+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: U.S. Navy Cancels DDG-1000 Destroyer

  1. #1
    Senior Contributor tim52's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Feb 06
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale FL
    Posts
    928
    Country: United States

    U.S. Navy Cancels DDG-1000 Destroyer

    U.S. Navy Cancels DDG-1000 Destroyer

    Jul 24, 2008
    Bettina H. Chavanne

    Name:  DDG1000NorthropGrumman.jpeg
Views: 387
Size:  7.4 KB

    The U.S. Navy has halted procurement of its DDG-1000 destroyer, calling for building only the first two of seven ships originally planned.

    Navy Secretary Donald Winter spent most of July 22 informing members of Congress of the service’s plans to cancel further procurement of the program, which is split between Northrop Grumman and Bath Iron Works. Just this past June, a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report said the DDG-1000 program raised “several potential oversight issues” including the accuracy of Navy cost estimates of the program, cost-effectiveness and affordability.

    Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) member Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), released a statement July 23 detailing her meetings with Winter, Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead and separately, Bath Iron Works President Dugan Shipway.

    Maine-based Bath Iron Works stands to lose a considerable amount from the cancellation. The company’s share of the contract for the DDG-1000 is $1.4 billion, according to Collins’ office.

    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) released his own statement July 23, calling the decision to halt procurement of the DDG-1000 “unwise.” His spokesperson, Melissa Wagoner, said Kennedy is concerned about the cancellation of a long-term shipbuilding plan “without presenting an alternative plan to satisfy their future requirements.”

    The SASC included $2.6 billion in its 2009 Defense Authorization bill for a third DDG-1000, to be built by Bath Iron Works. But the House version of the bill did not include any funding, which the Navy claimed resulted in its re-evaluation and eventual cancellation of the program (Aerospace DAILY, May 9).
    Buy the ticket, take the ride.

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    1,673
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by tim52 View Post
    U.S. Navy Cancels DDG-1000 Destroyer

    Jul 24, 2008
    Bettina H. Chavanne

    Attachment 11213

    The U.S. Navy has halted procurement of its DDG-1000 destroyer, calling for building only the first two of seven ships originally planned.

    Navy Secretary Donald Winter spent most of July 22 informing members of Congress of the service’s plans to cancel further procurement of the program, which is split between Northrop Grumman and Bath Iron Works. Just this past June, a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report said the DDG-1000 program raised “several potential oversight issues” including the accuracy of Navy cost estimates of the program, cost-effectiveness and affordability.

    Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) member Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), released a statement July 23 detailing her meetings with Winter, Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead and separately, Bath Iron Works President Dugan Shipway.

    Maine-based Bath Iron Works stands to lose a considerable amount from the cancellation. The company’s share of the contract for the DDG-1000 is $1.4 billion, according to Collins’ office.

    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) released his own statement July 23, calling the decision to halt procurement of the DDG-1000 “unwise.” His spokesperson, Melissa Wagoner, said Kennedy is concerned about the cancellation of a long-term shipbuilding plan “without presenting an alternative plan to satisfy their future requirements.”

    The SASC included $2.6 billion in its 2009 Defense Authorization bill for a third DDG-1000, to be built by Bath Iron Works. But the House version of the bill did not include any funding, which the Navy claimed resulted in its re-evaluation and eventual cancellation of the program (Aerospace DAILY, May 9).
    I don't understand why this country continues to shoot itself in the foot; first the RAH-66 program, now this . . . . .

  3. #3
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,348
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    I don't understand why this country continues to shoot itself in the foot; first the RAH-66 program, now this . . . . .
    The Commanche was a vestige of the Cold War. The environment it was built to live in doesn't exist any more. What good is stealth on your helo when the enemy doesn't have radar?

    I think it's a good decision to cancel the Zum and evolve the Burke.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  4. #4
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    13,642
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    The Commanche was a vestige of the Cold War. The environment it was built to live in doesn't exist any more. What good is stealth on your helo when the enemy doesn't have radar?

    I think it's a good decision to cancel the Zum and evolve the Burke.
    Before the Commanche we were working on the LHX program and that was just after the Osprey had moved up the ladder. LHX was cancelled sometime afterwards but the tecnology we advanced brought you the Apache and updated the Chinnok design fairly well.

    IMO Take the two Zums and make them the first rail gun platforms for the future NGFS needs and go from there.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    1,673
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    The Commanche was a vestige of the Cold War. The environment it was built to live in doesn't exist any more. What good is stealth on your helo when the enemy doesn't have radar?
    This is true, but the Comanche had more going for it than just LO; it was smaller than the AH-64 series, so it was easier to transport (particularly in the C-17), and also consumed fewer resources than a -64. It was capable of both light scout mission that the OH-58D is currently fulfilling, and attack missions which are currently tasked to the AH-64A/D.

  6. #6
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,634
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    This is true, but the Comanche had more going for it than just LO; it was smaller than the AH-64 series, so it was easier to transport (particularly in the C-17), and also consumed fewer resources than a -64. It was capable of both light scout mission that the OH-58D is currently fulfilling, and attack missions which are currently tasked to the AH-64A/D.
    The Comanche was not supposed to replace the Apache. It was primarily a scouting platform. Its role is being filled by UAVs.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  7. #7
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    5,284
    Country: United States
    The Navy must be getting in some people who think logically instead of with sci-fi overactive imaginations.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  8. #8
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    13,642
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    The Navy must be getting in some people who think logically instead of with sci-fi overactive imaginations.
    )
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  9. #9
    Patron Michigan_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Feb 07
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    187
    Country: United States
    Agreed!
    "If a man does his best, what else is there?"
    -General George Patton Jr.

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,273
    The Dale Brown syndrome strikes again!

    Only this time it's hit the Navy instead.

  11. #11
    New Member mbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 May 07
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    18
    Country: United States
    So does this mean that all the subassemblies that were supposed to appear in the Zumwalt class will not be developed any longer?

    I agree that they tried to bite off more than they could chew, but the fire fighting system, PVLS, radar, sonar, and computer system would be applicable to other ships, right?

  12. #12
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    13,642
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by mbear View Post
    So does this mean that all the subassemblies that were supposed to appear in the Zumwalt class will not be developed any longer?

    I agree that they tried to bite off more than they could chew, but the fire fighting system, PVLS, radar, sonar, and computer system would be applicable to other ships, right?
    Atleast 2 will see completion from reports. I'm betting test beds for the rail gun technology along with the advanced systems mentioned.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  13. #13
    New Member Razz's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Aug 08
    Location
    Kyunggi,Suwon
    Posts
    10
    Country: South Korea
    This is going to have a negative impact to the CGX-21 program..maybe the radar issues(VSR,SPY-1E)are yet to be resolved?

  14. #14
    Military Professional dundonrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Mar 07
    Posts
    523
    from what I've seen.. they are going to start the Arleigh Burkes back up.. and use technology from the DDG-1000 ships for them..

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    31 Aug 08
    Posts
    39
    Country: United States
    wahoo! they raised the number of DD-1000's back to 3. either way I say the more destroyers the better. whether they're DDG-51's or DD-1000's

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 29 Apr 08,, 19:14
  2. British FM says China must prove itself 'responsible'
    By xrough in forum International Politics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04 Mar 08,, 03:31
  3. Liberals Blame America for Nick Berg's Death
    By Leader in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 20 Aug 07,, 09:30
  4. Articles and links for the Military Professional
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 20 Nov 06,, 15:28
  5. Bangladesh plays the China card
    By Ray in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 17 Oct 05,, 15:14

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts