Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DDG-1000 News

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Canceling the DDG-1000 Destroyer Program Was a Mistake


    Canceling the DDG-1000 Destroyer Program Was a Mistake
    January 2015

    By Ben Freeman



    The U.S. Navy’s DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers are extraordinarily expensive. Since 2009, the cost of the ships has increased 34.4 percent, according to the Congressional Research Service. Each of the three Zumwalt’s being built will cost taxpayers around $3.4 billion. And, that’s on top of the more than $9 billion in research and design funding that has gone into this program.

    Are they worth the price? The Navy didn’t think so in 2009 when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced the program would end with the procurement of just three ships, down from the 32 ships the Navy had initially planned to buy.

    But, now that the first Zumwalt is actually in the water, there’s growing concern that this decision may have been penny wise and pound foolish, as it leaves significant voids in the Navy’s ability to adapt to future threats. Most notably, ending the Zumwalt program in favor of buying upgraded versions of the decades-old Arleigh-Burke DDG-51 destroyers limits the Navy’s capabilities without significantly reducing costs.

    While the DDG-51 is designed to be a traditional destroyer that serves a largely defensive role, the DDG-1000 is an immensely powerful battleship. The epitome of this power is the ship’s two 155 mm guns, which are the largest guns fitted on any post-World War II ship. The blandly named advanced gun system can devastate targets up to 63 nautical miles away, three times as far as the DDG-51’s guns. There are 600 rounds of ammo on the ship, and the guns can keep firing while more ammunition is brought onboard, resulting in what the Navy calls an “infinite magazine.”

    According to the Zumwalt’s commanding officer Capt. James Kirk, “She has got a flight deck almost two times the size of a Burke’s,” that can accommodate significantly more, and bigger, aircraft.

    While its traditional weapons are extraordinary, the Zumwalt’s true power lies in its ability to generate, well, power. When the first-of-class Zumwalt lit-off its power generators late last month it became literally the most powerful destroyer in U.S. navy history, producing 78 megawatts, enough energy to power about 10,000 homes. Conversely, DDG-51s produce just 9 megawatts of power, with only 1.7 megawatts remaining when the ship is at speed, compared to the 58 megawatts a Zumwalt still has available when traveling at 20 knots.

    This extra power gives DDG-1000s the ability to operate electrically powered weapons like the electromagnetic railgun, which uses nothing but energy to launch projectiles at speeds up to Mach 7.5, and has been described by the Office of Naval Research as, “a true warfighter game changer.” The DDG-1000s will also be able to use the Navy’s laser weapon system, which has a demonstrated ability to shoot down aircraft and swarm boats. With it the Navy will be “spending about $1 per shot on a directed-energy source that never runs out and gives us an alternative to firing costly munitions at inexpensive threats,” according to Chief of Naval Research Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder. In contrast, the DDG-51’s surface-to-air missiles cost $165,400 per shot.

    In addition to its power, the Zumwalt can accommodate these next-generation weapons because it has the space for them. Zumwalts are significantly larger than DDG-51s — approximately 100 feet longer, 13 feet wider, and displace over 50 percent more water. They also have plenty of what the Navy refers to as “growth margin,” which allows weight to be added to ships without excessively inhibiting performance. “The 15,000-ton ship has a 10 percent growth margin, equating to some 1,500 tons of potential increase that would enable the ship to host new sensors and weapons as technologies evolve,” according to an article in Naval War College Review.

    Despite this added weight and space, DDG-1000s can operate in shallower, close-to-shore littoral waters compared to the DDG-51s, and their stealthy hull design makes them look like fishing boats to enemy radar. This allows them to travel into areas where the DDG-51s can’t safely go, like the Persian Gulf near Iran or the Yellow Sea near North Korea. They can also “provide the defensive support needed in littoral environments by a lower-cost littoral combat ship (LCS) with no defensive capability,” according to John Young, formerly the Navy’s assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition.

    The problem with using DDG-51s in lieu of DDG-1000s is that they are “ill-suited to providing defensive cover for LCS or helping the Navy conduct operations in a coastal environment,” says Young.

