Literally no reason to retire the Tico

They have at least another decade in them, we can keep them cruising well into the 2030s until the DDG(X) is in full production swing.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Metal rusts senpai, replacing complex systems takes from a new hull. I think shooting Union bosses and Senators will increase USN hull count a lot easier.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rust shouldn't be a problem with proper ship husbandry! They should be chipping and painting it routinely to get rid of the rust

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Rust doesn't have to sleep. They litterally are constantly chipping and repainting.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They should be chipping and painting it routinely to get rid of the rust
        It's not like you can top off the paint once every couple of weeks when the ship's deployed to sea, and blasting and reapplying several layers of paint takes indefensible amounts of time and money . A warship is built with the understanding she will deteriorate performing her duties, if you want a collectors item buy a ferrari or something

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They should be chipping and painting it routinely to get rid of the rust
        They are, but in the end it's the rust you can't get to that gets you.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >t. landlubber
        that exclamation mark was kinda fruity btw I don't know why you included it

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    USN: VLS count decreasing, every ship at least a year delayed
    PLAN: VLS increasing rapidly, larger VLS cells, faster missiles, newer radars
    It's over for Anglo naval dominance

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why don't they make ships larger?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Chinese ingenuity allows for denser VLS packing by eliminating blast doors and spacing requirements. It'll never be used anyway, so why bother including things that won't be on the spec sheet?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          and fuel/water/oil tankage, watertight subcompartmentalization, damage control equipment, etc. if you take all that shit out your ship is way cheaper and easier to make.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The type 055 is like 40% larger in displacement than a Tico/Burke.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        eggs in one basket bad

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >eggs in one basket bad
          And it's good.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The US' VLS count is going to go up a lot, just not until the 2030s. If they can figure out at sea reloading, the issue will be somewhat mitigated too

      https://i.imgur.com/ADXPhVQ.jpeg

      Why don't they make ships larger?

      I imagine smaller ships are easier to man and keep running, and have a simpler powerplant

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No the frick we can't there are currently multiple Ticos undergoing refit that will NEVER leave the shipyard for combat duties even if you poured another $2b+ into the ship.

    Ticos are being retired for good reason, they can't be upgraded to modern standards, what CAN be upgraded is stupidly expensive to upgrade and when they DO rip out the old shit for upgrades they find a TON of other broken shit that needs to be fixed and the secretary of the navy has told congress MULTIPLE times, the current Ticos being refurbed will NEVER see a combat patrol again, no matter how much money congress gives the navy for them.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This, it's a congress issue, same deal with A-10, morons keep pushing to keep them in service saying we need the capability then balk when people tell them we need replacements for them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the current Ticos being refurbed will NEVER see a combat patrol again, no matter how much money congress gives the navy for them.
      Yup, meanwhile you could throw the $5-8B they've wasted on Tico refurbs to get 3-4 brand new flight III Burkes that will be better than those upgraded ticos and be in service for 40 years instead of 5-10.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a software aka AI issue.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Look how shit the freeboard is in perfectly flat sea. This thing must have atrocious sea keeping.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Look at the wake on OPs pic you zoomed, it’s in the middle of a 90 degree turn - Water is forced up the hull, and the ship rolls to the outside. It’s an action shot.

      Have a pic of a nice glassy cruise.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Landlubber here what does this mean?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Seakeeping his how well the ship handles rough seas. Freeboard is how high the deck is above the waterline.
        You don't want the deck swamped with water every time you hit a wave.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Was this named for Rose Tico?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tico is short for Ticonderoga.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP has never been on a Tico. They are fricking geriatric anon.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You mean venerable. There's a reason we've never lost one at sea.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nah, these things aren't built like a nimitz. nuclear carriers can run a while longer but a steel warship has at most 50 years of useful lifespan. You can probably squeeze a couple more years out of some of the ticos but the question is how useful that lifespan is. i frankly wouldn't envy anyone on one of these in the pacific if taiwan goes hot.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        When was the last time the US lost a warship at sea?

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She looks like she's running low in the water

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What can a Tico do an Arleigh Burke can't?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ticos with their steel hull and aluminum superstructure are a flawed design. Maintenance on these 40-50 y/o hulls has proven to be a bottomless pit. It is just not economically feasible to keep them in "service" only to artificially inflate the total VLS count (and make some senators happy). Some of them have been in refit/maintenance for years, but it is very unlikely they will ever go to sea again.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    UGLY

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Black person every ship is understaffed to a criminal extent we need to decom like 2 carriers to get the rest of surface fleet up to where it should be

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The hull is literally falling apart. My only gripe is that there's no new cruiser to replace it with after the money went to the Zumwalts.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think there's a real question to be asked as to whether cruisers as a class are necessary for a modern navy. What capability do they bring that modern destroyers not have?
      Maybe deeper VLS cells for longer missiles? I can't think of anything else.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >after the money went to the Zumwalts.
      This is a dumb meme. There's currently 9 Flight III Burkes in various stages of construction, and the most recently finished of those cost 3/4 as much to complete as the most recent Zumwalt. And this is after the economies of scale involved with Zumwalt production were completely destroyed by Congress cutting the Navy's order to three ships. with a 12-ship order, the price per ship would have been barely more than the cost of the new Burkes, but the product would be much better and more modern. Zumwalt was not a waste of money, the waste was Congress balking at the cost of modern shipbuilding.

      Also, obviously there's still money for new ships since a total of 14 Flight III Burkes have been ordered. The reason there's no Tico replacement is because cruisers aren't a priority. If you want to talk about a waste of money, Ticonderogas were always unreasonably expensive to design, build, operate, maintain, and now decommision for the capability they provided. Maybe if Congress had let them be decomissioned a decade ago instead of forcing the Navy to spend billions "modernizing" them in ways that don't meaningfully increase their lifespan or combat performance, there would be more money to spend on modern ships right now.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tico?

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    having to go inside to go from front to back just seems gay

    also, wages at shipyards are literally less than McDs once you factor in the various pros and cons.

    "man power shortage" BAKA.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >They have at least another decade in them
    Yeah, if you accept that after each deployment you're going to be be welding a frickload of cracks in the tank deck.
    Quite apart from lacking the room for upgrades the hulls are just plain clapped out.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Literally no reason to retire the Tico
    The hulls are starting to crack.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *