DTI Mag/NEW CVN/DDX

rickusn · 08-04-2007, 10:43 AM

NXTbook flash detection page

Topics:

ASW sonar

Russian Corvette

U212

among other interesting articles

http://www.arpa.mil/mto/solicitation..._SiC_Brief.pdf

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...p?STORY_ID=754

The Navy and Its DDG-1000—Heading Wrong
Captain Robert H. Smith, U.S. Navy (Retired)

To grasp the Navy’s gravely inadequate response to its ominously shrinking numbers, start with the DDG-1000 program. Born years ago as the DD-21 and then morphing into the DD(X), it has muddled through several incarnations, forecasting ever more optimistic capabilities, while shedding none of its earlier pretensions, with the Navy looking forward to eventual delivery of a handful of gold-plated warships capable—per recent puffery—“of meeting all threats for decades to come.”

The underlying genesis of such follies is a rooted reluctance to face up to the revolution in sea power: That dominance of the seas inheres in those weapon systems that fly swiftly through the air or can hide in the depths. The dilemma of the surface ship, at the interface of air and water, unable to go fast in the one medium or submerge in the other, is defining. It was clear 50 years ago when the submarine USS Albacore (AGSS-569), whose pioneering hull form nuclear plants would soon power, ran rings around the Navy’s destroyers. In the Falklands War, the lone British nuclear-powered sub that sunk the cruiser General Belgrano and held the Argentine fleet in port foretold the day when, should our nation will it, the U.S. submarine fleet could sweep the seas.

The DDG-1000-class makes plain the lineaments of our Navy’s skewed vision: Remnants of sentiment clinging to a bypassed romantic ideal of the destroyer; and faith of those in its thrall that technology can overcome the impermeability of sea water and assure surface ships’ survival in the environment of the missile and the submarine. There is as well a late-blooming infatuation with that over-hyped locale known as “the littoral,” and the Navy’s straining for larger roles that the immediate conflict denies. And, as always, addiction to the kinds of advocacy that sweeps aside damning truths, with our Navy foremost among the deceived.

A recent phenomenon is an exhortation to “think outside the box.” Meaning what, I haven’t the foggiest. But I suspect that the time is nigh to pop back inside it.

Inside the box, the sea air clears the head, and answers stand out sharp as hulls on a knife edge horizon. Vision refreshed, the Navy’s altered goals should be the creation of classes of affordable warships scaled back to capabilities realistically attainable. Conveying the nature of such ships, it is easier to begin with what it will not be, what it cannot do.

It need not deliver ordnance far inland (leave that to carrier aviation and the Marines). It should not strain either for such chimeras as a low-signature hull form that ducks the question of those mountains of blue water it must shed in transit before snuggling comfortably in the shelter of the littoral. Nor will it carry another in that long-lived dynasty of high-power sonars, as ineffectual in submarine detection as they are counterproductive.

Such ships, though, will have a sturdy power plant, good sea keeping qualities, and endurance. A jack of all trades, good at many tasks, master fully of none. It will not be able “to meet all threats,” defeat all submarines, waltz around mines buried in sand, nor claim to handle a supersonic surface-skimming missile zipping out of the littoral. It will be vulnerable. But, taking the long view, it will also assure the numbers to contend and prevail in challenges beyond today’s tumult in the Middle East.

Calls for an “affordable” warship will bring cynical smiles, given the shambles that is U.S. shipbuilding. May it then not come to pass that numbers of modestly configured U.S. warships must be built in foreign yards, the mere broaching of which will bring howls from sea to shining sea? Yep, there’s a law. But that law can be changed if the stark alternative is acquiescence in the relentless dwindling of our naval forces and fateful retreat from historic maritime responsibilities.

Weighing the prospect of the dollars to be poured into the DDG-1000, as yet an untried kluge of techno-babble, one listens in vain for worthier claimants. Where lions should roar, sheep are barely on the move. From the nuclear submariners, possessed of five decades experience observing the inability of surface ships to cope with the submarine’s overwhelming superiority, nothing is audible. Even as that indispensable national treasure keeps being whittled away.

Captain Smith is a veteran destroyerman and commanded the USS Wilkinson (DL-5). He served nine years in the Operational Test and Evaluation Force, both ashore and afloat during his career. He was also chief of staff for analysis at Commander ASW Forces Pacific.

Dectilion · 08-04-2007, 13:49 PM

so when can i get pg7 in the DTI magazine?

rickusn · 08-04-2007, 18:04 PM

LOL

At first I didnt get what you meant.

ROTFLMAO

Now what in the world would you do with one of those become the current version of the "Road Warrior".

LOL
ROTHFLMAO

Shamus · 08-04-2007, 20:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickusn

Now what in the world would you do with one of those become the current version of the "Road Warrior".

Hmmm...make it to work safely and maybe roll over a few idiots in their H2s at the same time

.Great article as usual Rick,I love the atricles in DTI.Thanks again.

Dectilion · 08-04-2007, 21:09 PM

its 50% bigger than the next biggest suv on the road, because i need it

rickusn · 08-04-2007, 21:16 PM

Time for a moniker change to "Road Warrior" for you Dectilion.

LOL
ROTFLMAO

ArmchairGeneral · 08-04-2007, 21:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dectilion

its 50% bigger than the next biggest suv on the road, because i need it

Eat your heart out, Ashton Kutcher!

Dectilion · 08-05-2007, 12:25 PM

Ashton Kutcher????? and ill only get it if you guys pay for fuel, cause i dont wanna think how much that will be!

rickusn · 08-05-2007, 12:29 PM

LOL

Like the "Road Warrior" you will have to find a tanker truck to support you or scavenge.

Maybe you can find a guy with gyrocopter to scout for you!!!!!!!!!!!!

ROTFLMAO

ArmchairGeneral · 08-05-2007, 14:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dectilion

Ashton Kutcher????? and ill only get it if you guys pay for fuel, cause i dont wanna think how much that will be!

Ashton Kutcher's ride: International CXT

Dectilion · 08-05-2007, 17:51 PM

my ride is much better than that

Galrahn · 08-06-2007, 16:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickusn

Captain Smith is a veteran destroyerman and commanded the USS Wilkinson (DL-5). He served nine years in the Operational Test and Evaluation Force, both ashore and afloat during his career. He was also chief of staff for analysis at Commander ASW Forces Pacific.

A SWO who studied ASW blasting a SWO dreamboat.

This guy is swimming upstream, with virtually every 4 star a SWO who does he think is going to listen?

Great article though, I completely agree with just about everything said.

rickusn · 08-06-2007, 17:30 PM

"A SWO who studied ASW blasting a SWO dreamboat.

This guy is swimming upstream, with virtually every 4 star a SWO who does he think is going to listen?"

Yes I found that interesting but being retired he has nothing to lose by speaking the truth.

OTOH LCS is a disaster too IMHO.

Your right that the SWOs now rule but surface warship programs can best be descibed as in "shambles".

Sorta ironic isnt it?!??!?!?!!?!?

