the army has MLRS launcher they are cheap, put them on ships.

Posted by: jlsmithdowntown at August 8, 2008 04:34 PM

Just a couple of corrections.

1. BB's propulsion plant is 600 psi not 1200.

2. There are plenty of MM's/BT's currently operating steam plants - 600psi - the LHALHP/LH?? classes are examples.

3. The MM rate includes a lot of BT's that were
assimulated when they combined the rates.

4. Any Nuke plant after of the reactor is a reqular (well almost) conventional steam plant.

5. The engineering plants for the Battleships and all gun Cruisers were very labor intensive.

6. The newer heavy cruisers had an automatic 8" gun system. Bet they still work.

History lesson - WW1 and 2 the Brits built a ship with one ( only one) large gun , 11' or 14' I think. They were called monitors.

All the BS about China , etc. is somewhat on the mark - read Mahon and the influence of sea power.

WE ARE AN ISLAND NATION - Most of WHAT we use come via the sea lanes. Oil the biggie.

The first real warships of our Navy were heavy frigates 44 plus guns , and were considered by the receiving end of their guns stripped down 74's. USS Constitution everybody.

Of course we have had many real ____ ships since then - fairly FF Knox Class , The one screw Perry's are two classe that were build on the cheap. They , like all USN Ships , went in harms way and did their job but think what a better job they could have done with two screws and in the case of the Perry's a real gun instead of the pop gun amidships.

Enough of the nuke debate - we as a country and a Navy have to stop thinking about just the cost of the ship's and return to the original concept of Old Ironsides and company - the fastest , best build , heavly armed, ships that money could buy.

And they were they as now manned by the best sailors in the world. But remember those frigated were a compromise - just like any warship design -
Idea put the BB's back in commission and instead of all the mock training at boot camp - send recruits to sea for advanced traning. Holly Stoning deck - chip and Painting , Mess Cooking - even working in their rates - oh what an idea.

Also one editorial comment - BOATS by definition are, except in the case of submarines ( by tradition) are thinks carried on ships. I guess the new Navy walks on floors, paints walls and ceilings, and gose up stairs to the bridge and down stairs to the holes (engine rooms for the non-snipes.

To be a sailor - yea I know new generation - you have to think like a sailor - talk like a saior - and look and walk like a sailor.

The United States Navy is all about FAST SHIPS GOING IN HARMS WAY and comming back.

MMCS ken Badfoian USN Ret.

Posted by: ken Badoian at July 31, 2008 06:19 AM

"the DDG 1000 has been a great incubator for new naval technologies. I'm in favor of using programs such as this to develop new gear for the next generation of hardware -- I see the same thing happening with the FCS program and I'm all for it. And it's refreshing when services make a tactical retreat on some programs and admit that they'll be used essentially as R&D labs."

"I believe that our Navy and our nation are better served by building a large number of DDG 51s and then proceeding with a timely and orderly plan to begin construction of the next generation of nuclear powered cruisers. I look forward to working with Admiral Roughead and Secretary Winter during the return to DDG 51 production."

My God,we are soooooo f**kin' screwed!!!!!!!

Posted by: Roy Smith at July 27, 2008 09:51 PM

G,

Posted by: pfcem at July 25, 2008 12:09 AM DDG 1000 Could Take Fatal Hit

The latest that I have heard is that the USN plans to replace the 22 remaining Ticonderogas with 14 CG(X) "escort cruisers" (essentially 14,000 ton DDG-1000 hull fitted for fleet escort/defense rather than littoral/NSFS) with the 1st to be ordered in FY2011 and 5 CGN(X) "BMD cruisers" (20,000-25,000 nuclear-powered ships with a more conventional flared bow) - the large size of the CGN(X) dictated mostly by the proposed 40" diameter & 39' long Northrop Grumman Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) which requires a launch tube the size of 6 Mk-41 cells.

Posted by: pfcem at July 27, 2008 03:23 PM

The biggest problem that we have right now is that we have no effective ship-to-shore guns.The DDG 1000 was supposed to address the ship-to-shore deficit that existed when we retired the Iowa Battleships.I wonder how much of a difference ship-to-shore guns would have made in Mogadishu back in the early 90's.Mogadishu could ask Beirut about the guns of the Iowa Class Battleship.Of course big guns,matched with competent battle doctrine & the will [for the government] to fight would go a long way.We'll never know if Iowa Battleships would have made any difference in Mogadishu because we never had any to find out.I think the last Iowa Class Battleship's duty was filming a stupid Steven Seagal movie on it.
That brings us to the DDG 1000. I'm sorry George Skinner,but I am extremely pissed every time the grunt & marine are denied the fire support needed to complete their mission.The big deal about the DDG 1000 was their 155mm gun,did you hear me? Their 155mm GUN.To say now that we need to wait 20-30 years for "rail gun" technology,that right now is as sci-fi as a phaser or a photon torpedo is total bulls**t.Are they also going to perfect time travel so they can bring back these [future] technologies to our soldiers,sailers,airmen,& marines TODAY? The justification to wait on these guns(which is the most important,if not the only important part of these ships) is not there.The justification,which caused us to retire & sink many capable ships to make room for it,to now say we don't need this ship after all,while we are completely naked right now,is pure insanity,or worse high treason.

Posted by: Roy Smith at July 27, 2008 02:06 PM

DC2,
What irritates me is that we gave up proven,even if they weren't perfect,weapon systems for a "promise" that something better would [eventually] come along.The Rail Gun sounds nice,but what do we have for today to cover for when the rail gun finally comes on line.Using the logic of waiting for rail guns,which are still in the developmental stage,why not also wait for phasers & photon torpedoes to come online? It might cool for geeks,but the average joe would think that someone has an overactive imagination & is not based in the real world.
When I was in the Army,we were told to "hold until properly relieved." NONE of the weapons we retired were "properly relieved." The Iowa Class Battleships were not properly relieved by better ships with better guns.You may take to the bank all of the promises of bigger & better weapons on the way,but to me it is all nothing but bald faces LIES which the government hopes that,because we would all be educated in U.S. public schools,we would believe without question.If we can't afford to man Iowa Class Battleships,then we sure as hell cannot afford "No Child Left Behind." Our spending has dropped catastrophically on defense,but we have not paid one dime less for all of our socialist programs.How the hell can we afford to pay for that s**t,but not a dime more for defense? Hey,I want the biggest & the best too(at the best cost,most economical),but our government is jerking all of our chains here.Come on,do you really & truly honestly believe & have great faith in your government to provide rail guns to our navy?Is your faith in our government unquestionable?
As a post script,I fully expect some sort of "accident" to occur to the 2 Iowa Class Battleships to insure that they never be used again.So when Oliver North states on Fox News that we need to keep the Iowa Class battleships online until these better guns come along,whether DDG 1000 155mm guns or rail guns,it caan be retorted that we had battleships until "electrical fires" mysteriously occurred on the battle wagons at the same time rendering both damaged beyond repair & there for must be immediately scrapped or sunk to insure they'll never be used ever again. That's the government I "trust."

Posted by: Roy Smith at July 27, 2008 07:15 AM

With the cancellation of DDX, will that mean CGX (the non-nuclear ver.) is canceled too?

I'm curious to know what the CGN-X (the nuclear BMD ship) will be like? Displacement? Features? Armaments? San Antonio hull?

I don't think it's possible to put the 155mm guns from the Zumwalt on a Burke. I don't think there's enough real estate (note: I'm no expert), unless the new Burkes purchased in place of DDX will be some new flight.

Also, people keep mentioning "flight III" Burkes... I thought the latest are the flight IIA.

Off-topic: We should get some of these to escort our CVNs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer
Destroyers that also function as a carrier (how convenient!)

Posted by: G at July 27, 2008 01:05 AM

What you guys seem to be missing here is a possible loss of continuity in design skills.

Posted by: whoever at July 26, 2008 11:58 PM

It really pains me to hear people who have no clue what they are talking about say that the CGNs were a failure & then use that they were decommissioned in the 1990's as so-called "proof".

09 Sep 1961 01 - ?? May 1995 - CGN 9 Long Beach

04 Aug 1962 - 01 Oct 1993 - CG 16 Leahy
02 Feb 1963 - 29 Oct 1993 - CG 17 Harry E. Yarnell
03 Aug 1963 - 01 Oct 1993 - CG 18 Worden
23 Nov 1963 - 27 Sep 1994 - CG 19 Dale
13 Jun 1964 - 13 Apr 1995 - CG 20 Richmond K. Turner
25 May 1963 - 21 Jan 1994 - CG 21 Gridley
07 Dec 1963 - 21 Jan 1994 - CG 22 England
20 Jul 1963 - 28 Jan 1994 - CG 23 Halsey
15 May 1964 - 12 Nov 1993 - CG 24 Reeves

06 Oct 1962 - 13 Sep 1996 - CGN 25 Bainbridge

07 Nov 1964 - 15 Feb 1995 - CG 26 Belknap
08 May 1965 - 21 Jan 1994 - CG 27 Josephus Daniels
08 Jan 1966 - 15 Nov 1993 - CG 28 Wainwright
10 Dec 1966 - 28 Jan 1994 - CG 29 Jouett
15 Apr 1967 - 04 Feb 1994 - CG 30 Horne
08 Apr 1967 - 24 Mar 1994 - CG 31 Sterett
09 Jul 1966 - 11 Feb 1994 - CG 32 William H. Standley
08 May 1966 - 15 Apr 1994 - CG 33 Fox
21 Jan 1967 - 30 Nov 1993 - CG 34 Biddle

27 May 1967 - 11 Sept 1995 - CGN 35 Truxtun

16 Feb 1974 - 01 Oct 1998 - CGN 36 California
25 Jan 1975 - 04 Sep 1998 - CGN 37 South Carolina

11 Sep 1976 - 10 Nov 1994 - CGN 38 Virginia
10 Sep 1977 - 16 Jul 1993 - CGN 39 Texas
05 Aug 1978 - 28 Jul 1997 - CGN 40 Mississippi
18 Oct 1980 - 07 Jul 1997 - CGN 41 Arkansas

