USN to repeat Seawolf Fiasco.

[Patroklos]

It still has use, and it doesn't cost 3 billion dollars per unit?

Neither does the AGS, as has been told to you several times now.

If it's so simple and easy why do you find it so difficult?

Anyone else notice the patern here, Asher is confronted with reality and instead of addressing it he ignores it?

By your logic, Canada should enlist about half of its population in an arctic Navy full of $3B ships just incase Russia decides to invade us from the North. Your logic, which you seem to think is infallible, is that while it is not useful now it may be useful, which is why you should spend inordinate amounts of money on it.

I wasn't aware Canada had a global power projection capability and a military branch specializing in amphibious warfare. Anyone else want to comment on whether the likelihood of US marines making landings needing NGFS is more pressing than Canada defending an arctic winter invasion?

BTW, you have failed to address the bulk of the missions I outlined for naval gunfire, a fact that hasn't escaped anyone else following this thread.

How dare you say I fail. Do you know how much you can do with one trillion dollars, aside from building a fleet of ships based on an old Naval combat paradigm that will likely not be used in any reasonable capacity?

1.) As you yourself have admitted it does not cost a trillion dollars.

2.) As has been explained to you the gun system is far from the primary weapon of the class

3.) The class is based on the newest paradigm there is, projection of naval power inland from the sea. You are the one wallowing in archaic doctrine.

It's certainly the most distinctive feature vs its competition (Arleigh Burke class ships), is it not?

No, the integrated propulsion and new air search radars are my far the most inovative and/or distictive features that differentiate it from the DDG 51, along with its hull form. The AGS does the same thing the 5" on the Burke does only better.

I understand it still has missiles, but it's a lot more expensive for in reality, not much more except a sexier hull, "new radar", and a nice gun system.

As has already been stated, the integrated propulsion is the most revolutionary change, the rest is evolutionary. The ability to not need the engines direclty attached to the shafts is immensely important and wholly new.

[PLATO]

Asher. ahh...so your belief is that the only major upgrade that the DDG-1000 has over the AB is the gun system?

If that were true, then the extra $1.3 billion would indeed be frivolous. However, this is not the case. The X-band radar is more than just "new radar"...it is a significant combat advantage over the competition.

The prefitting of generator space for the rail guns coming online in the not to distant future is a huge cost savings over a retrofit of the AB class (if that is even possible)

There are significant cost benefits in maintaining, provisioning, and paying 200+ less crew members than the AB class.

The stealth technology increases survivability in combat and that could have untold $$ consequences in particular situations (oops...am I at the spare tire threshold here...still, People DO have flats )

The propulsion system is supposedly much more efficient making the ships operating costs lower.

All this along with improved ASW and missle systems.

All that worth an extra $1.3 billion over what an AB would cost? No one can answer that yet I think. It really depends on whether or not we have a "flat tire" or not. If we do, then I bet everybody would be glad to have this little monster on our side. It might be better to look at from a deterent perspective as well. With world competitors like China and Russia making determined efforts to increase deep water navies and in particular submarine fleets, a world class destroyer staying the two steps ahead of them might actually reduce the chances of conflicts.

All in alll, I believe that the U.S. maintaining the most technologically advanced Navy in the world is not only in American interests, but is in the interests of most everyone in the world.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Neither does the AGS, as has been told to you several times now.

How much does it cost, if you are making a statement on its cost?

Anyone else notice the patern here, Asher is confronted with reality and instead of addressing it he ignores it?

The only pattern I'm noticing is you keep dancing around this and then pretending like the "reality" is you said something other than rhetoric?

I wasn't aware Canada had a global power projection capability and a military branch specializing in amphibious warfare. Anyone else want to comment on whether the likelihood of US marines making landings needing NGFS is more pressing than Canada defending an arctic winter invasion?

Given the price of Oil and Canada's increasing supplies, you never know. You are also clearly oblivious as to the importance of the arctic passage. It's actually one of the reasons Canada is spending more on the military...

I thought your whole argument was on "just incase" even though the need isn't obvious now. Are you changing your argument so now that it's a matter of degrees? If so, that doesn't counter my argument -- we just obviously disagree on what need is most pressing. And given that you are a peon in the Navy and told to do what you're told, your opinion which demands more funding for the Navy's new toys is not at all surprising, nor trustworthy. You're no different than a Ford employee telling us why we all need to drive Ford Expeditions. After all, what if you need to transfer 8 kids to a soccer game? You need to be prepared.

[Asher]

Originally posted by PLATO
Asher. ahh...so your belief is that the only major upgrade that the DDG-1000 has over the AB is the gun system?

If that were true, then the extra $1.3 billion would indeed be frivolous. However, this is not the case. The X-band radar is more than just "new radar"...it is a significant combat advantage over the competition.

The prefitting of generator space for the rail guns coming online in the not to distant future is a huge cost savings over a retrofit of the AB class (if that is even possible)

That's worth $1.3B+ per unit? Really? Think about how much money that is for a second.

There are significant cost benefits in maintaining, provisioning, and paying 200+ less crew members than the AB class.

According to Patty himself, this is bull**** and won't happen in the real world.

All that worth an extra $1.3 billion over what an AB would cost? No one can answer that yet I think.

If they can't answer that, it is irresponsible to be spending the money.

QED.