    Thus, it’s not at all clear how LCS will be able to safely operate in littoral waters given that, alone, it’s “not expected to be survivable in high-intensity combat,” according to J. Michael Gilmore, Defense Department director of operational test and evaluation.

    The ability to use extremely inexpensive electric weapons is only the beginning of the DDG-1000s cost-saving advantages over the DDG-51. Unlike DDG-51s, DDG-1000s are equipped with a variety of new technologies that allow the ship to operate with a much smaller crew — roughly half that of the DDG-51s. Over the course of a 35-year service life this personnel difference could save taxpayers $280 million per ship, given that Defense Department estimates DDG-51 personnel cost at approximately $20 million per year/ship, compared to just $12 million for the DDG-1000’s crew, adjusting for inflation.

    While we know that DDG-51s will cost more to operate, there’s less certainty about the purchase price of upgraded DDG-51s. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the upgraded “Flight III” DDG-51 destroyers will cost about $1.9 billion each, but there’s ample evidence from the Government Accountability Office that the price could be significantly higher.

    Young warned more than six years ago that “the cost of a redesigned DDG-51 very likely will be equal to or greater than that of a DDG-1000.” Compound this with the higher operating costs of the DDG-51s, and the decision to procure them at the expense of DDG-1000s isn’t penny wise and pound foolish, it’s just foolish.

    Given all of this, how could the Navy have possibly chosen the DDG-51 Flight III over the DDG-1000? In short: a flawed study.

    The basis for the choice was the Navy’s 2009 Radar/Hull study, which the Government Accountability Office in 2012 explained “may not provide a sufficient analytical basis for a decision of this magnitude,” because it, “does not fully evaluate the capabilities of different shipboard combat systems and ship options under consideration, does not include a thorough trade-off analysis that would compare the relative costs and benefits of different solutions under consideration or provide robust insight into all cost alternatives, and assumes a significantly reduced threat environment from other Navy analyses.”

    A Navy officer intimately familiar with the study told Aviation Week that parts of the study were “hijacked” and that “People who had an agenda kind of drove the study for a solution.”
    Researchers at the University of Tennessee conducted an analysis of Navy destroyers that didn’t succumb to these errors and they found that, “when the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 are compared with respect to threat environment, the DDG-1000 … would be significantly more survivable. Even in smaller numbers, the more survivable vessel presents a more substantial capability throughout the threat envelope.” Similarly, CRS also argues that the DDG-1000, with upgraded radar and ballistic missile defense capability, is an acquisition option Congress may wish to consider.

    All of these comparisons between DDG-51s and DDG-1000s belie the fact that the ships should not be competitors; they serve different, but complementary roles that are both essential for the future of the U.S. Navy. Fortunately, it’s not too late for Congress to act — the DDG-1000 production line is still hot. If we’re serious about having a Navy that can adapt to the threats of tomorrow, then we need to get serious about DDG-1000’s today.

    Ben Freeman, Ph.D., is senior policy adviser in the national security program at Third Way, a centrist think tank. Follow him on Twitter @BenFreemanDC

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
      Canceling the DDG-1000 Destroyer Program Was a Mistake


      Canceling the DDG-1000 Destroyer Program Was a Mistake
      January 2015

      By Ben Freeman



      The U.S. Navy’s DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers are extraordinarily expensive. Since 2009, the cost of the ships has increased 34.4 percent, according to the Congressional Research Service. Each of the three Zumwalt’s being built will cost taxpayers around $3.4 billion. And, that’s on top of the more than $9 billion in research and design funding that has gone into this program.

      Are they worth the price? The Navy didn’t think so in 2009 when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced the program would end with the procurement of just three ships, down from the 32 ships the Navy had initially planned to buy.

      But, now that the first Zumwalt is actually in the water, there’s growing concern that this decision may have been penny wise and pound foolish, as it leaves significant voids in the Navy’s ability to adapt to future threats. Most notably, ending the Zumwalt program in favor of buying upgraded versions of the decades-old Arleigh-Burke DDG-51 destroyers limits the Navy’s capabilities without significantly reducing costs.

      While the DDG-51 is designed to be a traditional destroyer that serves a largely defensive role, the DDG-1000 is an immensely powerful battleship. The epitome of this power is the ship’s two 155 mm guns, which are the largest guns fitted on any post-World War II ship. The blandly named advanced gun system can devastate targets up to 63 nautical miles away, three times as far as the DDG-51’s guns. There are 600 rounds of ammo on the ship, and the guns can keep firing while more ammunition is brought onboard, resulting in what the Navy calls an “infinite magazine.”

      According to the Zumwalt’s commanding officer Capt. James Kirk, “She has got a flight deck almost two times the size of a Burke’s,” that can accommodate significantly more, and bigger, aircraft.

      While its traditional weapons are extraordinary, the Zumwalt’s true power lies in its ability to generate, well, power. When the first-of-class Zumwalt lit-off its power generators late last month it became literally the most powerful destroyer in U.S. navy history, producing 78 megawatts, enough energy to power about 10,000 homes. Conversely, DDG-51s produce just 9 megawatts of power, with only 1.7 megawatts remaining when the ship is at speed, compared to the 58 megawatts a Zumwalt still has available when traveling at 20 knots.

      This extra power gives DDG-1000s the ability to operate electrically powered weapons like the electromagnetic railgun, which uses nothing but energy to launch projectiles at speeds up to Mach 7.5, and has been described by the Office of Naval Research as, “a true warfighter game changer.” The DDG-1000s will also be able to use the Navy’s laser weapon system, which has a demonstrated ability to shoot down aircraft and swarm boats. With it the Navy will be “spending about $1 per shot on a directed-energy source that never runs out and gives us an alternative to firing costly munitions at inexpensive threats,” according to Chief of Naval Research Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder. In contrast, the DDG-51’s surface-to-air missiles cost $165,400 per shot.

      In addition to its power, the Zumwalt can accommodate these next-generation weapons because it has the space for them. Zumwalts are significantly larger than DDG-51s — approximately 100 feet longer, 13 feet wider, and displace over 50 percent more water. They also have plenty of what the Navy refers to as “growth margin,” which allows weight to be added to ships without excessively inhibiting performance. “The 15,000-ton ship has a 10 percent growth margin, equating to some 1,500 tons of potential increase that would enable the ship to host new sensors and weapons as technologies evolve,” according to an article in Naval War College Review.

      Despite this added weight and space, DDG-1000s can operate in shallower, close-to-shore littoral waters compared to the DDG-51s, and their stealthy hull design makes them look like fishing boats to enemy radar. This allows them to travel into areas where the DDG-51s can’t safely go, like the Persian Gulf near Iran or the Yellow Sea near North Korea. They can also “provide the defensive support needed in littoral environments by a lower-cost littoral combat ship (LCS) with no defensive capability,” according to John Young, formerly the Navy’s assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition.

      The problem with using DDG-51s in lieu of DDG-1000s is that they are “ill-suited to providing defensive cover for LCS or helping the Navy conduct operations in a coastal environment,” says Young.

      Thus, it’s not at all clear how LCS will be able to safely operate in littoral waters given that, alone, it’s “not expected to be survivable in high-intensity combat,” according to J. Michael Gilmore, Defense Department director of operational test and evaluation.

      The ability to use extremely inexpensive electric weapons is only the beginning of the DDG-1000s cost-saving advantages over the DDG-51. Unlike DDG-51s, DDG-1000s are equipped with a variety of new technologies that allow the ship to operate with a much smaller crew — roughly half that of the DDG-51s. Over the course of a 35-year service life this personnel difference could save taxpayers $280 million per ship, given that Defense Department estimates DDG-51 personnel cost at approximately $20 million per year/ship, compared to just $12 million for the DDG-1000’s crew, adjusting for inflation.

      While we know that DDG-51s will cost more to operate, there’s less certainty about the purchase price of upgraded DDG-51s. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the upgraded “Flight III” DDG-51 destroyers will cost about $1.9 billion each, but there’s ample evidence from the Government Accountability Office that the price could be significantly higher.

