I'm not a huge fan of increasing military budgets, but I'm a sucker for anything that is stealth, or fools radar. Too bad we won't have more than 2 of these.

Churchill advocated waiting until a potential adversary builds a ship better than yours, then laying down a class that was superior to the adversary's. Until the Arleigh Burke is surpassed, a new class of destroyers is just pork for naval contractors.

The House of Representatives already has voted for at least a pause in DDG 1000 purchases, citing the cost - as much as $5 billion each - of the first two ships in the series and their dependence on still-unproven technologies.

I hope the cost per unit is under $5 billion -- you can buy a Nimitz for that -- and they're including startup costs. Cutting back to two ships is probably the least cost-effective decision the country could make. All the overhead of a new ship class, little of the benefit. Kill the program dead or fund ten ships.

ZAZ: Cutting back to two ships is probably the least cost-effective decision the country could make. All the overhead of a new ship class, little of the benefit. Kill the program dead or fund ten ships.

Two ships, ten ships-- It doesn't matter. They are ALL going to end up as rusting hulks along the docks when the US goes bankrupt.


_{/Good thing we have peaceful neighbors}

TheOther: Churchill advocated waiting until a potential adversary builds a ship better than yours, then laying down a class that was superior to the adversary's. Until the Arleigh Burke is surpassed, a new class of destroyers is just pork for naval contractors.

You (and Winston) are absolutely correct. There isn't a potential enemy on this planet that has a destroyer that can rival the Burke class with anything they have in the water or on the drawing board.

We need these super high tech destroyers for who again, exactly? The Cold War is over.

Malacon: I'm not a huge fan of increasing military budgets, but I'm a sucker for anything that is stealth, or fools radar. Too bad we won't have more than 2 of these.

Those super stealth technologies would sure help a lot against Al Qaeda.

I guess.

Somehow.

Aren't there two types of ships in the Navy, targets and subs?
/cept for big old battleships that could be useful to park in 3rd world dictators ports.

Disapproves.

An inflatable rubber boat did this



/along with stupid rules of engagement, lax security and a few other things

DON.MAC: Aren't there two types of ships in the Navy, targets and subs?

As a last resort, after all other measures have failed, shouldn't screening ships be decoys, bigger targets, than the aircraft carrier?

And a sub is a better sneaky-scout/defender.

Those who do not learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat it.
The Japanese in WW2 had complex ships with the required high maintainer training and long build times. We responded with much cheaper ships with low build times, easy repair replace times and more adaptable crews.
I do not think that building an expensive fleet of ships which are designed for a different war is a good strategy when our primary concern should be against the kind of threats we are most likely to face now, cheap quiet diesel subs, mines, and Zodiacs with explosives.
It took a long time to fix the Cole and was very expensive. I think our potential adversary's know these weaknesses and are aware they cannot build a ship that would work well in a stand up fight against one and therefore won't waste the money.

/cept for big old battleships that could be useful to park in 3rd world dictators ports.

Oh come of it, Wilmington, NC isn't all that bad. Oh who am I kidding. Perfect description for the resting place of the USS North Carolina.

So we'll only have two of these floating targets in the Strait of Taiwan? : ( : ( : (

Stealth ships? I thought that's why we had submarines.

Why don't we have ninjas?

I go along with a few others. This design has some major flaws that are either unworkable or unfixable with todays tech.

The Arlie Burke class is proven and still more technologically advanced than almost almost any other destroyer.

These things are likely going to be harbor queens.

Shrugging Atlas: You (and Winston) are absolutely correct. There isn't a potential enemy on this planet that has a destroyer that can rival the Burke class with anything they have in the water or on the drawing board.

You still can't catch the Vic-Class subs. A well designed diesel-electric sub is still light years ahead of any ship in the water, even with the newest and greatest towed-array sonars.

BiffDangler: We need these super high tech destroyers for who again, exactly? The Cold War is over.

The cold war is over, and we are dominant, precisely BECAUSE we are always a generation ahead in our weapons systems. I have no opinion on these destroyers one way or another, but the idea that we should give away our lead because we are ahead is stupid.

Its a sensible reason to buy an advanced warship every now and then. But personally I'd prefer a strategy that gives us thousands of littoral runabouts and escort carriers instead of a single mission battleship.

We have to deal with border security, guarding ports, and securing sea lanes. That means we need boats more suited to chasing pirates than sinking the handful of big bruisers left in the Russian or Chinese navy.

Smaller, faster, longer ranged and more efficient will be the way to go.

way south: Smaller, faster, longer ranged and more efficient will be the way to go.

Ships don't work like that.

One big, well designed ship is far more efficient then two smaller ships.

Bored Horde: way south: Smaller, faster, longer ranged and more efficient will be the way to go.

Ships don't work like that.

One big, well designed ship is far more efficient then two smaller ships.

Maybe in terms of fuel. But not in terms of manpower. Right now I'd say the biggest threat on the seas is pirates and those small, quick Iranian boats. Carrier Groups can do the job because they have such a huge range, but our current fleet can decimate anything the Iranians can throw at us and I can't see any other Navy going after ours.

