USCGC Sassafras. I was wrong. It was decommissioned after Fifty Nine years of service;
Freedom Littoral Combat Ships Tapped for Decommissioning...
- Thread starter mattwithcats
- Start date
USCGC Sassafras. I was wrong. It was decommissioned after Fifty Nine years of service;
USCGC Sassafras - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
We were homeported at Kodiak AK Support Center along with the Citrus. That boat hardly ever left the pier. When it did it was gone for some time as it was the only black hull in that region.
Here is a recent article on the Freedom Littoral ships that makes the situation even worse. The crew is using RTV to seal cracks in the hulls after they have been discovered and marked to measure any progress. The ships have been ordered to not travel in any seas higher than eight feet. One ship made the transit from San Diego to Base Everett and is now sitting due to cracks in the hull.
This quote from the spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command is just mind boggling.
“does not pose a risk to the safety of Sailors on board the ships.”
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/Y75SRKQAWZAEZGTBHY5Q4T6JNU.webp)
www.navytimes.com
This quote from the spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command is just mind boggling.
“does not pose a risk to the safety of Sailors on board the ships.”
The littoral combat ship’s latest problem: Class-wide structural defects leading to hull cracks
The troubling revelations about the Independence-class littoral combat ships come as the Navy continues to grapple with a class-wide transmission issue in the Freedom-class variants.
www.navytimes.com
They were basically job creators for the defense industry. Their quality and/or utility were secondary considerations.
The original plan was to build 5 of each class (Freedom and Independence) and send them through the test phase, then decide which one we wanted to build 45 more of....but they were cash cows for regions that weren't doing well (Marietta WS and Pascagoula MS).
I did the acceptance trials on the first two of each class, the only thing they did well was go fast and stop fast, they were extremely agile for their size...but neither class is a warship.
Could they deliver MREs and bottled water in humanitarian relief efforts? Yes, but we already have ships that can do that mission much better with larger capacity for the mission.
Their success model was that you needed, essentially, 60 Sailors of the year running those ships, generally people who are very talented and very versatile, but the Navy just doesn't have that many of the caliber folks it would take to man 50 of those ships. Talent pool was not deep enough to make it work.
I did the acceptance trials on the first two of each class, the only thing they did well was go fast and stop fast, they were extremely agile for their size...but neither class is a warship.
Could they deliver MREs and bottled water in humanitarian relief efforts? Yes, but we already have ships that can do that mission much better with larger capacity for the mission.
Their success model was that you needed, essentially, 60 Sailors of the year running those ships, generally people who are very talented and very versatile, but the Navy just doesn't have that many of the caliber folks it would take to man 50 of those ships. Talent pool was not deep enough to make it work.
The only thing that makes sense is the smaller crew size but that would depend on the mission of the ship.
I've never been on one (thank god) but everybody I've talked to that has been on one has absolutely nothing good to say about it. Lovely they're decommissioning it after wasting tax payer's money on them.
Are "we" allowed to recoup some of the costs for the failures or is all the money that was sunk into the development of this ship lost?
Are "we" allowed to recoup some of the costs for the failures or is all the money that was sunk into the development of this ship lost?
USCGC Sassafras. I was wrong. It was decommissioned after Fifty Nine years of service;
USCGC Sassafras - Wikipedia
The concept was that there would be a "base crew" that operated the ship and then there would be "fly away teams" that specialized in the missions. So, the mission modules would be populated with the required equipment/weapons systems and the specialty operators would come onboard to run the equipment for that mission.
One unanticipated issue is that, because they were jet drive and intended to go into shallow waters, they suffered significant wear to the jet propulsion pumps. Same as your jet ski, the pumps ALWAYS pump water, if you want to stop, a water diverter comes down over the pump output and directs the water directly down. Problem with that is FOD from the bottom when you're in water less than 50 feet deep.
Great read.
no that would be the 'Sea Turd' class carriers (aka Ford class).
Last edited:
