USN to repeat Seawolf Fiasco.

[Lonestar]

Ripped from the Early Bird

Wall Street Journal
July 23, 2008
Pg. 4

Navy Plans To Scrap New Destroyer Model

By Associated Press

The Navy has decided to scrap its newest destroyer model after the first two are built in shipyards in Maine and Mississippi, Sen. Susan Collins said Tuesday.

Sen. Collins, a Maine Republican, said Navy Secretary Donald Winter called her to tell her the outcome of a meeting of top brass regarding the future of the DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer.

Critics say the Zumwalt is too expensive for the Navy to achieve its goal of a 313-ship fleet.

The Navy has been debating whether to build more of the current, and less expensive, Arleigh Burke destroyers. A spokesperson for the Pentagon said it would have no immediate comment on its plans.

The Zumwalt was conceived as a stealth warship with massive firepower to pave the way for Marines to make their way ashore. It features advanced technology, composite materials, an unconventional wave-piercing hull and a smaller crew.

But the warship displaces 14,500 tons, making it 50% larger than Arleigh Burke destroyers. And each of the warships will cost twice the $1.3 billion that Arleigh Burkes cost.

Maine's Bath Iron Works, a General Dynamics Corp. subsidiary, is building one of the ships. Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi is building the other.

The Senate has authorized funding for the third of what was supposed to be seven ships. But the House has balked at funding that ship, which would have been built in Bath.

Sen. Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the Navy review of the Zumwalt was triggered by a decision by the committee's House counterpart to reject funding for the third ship.

Wonderful. Bloody wonderful.

Watch that fleet shrink!

[Ecthy]

What's your problem exactly? This is hardly the most important future project of the USN.

What's the need for high-end destroyers if you have a proper model and need the money elsewhere?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Ecthy
What's your problem exactly? This is hardly the most important future project of the USN.

What's the need for high-end destroyers if you have a proper model and need the money elsewhere?

Because, we need to not just maintain a qualitative edge, but an overwhelming qualitative edge. I might add that these DDGs were suppose to help fill the gunfire support gap that the USMC needs since the retirement of the Iowas.

[Jon Miller]

I would support increased funding to the Navy and Marines, and decreased funding to the Army.

JM

[Ecthy]

Look Lone, that makes it a lot clearer. Nobody knows where your priorities are, so why make a pointless OP?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Look Lone, that makes it a lot clearer. Nobody knows where your priorities are, so why make a pointless OP?

So, what you are saying is that you couldn't read

Wonderful. Bloody wonderful.

Watch that fleet shrink!

And make a reasonable inference that my priorities involve a strong and advance navy?


In reference to the thread title, the USN killed the Seawolf class SSNs due to individual cost, then went with a "Seawolf-lite" to save cash. The Virginia class has since ended up costing more than the "more expensive, more capable" option. I have a suspicion we're going to see something similar here, as every time the USN tries to make something "cheap yet advanced" costs spiral out of control anyway.

[Grandpa Troll]

Well Lonestar, I was active duty USARMY, USAREUR (same as brother Wittlich!)

But have been living near and working aboard Camp Lejeune MCB, worlds largest amphibious training base.

The U S Army has historically been a broadsword.

The Marines, however, are the military first responder of the now and near future.

I agree this should be given priority to fulfill the missions place before our military.

If we are to have a military to properly engage our combatants, then we should properly equip them

I hope this gets second consideration




EDIT: I consider Marines to be what they are, a branch of the U S NAVY

[Patroklos]

There are a few things about the Zumwalt class I do not like, but overall it will fill a needed role in the USN.

As Lonestar said, when the Navy (normally at the behest of Congress) tries to do it on the cheap AND on the fly, things end up costing more. The Burke production line is already shutting down, so off the bat you have to include the cost of reopening it. Also, the Burke is a 1980's design and even if Zumwalt orders are not made its technology will still be required requiring a rather robust redesign of the 51 hull/systems (and no matter what the 51 can't host all its advances, notably the X-band phased array). Not cheap. 2nd, since we will get two Zumwalts no matter what, we will have the same inefficiencies of maintaining a limited class count as we currently do with the Seawolf.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Lonestar


So, what you are saying is that you couldn't read

And make a reasonable inference that my priorities involve a strong and advance navy?

