Navy destroyer caught in funding battle

Politico ^ | 5/20/08 | JEN DIMASCIO

[Dawnsblood]

The Navy’s next-generation destroyer is caught in a tug of war between House members who want to scuttle the newest version of the ship in favor of the old and senators who want full funding for the new one.

Rep. Gene Taylor, a Blue Dog Democrat from Mississippi, and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican from Maryland, led the effort in the House Armed Services Committee to cut more than $2 billion from the appropriation request for the new DDG-1000. That’s a clear challenge to the Republican senators from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) — all supporters of the new destroyer.

Before the House Armed Services Committee gave its full support to Taylor’s proposal to cut funding, Collins and Snowe appealed to the panel’s chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), to kill it. But the cut survived and is setting the stage for a big fight when a joint House-Senate conference committee resolves differences in the two versions of the annual Defense Authorization Bill.

Like many disagreements on defense policy, this tussle reflects a difference over the best way to buy military hardware. Should the Pentagon buy new, older-model equipment, or should it pay more for advanced, and more risky, new equipment?

At the center of the debate is the DDG-1000 — a new destroyer designed to operate close to shore with all sorts of sophisticated combat capabilities. Its advanced technology is designed to require fewer sailors to operate. And, the Navy says, all the improvements are expected to dramatically increase the Navy’s defenses and save money in the long run.

[Red6]

Shut up and fund it!

[nathanbedford]

Let's see, too Rino senators from Maine and the arch demon of all liberals, Senator Kennedy, on the same side which favors building a new weapons system. Why do I believe that the ships will be built in Maine and Massachusetts? Is this really an argument between high-minded legislators over new expensive weapons systems versus cheaper older systems or is this the age-old fight over pork?

Is it too much to ask that our representatives advocate from their heart when it comes to protecting the nation's children? Silly me, of course it is. The system does not, has not, and never will work that way. That the founding fathers knew, and so they designed the system so that the politicians would argue both sides of the matter out of regionalism and faction.

I guess it does not matter what Teddy Kennedy's motivation is in supporting a new weapons system since the founding fathers were clever enough to get these clowns to argue both sides of the issue as though they actually cared about the merits.

[Cicero]

The article says nothing about where these ships are being built. But may I guess that the new model destroyer is being built by Bath Iron Works in Maine? And maybe the old destroyers are built in Mississippi?

Which is not to say that this seems to be another case of a so-called “blue dog” Democrat who votes like a liberal in the crunch.

[domenad]

Do we really need it? There’s not a navy in the world anywhere close to ours in terms of capability. I know it’s the mark of a conservative to rubber stamp all expenditures military, but perhaps this particular one could wait.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

If one nut or bolt for the new destroyer could be built in Missouri, Ike would change his tune.

[Wooly]

Not only is this ship stealthy, it also uses about one third the people to run it, which at this time is the highest cost part of a ship’s life.

[Wooly]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/019viwzt.asp?pg=1

Just a more detailed description of the DDX capabilities.

[jimtorr]

......may I guess that the new model destroyer is being built by Bath Iron Works in Maine? And maybe the old destroyers are built in Mississippi?

Actually, both destroyers are being built by Bath Iron Works. Or rather, Bath is building some of each.

[thundrey]

I suppose it is only a prestige thing, but America would no longer have the world’s most technologically advanced surface combatants compared to say, the Type 45 destroyer, although the US Navy would still have the advantage in numbers, which if you are the only superpower, is the most important thing really....

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Regarding Type 45, what is the midsection tower with the globe ? Assume its a radar...

[rmlew]

Do we really need it?
We need more destroyers and surface combattants. Our fleet is now under 300 ships. We are down to 60 odd Arliegh Burkes, which is not enough. The 30 Perry Frigates are barely fit for second-line duty.
There’s not a navy in the world anywhere close to ours in terms of capability.
Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Italy are now producing destroyers using different radars and weapons now equal or better than the Arleigh Burkes. China's navy is growing quickly in terms of numbers and technology.

[Red6]

Last I checked Russia, China, pirates off the coast of Somalia, the strait of Malaga; Libya, Cuba, Iran......still exist. The Navy plays a role in logistics, with hospital ships, SEAD, intel collection, evacuation of non-combatants like in Lebanon or Liberia, keeping water ways open such as when Libya laid claim on part of the Mediterranean, clearing mines such as when Iran mined the Gulf in 1988……… This new destroyer class is supposed to be able to support the land component better, something that fits into todays needs quite well.

The ocean has and will remain the way we move things to and from our nation. From oil, furniture, gas, wheat, beer, or cars; it’s the water way how trade is done. From subs carrying troops or missiles, to China building a carrier and operating nuclear subs, the Russians building newer subs, or terrorist groups like Hezbollah in 2006 shooting anti-ship missiles at Israeli ships, the world is changing. The ability to control the sea is nonetheless as important today as ever.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/19/news/missile.php

The concept of national defense is multifaceted, evolving, and never ending.

We typically let our last conflict define how we see national security within our state apparatuses. We saw this after WWII, Vietnam, and we’re doing that today with Iraq-Afghanistan. Our entire doctrine, weapons platforms, ordinance, training, recruiting etc. is all geared towards the task at hand in Iraq, and while that seems logical for the moment, such a dilapidated view is dangerous because major theater war is possible elsewhere, because North Korea can range parts of the US with their missiles........ It might feel good for the moment to neglect everything else for the quick fix of throwing everything at Iraq-Afghanistan, but that’s not the answer.

-IMHO

[Tallguy]

Rep. Gene Taylor, a Blue Dog Democrat from Mississippi, and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican from Maryland, led the effort in the House Armed Services Committee to cut more than $2 billion from the appropriation request for the new DDG-1000. That’s a clear challenge to the Republican senators from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) — all supporters of the new destroyer.

Lemme Guess! The destroyer is slated to be built in Maine (Bath Iron Works -- or whatever they call it now) & is seen as 'competing' with the amphibs that are built in Missisippi (Pascagoula)?

[thundrey]

It’s part of the phased array radar used for the Principle Anti-Air Missile system (PAAMS)....