{"id":15595,"date":"2017-11-13T01:43:26","date_gmt":"2017-11-13T01:43:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/navytimes\/uncategorized\/2017\/11\/13\/dont-reactivate-the-old-frigate-internal-us-navy-memo-recommends\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T21:40:53","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T21:40:53","slug":"dont-reactivate-the-old-frigate-internal-us-navy-memo-recommends","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/navytimes\/news\/your-navy\/2017\/11\/13\/dont-reactivate-the-old-frigate-internal-us-navy-memo-recommends\/","title":{"rendered":"Don’t reactivate the old frigates, internal US Navy memo recommends"},"content":{"rendered":"\n


WASHINGTON \u2014 A move gaining traction in the upper echelons of the Navy to bring back mothballed Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates would cost billions, cut into modernization accounts for other ships and add little to the Navy\u2019s capabilities, according to documents obtained by Defense News.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Navy estimates that bringing back 10 of the Perry-class frigates would cost in excess of $4.32 billion over 10 years, and take away from money needed to modernize the Navy\u2019s existing cruisers and destroyers. In return, the Navy would get a relatively toothless ship only suitable for very low-end missions such as counter-drug operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWith obsolete combat systems and aging hulls, these vessels would require significant upgrades to remain warfighting relevant for another decade,\u201d the document reads. \u201cAny potential return on investment would be offset by high reactivation and life-cycle costs, a small ship inventory, limited service life, and substantial capability gaps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFurthermore, absent any external source of funding, these costs would likely come at the expense of other readiness, modernization or shipbuilding programs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both the chief of naval operations and the secretary of the Navy have mentioned they are considering recommissioning the frigates as a way of boosting fleet numbers as they pursue a goal of 355 ships. But some experts have pushed back on the idea, saying that the money is better spent on more capable ships and investing in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A single-page internal memo, which was circulated in the Chief of Naval Operations office in October, estimated the Navy would have to spend at least $432 million per ship over the decade of service, a figure that well exceeds the cost of procuring one brand new littoral combat ship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A second October memo described to Defense News said that of the 10 frigates left for recommissioning, two are reserved for foreign sales, one isn\u2019t seaworthy, and the remaining seven would still cost more than $3 billion to bring back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper instead recommends putting the money toward destroyer and cruiser modernization, as well as littoral combat ship procurement and development of the next-generation guided-missile frigate now in development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFunding for [frigate] reactivation should not come at the expense of Cruiser and Destroyer modernization, Littoral Combat Ship procurement, and FFG(X) procurement,\u201d the memo reads. \u201cIf additional funding were made available, recommend funding the service life extension of Cruisers before funding FFG-7 reactivation as Cruisers would not require additional combat systems modernization and would provide much greater warfighting capability.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t