Posted on 05/15/2006 12:26:44 AM PDT by spetznaz
May 14, 2006: News that the US Navy's new destroyer/cruiser replacement – DD(X) – has been axed comes as a major blow to the Navy and to the US military in general. DD(X) has been described as the Navy's "must have ship," to replace both the Burke-class guided missile destroyers and the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers that have been the Navy's mainstays for the past 25 years.
DD(X) is not the only weapons program in trouble. Recently, the United States Government Accountability Office released a report that slammed the DOD's plan to build and field the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) entitled, "DOD Plans to Enter JSF Production before Testing Demonstrates Acceptable Performance. " This March, 2006 report notes that the F-35 is planned to account for nearly 90 percent of all spending on US tactical aircraft in the foreseeable future and that since the Joint Strike Fighter program began in 1996, Congress has appropriated nearly $25 billion for its development and will spend $257 billion to develop and procure about 2,443 aircraft and related support equipment by 2027. An additional $347 billion is to be spent to operate and support these aircraft once they have been fielded. However, according to the GAO, the F-35 technology has not yet been proven to work.
Costs for DD(X) have reached low earth orbit with price estimates climbing past $7 billion per ship, versus the original $700 million per ship estimate from the late 1990s. Thus, on April 27, 2006, Congress abruptly voted unanimously to change the DD(X) program to that of a two ship "technology demonstrator " Thirty ships had been planned, later dropped to twelve. Now this. The proposed 2007 total defense budget submitted by the president is $439.3 billion. In another sign that Congress is becoming increasingly concerned about the cost of new systems in a time of non-traditional warfare, at the same time it cut DD(X) it added $3.2B for two additional Littoral Combat Ships and one more Virginia-class nuclear attack sub. It also mandated a minimum submarine force of 48 boats, up from the estimate of just 40 made by the Navy if funding cuts continued through 2028. The Navy currently has 54 combat subs.
DD(X) has been problematic from inception. Having gone through numerous iterations and name changes, it has apparently proven simply too hairy a new design at a time when blue water naval gunfire has suddenly found itself with little at which to shoot. DD(X)'s main selling point was the promise of precision gunfire support as much as 110 miles inland and within yards of the target in support of ground forces. However, DD(X) would have required a lot of technology not yet developed, including a new 5-inch naval rifle that could deliver such performance, a revolutionary main turbine-electric power plant, and a modular tactical systems configuration. With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now expected to have cost as much as $200 billion by the end of the fiscal year, a new deep water surface combatant at $7 billion a copy and a new tactical fighter airplane like the F-35 with remaining major performance problems have become insupportable. That the Air Force has managed to get the F-22 into production in significant numbers is probably more a testament to its political expertise than to its ability to show how it would be used to defeat the Taliban Air Force.
The sudden demise of DD(X) suggests that other new programs may be in jeopardy. The Navy's plan to replace its remaining 200 or so P-3Cs with the 108 P-8As beginning in 2012-2013 is dependent upon affordability. The P-8A is to be a highly-modified Boeing 737-700ER, an aircraft significantly larger and heavier than the P-3 and the subject of mixed reviews by the squadron-level personnel that will have to fly it. While the P-3C has been discovered to be a great high-endurance, on-scene ISR aircraft over Iraq, providing commanders with real-time imagery, its former primary duty of anti-submarine warfare has been allowed to atrophy under current tasking requirements. Like mine-hunting, ASW has long been a poor stepchild to the Navy's main emphasis on carrier aviation, ships, and submarines – all of which have been almost completely overshadowed by ground combat since 2001. The Navy maintains that the P-8A is budgeted for $44B through its domestic production run, which is to provide 108 aircraft to replace its 200 or so P-3Cs (the P-8 is now budgeted for $6.28 billion through 2011, by which time several developmental aircraft will have been built and tested). The big drop in maritime patrol aircraft numbers is to be augmented by 50 unmanned aircraft under the Broad Area Maritime Support (BAMS) program. The initial development portion of the P-8 cost the Navy $3.9 billion. Eighteen months ago the fly-away cost of each MMA was estimated at $126 million per aircraft and $190 million per aircraft if all expenses were amortized over the fleet. Today, a more accurate estimate is likely to be $163 million per aircraft, or $247 million each including amortization. Based on the 2007 P-8 budget, this means a drop in aircraft from 108 to 89, or a decrease of about 18%. A more accurate forecast may be a total of 50 P-8s, divided between four active squadrons at NAS Whidbey Island and NAS Jacksonville, plus the Fleet Replacement Squadron at JAX. There may be additional P-8s built to replace the EP-3E since the Navy has recently dropped out of the joint Navy-Army ACS SIGINT replacement aircraft program that was to have used a modified Embraer 145. The BAMS concept is in constant flux. Last year the Navy stated that it would be a to-be-defined dedicated UAV. Recently, it suggested that Global Hawk – a UAV used extensively by the Air Force – may be chosen instead. Whether BAMS will, as originally conceived, be controlled from aboard an in-flight P-8 remains undetermined.
$7 BILLION?!!! What were they made out of? Gold? That's more than an aircraft carrier! No wonder it was cancelled.
Weird, and abrupt, development, considering just some months ago the navy had decided to give the project a go-ahead.
Some recent FR threads on the DD(X):
ping
ping.
Hasty decision: I'd have built the ships for only $6.5 billion each.
I recall thwn the DD21 (cancelled) was the newest thing in Destoryer concepts. Did the same thing as current destroyers but had a crew of 99 vs 390+ ov current destoyers.
Turned into a game of pile-on. Lets put this on it, we need this technology developed, make it do this. Enter the DD(X).
Going back to the original concept of crew reduction, due to newer, automated systmes is a money save and could pay for itself over time.
Possibly, but not $7 billion worth. Then again there is the economy of scale issues. The Seawolf class submarines were ridiculously expensive, but mostly because the Navy only built 3. But even if the cost of the DDX dropped in half, it would still be more than two times too expensive in my opinion. We should build more SSGNs instead of destroyers. I think they would be a much more effective deterrent. Unfortunately, the Big Ship Navy mindset still hasn't died. Admirals are constantly reliving the Battle of Midway (while ignoring the fact that if it wasn't for code-breakers, Japanese submarines would have given intelligence for a massacre of US forces).
Last numbers I read were about 1.5 - 2 billion. I didn't know it had gotten this high.
including a new 5-inch naval rifle
My recollection was a 155, not a 5 inch, gun.
And just for the record, I have made past posts attacking the DD(X) as too expensive, defended the F-35 JSF, and have expressed concerns about the suitability of the P-8 for ASW patrols.
Now let me scroll down to see what others have to say.
I agree. Big ships won the battle, and the Japanese submarine screen lost it (via our code-breakers). I am not arguing about the *Big Gun* culture. Thankfully, that culture died in WWII. But the big ship culture is still here. These DDX's would be feared by every ship on the ocean--except a 1950's era diesel submarine.
There are few capabilities that this DDX has that a SSGN wouldn't surpass. A SSGN is basically an underwater battleship.
It is the Navy's B-2. With a lot more payload and a WHOLE lot more loiter time.
There's a real need for surface ships.
But not $7 Billion ones. Especially not when we can buy more Burke's at a Billion each. That's plain nuts. A Nimitz can be had for $5 Billion.
Build more frigates, and give the DDG-51's an upgrade and keep them rolling off the assembly line for another decade or so. Bring the total up to a good 120ish.
Yes, the Big Navy mindset = always fighting the last war, bumbling into the future with 20th century design thinking. I've invented 3 ship/torpedo/sub propulsion concepts that run rings around the fan-pushing-a-sledge idea of standard ships, but with their wooden head attitude, it's a "Billy Mitchell" situation and it will be left to our enemies to discover these concepts. Why did the nazis lose WWII? ans; an IDIOT corporal at the top...the demise of the DDX, just another ignored signal to self-styled, world class military-design geniuses....
The one weapon I'd really like to have for dealing with most of the idiots we're going to need to deal with in the near term would be fully modernized and updated Iowa class battleships, made nuclear if possible. They have sabot rounds for those guns now with a hundred mile range and you're still talking about a thousand pound projectile hitting something.
I agree. The Navy needs to be balanced. The Navy needs a lot more ships in my opinion. Ever since the Navy fell to less than 400 ships we've put ourselves in a very dangerous position.
I don't agree with the numbers of surface ships built, however. I think the biggest worry that we should have in ship level right now it the number of fast attack nuclear submarines. It is ridiculously low. And it is only going to get smaller since we are only building about 1 Virginia class submarine per year. Clinton (and Bush 41) really hurt our Navy ship levels. It amazes and disturbs me how many submarines were decommissioned in the 90s! Add in the fact that we had several major submarine espionage cases in the Clinton administration, and you will come to the conclusion that our submarine force is not nearly as powerful and intimidating as it was in the 70s or 80s.
So I think for every advanced frigate or destroyer, we should build 2 nuclear submarines. We don't need to go to Cold War levels, but we certainly need to go away from "Hit me, I'm not paying attention" levels.
It's funny that you mentioned Gen. Billy Mitchell. I was thinking about him during this discussion. One of many great American heroes.
More of a light cruiser than a battleship. 2 6 inch guns, almost no armor.
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.