Bored Horde: Not if the expense of the bigger ship can be offset by cheap countermeasures that are themselves better combated by the smaller "less efficient" ships.
BiffDangler: We won the cold war because we bankrupted them, I see following the same path and expecting a different result to be foolish.

AMS0000: Bored Horde: Not if the expense of the bigger ship can be offset by cheap countermeasures that are themselves better combated by the smaller "less efficient" ships.

Any modern ship is going to need ECMs, radar, anti-missle tech, anti-helicopter tech, anti-torpedo tech, sonar, torpedoes, missles,and 50-cals mounted all over for dealing with the tiny boats. You're probably going to need a helicopter bay/pad for most missions

A destroyer is exactly the right size for all those things. Anything smaller and you're missing out on some vital part of modern warship design.

TheShavingofOccam123: An inflatable rubber boat did this

That should have never happened, and it won't happen again.



/toured the Cole a few months ago

Wasn't the arsenal ship supposed to have a crew of only ~50, and carry 500 cruise missiles? Seems to me that would be more useful to the navy than more destroyers.

Shrugging Atlas: TheOther: Churchill advocated waiting until a potential adversary builds a ship better than yours, then laying down a class that was superior to the adversary's. Until the Arleigh Burke is surpassed, a new class of destroyers is just pork for naval contractors.

You (and Winston) are absolutely correct. There isn't a potential enemy on this planet that has a destroyer that can rival the Burke class with anything they have in the water or on the drawing board.

I think in terms of capability the UK T45 is the closest thing behind an Arleigh Burke class ship and even then the USN have the upper hand.

The Russian navy is still in a woeful state after a decade of neglect, the French can't seem to build anything decent hence them chipping in with the UK's, CV(f)

China who has the potential to be the Unites States big rival is still a brown water navy and the rest of her technology is still behind anything the UK/USA et al.

TheShavingofOccam123: An inflatable rubber boat did this

And the design of the ship and crew training stopped it been another underwater tomb

Bored Horde: A destroyer is exactly the right size for all those things. Anything smaller and you're missing out on some vital part of modern warship design.

What we need is to be in more dangerous places at once so we can out every little fire our enemies try to start. We need ships that are suited to the mundane tasks of coastline patrols and standing guard duty in convoys.
That calls for corvette sized ships or smaller, unless you want to do it with carrier based aircraft.

A destroyer might work as a mothership to a fleet of small boats, but thats one horribly expensive tender.

I'm working design on the DDG-1000, so I'm getting a kick out of some of these comments...

brichter

If FoxNews was around in the 50s, they would have repeatedly referred to President Eisenhower, the anti-war communist appeaser Democrat, and run a series on impeachment so that bold, visionary, proud and fearless navy vet, VP Nixon could take over.

If we had a hundred of these puppies, the war on terror would be won!

/he says as he cashes his defense contractor checks

TheShavingofOccam123: An inflatable rubber boat did this



/along with stupid rules of engagement, lax security and a few other things

And they didn't have any radar, so stealthing wouldn't have done any good.

TMBGfreak: Carrier Groups can do the job because they have such a huge range, but our current fleet can decimate anything the Iranians can throw at us and I can't see any other Navy going after ours.

Please don't share your advanced opinions on military tactics, capabilities and history until you understand the word "decimate."

/K
//Thx
///Buh-bye

BiffDangler:

The cold war is over, and we are dominant, precisely BECAUSE we are always a generation ahead in our weapons systems. I have no opinion on these destroyers one way or another, but the idea that we should give away our lead because we are ahead is stupid.

kind of like how the french build the most impressive defensive line ever imagined, and the germans just flew over it.
just because a bit of technology is the most advanced in its field, doesn't make it particularly useful against an insurgency.

Cost is a big factor, but I see this as a case of politics and doctrine disagreement.

My weak analysis of the current and projected future needs is that, looking at the hotspots in the Med and Europe, looking at our own coastal defense, and the possible fights to come in the Taiwan straits, we need less deep-water classic fleet tonnage, and more and better littoral capability; ships that can stand off of hostile coasts and pound bad guys with those railgun rounds and missile strikes, support landing parties of Marines with fire called in by a forward observer on the ground or in the air or in space... That goes right to the heart of anti- terrorist and anti-insurgency type missions, using the boat, safely offshore, to call down ballistic ordnance on the front line.

The carrier community see this as a job for manned and unmanned aircraft, obviously. Carriers don't travel alone, they have huge task forces to support, defend, and protect the carrier. These proposed ships would tend not to be deployed to a carrier group but separately, in smaller ops where a carrier can't or needn't go, or where it would be too "expensive" to go. Force scaled to the threat.

The bubbleheads say let's convert more Tridents to carry SEALS and more t-hawks and make some new smaller shallow-water subs to lie in hiding close in and do the same job.

So you have a 4-way fight going on just in the navy itself over what the next job is going to require, and who's service is best for doing that job.

I say this style of boat and it's new technology looks like a good fit for future needs. You would deploy it with an attack sub and have a powerful, flexible combo that can operate more independently than a carrier group.

Why the fark should Congress micromanage the DoD's budget? Cut the funds and let them figure out what nonsensical programs to ditch.

BiffDangler: We need these super high tech destroyers for who again, exactly? The Cold War is over.

The cold war is over, and we are dominant, precisely BECAUSE we are always a generation ahead in our weapons systems. I have no opinion on these destroyers one way or another, but the idea that we should give away our lead because we are ahead is stupid.

Give away our lead to whom? We're not a step ahead of our current or potential conventional adversaries, we're an entire generation or more ahead of them. In the meantime, the world has changed and our actual adversaries don't give a crap what our defense budget is or how high-tech our weapons are because they're killing us with the same weapons our adversary killed us with in Vietnam.

Any Pie Left: So you have a 4-way fight going on just in the navy itself over what the next job is going to require, and who's service is best for doing that job.

How much of the impetus for this ship design is 'OMGZ the Air Force has 'stealth' and is just raking in the appropriations so we gotta getz stealth too!'? Just buzzwords and appropriations-envy...

I bet with proper micro those two ships could own every other navy on earth.

TheOther: How much of the impetus for this ship design is 'OMGZ the Air Force has 'stealth' and is just raking in the appropriations so we gotta getz stealth too!'? Just buzzwords and appropriations-envy...

Your post is full of fail. Ever hear of the USS STARK? Being undetectable by a radar would have been a pretty useful thing for that ship.

TheOther: Churchill advocated waiting until a potential adversary builds a ship better than yours, then laying down a class that was superior to the adversary's. Until the Arleigh Burke is surpassed, a new class of destroyers is just pork for naval contractors.

Yeah, you do R&D on crap constantly and then lay down the law with a new b*tchin' class. We did this with submarines against the Soviets. The only thing we couldn't match was the dual titanium hulls on the Typhoon, but our gear was at least 5-20% better than theirs at any time and we had better trained crews.

Manic_Repressive: That should have never happened, and it won't happen again.



CIWS. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: Manic_Repressive: That should have never happened, and it won't happen again.



CIWS. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Actually, it can be manually controlled now for use against small boats.

doyner: I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: Manic_Repressive: That should have never happened, and it won't happen again.



CIWS. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Actually, it can be manually controlled now for use against small boats.

Actually, thats an anti-helicopter thing. The rotor blades are the only thing that move fast enough for the radar to track, and they're too small to target.

Those 50-cal mounts all over the ship are the last-ditch zodiac defence.

Bored Horde: Actually, thats an anti-helicopter thing. The rotor blades are the only thing that move fast enough for the radar to track, and they're too small to target.

Those 50-cal mounts all over the ship are the last-ditch zodiac defence.

Fail. There is a new adaptation that allows a person to manually move it via video and assign a track on a non-flying target. I am well aware of what the radar does, I'm talking about a relatively new modification to CIWS that is deployed on several ships already.

Yeah, the article forgets to mention that although it costs $5 billion to build each ship, that price doesn't include the costs of designing, engineering, and research new technologies, or the costs of fixing the problems that crop up (Cost plus contracts, they're fun). It probably cost the US at least double that per ship if you factor in those costs. Same thing with the B-2 bomber, it cost $1 billion to build, but if you add in the design costs, that price would easily double or triple. The military loves doing crafty accounting like that.

/Overblown military ftl

doyner:
Fail. There is a new adaptation that allows a person to manually move it via video and assign a track on a non-flying target. I am well aware of what the radar does, I'm talking about a relatively new modification to CIWS that is deployed on several ships already.

I'm about 99% sure that they're going to use the 50-cals against a small vessel instead of their reserve anti-missile defence, especially in the waters right beside Iran.

Bored Horde: I'm about 99% sure that they're going to use the 50-cals against a small vessel instead of their reserve anti-missile defence, especially in the waters right beside Iran.

I'm not disputing the use of 50-cals. I'm disputing the claim that CIWS is solely for air defense. Block 1B Phalanx Surface Mode (PSUM) is a great tool now for engaging small boats if you don't want to expose personnel to dangers outside the skin of the ship.

doyner: Block 1B Phalanx Surface Mode (PSUM) is a great tool now for engaging small boats if you don't want to expose personnel to dangers outside the skin of the ship.

This.

/don't fark with R2D2

doyner: Your post is full of fail. Ever hear of the USS STARK? Being undetectable by a radar would have been a pretty useful thing for that ship.

A Perry class frigate was designed to be cheap. That's how escort/screen vessels are built. To paraphrase Churchill again, if you keep upgrading a destroyer, pretty soon you have a light cruiser and it becomes a worthwhile target itself.

But you put the DDG 1000 in the same position: a narrow strait with uncontrolled shipping nearby; officers and crew lulled into complacency; weapon systems on stand-by instead of active; and an attacker within what is likely visual range; you probably get the same, but much more expensive, result. Stealth affects target acquisition, but it isn't invisibility.