ND1980LS

Why weren't these ships ever upgraded with VLS ?? ...as the later Spruance Hulls were ( after the oldest 7 Spruances )...and upgraded with more current Aegis systems. They're not that old as far as service with CG-47 only being in commission for 21 years...and I thought even the oldest hulls of this class cost close to or over a Billion $$$$'s each.

And...why couldn't the Navy have transferred some of the VLS Spruances to the Coast Guard instead of using them as target practice ??.....leaving only
2-3 later hulls for transfer to Pakistan and Turkey...and the later 4 Kidd class hulls for transfer to Taiwan ( which is now complete ). thanks..... John

TopHatter

You said it: 21 year old hull. 21 year old power plant. Much better (at least to the Navy) to build a few more Burkes I guess.

Or LCS

Manpower and operating costs, way too much ship for what the Coast Guard needs.

Plus, again a minimum 20 year old hull etc. 30 years old in the case of the lead ship. The CG's fleet is already very much overage.

ND1980LS

Wasn't the expected life of these hulls 35-40 years ?? And aren't the Flight I Burke's less capable than the older Spruance's because of a lack of helicopter facilities in them ?? It just seems that the Navy is discarding assets with useful life left in them....and spending close to a Billion $$$'s each for a current Flight IIA Burke. At least Taiwan gave the US about $ 180million per Kidd for the transfer of those hulls even thought the ex-Kidd is around 24 years old. The job done by Detyen's shipyard on them looks great. Even India is paying around $ 40million for the USS Trenton LPD-14.

TopHatter

That's the key word: "Expected".

Besides, the hulls are probably sound as a pound for another 10-20 years of service.

It's what's inside that also counts.

One is an Aegis platform that can carry lots of Tomahawks, the other is really good ASW platform that can carry lots of Tomahawks (if it's VLS Spru-can). Guess which one the Navy wants more of?

It's all about the O&M and upgradability. And because the USN likes new stuff.

And spending money.
Remember thought that Taiwan and India have a lower pay scale for their sailors compared to the USN, and a much lower OPTEMPO too.

ND1980LS

thanks.....the Navy does like to spend money. One day they'll wake up with 11-12 Carriers and no escorts for them because of the out of control costs.

As far as amphibious ships...just look at the LPD-17 program...what a disaster.

Gun Grape

Holy crap! I wouldn't give you a buck fifty for that rust bucket POS.

Gun Grape

How do you mean?

Most of the problems from the program was the shipyards fault. Friggin union workers.

What other problems do you have with the class?

ND1980LS

$ 600million to over $ 1.6Billion for the lead ship. I don't think Northrup Grumman is picking up the tab !!

ND1980LS

Here's a link:

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1049265

Gun Grape

And what. You would rather they incorporate design changes after its built? How much would that cost?

This is the first ship that had Marines and Sailors working on the designs. Yes they had to rebuild parts of the ship as it was being assembled, but thats because sometimes things that look good on paper don't work out in the real world.

Instead of having a class that we constantly have to do workarounds on and complain about, we fixed the problems on the first one. I think money well spent. Look at the problems of every "Lead ship" the San Antonios don't have any outstanding problems.

If the price keeps going up then I'll *****.

ND1980LS

This is the Navy's report on the future USS San Antonio....LPD-17 while under builder's trials. It took another $ 40million $$$$'s to fix these issues !

http://www.coltoncompany.com/newsand...pd17insurv.htm

ND1980LS

And here are the costs for the LHD's built by Ingalls... I don't see the $$$$$'s staying the same....even taking into account of inflation....let's say an average of 5% per year !

Hull Name FY Price ($mm) Delivery
LHD 1 Wasp 84 822.0 5-May-89
LHD 2 Essex 86 402.5 10-Jul-92
LHD 3 Kearsarge 88 352.7 16-Aug-93
LHD 4 Boxer 89 341.4 7-Oct-94
LHD 5 Bataan 91 731.3 16-May-97
LHD 6 Bonhomme Richard 93 761.0 11-May-98
LHD 7 Iwo Jima 96 795.4 6-Apr-01
LHD 8 Makin Island 02 1,370.0 1,697.2 (so far) 31-May-07

Did the later ships change that much ??

Gun Grape

And if you had been around awhile, you would have read where think that having the Navy pay for their mistakes is stupid.

The things should have been built up north. Pasagula shipyard doesn't have the experence in building big ships. Leave the Burkes down south let the guys up north build the big stuff.

ND1980LS

And as compared to the T-AKE's being built @ General Dynamics....this was the Navy's report:

http://www.coltoncompany.com/newsand...l%20Report.pdf

I understand that it's not as complicated as the LPD....but this program is on time and on budget. That's really my point.....that we should hold contractors to the CONTRACT that they have to build a ship and ship class.

ND1980LS

I agree with you 100%...well...almost. Bath's costs and performance on the Burke's has been better than Northrop's. And I think the Navy is also considering building 4 of the LPD-17's at Bath. I think LPD-17 was started at New Orleans....and moved to Pascagula ??!!