      Young warned more than six years ago that “the cost of a redesigned DDG-51 very likely will be equal to or greater than that of a DDG-1000.” Compound this with the higher operating costs of the DDG-51s, and the decision to procure them at the expense of DDG-1000s isn’t penny wise and pound foolish, it’s just foolish.

      Given all of this, how could the Navy have possibly chosen the DDG-51 Flight III over the DDG-1000? In short: a flawed study.

      The basis for the choice was the Navy’s 2009 Radar/Hull study, which the Government Accountability Office in 2012 explained “may not provide a sufficient analytical basis for a decision of this magnitude,” because it, “does not fully evaluate the capabilities of different shipboard combat systems and ship options under consideration, does not include a thorough trade-off analysis that would compare the relative costs and benefits of different solutions under consideration or provide robust insight into all cost alternatives, and assumes a significantly reduced threat environment from other Navy analyses.”

      A Navy officer intimately familiar with the study told Aviation Week that parts of the study were “hijacked” and that “People who had an agenda kind of drove the study for a solution.”
      Researchers at the University of Tennessee conducted an analysis of Navy destroyers that didn’t succumb to these errors and they found that, “when the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 are compared with respect to threat environment, the DDG-1000 … would be significantly more survivable. Even in smaller numbers, the more survivable vessel presents a more substantial capability throughout the threat envelope.” Similarly, CRS also argues that the DDG-1000, with upgraded radar and ballistic missile defense capability, is an acquisition option Congress may wish to consider.

      All of these comparisons between DDG-51s and DDG-1000s belie the fact that the ships should not be competitors; they serve different, but complementary roles that are both essential for the future of the U.S. Navy. Fortunately, it’s not too late for Congress to act — the DDG-1000 production line is still hot. If we’re serious about having a Navy that can adapt to the threats of tomorrow, then we need to get serious about DDG-1000’s today.

      Ben Freeman, Ph.D., is senior policy adviser in the national security program at Third Way, a centrist think tank. Follow him on Twitter @BenFreemanDC
      HUH??? WTF is Dr Freeman talking about. The generators on board an Arleigh Burke don't provide propulsion at all for the ship, that's done by the main LM-2500's.. the Generators (there are 3 of them) can provide the ship the same amount of electricity while tied to a pier or when she's doing 30+ knots..

      Originally, the AN/SPY-3 active electronically scanned array primarily X-band radar was to be married with Lockheed Martin's AN/SPY-4 S-band volume search radar. Raytheon’s X-band, active-array SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) offers superior medium to high altitude performance over other radar bands, and its pencil beams give it an excellent ability to focus in on targets. SPY-3 will be the primary radar used for missile engagements.[63] A 2005 report by Congress' investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), questioned that the technology leap for the Dual Band Radar would be too much.

      Now lets talk weapons.. an Arleigh Burke has 96 VLS cells, the Zumwalt has 80... and again, as designed the Zumwalt won't carry SAM missiles except for the short range ESSM..

      the Zumwalts are designed for land attack, the Burkes are overall a better weapons delivery platform, since they can do everything the Zumwalt can, except fire her guns 70+ miles (and if they had finished developing ERGM, she would have had a 60 mile range gun)
      Last edited by dundonrl; 23 Dec 14,, 00:36.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by dundonrl View Post
        HUH??? WTF is Dr Freeman talking about. The generators on board an Arleigh Burke don't provide propulsion at all for the ship, that's done by the main LM-2500's.. the Generators (there are 3 of them) can provide the ship the same amount of electricity while tied to a pier or when she's doing 30+ knots..

        Originally, the AN/SPY-3 active electronically scanned array primarily X-band radar was to be married with Lockheed Martin's AN/SPY-4 S-band volume search radar. Raytheon’s X-band, active-array SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) offers superior medium to high altitude performance over other radar bands, and its pencil beams give it an excellent ability to focus in on targets. SPY-3 will be the primary radar used for missile engagements.[63] A 2005 report by Congress' investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), questioned that the technology leap for the Dual Band Radar would be too much.

