ND1980LS

Also, be wary of Navy reports regarding ships (like the one you cited for the T-AKE-1 class), trust the CBO numbers, not the Navy numbers. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 109-292 of July 25, 2006) on H.R. 5631, recommends disapproval of the request within the NDSF for funding to procure a TAKE-1 class cargo ship. The report states:


So ask yourself, why is the Navy so happy about the T-AKE program? Because the Navy glorifies itself whenever possible. Considering they haven't even begun building the last 5 purchased T-AKE-1s dating back to before 2001, when the shipbuilding issues hit the fan, it is easy for them to claim success in the program.


Well.....here's the appropriation for the 9th ship. Notice 2 things about the contract....

1.) It's " Fixed-Price-Incentive " clause and
2.) Contract funds WILL NOT expire at the end of the current fiscal year...and the ship is due to be completed in 2009.

This is a program that's on time and on budget !


Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Contracts


On the Web:
http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts...130-12391.html
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131 Public contact:
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
or +1 (703) 428-0711

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR RELEASE AT No. 081-06
5 p.m. ET January 30, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAVY


National Steel and Shipbuilding Co., San Diego, Calif., is being awarded a $317,113,310 fixed-price-incentive modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-02-C-2300) to exercise an option for design and construction of the ninth ship in the Dry Cargo/Ammunition Ship (T-AKE) Class. The T-AKE Class dry cargo/ammunition ship will provide a two product (ammunition and combat stores – including dry stores, frozen and chilled products, spare parts and consumables) shuttle ship replacement for the aging Combat Store (T-AFS) and Ammunition (T-AE) shuttle ships. T-AKE will provide logistics lift to station ships and other ships operating with naval forces from supply sources, such as friendly ports, and at sea from merchant vessels. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and is expected to be completed by May 2009. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

ND1980LS

Thanks.....I agree it's a long standing and honorable tradition of the US Navy to use decommissioned ships as targets. My concern is the early decommissioning of Assets ( IMHO ).... that still have useful life and value in them. I'm not a military person....if we're going to treat Naval Assets like computers...where the technology changes every 3-6 months...and leave no room for upgrade in ships that were/are being built....then we're ALL in big trouble.

ND1980LS

By the way.....there was a great show on the Discovery Channel tonight about the USS Oriskany CV 34 and the project of sinking it to form a reef off the coat of southern Florida.

neilmpenny

When I joined the RAN they had 3 Charles F Adams class DDG's and I thought they were the sexiest looking beasts on the ocean (until we did a RAS - UNREP to you guys) with the USS Turner Joy, now there was a ship!!!

The first two Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG's we got were purchased off of the USN. Upon receipt of them we added another 9 feet to the stern of each (for the helo's we were using). The rest we built locally under license.

BTW, it was only a year or two ago that the last of the DDG's (HMAS Perth) was sunk of off Perth, Western Australia as an artificial reef. Now that is the way to go out though the images of her going down were a bit hard to take.

__________________
No sea too rough, no muf* too tough.

Ytlas

Both the HMAS Adelaide and Canberra came through LBNSY for finish up work after they left their building yard. The Adelaide got too close to the bottom somewhere down the coast and ended up doing 2 months in drydock. I worked that ship when it was in the yards and it was interesting to see the sailors get their daily ration of 2 cans of Olympia beer.

neilmpenny

2 cans per-day, per-man, per-haps. LOL Olympia is a bit dodgy though.

neilmpenny

Btw, we cooks got our cans un-opened.

Ytlas

I was expecting them to give the sailors Fosters or something.

neilmpenny

Mate, Fosters is crap, the beer of choice is VB.....Victoria Bitter. From the same manufacturer.

Ytlas

Was the beer around in 1981, when the Adelaide was in Long Beach?

neilmpenny

Australian NAVY mate, beer was always around. And when the poms (English) ran the show before that it was rum. Not the liquid stuff you get in a bottle today but the good gear that was as thick as molasses.

Ytlas

Was Victoria Bitter around in 1981 is what the question should read, when the Adelaide was in Long Beach? Olympia wouldn't be my first choice for beer nor would Fosters, but back in 1981 the supply system was probably different.......

ND1980LS

Yeah...You made the FFG's into the " long hull " version so you could probably handle the Seahawk instead of Seasprite helicopter. I think 3 of the Adams DDG's were also built for Germany and they were also recently retired. In reading... it looks like the reason you're retiring the first 2 Perry's is because of budgetary constraints for funding....not that they're not still useful. The VLS upgrade is intended to keep the ships modern until you get an Aegis destroyer or frigate.

Gun Grape

We leave room for upgrades. And ships do go through upgrades, but there comes a point where it isn't worth it.
And we cannot stop progress because of a few old ships.

Here is an example. (And I might be way off in left field on stated specifics, this is a generic example) First flight Ticos with basic say Ver 3 Aegis system. Latest Burkes coming off the line with ver 7, CEC and other whistles.

We decide we want to upgrade the old Ticos. Look at the space, and the compartment where the systems go has plenty of room. But we don't have enough power, Which means that now we have to find space for another (Not in any design) generator, possibly blow holes through bulkheads to run the new conduit, upgrade the power boxes ect. And oh BTW, the new system runs hotter and will require more cooling. And I don't think they let you mount window AC units on ships. So revamp the HVAC system.

And we havn't even started on changing out that Mk-26 with VLS. Pretty soon it cost more to upgrade than it does to build new. Like upgrading my 286/287 computer from 1986 to modern day P4 standards.

ND1980LS

Sounds reasonable...but everything I've read says that they were going to upgrade the Tico's as they did the later Spruances...from the original Mk-26 to VLS and Aegis standards of the other CG's of this class . I was just thinking that a SLEP on these 5 early ships for a couple hundred million each would be worth one Burke Flight II DDG.