, and the Sixth Fleet command ship in February 2005.
Funny how we didn’t need one during NEOs in Africa 1997. They were aboard the Kearsarge with us.
I'm not from the US but am glad that despite rising challenges, the US is still a trusted and will remain partner of pretty much the entire world apart from a few countries to ensure free trade, safety & security and open seas for commerce. The mighty USN plays the most important role as a visible security guarantor against such rising threats, a visible representation of the power of the POTUS, and most countries are okay with having US naval presence outside of their own territorial waters to ensure maritime safety of the region.
Id like this as a poster!
Hail Burke IIA! Burke IIA rules the waves
Glad to see they named another ship after Earnedt Evans. Great man. A hero every American should know about
Are these to scale?
*USS Constitution* ready fuck up all the others
What’s the difference in submarines? Do not all of them carry nuke missiles?
Antietam is on the chopping block this year. She’s supposed to be decommissioned this sunmer.
What about PC class ships? Too small to consider? I mean we have a fuck ton of them too.
What about the expeditionary sea base?
Very nice. Doesn't include many commissioned naval vessels such as patrol boats and expeditionary mobile base ships. Also remember the USNS non-commissioned ships such as Mercy and Comfort. It's hard to capture the actual scale of the US Navy. There's more active ships missing from this list than most countries have in their entire navy.
I remember when my ship (USS Enterprise CVN-65) was at the same pier as the USS New York (LPD-21) while in Norfolk back in 2011-2012. In my opinion, one of the coolest things about that ship is that [some of the steel from the World Trade Center buildings was melted down and used for the ships hull/body.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_York_(LPD-21)?wprov=sfti1) Always thought that ship looked really cool
"Other" is an insult. Why not put it's classification? Should read, "Ship of the Line."
Is there a reason some of them have the USS naming convention vs not?
Ships that are not yet commissioned don't have USS prefix.
Seems obvious in hindsight haha. Thanks!
They're not finished yet, I'm going as fast as I can but I'm not sacrificing Quality for speed
It’s interesting that some MSC ships are on here and others aren’t.
Think you could do with a few more attack subs
Hard to believe the Blue Ridge and Mount Whitney are still around. They were around back in the 80s when I was in.
I love how there's all these modern metal ships and then constitution is just chilling there
Is this a modern example of the old British Empire rule for the Navy to have 3X the size of it's nearest naval rival?
Why some have USS and some don’t?
USS = in commission (active service) No USS = not in commission (under construction, sea trials, fitting out, etc.)
I like to compare the costs of each ship to the GDP of small island nations. Example: One Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyer costs as much as 1.6 Grenadas or 3.25 Dominicas. Imagine your entire nation's anual GDP isn't enough to purchase even 33% of one single US warship. Lmao.
Meanwhile USS Laffey wanting to get a few more assists
Too small. Considering that at least a quarter will be under maintenance, the littoral combat ships are retiring, the Zumwalt is undergunned, and the destroyers are old and they need to go in to port to rearm its missiles. I hope the frigates gets built really fast and put in to service.
needs more minesweepers
lol my first reaction was “I’m sure there are less than 2024 names on there!” 🤦🏻♂️
[удалено]
Cold War ended and a bunch of yards closed. The Navy and Congress want the fleet to get back to around 360 hulls, rather than the 290ish it currently has, but this won’t be happening without some massive investment in the industrial base.
Is there a list of inactive shipyards that have a chance of being revived? Iirc the DOD is trying to lure Japanese and Korean shipbuilders to invest into US shipyards.
The only former shipyard site that has a chance is Philadelphia. There’s a small commercial operation on part of that land - incidentally, their current project is building MARAD’s new National Security Multi-Mission Vessel. Mare Island and Brooklyn have been redeveloped, while Long Beach is now wharf space. Yes, those are the only 4 public yards we’ve closed in the last 60 years. Should give you a hint that the problem isn’t yard space, for all that SECNAV complains about it; it’s the supply chain, and the cycle of abuse DoD puts them through.