Tag Archives: USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60)

Elderly Burkes Get Reprieve

Posted on by 2 comments

200304-N-NK931-1001 PHILIPPINE SEA (Mar. 4, 2020) Landing Signalmen Enlisted (LSE), assigned to the Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG 52), directs night flight operations of an MH-60 Sea Hawk helicopter, assigned to the “Saberhawks” of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 77, during the U.S.-Japan Bilateral Advanced Warfighting Training exercise (BAWT). (U.S. Navy photo by Ensign Samuel Hardgrove)

The SECNAV this week announced he has given the green light to keep operating yesterday’s destroyer tomorrow.

The idea is to squeeze another 48 ship years out of 12 early Flight I Arleigh Burke-class (DDG 51) destroyers, pushing each beyond their 35-year expected service life.

The oldest hull, the Ingalls-built USS Barry (DDG-52), left Pascagoula in 1992 and was set to retire in FY28 at age 36, and will instead be stretched out to FY31. The newest, USS The Sullivans (DDG-68), which left Bath in 1997 and was scheduled to head to mothballs in FY32, will instead linger until FY35.

There will be no extensive service life extension program for these ships, just the determination “to maximize the service life of each ship before it required another extensive and costly docking availability.”

The feeling is that this is a move that had to happen, rather than a move that the Navy wanted to happen. After all, these early short-hull Burkes are really nowhere near the same capability as their recent Flight IIA and Flight III sisters, which really should have been designated different classes. 

While not addressed, you can be sure this early raiding of the future mothball fleet is due to the inexcusable delays in the Constellation-class multi-mission guided-missile frigates, which was supposed to take a proven off-the-shelf (Italian FREMM) program and make it here in the states to speed up the acquisition process, at least until Big Navy got involved and wanted to change every compartment. The program is currently at least three years behind schedule and you can bet that will lapse even further as the first ships have to be rebuilt after initial trials.

The CNO rubber-stamped the DDG 52-68 extension as one would expect of a good CNO, saying:

“Today’s budget-constrained environment requires the Navy to make prioritized investments to keep more ready players on the field,” said Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti. “The Navy is actively pulling the right levers to maintain and grow its Battle Force Inventory to support the United States’s global interests in peace and to win decisively in conflict.”

As detailed by Breaking Defense, the ships and their associated life extensions included in the announcement are:

  • USS Barry (DDG-52) – three years – FY28 to FY31
  • USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) – five years – FY28 to FY33
  • USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54) – five years – FY29 to FY34
  • USS Stout (DDG-55) – five years – FY29 to FY34
  • USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) – five years – FY29 to FY34
  • USS Laboon (DDG-58) – five years – FY30 to FY35
  • USS Paul Hamilton (DDG-60) – five years – FY30 to FY35
  • USS Stethem (DDG 63) – one year – FY30 to FY31
  • USS Carney (DDG-64) – one year – FY31 to FY32
  • USS Gonzalez (DDG-66) – five years – FY31 to FY36
  • USS Cole (DDG-67) – five years – FY31 to FY36
  • USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) – three years – FY32 to FY35

Confusing Frigate Developments

Posted on by One comment

Thursday’s contracts included an order for two more Constellation class frigates. Emphasis mine:

Marinette Marine Corp., Marinette, Wisconsin, is awarded a $1,044,529,113 fixed-price incentive (firm-target) modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-20-C-2300) to exercise options for detail design and construction of two Constellation-class guided-missile frigates, FFG 66 and FFG 67. Work will be performed in Marinette, Wisconsin (51%); Camden, New Jersey (17%); Chicago, Illinois (7%); Green Bay, Wisconsin (4%); Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (3%); Hauppauge, New York (3%); Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin (3%); Cincinnati, Ohio (3%); Kaukauna, Wisconsin (2%); Charlotte, North Carolina (2%); Bethesda, Maryland (2%); Millersville, Maryland (2%); and Atlanta, Georgia (1%), and is expected to be completed by April 2030. Fiscal 2024 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funds in the amount of $1,044,529,113 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

So far, we have the USS Constellation (FFG 62), USS Congress (FFG 63), USS Chesapeake (FFG 64), and USS Lafayette (FFG 65), all echoing traditional early Navy names.