08-04-2007, 10:43 AM	#1 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	DTI Mag/NEW CVN/DDX NXTbook flash detection page Topics: ASW sonar Russian Corvette U212 among other interesting articles http://www.arpa.mil/mto/solicitation..._SiC_Brief.pdf https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...p?STORY_ID=754 The Navy and Its DDG-1000—Heading Wrong Captain Robert H. Smith, U.S. Navy (Retired) To grasp the Navy’s gravely inadequate response to its ominously shrinking numbers, start with the DDG-1000 program. Born years ago as the DD-21 and then morphing into the DD(X), it has muddled through several incarnations, forecasting ever more optimistic capabilities, while shedding none of its earlier pretensions, with the Navy looking forward to eventual delivery of a handful of gold-plated warships capable—per recent puffery—“of meeting all threats for decades to come.” The underlying genesis of such follies is a rooted reluctance to face up to the revolution in sea power: That dominance of the seas inheres in those weapon systems that fly swiftly through the air or can hide in the depths. The dilemma of the surface ship, at the interface of air and water, unable to go fast in the one medium or submerge in the other, is defining. It was clear 50 years ago when the submarine USS Albacore (AGSS-569), whose pioneering hull form nuclear plants would soon power, ran rings around the Navy’s destroyers. In the Falklands War, the lone British nuclear-powered sub that sunk the cruiser General Belgrano and held the Argentine fleet in port foretold the day when, should our nation will it, the U.S. submarine fleet could sweep the seas. The DDG-1000-class makes plain the lineaments of our Navy’s skewed vision: Remnants of sentiment clinging to a bypassed romantic ideal of the destroyer; and faith of those in its thrall that technology can overcome the impermeability of sea water and assure surface ships’ survival in the environment of the missile and the submarine. There is as well a late-blooming infatuation with that over-hyped locale known as “the littoral,” and the Navy’s straining for larger roles that the immediate conflict denies. And, as always, addiction to the kinds of advocacy that sweeps aside damning truths, with our Navy foremost among the deceived. A recent phenomenon is an exhortation to “think outside the box.” Meaning what, I haven’t the foggiest. But I suspect that the time is nigh to pop back inside it. Inside the box, the sea air clears the head, and answers stand out sharp as hulls on a knife edge horizon. Vision refreshed, the Navy’s altered goals should be the creation of classes of affordable warships scaled back to capabilities realistically attainable. Conveying the nature of such ships, it is easier to begin with what it will not be, what it cannot do. It need not deliver ordnance far inland (leave that to carrier aviation and the Marines). It should not strain either for such chimeras as a low-signature hull form that ducks the question of those mountains of blue water it must shed in transit before snuggling comfortably in the shelter of the littoral. Nor will it carry another in that long-lived dynasty of high-power sonars, as ineffectual in submarine detection as they are counterproductive. Such ships, though, will have a sturdy power plant, good sea keeping qualities, and endurance. A jack of all trades, good at many tasks, master fully of none. It will not be able “to meet all threats,” defeat all submarines, waltz around mines buried in sand, nor claim to handle a supersonic surface-skimming missile zipping out of the littoral. It will be vulnerable. But, taking the long view, it will also assure the numbers to contend and prevail in challenges beyond today’s tumult in the Middle East. Calls for an “affordable” warship will bring cynical smiles, given the shambles that is U.S. shipbuilding. May it then not come to pass that numbers of modestly configured U.S. warships must be built in foreign yards, the mere broaching of which will bring howls from sea to shining sea? Yep, there’s a law. But that law can be changed if the stark alternative is acquiescence in the relentless dwindling of our naval forces and fateful retreat from historic maritime responsibilities. Weighing the prospect of the dollars to be poured into the DDG-1000, as yet an untried kluge of techno-babble, one listens in vain for worthier claimants. Where lions should roar, sheep are barely on the move. From the nuclear submariners, possessed of five decades experience observing the inability of surface ships to cope with the submarine’s overwhelming superiority, nothing is audible. Even as that indispensable national treasure keeps being whittled away. Captain Smith is a veteran destroyerman and commanded the USS Wilkinson (DL-5). He served nine years in the Operational Test and Evaluation Force, both ashore and afloat during his career. He was also chief of staff for analysis at Commander ASW Forces Pacific.

08-05-2007, 17:51 PM	#11 (permalink)
Dectilion Regular Join Date: 01-13-07 Posts: 137	my ride is much better than that __________________ ROAD WARRIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-04-2007, 13:49 PM	#2 (permalink)
Dectilion Regular Join Date: 01-13-07 Posts: 137	so when can i get pg7 in the DTI magazine?

08-04-2007, 18:04 PM	#3 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	LOL At first I didnt get what you meant. ROTFLMAO Now what in the world would you do with one of those become the current version of the "Road Warrior". LOL ROTHFLMAO

08-04-2007, 21:09 PM	#5 (permalink)
Dectilion Regular Join Date: 01-13-07 Posts: 137	its 50% bigger than the next biggest suv on the road, because i need it

08-04-2007, 21:16 PM	#6 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	Time for a moniker change to "Road Warrior" for you Dectilion. LOL ROTFLMAO

08-05-2007, 12:25 PM	#8 (permalink)
Dectilion Regular Join Date: 01-13-07 Posts: 137	Ashton Kutcher????? and ill only get it if you guys pay for fuel, cause i dont wanna think how much that will be!

08-05-2007, 12:29 PM	#9 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	LOL Like the "Road Warrior" you will have to find a tanker truck to support you or scavenge. Maybe you can find a guy with gyrocopter to scout for you!!!!!!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO

08-06-2007, 17:30 PM	#13 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	"A SWO who studied ASW blasting a SWO dreamboat. This guy is swimming upstream, with virtually every 4 star a SWO who does he think is going to listen?" Yes I found that interesting but being retired he has nothing to lose by speaking the truth. OTOH LCS is a disaster too IMHO. Your right that the SWOs now rule but surface warship programs can best be descibed as in "shambles". Sorta ironic isnt it?!??!?!?!!?!?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)