Posted on 05/15/2006 12:26:44 AM PDT by spetznaz
$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.