Weapons No One Can Afford ( DD(X)cancelled // F-35 facing dire straits)

StrategyPage ^ | May 14, 2006

[OldArmy52]

But Clinton didn't manage to give away quite all our military tech secrets. That's why we need to elect Hillery. To complete the tech transfer.

[FreedomCalls]

Hasty decision: I'd have built the ships for only $6.5 billion each.

There are factories in China that would build them for $600 million each.

[The Duke]

Can't the US simply outsource its defense to China?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

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.

I believe the total number of submarines, the 90s build-down and burn one to build one is mandated by Soviet-era arms agreements.

[Ronin]

My jaw dropped when I read that number too.

It gets so totally surreal sometimes. Remember the A-12? So much money down the damn ratholes.

It's amazing the Navy owns a rowboat.

[DustyMoment]

Every time I read about the cost of a new military weapons system/platform, I can't help but recall the HBO movie "The Pentagon Wars" that chronicled the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and how it was converted into an overpriced piece of crap whose original mission was mutated by idiots at the Pentagon.

If you want to know how a $600 million ship becomes a $7 billion dollar ship, watch The Pentagon Wars. It will REALLY open your eyes.

[redgolum]

Very interesting. Seems like the brass might have to rethink the new high tech ideas.

[truemiester]

I still hold that techonology could be used to reduce crew size. Even damage control can be automated.

Existing ships could be retrofitted with this technology.

[agere_contra]

Seven Billion dollars would buy approximately 300 tonnes of Gold. That much metal I guess could be turned into a 14,000 ton displacement ship. So yes, they might as well be made of gold!

[Doohickey]

Wow. Seven billion. We've really come full circle from the Bic lighter of surface combatants, the Perry class frigate.

Kinda steep for something that can be wasted by one torpedo.

[agere_contra]

I believe the total number of submarines, the 90s build-down and burn one to build one is mandated by Soviet-era arms agreements.

In which case, someone at the Pentagon needs to look at a map and look - in vain - for the Soviet Union. There is no such entity.

[Doohickey]

SALT II and START only covered strategic platforms (boomers). The '90's drawdown of our submarine fleet and the unilateral removal of tactical nuclear weapons was engineered by Bush 41.

[The Klingon]

DDx became the R&D platform for the Navy's next generation combatants. The Navy intended to buy 12 of them at an average cost of $2-3 B a piece. The DDG 51 costs $1.5 B a copy. The ship first called DD-21 has been in development for 10 years and the $7 B cost includes the development over those 10 years. The low observable technology makes it expensive. I expect the Navy will keep building DDGs and move to a new Cruiser to replace the TICO Class ships built in the 80s.

[Waverunner]

Come on - we all know this money was really spent on the deep water undersea bases and the A12 underwater saucers built with alien technology.
Another successful black program covered up by cost overrun accounting.
I mean, who could waste that much money, really.
Project Stingray - puppets doing the job people won't

[razorback-bert]

Reading your comments, I can't help but think of the Battle of Jutland.

[puppypusher]

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now expected to have cost as much as $200 billion by the end of the fiscal year.

Can someone out-there in freeper land tell me where 200 billion dollars is going. The war we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is basicly a Guerilla war in nature,There really are No force on for engagements like in WW2,Korea or Vietnam.We are not losing hundreads of Aircraft every year like in Vietnam or WW2 so where is this money going?

[Doohickey]

The only difference between a cruiser and a destroyer these days is mission. There's a 150 ton displacement difference between a Tico cruiser and a Burke destroyer. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, but I suspect you're right. I too see a further evolution of the basic Spruance/Ticonderoga/Burke hull for the cruiser role while DDX continues development in the background.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"We just flushed 5-7 Billion down the toilet, unless we use technology devoloped on this program."

We will be able to build a better toaster. Once which doesn't have a "burn it to a crisp" setting.

[jimtorr]

The high cost is because of the Navy's attempt to leapfrog over several generations of technology. Several of the intended systems have not even been invented yet.

There's the 5" gun with a 120 mile range, the new yet-to-be-developed turbine propulsion system, the highly automated ship systems that is intended to reduce the crew to around 60, I think.

Then there are the stealthy aspects, which are intended to make the (quite large) ship hide from radar, and the new, not yet fully developed on-board radar systems.

I think the Navy just tried to do to much with one ship class. The AF was able to launch the F-22 because they didn't try to put in so much new, unproven technology, unlike the F-35.

[jimtorr]

It amazes and disturbs me how many submarines were decommissioned in the 90s!

One thing I approve of, though, is the way the Navy has converted some of the older boomers into cruise missile carriers. 3 or 4 cruise missiles in each missile tube makes for a lot of warheads on one ship!