Your OP points to you asking for a BIG navy, neither strong nor advanced. Also, I was referring to priorites of investment. I an see how an even more advanced destroyer would be preferable to a less advanced, but I'm sure there's a lot of other projects to spend money on?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Ecthy


Your OP points to you asking for a BIG navy, neither strong nor advanced. Also, I was referring to priorites of investment. I an see how an even more advanced destroyer would be preferable to a less advanced, but I'm sure there's a lot of other projects to spend money on?

Not really, we won't be in Iraq forever.

Originally posted by Pat

As Lonestar said, when the Navy (normally at the behest of Congress) tries to do it on the cheap AND on the fly, things end up costing more. The Burke production line is already shutting down, so off the bat you have to include the cost of reopening it. Also, the Burke is a 1980's design and even if Zumwalt orders are not made its technology will still be required requiring a rather robust redesign of the 51 hull/systems (and no matter what the 51 can't host all its advances, notably the X-band phased array). Not cheap. 2nd, since we will get two Zumwalts no matter what, we will have the same inefficiencies of maintaining a limited class count as we currently do with the Seawolf.

There's a guy on another board I frequent who came in last week on the 15th(he works for CACI, or Rand, or one of those "analyst" defense contractors) and said he just heard on the grapevine that the program was going to be killed at 2 hulls and 11 Burkes would be purchased instead. If he's right(and he got the DDG-1000 part right) I assume that the Burkes will have significant mods.

I've actually been kind of leery of the DDG-1000 because of the whole "minimal manning" thing.

[Asher]

Fact: I cannot overstate how unimportant this is, or how stupid the program was in the first place.

Good on them for realizing this **** ain't free.

[Patroklos]

I've actually been kind of leery of the DDG-1000 because of the whole "minimal manning" thing.

They always say that as they are currently doing for the LCS. There was good article on the LCS where they basically ripped the minimum manning concept a new *******. As soon as they started seriously looking at what a sailor does every day they are realizing that nobody has time to sweep the p-ways, cook, chip paint, repair basic systems, do normal admin, etc. etc. On top of that, 1/3 to 1/2 of the crew will have to be on watch at all times at condition III steaming, **** that!

The 51 was supposed to have 100 crewmen less than it operates with today.

I got a chance to tour the Raytheon shop working on the Zumwalt, and I was impressed with the combat suite.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Patroklos


They always say that as they are currently doing for the LCS. There was good article on the LCS where they basically ripped the minimum manning concept a new *******. As soon as they started seriously looking at what a sailor does every day they are realizing that nobody has time to sweep the p-ways, cook, chip paint, repair basic systems, do normal admin, etc. etc. On top of that, 1/3 to 1/2 of the crew will have to be on watch at all times at condition III steaming, **** that!

The 51 was supposed to have 100 crewmen less than it operates with today.

I got a chance to tour the Raytheon shop working on the Zumwalt, and I was impressed with the combat suite.

There was a article a few years back in Surface Warfare(or whatever the hell the "community" publication for the Combat Systems guys is called) about the LCS where it was commented that The ITs will be crossed trained to do the FCs jobs, and vice versa(even being in the same division!) and repair lockers will not be manned up in GQ!

I shudder to think what the in-port duty section set up is for such vessels.

[Straybow]

I don't see how Tomahawks can be a cost effective replacement for shore bombardment by 16 inchers. Even given the 30kton extra ship to haul and man as part of the cost of bombardment.

[Patroklos]

There was a article a few years back in Surface Warfare(or whatever the hell the "community" publication for the Combat Systems guys is called) about the LCS where it was commented that The ITs will be crossed trained to do the FCs jobs, and vice versa(even being in the same division!) and repair lockers will not be manned up in GQ!

Exactly, which all sounds good on paper until you realize that if if you are **** out of luck if that sailor who does everything gets sick, pregnant, misses ships movement, is killed or maybe you will need an FC and IT at the same time. They are assuming the best case scenario and not building any redundancy into the system.

GQ is a good example. Not having the lockers manned, especially for a ship with the missions have, is absolutely stupid. But even if they did man lockers (and I bet thee are still three onboard, it isn't THAT small), that is at least 12 person per locker with a ship that has a crew of 40 permanent and maybe 20 more module specific. A single house team requires at least eightmembers plus a loker leader and scene leader at minimum. They are going to need at least one relief team, probably an EM to electrically isolate, and gas free engineer. So, assuming nobody was injured in the fire/hit in the first place, you are looking at 40-50% of the crew tied up for any fire. There is just not enough padding to take into account possible events.

I shudder to think what the in-port duty section set up is for such vessels.

Hopefully the Blue/Gold crew model will alleviate some of that, but that carries its own problems.