Skip to comments.
US Navy reverses course, to seek 3rd Stealth Destroyer
HamptoonRoads.com ^
| 19 August 2008
| JERRY HARKAVY
Posted on 08/27/2008 7:08:09 PM PDT by Jeff Head
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) _ The Navy has changed course and decided to push for construction of a third DDG-1000 destroyer that would be built at Bath Iron Works, Sen. Susan Collins said Monday.
The Maine Republican said Navy Secretary Donald Winter informed her of the decision that comes one month after the Navy said it was scrapping the Zumwalt destroyer program once the first two are built. The Navy said at the time that it was opting instead to build more of the current-generation DDG-51, or Arleigh Burke, destroyers.
Collins quoted Winter as saying that in addition to seeking another DDG-1000, the Navy plans to reprogram some funding to purchase spare parts for DDG-51s that could also be used to restart production of that class of ships.
"This is great news for Bath Iron Works," she said in a telephone interview. "It means that the third (DDG-1000) ship is very likely to go forward, and yet there's also the potential of building more DDG-51s."
(Excerpt) Read more at hamptonroads.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; US: Maine
KEYWORDS: 110th; bathironworks; ddg1000; defensespending; destroyer; navy; stealthdestroyer; usnavy; zumwalt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Three will ensure that one can be deployed at all times, and that two can be surged.
It will be a great platform for the new technologies, but not enough vessels to be decisive in a major crisis or conflict...though it will certainly augment the major forces we can apply.
1
posted on
08/27/2008 7:08:09 PM PDT
by
Jeff Head
To: Jeff Head
2
posted on
08/27/2008 7:12:31 PM PDT
by
al baby
(Hi mom)
To: Jeff Head
One has to wonder if recent activities of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea have any influence on this decision.
Hmmmm.
3
posted on
08/27/2008 7:13:19 PM PDT
by
Mr. Jazzy
(The United States Marines. The finest and most feared fighting force in the history of mankind.)
To: Jeff Head
4
posted on
08/27/2008 7:13:26 PM PDT
by
Mr. Binnacle
(Baby, Everybody's Had to Fight to be Free - Tom Petty)
To: al baby
Nah, the USS Obama would be painted UN blue and be completely unarmed.
5
posted on
08/27/2008 7:13:41 PM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four fried chickens and a coke)
To: Jeff Head
Glad to hear this. The original plan was to build 32 of these, and at some point we will have to bite the bullet and build a quantity of advanced ships. Perhaps we will have figured at the rail-gun technology by then.
6
posted on
08/27/2008 7:14:23 PM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(Et si omnes ego non)
To: al baby
USS Zumwalt, DDG 1000, in honor of Elmo Russell Zumwalt, Jr. (November 29, 1920 January 2, 2000) who was an American naval officer and the youngest man to serve as Chief of Naval Operations.
7
posted on
08/27/2008 7:15:09 PM PDT
by
Jeff Head
(Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
To: Mr. Jazzy
I agree. With the cold war heating up again it is a good move.
To: Mr. Jazzy
Could well be. I wish we were building at least 12 of them.
Sounds like the Arleigh Burke line will porobably conitnue. Though I wish we would build the enhanced version.
9
posted on
08/27/2008 7:19:18 PM PDT
by
Jeff Head
(Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
To: Army Air Corps
10
posted on
08/27/2008 7:25:23 PM PDT
by
Westlander
(Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
To: Jeff Head
That is a sexy-looking boat, although I can't get used to the idea that such a craft is not bristling with guns.
I suppose it is instead bristling with ECMs that can burn out the front end of an incoming missile receiver.
11
posted on
08/27/2008 7:29:48 PM PDT
by
FlyVet
To: Army Air Corps
USS BJ CLINTON
12
posted on
08/27/2008 7:30:31 PM PDT
by
Westlander
(Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
To: Jeff Head
I’m more into aviation so I’ve got a bunch of bias, but I can appreciate a nice looking use of stealth. Still...four guns and cruise missiles, it seems underarmed compared to destroyers of old. How would it be used?
13
posted on
08/27/2008 7:32:48 PM PDT
by
GBA
To: Westlander
Hehehe. I served on the USS Enterprise and would have loved to have launched Teddy off the bow. Then we could see how good a swimmer the Captain of the SS Oldsmobile was.
To: Army Air Corps
USS JIMMUH CARTER
15
posted on
08/27/2008 7:37:46 PM PDT
by
Westlander
(Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
To: Parley Baer
16
posted on
08/27/2008 7:39:57 PM PDT
by
Westlander
(Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
To: FlyVet
Yeah that looks disturbing to me too. What do they use now instead of the CIWS point defense guns (those R2D2-looking gatling guns).
17
posted on
08/27/2008 7:41:42 PM PDT
by
SeeSharp
To: Jeff Head
18
posted on
08/27/2008 7:45:19 PM PDT
by
50cal Smokepole
(John Gard for Congress; WI 8th CD)
To: al baby
If there is ever a USS Obama, it will be unmanned. No self-respecting sailor would ever serve on her.
To: FlyVet
I suppose it is instead bristling with ECMs that can burn out the front end of an incoming missile receiver. Maybe behind a panel/opening there will be an advanced CIWS. A while back Raytheon demonstrated the basic CIWS without the gun. In its place was a commercial welding laser. (solid state?) Supposedly they were able to shoot down mortar rounds with it. I would guess anything with ordnance on it would be susceptible to the heating and premature detonation.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson