Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littoral Combat Ships

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

  • JRT, The DDG 1000 program was spread to more than one yard for one reason - politics.
    Last edited by surfgun; 27 Jan 11,, 02:06.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
      JRT, The DDG 1000 program was spread to more than one yard for one reason - politics.
      Yeah...There is always the politics.

      I'm in the Berkshires in western Massachusetts, much nearer to Albany NY than Boston, and not very near any shipyards. So I only know what I see reported, and haven't followed DDG-1000,1001,1002 very closely.

      What I saw reported around the time the Navy was seeking restart on the DDG-51s was that DD(x)/DDG-1000 had run up some big costs in development, and the way they tried to rein that back in was to shift the builds of all three Zumwalts to BIW. The yard that lost their builds on Zumwalt picked up builds on the restarted ABs. The info at the following links support that, but may not reflect the most current situation. I'm not arguing with you, as your info may be more recent than mine. Here is what I found on DDG-1001 just before posting this.

      MICHAEL MONSOOR

      Defense.gov: Contracts for Wednesday, February 17, 2010
      .
      .
      .

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
        Yep, Just a small part of the big team that keeps her going and looking good.;)

        You still stealing cars in the middle of the night?;)

        Been a long time, where have you been hiding?
        I spend my time deflowering women rather than arguing about big shiny weapons online now. I shoot a lot and i'm into photography and writing now too. Just no time left over.

        I'm still in the same business.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bill View Post
          I spend my time deflowering women rather than arguing about big shiny weapons online now. I shoot a lot and i'm into photography and writing now too. Just no time left over.

          I'm still in the same business.

          Good to see you again. Didnt know what you were doing these days but it appears you have been staying busy. Me, trying to keep busy these days myself but never left the board. Good to see you are still here although I didnt recognize you. Hope all is good friend. And umm no worries no lacking in the women department either.;)
          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bill View Post
            I spend my time deflowering women rather than arguing about big shiny weapons online now. I shoot a lot and i'm into photography and writing now too.
            All honorable pursuits. Good to see you back

            In other news, I read on Information Dissemination this AM that yesterday or the day before, while addressing the crowd at USNI/AFCEA West 2011, Bob Work (Under Secretary of the Navy), raised his arms into the air and shouted, "WE DO NOT NEED MORE FRIGATES!"

            There, that ought to get the debate going again.

            Comment


            • I wonder if a 3" gun module might not be one of the things we see in the next couple years. I would put it on the bow, but the mission module slots would work.
              sigpic"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."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                I wonder if a 3" gun module might not be one of the things we see in the next couple years. I would put it on the bow, but the mission module slots would work.
                It would be probably be getting down to an issue of whether and how far it is an intrusive mount... (apart from tactical benefit)
                Linkeden:
                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                  I wonder if a 3" gun module might not be one of the things we see in the next couple years. I would put it on the bow, but the mission module slots would work.
                  Palletize the 76mm Mk 75 used on the OHP FFGs?
                  Interesting idea.

                  Have they developed any advanced ammo for those? It seems that the US Navy and Coast Guard are migrating away from those in new applications, to the 57mm Mk 110 that both classes of LCS already have.

                  I know a lot of effort has gone into developing precision guided mortar munitions. Ground troops like them because they can be used nearer their position, fired from mortars and also dropped from UAVs. Since they are sometimes used against moving ground vehicles, they might also be useful against boghammers and gofasts, and also as initial short range fire support for any amphibious activity.

                  Patria's NEMO is a 120mm auto loading mortar in a stabilized turret for use on light armored vehicles, and they have a navalized version for use on patrol boats. I expect it would not be difficult to palletize, but I don't know if it has an adequately large ready magazine, or if it would need a man in the turret to set fuses and charges, and/or to unload. And I don't know if it can use the more advanced PGMMs.

                  As I recall, I think that the FCS XM1204 NLOS-M mortar system would use PGMMs, and would auto-load/unload from/to an automated ready magazine, but required a man to manually set the fuse and charge.
                  Last edited by JRT; 30 Jan 11,, 01:30. Reason: PGMM not PGGM
                  .
                  .
                  .

                  Comment


                  • The problem with mortars is that they have a comparatively short range compared to cannons, and they have a much longer TOF. They certainly have their advantages, but it's not really an ideal naval weapon in my view.

