Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 347

Thread: DDG-1000 News

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    1,672
    The deckhouse has been mounted.

    Navy.mil - View Image

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    1,672

  3. #18
    Regular
    Join Date
    14 Oct 10
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by YellowFever View Post
    I'm lead to believe that only 3 will be built from the original 33 planned.

    Putting aside how good this platform will be, I have to ask, is it worth it to build only 3 if that's the final number?

    If you figure in the cost of R&D and everything else, each copy will cost appx. 6 to 7 billion!
    Nobody in his right mind would believe that only 3 would be built.. It will be far more ! its ridiculous that a destroyer costs as much as Nimitz Class Carrier including 70 Super Hornets on the deck

  4. #19
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,295
    Quote Originally Posted by merlin2 View Post
    Nobody in his right mind would believe that only 3 would be built.. It will be far more ! its ridiculous that a destroyer costs as much as Nimitz Class Carrier including 70 Super Hornets on the deck
    Ridiculous or not (and it truly is ridiculous), only 3 are being built.

    There are some small advantages to this (not enough to justify $6-7 billion a pop though).
    For one thing, this tumblehome wave-piercing design looks like a train...er, ship wreck waiting to happen.
    So only three ships built to this screwy design vice 32...I see that as a good thing.

    In addition, the massive amount of R&D can be leveraged for a future design.
    Last edited by TopHatter; 31 Dec 12, at 15:53.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  5. #20
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    it brings to mind the Seawolf class SSN, perhaps we'll see a Virginia like follow on.
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  6. #21
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,295
    Quote Originally Posted by USSWisconsin View Post
    it brings to mind the Seawolf class SSN, perhaps we'll see a Virginia like follow on.
    Yeah I was thinking the same thing...lots of Seawolf technology went into the Virginias.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  7. #22
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Ridiculous or not (and it truly is ridiculous), only 3 are being built.

    There are some small advantages to this (not enough to justify $6-7 billion a pop though).
    For one thing, this tumblehome wave-piercing design looks like a train...er, ship wreck waiting to happen.
    So only three ships built to this screwy design vice 32...I see that as a good thing.

    In addition, the massive amount of R&D can be leveraged for a future design.
    I tend to dislike the tumblehome design simple because it is new and looks different, is there a more rational/technical reason for your concern TopHatter?

  8. #23
    Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Ridiculous or not (and it truly is ridiculous), only 3 are being built.

    There are some small advantages to this (not enough to justify $6-7 billion a pop though).
    For one thing, this tumblehome wave-piercing design looks like a train...er, ship wreck waiting to happen.
    So only three ships built to this screwy design vice 32...I see that as a good thing.

    In addition, the massive amount of R&D can be leveraged for a future design.
    First in class Zumwalt is supposedly coming in around $3B to build, and third in class LBJ is supposedly coming in under $2.5B and they are working at getting that down nearer $2B to attract follow-on orders. I suspect they could probably get another 5 ships for $10B-$12B if ordered in the near term in a fixed price multi-year buy, but Congress won't likely find budget for any additional Zumwalts.

    If you use the high number and call it $3B each, or $9B to build all three of the Zumwalt class ships that have been ordered, which includes some development costs, I'd be very skeptical that there was anything near the $9B-$12B in earlier preliminary design development to get you to the as-yet unsubstantiated $18B-$21B totals. I'd be curious as to what costs are being rolled in to inflate the total to $21B.
    .
    .
    .

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,980
    Well, at more than 14.5ktons, and with 2 heavy guns, that's more of a cruiser than a destroyer, tbh...

  10. #25
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,295
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    I tend to dislike the tumblehome design simple because it is new and looks different, is there a more rational/technical reason for your concern TopHatter?
    Not really, just a sense that this will be another LCS-style fiasco.
    Somebody had a "brilliant" idea and somehow it managed to make it all the way into production...only to figure out that it's not such a great idea after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by JRT View Post
    I'd be curious as to what costs are being rolled in to inflate the total to $21B.
    R&D and the utter lack of economy of scale, I would imagine. Same thing that doomed the B-2 Spirit to cost a couple billion a pop
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  11. #26
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,896
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    I tend to dislike the tumblehome design simple because it is new and looks different, is there a more rational/technical reason for your concern TopHatter?

    Its not a new design. Its a old French one.

    That we once used.

    USS Brooklyn as an example

    Attachment 31408
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 01 Jan 13, at 18:03.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  12. #27
    In Memoriam/Battleship Enthusiast Defense Professional USSWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Dec 08
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,434
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    I tend to dislike the tumblehome design simple because it is new and looks different, is there a more rational/technical reason for your concern TopHatter?
    Tumblehome has been around since the Age of Oars. The battle of Tsushima in 1905 was often cited as the end of its acceptance in warship design. The Russian predreadnaughts capsized due to battledamage that a ship without tumblehome might have survived without capsizing. The advantage of sloped tumblehome armor faded as gunnery ranges increased and a typical heavy projectile's angle of impact increased to negate the slope of the tumblehome sides. When battle damage was not considered, the tumblehome had some advantages - even in steel warships.

    The nature of warships has changed so much since these times, that the benifits of tumblehome might have changed again - the stealth advantages are significant, and seakeeping could turn out to be a non-issue. The concern over battle damage is not so insignificant - though only a few ships have recieved any of that in the past 50 years.

    Tumblehome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Tumblehome was common on wooden warships for centuries. In the era of oared combat ships it was quite common, placing the oar ports as far abeam as possible. This also made it more difficult to board by force, as the ships would come to contact at their widest points, with the decks some distance apart. The narrowing of the hull above this point made the boat more stable by lowering the weight above the waterline, which is one of the reasons it remained common during the age of cannon-armed ships. In addition, the sloping sides of a tumblehome ship increased the effective thickness of the hull versus flat horizontal trajectory gunfire (a straight line through faced more material to penetrate) and also increased the likelihood of a shell striking the hull being deflected—much the same reasons that later tank armor was sloped.
    Attachment 31409
    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 01 Jan 13, at 20:24.
    "If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor blidgepump's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jul 09
    Posts
    2,669

    Dig that crazy anchor chain.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Its not a new design. Its a old French one.