        Now lets talk weapons.. an Arleigh Burke has 96 VLS cells, the Zumwalt has 80... and again, as designed the Zumwalt won't carry SAM missiles except for the short range ESSM..

        the Zumwalts are designed for land attack, the Burkes are overall a better weapons delivery platform, since they can do everything the Zumwalt can, except fire her guns 70+ miles (and if they had finished developing ERGM, she would have had a 60 mile range gun)
        Dundonrl,

        When you say that the Burkes are better 'weapons delivery platforms' do you actually just mean 'weapons platform'? Wouldn't the Zumwalt's stealth, bigger CIC suite etc make it the better 'weapons delivery platform' even though it's not as well armed as the Burkes?

        Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about.

        Comment


        • As the "DDG" -1000's are as delivered, they will be just a shadow of what these ships most likely will evolve into (with additional sensors and weapons) during their lifespans. As of now the SSGN's are as close as we have to what a BB used to be, but they are limited to the blue water. These "DDG's" will act like BB's in the green water.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
            Dundonrl,

            When you say that the Burkes are better 'weapons delivery platforms' do you actually just mean 'weapons platform'? Wouldn't the Zumwalt's stealth, bigger CIC suite etc make it the better 'weapons delivery platform' even though it's not as well armed as the Burkes?

            Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about.
            as built, the Zumwalts are optimized for ONE purpose, land attack.. they don't have the original radar as designed, they can either do volume search or horizon search, not both.. (sea skimming ASCM's are a warships worst enemy, since the modern Russian missiles (such as the SS-N-17 Sizzler) are doing mach 3+ at 15 ft off the water in a "S" pattern and you have just a few seconds to detect, lock on and engage these missiles before they hit your ship) IF the Zumwalts had the original radar setup (that the Ford CVN is getting) yes they would be very capable.. but they don't.. also, the Burkes (96 cells) have more missile cells than the Zumwalts (80 cells) do. (and the Ticonderoga's even more 128 cells)

            Comment


            • still, 58 megawatts is a lot of energy one can use for running lasers and railguns. the zumwalts looked expensive when those things sounded like fiction, but now that it actually looks like they will be deployed over within the next decade....

              Comment


              • Not to mention that the USN is looking at the rail gun as an anti ballistic missile system and the laser as future CWIS option.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by dundonrl View Post
                  ...Zumwalts are designed for land attack, the Burkes are overall a better weapons delivery platform, since they can do everything the Zumwalt can, except fire her guns 70+ miles (and if they had finished developing ERGM, she would have had a 60 mile range gun)
                  I would soon expect to see some public release of info related to development and testing of Raytheon's Excalibur N5.

                  Raytheon: Bulletproof Electronics Put the Punch in Guided Artillery Shell

                  Raytheon chose Euronaval 2014 to showcase for the 1st time its Excalibur N5 naval projectile

                  Raytheon developing a five-inch navy projectile - IHS Jane's 360
                  Last edited by JRT; 11 Jan 15,, 07:47.
                  .
                  .
                  .

                  Comment


                  • WASHINGTON, D.C. – Engineering studies to include an electromagnetic railgun on a Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000) have started at Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA’s head said Thursday.

                    The work will do the math to determine if the Zumwalt-class will have the space, power and cooling to field a railgun – likely replacing one of the two 155mm BAE Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) ahead of the ship’s deck house, Vice Adm. William Hilarides told USNI News following remarks at the Office of Naval Research Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo.

                    “We have begun real studies – as opposed to just a bunch of guys sitting around – real engineering studies are being done to make sure it’s possible,” Vice Adm. William Hilarides said following remarks at

                    The likely candidate for the weapon would be the third planned Zumwalt, Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) currently under construction at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) with an expected delivery date of 2018.

                    He said the first two ships – Zumwalt (DDG-1000) and Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) – would be less likely to field the capability initially due to the schedule of testing with the new class.

                    “The team is working diligently now but it would not happen until after delivery of the ships – probably the third ship is where we’d have it,” Hilarides said.
                    “That would certainly be my recommendation.”

                    The Navy is in early stages of testing and fielding a railgun – which forgoes the gunpowder in the shells of conventional naval guns and instead uses high powered electromagnetic pulses along a set of rails to shoot a projectile at super sonic speeds.