22 Jan 1983 - 30 Sep 2004 - CG 47 Ticonderoga
04 Jul 1984 - 03 Dec 2004 - CG 48 Yorktown
06 Jul 1985 - 29 Jun 2005 - CG 49 Vincennes
18 Jan 1986 - 30 Aug 2004 - CG 50 Valley Forge
22 Aug 1987 - 16 Dec 2005 - CG 51 Thomas S. Gates
20 Sep 1986 - 2026 - CG 52 Bunker Hill
21 Feb 1987 - 2027 - CG 53 Mobile Bay
06 Jun 1987 - 2027 - CG 54 Antietam
26 Sep 1987 - 2027 - CG 55 Leyte Gulf
12 Aug 1988 - 2028 - CG 56 San Jacinto
12 Aug 1988 - 2028 - CG 57 Lake Champlain
18 Mar 1989 - 2029 - CG 58 Philippine Sea
11 Feb 1989 - 2029 - CG 59 Princeton
09 Dec 1989 - 2029 - CG 60 Normandy
16 Jun 1990 - 2030 - CG 61 Monterey
04 Nov 1989 - 2029 - CG 62 Chancellorsville
09 Mar 1991 - 2031 - CG 63 Cowpens
22 Jun 1991 - 2031 - CG 64 Gettysburg
12 Jan 1991 - 2031 - CG 65 Chosin
14 Sep 1991 - 2031 - CG 66 Hue City
18 Jul 1992 - 2032 - CG 67 Shiloh
02 May 1992 - 2032 - CG 68 Anzio
14 Nov 1992 - 2032 - CG 69 Vicksburg
24 Jul 1993 - 2033 - CG 70 Lake Erie
12 Jun 1993 - 2033 - CG 71 Cape St. George
18 Sep 1993 - 2033 - CG 72 Vella Gulf
09 Jul 1994 - 2034 - CG 73 Port Royal

54 @ the beginning of 1993
27 @ the end of 1998 (27 decommissioned between 1993 & 1998)
22 @ the end of 2005 (5 more decommissioned between 2004 & 2005)

Thats right between 1993 & 1998 the US cruiser force was CUT IN HALF with only the 27 Ticonderoga class remaining. Then the 1st 5 Ticonderoga were decommissioned in 2004 & 2005. It was post Cold War force reduction/budget cuts which brought the premature end to the service of the CGNs, NOT A FAILURE ON THEIR PART!

Posted by: pfcem at July 26, 2008 11:02 PM

Roy,

The Iowas are over 60 years old. I was on a ship that was 50 (oldest ship in the fleet at the time) and it wasn't pretty. I can only imagine with the Big E is like right now. Also you speak of manning (over 1,000 sailors). How many hole snipes know anything about high pressure boilers and steam turbines in the Navy these days? In fact, the Boiler Tech rate was dissolved into the Machinest Mate rate because all of the boiler fired ships were being decommissioned. Even when the Iowas were pounding the beaches of Kuwait, they were using the antiquated fire control system developed during WWII.

What really needs to be introduced is the rail gun, which is still in the developemental stages.

We need to get over the fact that there aren't any more big gunned ships. Fact is they aren't necessary.

The Navy did the right thing in purchasing more DDG-51s at the expense of the DDG-1000. We should do the same with the other programs that are costing us too much money right now.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at July 26, 2008 05:24 PM

Someone else besides me keeps bringing up the Iowa Class Battleships.You know,in addition to 4 battleships,we had in storage 2 Des Moines Class Heavy Cruisers.Their guns would have totally complemented the Iowa Class Battleships.All of the "logic" offered as to why this wouldn't work is total bulls**t now because the heavy guns from the DDG 1000 that would make either the Iowa Class or the Des Moines Class ships unnecessary,is being scrapped,oops sorry,only 2 are being built for testing purposes only.
Forgive me if I roll my eyes over the logic of this decision.Anybody who SERIOUSLY believes that the DDG 1000 is being canceled for something better to come along just as soon as Naval Research can come up with it is totally full of s**t. We saved money by scrapping all of those nuclear powered cruisers,where the hell did the money go,Area 51,the Bermuda Triangle(I guess that' why it's called "top secret")? I think crack ho's is a more plausible explanation than that.I don't see shit concerning the money saved,where it went to. I just see empty ports where ships used to be.

Posted by: Roy Smith at July 26, 2008 04:07 PM

The fuzzy math logic totally escapes me how getting rid of ships in the 1990's will help us buy new ships in 2010-2020. What happens in 2008 if someone decides to attack? Walmart be damned,the U.S. isn't the only country that China is selling goods to(& the other countries' currencies most likely are not as unstable as the dollar is right now),so it is no great financial loss to China if she decided to go to war against us.Who knows,maybe Walmart isn't producing the casualties that china wants,maybe they want to up the ante. Russia is talking about putting their bombers in Cuba & other Latin American nations.We are desperately short on F-22s & we still have an awful lot of F-15s offline.You tell me that we are more than capable of defending ourselves from these threats(& China WOULDN'T really jeopardize the Walmart market would they?) & I answer back that "the emperor has no clothes." Call me stupid because I don't see it(the vast superior defense technology 'protecting" us),but I just see a stupid naked man standing in the middle of the street.I remember what we had during the Reagan build-up & we lost it.NOTHING has replaced what we gave up.

Posted by: Roy Smith at July 26, 2008 03:38 PM

What the Iowa class Battleship presents is its large guns that would provide excellent cover for amphibious landings.THAT is what the battle wagons do best.However,we were told we needed to retire them because they took up too much manpower.....and......with DDG 1000 coming online.....some day......with their "heavy guns" providing support for amphibious assaults,we could do without the Iowa Class ships(I'm still convinced that if the navy can't get those two battleships off of their hands soon,they'll sink or scrap them for sure).After reading about all of the ships we have already sunk,scrapped,sold,or god knows what else AND not seeing anything to justify the "savings(i.e. new & better ships)",I had no choice but to rightly suspect that the savings the navy incurred went to "crack ho's" & other assort liberal socialist products,because it SURE didn't go to help the navy.
I predict movement on those Iowa Class Battleships.Maybe they'll be sold to a South American nation or to Turkey,or.....they'll be sunk(like the the America Aircraft carrier,they'll set charges to "simulate" being hit by anti-ship missiles-why not just use anti-ship missiles-& sink those ships to the bottom of the ocean where coral doesn't grow-negating making them into "artificial reefs." So,we have no replacement for the Spruance destroyers to protect our fleet from enemy submarines(but that's ok),we have no dedicated aircraft-with dedicated long range air-to-air missiles-to protect our fleet from air attacks(but that's ok,too),we have no heavy guns on ships(& thanks to canceling the DDG 1000,never will) to protect our marines during amphibious assaults(but amphibious assaults are as dead as full horse cavalry charges or marching into battle in formation right?),etc. Our naval fleets are so open to enemy attacks & we don't care.Our leaders & "people in the know" tell us it is perfectly safe to put aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf,off the coast of Iran,because Iran can't touch us.Damn't,Iran needs to learn how to make dangerous products & sell them in Walmart just like China does).Look you tell me who's on crack?
The problem with being a "Jeremiah" was that Jeremiah was eventually proven spot on right.

Posted by: Roy Smith at July 26, 2008 03:11 PM

Who ARE these morons who contaminate a discussion of naval hardware with redneck whining about 'crack hos', etc. Get a life you jerks. No wonder why the country is mess- it's idiots like you who voted for Bush.

DDG is an example of mission creep run amok. The Navy has lost its bearings when they can't strategize properly, then can't excute hardware programs to carry out the strategy. DDG isn't eh only example- look at the LCS. Where's the firepower that will protect Marine landings? I daresay you could spend the cost of a Burke or a DDG to modernize an IOWA and get far more bang for the buck.

Posted by: Gerarddm at July 26, 2008 01:29 PM

You know guys, my girlfriend found me on this site last night and just had to read my posts. To my surprise she was very happy that I have found a "hobby" that I feel so passionate about. So thank all of you for helping to make my blood flow. I just had to post that statement because every time I read Roy's comments it provides a little chuckle and more blood flowing. I love you Roy but geez man, it ain't about the crack ho's.

So back on topic:

JD, your statement regarding the early retirement of the Virgina CGs support my statement. They were too costly to maintain and repair. The Navy wanted their VLS equipped Aegis cruisers because they were more capable and cheaper to operate. According to reports, the Virginia class cost $40M per year to operate while the Ticonderoga class cost $28M and are more capable ships. Also, the Virginia class was retired because the lead ship was getting close to refuelling and overhaul. And with the intallation of coffin TLAM launchers on the fantail they could not longer support helos. A Kidd class DDG was as capable as this class of ship. I have never heard they were meant for Aegis retrofit and the pyramid mast structures are not large enough for it.

JD is absoulely correct about our military and what has happened to it. It started with Cheny/Bush I and has not stopped since. No matter what, we need more boats protecting and supplying our carrier and amphibious battle groups. Otherwise, those maritime prepositioning ships that have all of that really cool new FCS Army gear will be sitting at the bottom of the ocean before it can even be used. Of course Davey Jones might like it in his collection.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at July 26, 2008 09:13 AM

The money "saved' from canceling this "cold war relic" & debacle could go back into supporting crack ho welfare queens,the "Illegal Alien" Legal Defense Fund(as in to help them stay IN country & beat murder raps),& to provide "free,open borders' so that those illegal can get into country & murder at whim.The 'saved" money could also used to keep ANWAR closed to oil drilling along wih keeping our coasts off limits to drilling. you have to think like a "frugal" [extreme left wing,internationalist,globalist,pro-UN] Congressman on this.By paying for this .....this ship,you are taking away a "free school lunch" from some poor child of a crack ho welfare queen,or child of an illegal alien going to our public schools on our dime.
Tell me,do you really want to build this ship & starve our poor,poor children? Remember,paying for all of these weapon systems is taking away money to pay for our daughters getting Gardasil vaccines so that they can f**k around with impunity & not have to worry about catching(or passing genital warts).
Remember,if you insist on paying for these weapons,you maybe dooming your daughters to catching genital warts.How many of our daughters have been lost to genital warts because of the high cost of GWOT & Iraq/Afghanistan.Can it be said of our generation that the high instance of genital warts in our nation was because we,instead of vaccinating our [whoring] daughters,chose to go to war instead(Instead of the "girls" in the Gardasil commercials singing "I want to be one less",they should be singing "I want to be one more ['dirty low slut,tramp,bitch,ho']")?
What does this have to do with the sorry state of our defense? Everything!!!!

Posted by: Roy Smith at July 26, 2008 07:47 AM

The nuclear class cruisers were not only deactivated,they were... what's the term for scrapping a nuclear powered ship? Recycling? In other words,they don't exist anymore in our time & space,they became scrap metal. I remember good ole' Dick Cheney,then SecDef "lamenting" about having to retire the Iowa Class Battleships saying,"I wish we could keep them." I know Dick,how many welfare checks to the crack ho's would have kept those battleships active?
Ya'll need to look at the big picture here.The big picture is not freeing up money for new research into better weapons.The big picture is paying for crack ho welfare queens & illegal aliens being allowed to stay here,at taxpayer expense,illegally,om OUR dime.
So every time I see one of our weapons being fired in anger,like former congresswoman,Pat Schroeder,I scream at my TV,"that's money that could have went to a crack ho!!!!!"

Posted by: Roy Smith at July 25, 2008 10:31 PM

The Long Beach, Truxton and Bainbridge were retired at the end of their expected lifespan. The real reason for decommissioning the Virginia class according to the CNO at the time was the Navy desperately wanted the CG-47 Aegis cruisers and they were afraid they wouldn't get the money to build them. The Virginia class CGN's were actually desigined to have Aegis retrofitted on them (thus the pyramid like superstructure sections).

The tearing down of the Navy started under the first Bush, continued under Clinton, and accelerated under the current President. And it included getting rid of support vessels and making ships hit unsecure ports for fuel too. (See USS Cole ... )

At one time there were plans to build an AOE or 2 AORs for every Carrier Battle Group and for every BB Battlegroup. Now we have 4 AOE's (all in the hands of Military Sealift Command) and no AOR's - but wait - a Kaiser class T-AO (such a name too) plus a Sacagewea class AKE can almost replace an AOE (as long as there is also another supply ship aound and the CVBG stays under 21 knots ...) Whereas the AOE-1 class could keep pace with the entire CVBG

DDG-1000 was not the solution, but we DO need a solution, and not just to combat ships - we need CAPABLE UNREP ships as well. (We could start by building a dozen Improved Supply Class AOE-s : But keep them armed and in the Navy, not unarmed in MSC!

Posted by: JD Sena at July 25, 2008 08:18 PM

Oh god here we go again.

It doesn't matter what kind of ships we build, it will always be the wrong fleet for the purpose.
This will always be the case according to the media and Congress.

DDX-1000
2 155mm AGS gun
You cannot put them on cruiser's or destroyers
the decks cannot take it. Plus at 260+lbs a round
it changes the shiphandling dangerously.

Aegis cruiser
2 5"54 Mk 45 Guns
2 MK41 VLS Launchers 122 missiles total.

Aegis destroyer
1 5"54 Mk 45
2 MK 41 VLS Launchers 90 missiles total.

The first five Aegis Cruiser's have already been decomm'd.

DDG-51 has been in service since 1991.
Flight 1 Burkes have limited helo services.
(flight deck w/o hanger)

We tried the Nuke cruiser thing. That failed
Virginia
South Carolina
Mississippi
West Virginia
South Carolina
Truxtun
Bainbridge
Long Beach
Arkansas
California
ALL GONE
Virgina was only 10 years old when she was deactivated.

The first ship in every class is always expensive.
R & D is always pricey.

DDX-1000 may not be right for now but don't kill the research.

Posted by: Curt Kuhn at July 25, 2008 07:13 PM

Mac,

Probably because you are a gentleman, I note that you didn't inquire as to whether Andy is a student at Wisconsin or faculty. If the former he is simply young, misinformed, and ignorant; if the latter then he is simply an older, willfully misinformed, ignoramus.

I'd give the old lecture on the Constitution and the evils of the burgeoning social welfare state but I'm sure that it would fall upon deaf ears.

Don't worry, Lord Obama has assured everyone that "The Government" will pay for everything.

Cheers,
Chief B.

Posted by: Old Crusty Chief at July 25, 2008 04:22 PM

Build submersible warships. Sounds crazy, but I believe it's the future. Talk DDG-1000, Arsenal ship, whatever - the best weapon in the fleet is a converted Ohio class with 100+ Tomahawks (or could be sub-Harpoon) waiting for someone's CVBG and laying waste to it without being detected or caught. That's deterence.

Posted by: DJ at July 25, 2008 01:37 PM

"Do you honestly think they are going to retrofit those fancy new DDG-1000 guns onto a Burke Class Destroyer or any of our cruisers ?"