                    PS: I am not a naval expert, but i did eat drink and sleep for 6 months in a Holiday Inn express 4.2" mortar platoon.

                    Comment


                    • I would think existing mortars are probably the wrong weapon for an LCS (they have been useful on patrol boats in ~81mm), a howitzer might be more useful.
                      Last edited by USSWisconsin; 30 Jan 11,, 20:55.
                      sigpic"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."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                        JRT, The DDG 1000 program was spread to more than one yard for one reason - politics.
                        To your point... The article below mentions that, 'Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding is a partner in the DDG-1000 program, and is slated to construct the superstructure, composite hanger and aft peripheral vertical launch systems for all three Zumwalt destroyers.'



                        DDG-1001 And 1002 Contract Awards Dragging Due To Price, Spin-Off

                        Inside the Navy

                        2/25/2011


                        Spinoff company a concern

                        The Navy has been in daily negotiations with General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works for the past six weeks on the contracts for DDG-1001 and DDG-1002 destroyers, but has so far failed to come to an agreement, according to an analyst with the Heritage Foundation.

                        MacKenzie Eaglen -- also a former employee of Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who represents BIW's congressional district -- said the Navy is struggling to bring the price down below the cost cap enforced after the program's Nunn-McCurdy breach. That breach took place last year after the line was slashed to three hulls.

                        In an official Navy response to ITN queries, spokeswoman Capt. Cate Mueller wrote, "The Navy is continuing to negotiate with the shipbuilders to reach fair and reasonable prices for DDGs 1001 and 1002."

                        The statement points out that long-lead construction on DDG-1001 has already begun, and the ship is at this point 12 percent complete.

                        Northrop Grumman's efforts to spin off its shipyards into a new entity have also thrown sand in the works, according to Eaglen. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding is a partner in the DDG-1000 program, and is slated to construct the superstructure, composite hanger and aft peripheral vertical launch systems for all three Zumwalt destroyers.

                        "The Navy leadership is unsure about the implications of signing contracts with a company that is not going to exist in a year," Eaglen said.

                        Navy officials have said previously that they are in talks with Northrop Grumman and the potential spin-off company, Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., to ensure that construction can move forward responsibly.

                        She added that there seems to be additional stress because of uncertainty surrounding the second DDG-51 slated to be contracted in fiscal year 2011. Because the second hull represents a ramp-up from previous years' construction, it is officially labeled a "new start," and therefore not permitted under the congressional continuing budget resolution now funding the federal government. The House of Representatives approved a defense appropriations bill recently, but it has yet to pass the Senate.

                        Northrop's Ingalls shipyard has received contracts for long-lead-time materials for DDG-113 and 114, and BIW has a long-lead contract for DDG-115. Navy budget justification documents for the fiscal year 2012 request recently sent to Congress show that the service expects to award full construction contracts for both ships funded in FY-11, DDG-114 and 115, in April. The full contract award date for DDG-113 is listed as undetermined.

                        Eaglen said the Navy is moving forward with renewed urgency on DDG-1000, partly because of pressure from Collins and partly because negotiations have already dragged on so long.

                        The official Navy statement says a fixed-price contract award for the rest of DDG-1001 and a contract for DDG-1002 is expected in the second quarter of FY-11, which ends March 31. The Navy is also negotiating with Raytheon and BAE for the ships' weapon systems and expects to have those finalized in the same timeframe.

                        Asked if she could predict when the contracts would be awarded, Eaglen said, "It sounds like the answer from the Navy is basically, 'Any day now.'" -- Cid Standifer
                        .
                        .
                        .

                        Comment


                        • First cracks for Freedom.
                          Wharf Rat's Home - A Shipmate Who Stayed on the Wharf: Lockheed Martin's first LCS cracks, Navy says (San Diego Daily Transcript)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JRT View Post
                            Palletize the 76mm Mk 75 used on the OHP FFGs?
                            Interesting idea.
                            Already exists. It's an OTO, but there isn't much difference dimension-wise. Would just have to modify the frame to fit into a module slot.

                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • LCS 3 is reportedly upgraded to the point that this cracking/leaking "should" not happen.
                              Cracks discovered in inaugural LCS, Freedom - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

                              Comment


                              • How old is that ship?...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X