SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Will the U.S. Navy Torpedo Its Most Lethal Warship?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Sub & Naval Discussions: World Naval News, Books, & Films (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=186)

- - Will the U.S. Navy Torpedo Its Most Lethal Warship? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=221995)

Will the U.S. Navy Torpedo Its Most Lethal Warship?

Will the U.S. Navy Torpedo Its Most Lethal Warship?
http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...l-warship.aspx

https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/imag...-art_large.jpg

Quote:

The United States Navy has a massive new stealth destroyer. Two of them, in fact -- but now it looks like they might never get a third.

Seeking a stealthy, survivable destroyer to lead it into the 21st century, and one with the range to threaten targets both on land as well as at sea, the U.S. Navy began developing the DDG 1000 destroyer class back in 1994. By 2001, the Navy had settled upon a plan to build 32 such vessels, a plan that was later scaled back to first seven, then just three.

Prime contractor General Dynamics (NYSE:GD) has the first two DDG 1000s already (mostly) completed. The USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) is due to reach initial operating capability in 2016, and the USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) should be delivered for sea trials that same year. The third ship of what's come to be called the Zumwalt class, USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG 1002), is already 41% complete and due for delivery in 2018. But as BloombergBusiness reports, the Pentagon will review plans to finish its construction later this month -- with an eye toward not finishing the ship.

Has the US govt decided that there is a limit to military spending? :hmmm: Will we regret this in the future, can we manage naval conflicts without this new platform? Or will hawks comes to the rescue and keep the money pipeline open. And what can this ship do that a sub cannot?

Economy of force$ a$ide:

It's actually an old lesson-well learned: "numbers have a cachet of their own" EXAMPLE:The Germans wasted money on tiger tanks when the panzer IV cost 1/4 as much and numbers would have served them better on all fronts. The Panther V 's time development delay cost the tide turning battle of Kursk! The king-tiger was a complete waste at the Bulge! What the navy has on agenda and better uses for:

Quote:

Even so, the U.S. Navy is facing a bit of a budget crunch right now as it tries to stretch its dwindling defense dollars to cover:

4 new $14 billion Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear aircraft carriers (costing perhaps $56 billion).
A dozen SSBN(X)-class ballistic missile submarines, also known as "Ohio Replacement Submarines" (that's another $79 billion).
An entire fleet upgrade of 22 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, to extend their service lives until a new class of warship can replace them. Price tag: as much as $77 billion.

I make that 38 vessels of more firepower vs 32 stealth destroyers; Von C: "Whenever possible increase firepower"...At least the bad guys know we can do it...aren't sure were not doin' it...and will be a lot unhappier over the new carriers and subs. Chinese ADM's thinking: Hmmmm.... Yankee dogs! It's a two ocean war...and they got a three ocean fleet...with more friends than we have!:arrgh!:

Yeah the us and russia are suffering the same problem in the navy right now, the majority of their fleets are ageing ships built in the boom of the Cold War. The nimitz carriers are getting up there in age, as are the ohio class, the Ticos and all the perry class frigates are retired. The only arms of the navy that are fairly modern are the landing ships, destroyers and attack subs, but the 688s don't have much longer either and make up a large part of the sub fleet.

Long story short the carrier, cruiser, SSBN and frigate fleets need to be updated or replaced, and the downside is that all except the FFGs are large expensive ships. Meanwhile they have lots of Arleigh Burke DDGs, so it's understandable that they would scrub the destroyer project if money was tight

Our fleet is so new I don't think there's a single ship still serving, besides "Old Ironsides", that was in the fleet when I got out in 1992? I can't believe how much they must have spent to replace the entire fleet in just 23 years. :o

On the other hand, considering all the problems, cost overruns and rather dubious qualities of the DDG-1000, I'm not sure "most lethal ship" is entirely accurate. It's pretty flawed; its reputed stealth qualities have by now been negated by developments in radar, its originally-proposed land bombardment capability has been basically removed, and many have suggested that buying more Burkes is a far wiser investment anyway - and that, on the whole, the DDG-1000 is a far less effective ship in almost every role than the Burke while costing exponentially more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by em2nought (Post 2346498)

:DBad example there also: the unit charged with overseeing Constitution’s maintenance and repair, estimates that 10 to 15 percent of the ship’s fabric is composed of timber installed between 1795 and 1797. This “original” wood includes the ship’s keel, lower futtocks, and the deadwood at the stem and stern. Essentially a new frigate; currently in drydock #1 at Boston for a few years & $4 million dollars! I wonder how much will be left this time? http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2344360#post2344360

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aktungbby (Post 2346501)

I wonder how much will be left this time?

I'm pretty sure they'll spend the entire $4 million, and then some. :03: