Navy of Tomorrow, Mired in Yesterday's Politics

NY Times ^ | April 19, 2005 | TIM WEINER

[neverdem]

Unfortunately, this post was only half the story, i.e. the first webpage, without the graphic.gif.

[denydenydeny]

The Navy's new destroyer, the DD(X), is becoming so expensive that it may end up destroying itself.

I don't get the impression that the Times is terribly saddened by this development.

[CasaDeQueso]

"The first two DD(X)'s are now supposed to total $6.3 billion, according to confidential budget documents..."

Remember, loose lips sink ships.

[ARCADIA]

The economy is in a sad state when a nation of 300 million can't scrape up enough to put together a handfull of ships.

[ARCADIA]

Just wanted to add: That DX is about the ugliest tub I have ever seen. Lets hope the stealth technology works for this floating eyesore.

[CasaDeQueso]

Is it me, or does this thing look like the U.S.S. Monitor? Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[PubliusEXMachina]

You can bet the Chicoms dont have one yard making their ships.

[CasearianDaoist]

They went through the same nonsense with the AB destroyer. they eventually made plenty of them.Consider the source. That 3.3 billion includes sunk cost. The number for the AB class looks like unit cost to me. They do this with every weapon system. It does seem like the MSM is going after weapon systems lately. two weeks ago it was the FCS. Nothing came of that so on to the DD(X). It is a wonderful ship BTW.

What is odd is the comment about going on to "the next generation destroyer." That literally makes no sense at all, and that commnet exposes the author of that statement to be completely ignorant of ship building or planning for the Navy.

It is all BS. The DX will get built and there will be more than enough of them. - mpor than the original dozen. The original flight for the AB was to be somewhere around 35. they ended up making more than twice that. The Rats complained all the time about that one too.

And I think that it look just spiffy.

[Little_shoe]

The Navy says it can make do with fewer big ships patrolling the oceans. Most to the recent military literature has been avocating an increased navy investment in ships designed to operate near land in shore rivers. While some of these concepts make sense, to whole heartly abandon the Blue Water navy is one of the stupidest ideals I have ever heard. Historical Note...This reminds me of Jefferson cutting the Frigate Navy following the American Revolution in favor of a Gunboat Navy, which couldnt adequately even defend our coastline as proven when they couldt protect us from the British in 1812. The fact that US Navy capital ships can operate anywhere in the world is a tribute to the design and use of these ships. Whenever there is a problem in the world the first thing the congress asks is where is the nearest carrier or amphibious forces.... Im not sure weither they pulled the Abraham Lincoln out of combat ops to support tsuanami relief. Maybe if all of our shipbuilding capability hadnt disappeared over the past half century we wouldnt be having this problem.

[Yo-Yo]

From Global Security.org

A return to the old tumblehome configuration, combined with wave piercing technology makes the Northrop Grumman DD(X) design as close to a submarine as a surface ship can be / with the lion's share of the structure actually underwater. The DD(X) design is described as 'wave-piercing,' which means that the designers have deliberately foregone the sort of buoyancy which tends to lift conventional ships over waves. Their motive is clear; they want to minimize ship motion because any motion presents an observing radar with opportunities to pick up the ship. Similarly they will want to minimize rolling motion, and they will have to accept that waves will often break over the ship's deck.

[Little_shoe]

The Navy says it can make do with fewer big ships patrolling the oceans.
Most to the recent military literature has been avocating an increased navy investment in ships designed to operate near land in shore rivers. While some of these concepts make sense, to whole heartly abandon the Blue Water navy is one of the stupidest ideals I have ever heard.
Historical Note...This reminds me of Jefferson cutting the Frigate Navy following the American Revolution in favor of a Gunboat Navy, which couldnt adequately even defend our coastline as proven when they couldt protect us from the British in 1812.
The fact that US Navy capital ships can operate anywhere in the world is a tribute to the design and use of these ships. Whenever there is a problem in the world the first thing the congress asks is where is the nearest carrier or amphibious forces.... Im not sure weither they pulled the Abraham Lincoln out of combat ops to support tsuanami relief.
Maybe if all of our shipbuilding capability hadnt disappeared over the past half century we wouldnt be having this problem.

[ARCADIA]

The fact that US Navy capital ships can operate anywhere in the world is a tribute to the design and use of these ships.

It is a tribute to the design of the ships, and the design of the logistical system that supports them. Smaller ships means less versatility; there is no way that anyone will ever convince me otherwise.

I am sure that the Chinese are happy with our choice to shrink the navy. They must have been busy greasing palms on this one.

[tet68]

It will also make it faster, as the clipper ships learned.

[Paul_Denton]

Oh the Navy could afford it. The problem is all the money going to the UN and other socialist programs and other wasteful stuff.

[brooklin]

I hope that there is a good reason for the reverse bow. It looks like a WW1 battleship.

[Mr Rogers]

Be careful - any moment now, Army officers will start posting about how the Navy hasn't faced a significant threat in 30 years, how China can never do anything, how mines have made the Navy obsolete and how what we really need to do is buy some bass boats because they're the only thing that will fit in an Iraqi canal...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1383953/posts

[Little_shoe]

Good point on smaller ships means less versatility. I think a good point of this is the PC-1 Cyclone Class. They had too deep a draft to operate effectively in shallow waters while lacking the high speed to catch any escaping intruder. The first one was decommissioned in 2000 after only 7 years of service....

As for the logistical system that supports them I remembered seeing that some of the logistical ships were being decommed too....

I think that your correct that our next opponent will be China. Counties always seem to attack their biggest trading partners. Its interested how the Chinese have melded traditional communist authoriatian ideoligy with capitalism.
I had a Chinese Professor in College. He taught me that they spouted the Party propaganda in the schools every day and still venerate Chairman Mao. Sad considering he killed millions of his own people in a famine he created by pushing programs for his people to "make Steel" and "Neutralize Bird Pests." I think that it is Ironic that he purged the people that supported him by urging there children to "uphold the reveloution."

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I thought the same thing when I saw the new destroyer.

[Mr Rogers]

I forgot to mention - since Marines like to swim, only morally bankrupt Navy Officers prevent us from replacing the US Navy with a couple of divisions of Marines, equipped with floating rifles and (I kid you not - from an actual post) - "drunken Lance Corporals armed with sharpened tentstakes".

If a threat emerges 10 years from now, you can build your carriers then...

[ProudVet77]

That graphic is a bit misleading. You could buy 20 Adams family (sorry) DDs, and a single Arleigh Burke would destroy them all before they even got a shot off.
The carriers are a different situation. The real improvments are with the aircraft and their weapons. The GWB cost twice as much as the Nimitz but it's not the same class ship.
The real key to the future right now is the LCS class, and they cost about $210million. I expect the DD(X) and all the other X craft to stay on the drawing board for a while longer. The next carrier will handle UAVs, so the requirements will be up in the air (sorry) for a while. We may just keep building an updated version of the AB which takes 1/3 the crew to run.