Yes. Let's get some more robust firepower on our destroyers and cruisers. Loss of this asset forces the Navy to use more expensive weapons to achieve the same purpose.

The more critical decesion that needs to be made, and made soon, is what to do with the FG's and CG's. The life is on the downward trend.

Posted by: dadbo at July 25, 2008 01:14 PM

Ray Mar, every DDG-51 being built comes from one of two shipyards (Pascagoula sp? and Bath Iron Works Maine). I don't know that we have outsourced any ship construction to India or China yet based on treaties or not.

DDG-51s are very capable ships. They no longer have the technological advantage with regards to electric propulsion or the reduced manning from automation, but they do kick butt. Unfortunately there just aren't enough of them in a battle group to properly protect the carriers or amphibs.

MM1, the CG-47s are actually based on the hull of the Spruance Class destroyer. In fact, they had to put concrete in the bilges of CG-47 after initial sea trials because it was too top heavy. Anyone that has ever been on a ship knows how much the boat leans when doing man overboard drills.

Also, MM1, doesn't the new CVN (Ford I believe) utilize the new reactors developed for the Virginias?

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at July 25, 2008 12:17 PM

Raymond Mars you are such a stupid rock! Do you sleep with the lights on because you fear some liberal Hillary monster is under your bed? The ships were canceled because they were MUCH to expensive to make and somebody decided that maybe that money was better spent on some grunts in the hot sands. Go watch some Fox news and choke on a pretzel.

Posted by: Andre at July 25, 2008 11:47 AM

I am all about sticking with Arleigh Burkes for our DDG needs for the readily forseeable future.

and yes, James, the newest sub plants are intended not to need refuelling throughout the 33-yr hull life of the ships. Subs don't exactly spend their time blipping along at Flank Speed.
current-generation Nimitz-Class plants last 24 years.

Posted by: MM1(Nuke) at July 25, 2008 10:57 AM

The Nuke Cruisers were cancelled before because they were too expensive to build. In the '80's - hwne gas was $.80/gal. They weren't that much too expensive.

My only issue with the idea is that I recently noticed that the Ticonderoga-class is only a very little bit larger and more heavily armed than the late-flight Arleigh Burkes. It begs the question: why have both? if we're gonna have cruisers, lets have some Cruisers, not DDG-51's with a second 5" turret.

also, DC2, Nuke School has its academic attrition down to <20%. Better screening, and some adjustments to curriculum.

Posted by: MM1(Nuke) at July 25, 2008 10:51 AM

With regards to the CV-N nuclear vs. conventional power. Yes JP-5 and marine diesel are very expensive. But it is much more expensive to install and maintain ANY nuclear reactor in comparison to a gas turbine. And nukes go through 1-1/2 years of training with at a minum 50% dropout rate (I know I was one of them). You go through three separate schools before you go to the fleet. Whereas GSM (gas turbine tech) training is pretty easy in comparison.

We need more ships in the fleet, period. If it is DDG-51s, the most capabable ships ever to sail with regards to firepower and protection, then I'm all for it. This class was built from the lessons we have learned in blood (i.e. Stark, Roberts, etc.). Therefore I have no problem getting more of those out sailing the seven seas.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at July 25, 2008 10:36 AM

They should have the 2 Iowa Class Battleships not turned over to be museum ships placed on reserve status & manned by reservist crewmen.But then the money to pay for that would be diverted from my welfare check & from paying for health care & the educational needs of the illegal aliens living "ILLEGALLY" inside our nation's borders(not to mention paying for the lawyers of illegal aliens who murdered &/or committed other crimes in this country) because you damn well know that the money WILL NOT go for other "defense needs(just the "defense [attorney] needs of illegal aliens & crack whores).
So when I figure in the savings & how money would be better spent,I always figure in illegal aliens & crack whores & all the other wacky earmarks & socialist(as in "COMMUNIST") programs that our "PATRIOTIC(?)" congress always comes up with.
I bet if someone suggested building only 2 F-35 JSF jets for "testing" purposes,that people would suddenly get a little radical here.

Posted by: Roy Smith at July 25, 2008 09:41 AM

The Congress gives the funding and in this case needs to have their heads checked. We need to be ahead in ship construction, make no mistake about it! China is not our friend, nor will ever be our friend.

They view us as the ultimate enemy to be dealt with. They have at least 2 bought and paid for congress women Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton. Both have strong connections with the Chinese military. So if China doesn't want us to have technological superior ships, we won't have them.

Then there is some so called treaty stating that sips have to be partially built overseas which includes "Military Vessels". Thank the Commiecrats for that one.

Posted by: Raymond Mars at July 25, 2008 09:01 AM

Please excuse my crankiness,I just had a tooth extracted & I'm high on Vicodin right now.

Posted by: Roy Smith at July 25, 2008 05:19 AM

"Nobody is saying they won't be built someday if they are needed. It will take awhile for the Chinese to catch up with our navy and I don't really see them as a threat to the US. We are their biggest customer."

