U.S. Navy to dispose of surplus ships
WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 (UPI) — The U.S. Navy has submitted its proposals for transferring decommissioned ships to foreign navies to Congress for approval.
Under the proposals Mexico would be allowed to purchase the amphibious ships USS Ogden and USS Cleveland, currently based in San Diego. The 17,000 ton, 570-foot-long ships were built in the mid-60s, and would become the largest amphibious ships in the Mexican Navy.
The Navy Times reported on August 8 that Taiwan, Turkey would receive former USS Osprey-class mine hunters, which date from the mid-1990s. Under the proposed arrangements Lithuania would receive the former mine hunters USS Kingfisher and USS Cormorant as grants. These would be the first former U.S. Navy ships in the Lithuanian Navy and would be a significant upgrade from the two 1950s formerly German minesweepers operated by their fleet.
Taiwan would be offered the former mine hunters USS Oriole and USS Falcon for purchase.
Under the proposals Turkey would receive be allowed to purchase the former mine hunter, USS Shrike.
The Navy is decommissioning all 12 of its Osprey mine hunters. The Ospreys are being replaced by new Literal Combat Ships, which will carry mine hunting equipment.
By: qantaz - 25th August 2006 at 05:05
Hmmm US seems to be getting rid of all the old austin class LPD’s. Other than the two to mexico trenton would be going to india soon. Do they have anymore left or is that the last of it.
By: Doberman - 25th August 2006 at 02:38
to use them in disater relief missions, humanitary aid in central and south America, the Caribbean, Indonesia, etc.
By: Super Nimrod - 24th August 2006 at 14:39
:diablo: 😀 😮
By: Greenday1 - 24th August 2006 at 13:42
Does anyone have any idea why Mexico wants two 17000 ton LPDs?
Help them retake Texas? :dev2:
By: swerve - 24th August 2006 at 13:39
Does anyone have any idea why Mexico wants two 17000 ton LPDs?
By: Neptune - 24th August 2006 at 13:10
Distiller, AMCM is big balloon, doesn’t work at all. Even in such a way that they have to ask NATO minehunters to rescue the crew of their crashed MCM helicopters…
All they can do is make a nice map of the bottom with possible objects. They’re not even good enough to distinguish what is a mine and what is not. They then pass the list to the real minehunters (mostly NATO’s instead of their own) to clean the area.
Pretty dumb way of thinking, and in the future they’ll have serious trouble with it after all. They have some good equipment in their arsenal, but don’t even know how to use it properly. They were fairly lucky that all the mines in Iraq were intercepted on the pontoons before they hit the water otherwise it could have been a totally different thing, it would have rendered Sadam a LOT of extra time as only the UK’s MCM forces were there to do the job then.
Gollevainen, that is indeed true, current Finnish (and Swedish) forces have a fully prepared plan to block the most vital areas within one hour by means of mines, dropped by helo’s and ships and within one day block the entire coast. And except for denying amphibious ops, it also keeps any force at arm’s length, costing carrier borne aircraft a lot of fuel along with stretching the range of some weapons to the limit (and hence denying some targets to certain weapons).
By: sferrin - 23rd August 2006 at 23:36
Any chance of them transferring decommissioned 688s to Taiwan? :diablo:
By: rickusn - 23rd August 2006 at 23:27
The MHC’s were designed and outfitted to protect US ports.
The threat according to the USN no longer exists.
Ergo good by MHC’s.
By: Gollevainen - 23rd August 2006 at 13:37
If for some crazy instance USA would want to attack against Finland (this is just hypothetical thinking, no need to jump at it) we would be able to deny almoust totally their change of amphibious landing operations and other activities simply by mining the navigable routes of gulf of finland. We did so back in the WWII and the entire soviet baltic fleet was sieged to the Kronstad port from 1941-44.
Mines may be unsexy and not so cool weapons but in coastal naval strategies their value is undeniable. If USA would attack Iran, I predict that (if Iranians figure this out) they can inflict serious damage towards USN vessels trying to enter the Gulf of Persia…
By: Turbinia - 23rd August 2006 at 13:13
I’ve never understood the USN approach to mine counter measures, I thought their Osprey boats a sensible re-appraisal of this area of their operations and despite the benefits of airborne mine counter measures it seems every other navy in the world with a mine hunting/destroying capability still see’s purpose designed vessels as essential to the efficient operation against mines.
By: Distiller - 23rd August 2006 at 11:33
Seems like the Navy think AMCM (will) work/s well enough…
Like the AN/AQS-20, AN/AES-1 or AN/ALQ-220 on MH-60S.
Here’s a good site about AMCM.
http://www.members.aol.com/helmineron
By: Unicorn - 23rd August 2006 at 09:43
They did,
Saddam’s mines, 1 aegis cruiser crippled and one large amphibious ship damaged.
It will happen again, the only question is where. My bet is off Korea.
Unicorn
By: Gollevainen - 23rd August 2006 at 06:52
Some day the negelect of minewarfare and it’s threat to the major surface combadants will come back to USN and they will pay great deal of it 🙁
Sign In
August 23, 2006 at 2:39 am