    That we once used.

    USS Brooklyn as an example

    Attachment 31408
    Looking at that anchor chain reminds me of my Grandfathers pocket watch chain....

  14. #29
    Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    741

    A steel deckhouse for DDG-1002 ... maybe?




    U.S. Navy Seeks Alternate Deckhouse For DDG-1002

    By Michael Fabey
    Source: Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

    The U.S. Navy is looking at building an alternative deckhouse for DDG-1002, the final proposed Zumwalt-class destroyer.

    The current Zumwalt deckhouse is uniquely designed and constructed of composite materials at a special facility owned and operated by Ingalls Shipbuilding, a Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) unit.

    Indeed, the special deckhouse has been one of the main selling points for the Zumwalt, with its specially designed composite construction that the Navy has touted as cutting down on weight and bolstering the ship’s stealth.

    Weighing in at 900 tons and bigger than half a football field, the deckhouse packs the ship’s bridge, radars, antennas and intake/exhaust systems into a structure designed to provide a significantly smaller radar cross-section than any other ship in today’s fleet.

    But in a Jan. 3 solicitation, Naval Sea Systems Command (Navsea) says it “has a potential requirement for design and construction of a steel deckhouse and hangar superstructure, and aft peripheral vertical launching system (PVLS) modules for DDG-1002. This requirement will be solicited without full and open competition … from the only two sources in the Navy’s destroyer shipbuilding industrial base: Bath Iron Works (BIW) … and Ingalls Shipbuilding.”

    HII officials declined to discuss the solicitation specifically, but they note that it comes just as the Navy and Ingalls have begun negotiations on building the ship’s deckhouse.

    The Navy solicitation says, “This limited competitive procurement is an alternative to construction of composite deckhouse, composite hangar and aft PVLS for DDG-1002 by Ingalls … in the event a contract is not awarded non-competitively to Ingalls.”

    Navsea spokesman Christopher Johnson says, “The notice was published as part of a risk-reduction strategy to provide the DDG-1002 composite deckhouse, composite hangar and steel aft peripheral vertical launching system to support the ship construction schedule.

    BIW and HII will be given the opportunity to compete in a limited competition for the production of the components should the Navy and HII be unable to reach an affordable, fair and reasonable price for the DDG-1002 composite and steel components. Deckhouse construction material has no impact on the stealth characteristics of the ship.

    Ingalls is building the composite deckhouse and hangar for the DDG-1000 class at the company’s Composite Center of Excellence in Gulfport, Miss.

    Made almost exclusively using cored composite construction processes, the deckhouse and hangar take full advantage of the properties of carbon fiber materials and balsa wood cores.

    When cured, the composite structure is as strong as steel but requires little maintenance and is very lightweight.

    These attributes reduce maintenance costs over the lifespan of the ship due to its corrosion resistance in the marine environment and allow for improved hull stability, more payload and increased ship speeds, the company contends. The Gulfport facility also builds composite masts for the Navy’s LPD-17 San Antonio class of amphibious ships.

    .

    19--Construction of Deckhouse, Hangar and Aft Peripheral Vertical Launching System Modules for DDG 1002

    Solicitation Number: N0002413R2318
    Agency: Department of the Navy
    Office: Naval Sea Systems Command
    Location: NAVSEA HQ

    Solicitation Number: N0002413R2318 Notice Type: Presolicitation
    Synopsis:
    Added: Jan 03, 2013 12:24 pm
    The Naval Sea Systems Command has a potential requirement for design and construction of a steel Deckhouse and Hangar Superstructure, and Aft Peripheral Vertical Launching System Modules for DDG 1002. This requirement will be solicited without full and open competition pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(3) from the only two sources in the Navy’s destroyer shipbuilding industrial base: Bath Iron Works, Inc., 700 Washington Street, Bath, ME 04530, and Ingalls Shipbuilding (a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc.), 1000 Access Road, Pascagoula, MS 39568. This limited competitive procurement is an alternative to construction of composite deckhouse, composite hangar and Aft PVLS for DDG 1002 by Ingalls, which was previously synopsized, in the event a contract is not awarded non-competitively to Ingalls.

    This synopsis is being posted to both the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) page located at https://www.fbo.gov and the Navy Electronic Commerce Online (NECO) site located at https://www.neco.navy.mil. While it is understood that FBO is the single point of entry for the posting of synopsis and solicitations to the Internet, NECO is the alternate in case FBO is unavailable. Please feel free to use either site to access information posted by the Naval Sea Systems Command.

    Contracting Office Address:
    N00024 Naval Sea Systems Command, DC 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue S.E. Washington Navy Yard, DC

    Point of Contact(s):
    Lauren C. Ayers (202) 781-4390

    .
    .
    .
    .

  15. #30
    Regular
    Join Date
    18 Oct 07
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by JRT View Post

    I can't imagine the Navy really wants a steel deckhouse. It looks like the Navy is trying to coerce Ingalls into offering a lower price.
    I want what I do not have.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. DDG-1000's stealth capability
    By cr9527 in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 25 Apr 11,, 16:21
  2. Zumwalt class DDG / DDG 1000
    By xinhui in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09 Apr 09,, 00:17
  3. Post number 1000
    By Repatriated Canuck in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04 Jun 08,, 01:04
  4. UK to cut 1000 Basra troops
    By Ironduke in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03 Oct 07,, 02:43

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
  •