This comes as our beloved SECNAV (here comes the Navy ship naming convention soapbox) announced that the future FFG 66 will be named…USS Hamilton.

Now don’t get me wrong, there have been a couple of Hamiltons on the Navy List in the past, both named for the Madison’s SECNAV that served during the first part of the War of 1812: the current Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60) and the Wickes-class destroyer/fast minesweeper USS Hamilton (DD-141/DMS-18/AG-111) that served from 1919 through 1945.

USS Paul Hamilton DDG-60

However, this will not be for Paul Hamilton, but instead for Alexander Hamilton, the Army artillerist who was the first Secretary of the Navy and the guy generally seen as the father of today’s Coast Guard.

The reason this hoses me off is because of the Coast Guard’s long history with the name including a brand-new National Security class cutter USCGC Hamilton (WMSL-753) that was commissioned in 2014, the Vietnam/Cold War era 378-foot class leader USCGC Hamilton (WHEC-715) that served from 1967 to 2011, the Treasury class 327-foot cutter (WPG-34) which was sunk by a U-boat in WWII, as well as circa 1921, 1871, and 1830 cutters that carried the name.

BLACK SEA (April 30, 2021) U.S. Coast Guard members conduct boat and flight procedures on the USCGC Hamilton (WMSL 753) with Turkish naval members aboard the TCG Turgutreis (F 241) in the Black Sea, April 30, 2021

USCGC Hamilton (WHEC-715)

USCGC Alexander Hamilton (WPG-34) departs Boston for a Neutrality Patrol off the Grand Banks in November of 1939

The Hamilton at sea, 1978 painting at USCG Museum

Once the future USS Hamilton (FFG 66) joins the fleet, it will cause tactical confusion in the respect that there is already a San Diego-based destroyer USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60), and the frigate-sized USCGC Hamilton (WMSL-753).

Surely, there is no shortage of traditional early U.S. Navy names that can be recycled without both ripping off the Coast Guard and causing confusion down the line. Perhaps there could be an 11th USS Ranger, ninth USS Hornet or USS Dolphin, eighth USS Lexington, seventh USS Shark, sixth USS Franklin, USS Ticonderoga, USS Hancock, or USS Concord, or fourth USS Valley Forge? Just saying.

Or, how about this: the USS Benjamin Stoddert, after the first SECNAV? Only two ships have carried it in the past– DD-302 and DDG-22– and it has been missing from the Navy List since 1991?

But then again, ole Ben Stoddart doesn’t have a hit Broadway musical to his credit.

Deck The P-Ways!

Posted on by Leave a comment

Naval Base San Diego just held their annual Christmas decoration contest and the ships, as always, look great. Surely some of these images will be celebrated by generations not yet born as icons of the “Old Navy” pre-whatever war comes in future decades.

NAVAL BASE SAN DIEGO (December 15, 2022) The Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Princeton (CG 59), displays lights for holiday festivity. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Erica K. R. Higa)

USS Sterett DDG-104

USS Zumwalt DDG-1000

USS Princeton CG-59

USS Boxer LHD-4

USS Paul Hamilton DDG-60

USS Cowpens

USS Tripoli

For the record, the “People’s Choice” from online votes was Boxer, which is important to me personally as I was a constructor plankowner, working on her both pre and post-christening at Ingalls many, many years ago, and sailed on her during her pre-commissioning tiger cruise.

Nipping at the heels

Posted on by One comment

Apparently taking the sidelining of the Teddy Roosevelt carrier battlegroup in Guam and the Ronald Reagan group in Japan during the current COVID-19 pandemic crisis as the blood trail of a wounded beast, Iran, China, and Russia are sniffing around and flexing a bit where the U.S. is forward-deployed.