I'm not trying to write this as a "hit & run," but logic like this makes me want to puke.First off,the Chinese do not need to build weapons to bring us to our knees because their "products(their weapons of mass destruction)" that we buy in Walmart & K-Mart are causing enough death & destruction already(tainted pet food,toothpaste,lead painted toys for the little tykes,nasty filthy fruits & veggies,etc. anyone?).
Secondly,Congress has absolutely no problem whatsoever spending billions of our tax dollars on useless earmarks & social programs whose value is a lot more questionable than a DDG-1000 destroyer.We DO NOT have anything to replace the guns we gave up when we retired the Iowa Class Battleships.Do you honestly think they are going to retrofit those fancy new DDG-1000 guns onto a Burke Class Destroyer or any of our cruisers? Whose stupid f**king idea was it to retire & sink ALL of our Spruance Class destroyers(based on the bold face lies that the now cancelled DDG-1000 destroyers would be a perfect replacement for them)? Remembering the good old days when we were trying to build a 600 ship navy,it is pathetically sad to read our plans to [re]build a 313 fleet navy.Are we all so f**king blind that we don't see the disarming of our nation? Those traitors in Congress & yes even the White House are doing their level best to take our nation off of "Superpower Status." China is the new Superpower,& their weapons of mass destruction are their products that we foolishly buy [to kill ourselves] & we lie to ourselves saying that China is not our enemy because we buy their products.What total bulls**t!!!! Go on,keep buying those lead painted toys for your kids(the future of our nation) to lick & chew on & become retarded.Of course,thanks to our public school system,how can you tell if they are retarded or not? Keep buying those faulty exploding tires for your car.
Let me repeat something I said earlier,Chinese products have maimed & killed so many innocent civilians that China should be charged with war crimes.All of you that say " we are their biggest customer," I laugh you to scorn.

Posted by: Roy Smith at July 25, 2008 05:13 AM

Tell that to the Red Chinese Navy, 10 yrs from now, Ooops better fund DD1K.
DD51 wont last that long If any unless Long term Mods are given System.
Fund DD1K.
Or the Chinese Navy will wipe our Fleet aside
(Pearl Harbor Dec 7 1941- now use Biowarfare weapons or Chem weapons to reuse Harbor under Chinese control).

Posted by: stephen russell at July 24, 2008 09:43 PM

I thought these new destroyers were nuclear powered?

Using the two DDG1000's to test new technology is a smart move.

Nobody is saying they won't be built someday if they are needed. It will take awhile for the Chineese to catch up with our navy and I don't really see them as a threat to the US. We are their biggest customer.

Posted by: TOM at July 24, 2008 06:43 PM

and for the love of god please excuse the spelling/puncuation mistakes im tired and cranky and have vista

/cries to self

Posted by: James at July 24, 2008 05:57 PM

DC2 whats the cost of fueling a crusier or even a destroyer for a yr at $4.00 a gallon?.....and having our entire economy,military,industry dependent on the mullahs of iran, dictators in south america and kings/princes in saudi arabia?

if we could get fusion power weed be good but thats still down the road.

LOL and i dont think even scifi writers would have thought you could use a reactor for 33yrs

also with systems like the land based phallanx system that intercepts missiles,mortar rounds, and arty sheills with precision.the advance of laser systems and interceptor missiles.which come on you know chinas got to have btw. wont one of the biggest things be speed and shear volley amount plus i have to wonder the same thing as will why has no one tried to use mlrs on ships would simplify logistics, drop cost, R&D.

another thing the ddx as a fire support system always seemed a dead idea to me as a open sea warfare ship why not. the only thing that can replace a Battleships enormous firepower and awe is a arsenal ship(though the idea of it only having a crew of 50 seems stupid to me i mean come on what happens when they take causalties/crap breaks down/sickness?)

how about we try this bild a ship as large as a iowa class maybe bigger and with great armor and defenses(oh and when i mean armor i mean real armorim hearing about new materials that are stronger than steel everyday as well as lighter if they work use em,also the idea of having some munitions stored at the hull as reactive armor sounded like a good idea to me)lots of weapons including if later some type of ballistic missile intercept weapons. and last but not least use nucleur power plants and call it a day no stealth your not the airforce you dont want to be

Posted by: James at July 24, 2008 05:51 PM

"More DDG-51 class and CGN-X class ships. We need those why?"

We actually don't "need" more -51s. Principally, keeping that line open is a measure to prevent our shipyards from going under while we design CG-X and LSD-X. But having more Flight III+ -51s would be a boon and might even allow us to sell some of our older baseline Burkes. There are other options but nobody in the Industry, Congress, or the Navy is making a serious effort to explore those except maybe Murtha, ironically enough.

CG-41s are going to wear out sooner than you think, and Before you say X number of DDGs = Y number of CG, Stop. You're wrong. In addition, Aegis-based BMD actually works and is actually affordable, while ground-based BMD is neither.

Posted by: Moose at July 24, 2008 05:31 PM

"More DDG-51 class and CGN-X class ships. We need those why?"
Part of it the answer is, how much longer will the FFG-7s & the CG-47s go? After that, it goes back to the likely enemy question. There's people who believe that China is going to become what the Soviets where in the '80s. Against (much more likely, in my opionion) assymetric threats, you'd probably want something very different from either the DDG-51 or the DDG-1000.
With respect to NSFS, current 155 mm 52 cal field artillery shoots out to 42 km. If that's not far enough, why not put MLRS on ships instead of developing a 155 mm naval gun that can't do as much?

Posted by: Will at July 24, 2008 03:11 PM

Andy boy, 6% isn't a number made up out of whole cloth. It is a planning estimate based upon the assumption America enjoys its ability to shape its own destiny and thus has a responsibility to protect its interests in the world. Spend any less, like were during doing 1993-2001, and you do not replenish your assets or have enough people to do the job when needed. I'd say adjust the % as the world situation demands it, but sending unguarded children to liberal rat-hole universities? Now THAT would be a "ludicrous and wasteful thing to do"... at any percentile of GDP.

But Andy highlights another couple of aspects as to why this was a stupid thing to do.
1. Technology doesn't mature on the shelf - it has to be fielded and used before it can evolve. Perhaps we'll get lucky and see the Life Cycle Cost benefits of the Zumwalts in real $s over previous designs.
2. Acceptable Cost-benefit ratios are the kind of simplistic Business School objectives that can kill good men and women in the end. What counts, and yet cannot be merely 'counted' is the cost,benefit,and RISK associated with such decisions.

That those who do not deal with this type of thing day-to-day do not really know or understand 'risk' is unsurprising. That this does not stop then from having such strong convictions at the same time never ceases to amaze.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at July 24, 2008 02:38 PM

It has been clear for a long time now for those of us who take NSFS seriously that the DD-X/DDG-1000 always was a way for the USN to "guarantee" funds to develope new technology for its next generation of surface combatants by tapping into the need for better NSFS rather than a genuine program to provide the needed NSFS.

***

DC2,

It is not the 1960's. Nuclear reactor & propulsion technology has progressed. For example, the S9G reactor of the Virginia class SSNs is expected to not need refueling during the designed 33 year life of the subs. And reduced Life Cycle Maintenance Cost is a key feature of BOTH the A1B & S9G reactors.

Posted by: pfcem at July 24, 2008 02:20 PM

Good news -- DDG-1000 is dead.

Bad news -- More DDG-51 class and CGN-X class ships. We need those why?

Posted by: ohwilleke at July 24, 2008 12:45 PM

Good Morning Folks,

It's good to see that the Navy and Congress reads us and takes our senseable advice.

Take a high five George.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at July 24, 2008 12:39 PM

Since spending 6% of the economy on defense is a ludicrous and wasteful thing to do, I'm pleased to see the Navy make a responsible decision here and simply use this program as a testbed.

Perhaps a decade or two down the road manufacturing and technological know-how will allow more capable ships to be built on an acceptable cost-benefit ratio.

Posted by: Andrew at July 24, 2008 10:48 AM

I'll bet Al qaeda and the Taliban in landlocked Afghanistan are really relieved over this decision, or did they even notice?

Posted by: Mike Burleson at July 24, 2008 10:44 AM

This is a stupid move on so many levels. If the Navy cannot mitigate the risk of moving a destroyer within 100 miles of the shore to bombard with long-range guns, what makes it think it can safely move a carrier group within striking distance to do so instead?

We are sacrificing the future for the here and now with this approach. I see elsewhere, that CDI's 'old reliable', pointman Winslow Wheeler was quoted as asking "Please tell me what this thing would do today, if it were available in Iraq or Afghanistan?". Ten years from now the same crowd will be whining about "fighting today's wars with yesterday's weapons and tactics". Idiots.

Of course this would all be irrelevant if we kept the bar at spending 6% GDP on defense during peacetime AND kept the Dems from ruining the economy to make that 6% meaningful.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at July 24, 2008 09:53 AM

Wait, wait, wait. This cannot be right. We are actually cutting off a next gen program to focus on the clearly successful current one? That doesn't sound like us. Now if the Navy and Congress can use these new found testicles to kill F-35, we might actually be getting somewhere.

Seriously, using them as test beds (ala Seawolf Class subs) we might end up with better value down the line.

More Burkes? Yes please!

Posted by: Grandjester at July 24, 2008 09:32 AM

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I was thinking it was a bad thing for the Navy but DC2 makes it seem like it may turn out to be one of the smarter things Congress has done for the military.

Posted by: princeton scotch at July 24, 2008 08:44 AM

You know, I was pretty pissed to hear about the DDG-1000 being axed. But if we buy more Flight III DDG-51's I'm all for the cancellation. Especially with the final paragraph referencing a focus on the new CG-X.

Nuclear powered? Didn't we try that before and realized the cost to maintain the reactors was too much money? Long Beach, California, Texas ring a bell anyone?

And look for these two DDG-1000s that are built to be chained to the pier in 5 years due to the amount of money it costs to keep it at sea. There will be no supply chain left to keep the special parts and pieces in stock for these two boats.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at July 24, 2008 08:24 AM