                    The Navy plans to test a BAE Systems prototype railgun onboard the Joint High Speed Vessel USNS Millinocket (JHSV- 3) next year.

                    Last year, then Navy director of surface warfare now commander of U.S. Surface Forces Command, Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden told USNI News the Zumwalts would be likely used as test beds for emerging technologies like railguns and directed energy weapons the Navy wants for its next large surface combatant due to the ship’s size an ability to generate power.

                    The integrated power system (IPS) on the 16,000-ton ships– powered by two massive Rolls Royce MT-30 gas turbines and two smaller Rolls-Royce RR450– allow the ships to route and generate 80 mega-watt power – much more electrical power than the current crop of U.S. destroyers and cruisers.

                    On Wednesday, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said a Zumwalt would likely be the first ship to get the capability.

                    The inclusion of the railgun does mean a capabilities trade for the ship.

                    “We’ll go do the studies and I suspect they’ll say ‘yes,’ but it’s going to come at a cost of some of the capabilities on this ship – of course,” Hilarides said.
                    “It’s physics. Without taking something off, you’re not putting on a many ton system, so a gun would be a logical thing to take off and put the railgun in its place.”

                    The three ship Zumwalt-class were – in part – originally designed to address a gap in naval surface fire support with the AGS firing the Long-Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) at a range of up to 75 nautical miles.

                    Each ship is designed to field two AGS.

                    Navy Considering Railgun for Third Zumwalt Destroyer - USNI News

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                      Not to mention that the USN is looking at the rail gun as an anti ballistic missile system and the laser as future CWIS option.
                      One of the reasons the Navy is now looking at rail guns for ballistic missile defense is that the projectiles can now be guided, which.... utterly blows my mind.

                      If they get that working it may change the ballistic missile defense equation completely.

                      Comment


                      • I'm just happy that we will NOT have a carrier named LBJ.
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                          I'm just happy that we will NOT have a carrier named LBJ.
                          I heard that, but it's too bad we have to have ANYTHING named for either he, or Jimmy Carter, and God forbid they name one for the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, although you know they will. I wouldn't mind if they had to give up a "W" in order not to make that happen, as I have no love for either party these days, but some gestures, cannot be seen as anything other than a slap in the face, and Obama has slapped the military so many times I've lost count.

                          The most glaring of these "feel good gestures" in my book is naming an LCS after a dips*h*i*t Congresswoman who simply had the misfortune of standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, when some truly certifiable whack job opened fire; no more, no less. Why in the name of God is there a USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10)? What has she done, other than have her brains turned to a combination of scrambled eggs and Swiss cheese to warrant such an honor? She never served in the military in any capacity, although her husband, a now retired Navy Captain and shuttle astronaut, certainly did, but she did not.

                          Surface combatants in the DE through CG range are supposed to be named for US Navy and Marine Corps "heroes." In the past, that has included people who have made significant contributions to the military in general, but the Navy/Marine Corps in particular. For example, there was a USS Parsons (DD 949), due in part to the fact that shortly after take off, Navy Captain William S. "Deke" Parsons climbed into the bomb bay of Enola Gay and armed "Little Boy" for dropping on Hiroshima. I say "in part" because as important as Deke Parsons was to the design of the fusing systems used by the Manhattan Project, he had been the leader of what I consider a much more important project that without question was responsible for saving thousands of lives among sailors and Marines, but equally without question sent many sons of Nippon to meet their honorably departed ancestors; the Mark 32 Variable Time (VT) fuse, which was a misnomer, as it was actually a radar proximity fuse, designed to detonate the charge in a 5"/127mm/38 caliber when it receive a radar return signal from the ship's fire control radar reflecting off of the target. This turned the 5"/38 from a real "hit or miss" weapon, to one that was mostly "hit" and became one of the most successful AAW weapons in the USN inventory.

                          Parsons rose to the rank of Rear Admiral without ever having had command at sea; a virtual impossibility for a surface line officer, and then died far too young at 52 of a heart attack, doing what he loved best; tinkering in his lab. Regardless, I think everyone would agree that naming a ship after him was certainly warranted. However, more and more these days, heroism in the face of the enemy is the bar that must be overcome in order to warrant that honor. Did Gabrielle Giffords do anything that even remotely resembles the actions of Deke Parsons, or any of those young Marines who have thrown themselves on a grenade in actual combat? Well, I think we all know the answer to that.

