Posted on 05/15/2006 12:26:44 AM PDT by spetznaz
"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."
The Chicoms must be doing backflips over that one.
Let WalMart take the program over...bring in some illegals to build it...hell, that should drive the price down, right?
I'll say this much: if the US Navy/Marine Corps and the Royal Navy don't get the F-35, a lot of other systems are going to be effected and there will be an outright crisis in US naval aviation in ten years.
By then the F/A-18 will be at a serious disadvantage to the latest Russian Sukhois and the AV-8s will be worn out.
We're gonna miss those DDXs if we have to tangle with the PRC...
For half a billion you could retrofit the USS Intrepid, install an supercomputer, and load it with ten thousand armed UCAVs. You'd have an unstoppable robot swarm with global reach.
"Hasty decision: I'd have built the ships for only $6.5 billion each."
You cost cutter, you!
"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."
maybe, but how much would it cost? The rationale for crew-size reduction was cost savings.
"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."
If you are interested in how this same process works in the Air Force, you might want to read, John Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, by Roger Coram. My favorite quote by Boyd, "We don't care what the Russians are doing. We only care what the Navy is doing."
"Can't the US simply outsource its defense to China?"
The Clintons did part one of that, giving them nuclear and missile technology. So far however, the Chinese have not delivered any finished products to us.
Yes indeed, the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about, instead babbling about not needing cold war weapons anymore. The LO attributes alone would be very valuable with the swarms of antiship missiles the PRC navy will fire.
Very true. And for the same half billion, the Chinese can do the same thing. Put a tactical nuclear warhead on each one and they could sink an entire fleet of DD(X)'s (and a few aircraft carriers as a bonus) in five minutes.
Spare us from Admirals and Generals re-fighting the last war - they are just as expensive as liberal social programs.
"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."
Good post and I appreciate the information. I think there is another problem here. Because the focus of warfare is momentarily shifting away from the ocean, the Navy is trying to insert itself into the land battle---trying to hard, I think.
"defended the F-35 JSF,"
could you cite another post or reiterate?
"For half a billion you could retrofit the USS Intrepid, install an supercomputer, and load it with ten thousand armed UCAVs. You'd have an unstoppable robot swarm with global reach."
By like your thinking. If you can find out a way---during the process---to throw another half billion or so of pork to 4 or 5 different key political states, it might work.
"By like your thinking."
meant: I like your thinking.
"Very true. And for the same half billion, the Chinese can do the same thing. Put a tactical nuclear warhead on each one and they could sink an entire fleet of DD(X)'s (and a few aircraft carriers as a bonus) in five minutes."
True and an excellent point. Would a massive attack by inexpensive submarines be just as effective, war might we stop that?
We won't win future wars based on technology alone. We need to have greater numbers than our enemies.
Smaller faster ships and fighters, that are easy to use and maintain, are the key. This way we can match the numbers that a China or India can produce.
Any littoral ship is going to have to contend with anti-ship missiles. It's pure folly to build a ship so expensive that no commander would every risk losing it.
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.