WestPac

China’s six-ship Liaoning carrier group (Liaoning along with two type 052D guided-missile destroyers – the Xining and Guiyang – two type 054A guided-missile frigates – the Zaozhuang and Rizhao – and a type 901 combat support ship, the Hulunhu) passed through the tense Miyako Strait, between Okinawa and Taiwan, over the weekend, under the eyes of various JMSDF, U.S. and ROC assets.

Chinese carrier ‘Liaoning with escorts. Photos via Chinese Internet

Further, as reported by the South China Morning Post: “On Thursday [9 Apr], an H-6 bomber, J-11 fighter and KJ-500 reconnaissance plane from the PLA Air Force flew over southwestern Taiwan and on to the western Pacific where they followed a US RC-135U electronic reconnaissance aircraft.”

Of note, the ROC Army has sent some of their aging but still very effective M60A3 tanks out into public in recent days in what was announced a pre-planned exercise. Still, when you see an MBT being camouflaged in the vacant lot down the block, that’s a little different.

Photo via Taiwan’s Military News Agency (MNA)

Note the old KMT cog emblem. Taiwan’s Military News Agency (MNA)

Very discrete. Taiwan’s Military News Agency (MNA)

Meanwhile, in the Arabian Gulf

A series of 11 Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) vessels on Wednesday (15 April 15) buzzed the expeditionary platform USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB 3), and her escorts, the destroyer USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60), the 170-foot Cyclone-class patrol craft USS Firebolt (PC 10) and USS Sirocco (PC 6), and two 110-foot Island-class Coast Guard cutters, USCGC Wrangell (WPB 1332) and USCGC Maui (WPB 1304), while the U.S. vessels were conducting operations with U.S. Army AH-64E Apache attack helicopters.

The below footage seems to be from the running bridge of one of the Coast Guard 110s, likely Maui from reports, and you can see what the Navy terms a Fast Inshore Attack Craft (FIAC), armed with a heavy machine gun with a deck guy’s hands on the spades.

The IRGCN fields hundreds of such 30- to 50-foot fast boats, armed with a variety of rockets, machine guns, and small mines, and have been the organization’s bread and butter since the early 1980s.

For reference

As noted by the 5th Fleet:

The IRGCN vessels repeatedly crossed the bows and sterns of the U.S. vessels at extremely close range and high speeds, including multiple crossings of the Puller with a 50 yard closest point of approach (CPA) and within 10 yards of Maui’s bow.

The U.S. crews issued multiple warnings via bridge-to-bridge radio, five short blasts from the ships’ horns and long-range acoustic noise maker devices, but received no response from the IRGCN.

After approximately one hour, the IRGCN vessels responded to the bridge-to-bridge radio queries, then maneuvered away from the U.S. ships and opened the distance between them.

ARABIAN GULF (April 15, 2020) Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) vessels conducted unsafe and unprofessional actions against U.S. military ships by crossing the ships’ bows and sterns at close range while operating in international waters of the north Arabian Gulf. U.S. forces are conducting joint interoperability operations in support of maritime security in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations. (U.S. Navy photo/Released)

Potomu chto ya byl perevernut

Not to feel left out, 6th Fleet reports (emphasis mine) that a Syrian-based Russian Flanker-E came out over the Med to buzz a P-8:

On April 15, 2020, a U.S. P-8A Poseidon aircraft flying in international airspace over the Mediterranean Sea was intercepted by a Russian SU-35. The interaction was determined to be unsafe due to the SU-35 conducting a high-speed, inverted maneuver, 25 ft. directly in front of the mission aircraft, which put our pilots and crew at risk. The crew of the P-8A reported wake turbulence following the interaction. The duration of the intercept was approximately 42 minutes.

While the Russian aircraft was operating in international airspace, this interaction was irresponsible. We expect them to behave within international standards set to ensure safety and to prevent incidents, including the 1972 Agreement for the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas (INCSEA). Unsafe actions‎ increase the risk of miscalculation and the potential for midair collisions.

The U.S. aircraft was operating consistent with international law and did not provoke this Russian activity.