                          Other than surviving that horrifying attack, what did she do that was in any way "heroic?" More to the point, some Marine Corps Corporal, or US Navy Corpsman serving as a field medic with the Corps, and who has been "awarded," invariably posthumously, anywhere from a Silver Star to the MOH for valorous actions under fire WILL NOT HAVE THE HONOR OF HAVING A SHIP NAMED FOR HIM AND THE ACTIONS THAT EARNED THAT AWARD, because the fleet is shrinking, not expanding, and the opportunities just aren't going to be there in the future. I could go on, but I'm beating my head against the wall. It's wrong, just wrong, and nothing anyone in the Obama camp can say to rationally justify it can come close.

                          Comment


                          • DDG-1000 Class More Than A Year Late

                            Delivery of General Dynamics Corp.’s first two electric-powered Zumwalt-class destroyers for the U.S. Navy is running more than a year late, in part for lack of enough electricians, according to the service.

                            Work at the contractor’s Bath Iron Works unit in Maine has fallen behind “due to the complexity of the first-ever all-electric ship and the particular demand it has created for skilled electricians shipyard-wide,” Commander Thurraya Kent, a Navy spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.

                            The Navy and Bath Iron Works now estimate that delivery of the first of three vessels in the $22 billion program, which had been planned for September 2014, will be in November. The initial ship, designated DDG-1000 and named after the late Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, won’t be declared ready for initial combat until September 2018, about two years later than previously projected, according to Navy documents.
                            The latest delay, which hadn’t been disclosed until now, may add to congressional scrutiny of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans. The service already has drawn criticism over the increased cost of the first Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, the most expensive warship ever built, and the vulnerability in combat of the Littoral Combat Ship that’s intended for operations in shallow coastal waters.

                            The Senate Armed Services Committee, under Republican Chairman John McCain of Arizona, a former naval aviator, may ask Navy officials about the delay during a hearing Tuesday on the service’s budget.

                            Electric Power
                            The Zumwalt destroyer is designed as a multimission land-attack vessel that will use electricity generated by gas turbines to power all of its systems, including weapons, according to a Navy fact sheet.

                            Delivery of the second vessel in the class, designated DDG-1001 and named after the late Navy SEAL and Medal of Honor recipient Michael Monsoor, has been pushed to November 2016 from this December, according to Kent. The third is still on schedule for a November 2018 delivery, she said.

                            The service will continue to work with Bath “to manage risk and seek opportunities for improved performance,” Kent said.
                            Matt Wickenheiser, a spokesman for the Bath unit of Falls Church, Virginia-based General Dynamics, said in an e-mail that his company and other contractors on the destroyer “continue to work hard on test and activation of the lead ship, as well as construction on the two follow-on ships.” Among the contractors is Waltham, Massachusetts-based Raytheon Co., which is providing the vessel’s combat systems.
                            Kent said Bath encountered production issues “completing installation, integration and testing of this highly unique, leading-edge technology.”

                            BAE’s Guns
                            The new destroyer’s Advanced Gun System from London-based BAE Systems Plc has two 155mm guns capable of firing “precision projectiles” 63 nautical miles (72.5 miles) inland. It’s to carry a crew of 142, down from about 300 on the Navy’s Aegis destroyers and cruisers.

                            The vessel is larger than any Navy destroyer or cruiser since the nuclear-powered USS Long Beach bought in 1957, according to the Congressional Research Service.

                            The $22 billion estimated cost includes development of what originally was intended to be a 10-ship program. The total procurement cost of the three ships total is an estimated $12.9 billion, or about $4.3 billion per ship. Link
                            ____

                            This of course is a surprise to absolutely nobody who knows anything about warship construction. But hey, it's Bloomberg.
                            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                            Comment


                            • Well Bath, may have dashed their chances of any follow on orders!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                                Well Bath, may have dashed their chances of any follow on orders!
                                Again teething issues just as usual with any big cutting edge technology project.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X