Posted on 07/15/2008 6:14:34 AM PDT by tlb
WASHINGTON - The Navy is declining comment on a report that the service wants to end production of its troubled next generation destroyer, the DDG-1000, after just two ships.
With Congress still debating the Bush administration's funding request for the upcoming 2009 fiscal year, "it is inappropriate to comment on pending legislation," Navy spokesman Lt. Clay Doss said Monday.
The administration is seeking about $2.5 billion in fiscal 2009 to buy a third DDG-1000. Citing unnamed sources, Inside the Navy, a trade publication, reported Monday that naval leaders now prefer to stop at the two ships already ordered from Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Ingallls shipyard in Pascagoula and Bath Iron Works in Maine. Instead, they want to buy 11 more DDG-51 destroyers, an older and cheaper ship.
At present, the Navy planners want to build a total of seven DDG-1000's, which they say holds numerous technical advances over the DDG-51. But Taylor and other lawmakers have grown frustrated with the program's rising price tag. The two ships now on order from Bath and Ingalls will cost $5 billion each, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
(Excerpt) Read more at al.com ...
This is how we will outlast the Chinese, too.
The DDG-1000 is supposed to provide a platform for that development...but the CGs are older than the Burkes.
Here's a potential stopgap for the CGX program until the technology is perfected, lowering the cost.
Probably not, but the new destroyers might not be able to do so either without an extensive refit. It might be cheaper to stick with the older destroyers until it is more practical to build a destroyer with such "future" weapons.
Get the unions and the political graft out, and you’ll see prices for any type of military hardware plummet.
Let them sleep on hammocks, eat gruel, make them out of wood and go back to using sails.
At darned near 10,000 tons loaded out, the Burkes are essentially cruisers anyway. What we need are stealthy frigates that we can send in-close for minesweeping & ASW.
It’s not that those two DDG-1000’s literally cost $5 billion to build, its all the research and development costs that went into the design that makes it look that expensive. Also, the US Navy has changed the design requirements multiple times on the DDG which caused design/production delays which added huge cost to the project.
As with all government projects with too many cooks, a horse by committee is a jackass.
They should do these projects like they did with the Skunkworks and the F-117. Remove all unnecessary red tape and oversight and let private industry do the job. The end result was a Stealth aircraft delivered ahead of time and below budget.
They Navy is building them...it is called the littoral combat ship.
I agree. We had this debate in the 1980s about the F-20 Tigershark. The problem is, you have to convince some soldiers/sailors/fliers that they need to go out in something less than the best. It’s not an easy argument, but I agree a mix is desirable.
I think the CGX program will probably get a higher priority (now). The Aegis cruisers, or a good chunk of the force, is probably going to be detatched for ABM patrol so that they won’t be available to cruise with a CSG or backup an ESG.
It just looks like, from a shipbuilding standpoint, the DDX program is caught in between the needs of the LCS & CGX programs. Something had to give.
What do you think?
I believe we need at least30 of each of the LCS, and believe the two manufacturers have to get costs in line with that (both designs have desirable traits for LCS).
I believe we should build 12 of the super-burke CG designs (similar the one I suggest based on the already built S. Korean dewsign we helped them with) to bridge us until the CGX is do-able and affordable.
I'd like to see 14 carriers and 14 large ampbib assault, with at least 4-6 of those being the new LHAR design optimized for the Sea Control role.
This is getting a little far from the initial thread, but I can't resist asking your opinion of the LHA-6/LHA(R). Another Freeper suggested that the LHA-6 is really too limited to be of much value as a "Light Carrier" -- in a nutshell that even with the expanded hangar deck that it lacks the ability to sustain air operations beyond a short interval. He also pointed out that deleting the well-deck might actually hinder their ability to replenish munitions -- the LHD-s used as "Harrier Carriers" during OIF used this as the primary means of re-arming.
Floating the supplies seems more efficient than slinging them under a Helo. But is it worth the dedication of the space? Of course they didn't have the Osprey, but is that a 'difference maker' in this instance?
I know that you've studied this stuff & I'd like to get your take on it.
Their role would not be the same as the large fleet carriers and therefore sustaining operations like one of those would not be necessary.
With the JSF, their capabilities will be greatly enhanced in Sea Control and close air support for air assault. I also believe that it will be the impetus needed to drive for the further development of the Osprey into good AEW and ASW variants which would further greatly enhance the capabilities of these vessels in the Sea Control role.
With thoose innovations, they could be used to protect Phibrons, other Task Forces, and the sea lanes requiring more of a sea control and limited strike at sea capability (which these vessels otufitted as stated and with 30+ JSF could do).
That frees the larger carriers to do the work of large strike at sea, or particularly large ground support operations, as well as control of the sea lanes when required.
Like I said, I would like to see 4-6 of the Sea Control/Air Assault vessels, and 8-10 of the traditional well-deck vessels.
But that's just my own opinion.
100 or so vessels at 5-8000 tons would be ideal. We are sacraficing a minimum quantity for "quality". We simply don't have enough warships to cover the 7 seas.
What would be really cool is a railgun that launched a laser that would then be able to blast targets at long range!
You forgot funding cuts - that doubles the R&D cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.