Navy orders new destroyers

[unhappycamper]

Navy orders new destroyers
By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Feb 15, 2008 13:45:31 EST

Construction of the first two DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class advanced destroyers is set to begin after the U.S. Navy awarded its two primary shipbuilders $2.8 billion in contracts Feb. 14.

General Dynamics will build the Zumwalt — DDG 1000 — at Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine, while Northrop Grumman will build the yet-to-be-named DDG 1001 at its Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss.

The Zumwalt is set to be delivered by Bath in June 2013, while Northrop’s DDG 1001 is to follow in July 2014. Northrop and General Dynamics are cooperating in completing the final, detailed design of the destroyers. Northrop, the original lead contractor for the program, will be responsible for building the DDG 1001 and the superstructure and hangar for the Bath-built DDG 1000. Bath will build the mid-forebody hull section of the DDG 1001.

A $3.3 billion price tag is attached to each of the new ships, although the Navy hopes the cost will drop as further ships are ordered. Independent government analysts, however, routinely forecast a much higher cost, with some estimates topping $5 billion and more.

The Navy intends to buy a total of seven ships of the class, which the service says it needs to dominate littoral waters and provide long-range and persistent fire support for troops ashore.


Rest of article at: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/02/dn_newdestroyers_080215w/

[lapfog_1]

1. $3 B to $5 B for a f'ing DESTROYER???

WTF??? I thought that was the price tag for a super carrier.

We need to rethink the military. Destroyers are supposed to protect carrier groups from submarines and small craft attacks. They are by nature and role, expendable. But not at that price tag!

[Captain Angry]

2. Not a surprise, when you think of how contracts are billed.

It's not like there will be very much off the shelf stuff in that boat.

Everything is custom. Add to it the top of the line communications and detection systems, weapons, defensive systems and it's going to be expensive.

I'd sure like to see us spend a couple of bucks fixing New Orleans, but I think we both know THAT'S not going to happen.

[margotb822]

5. Actually,

There is quite a bit of off the shelf stuff. But building a guided missile destroyer isn't like building a canoe. So think about it: would you rather send people into a country or a group of ships off the coast of a country. I think the Navy should be the most relevant "last ditch" diplomacy tool that America uses. But, like I said, I'm biased towards the Navy, so feel free to disagree.

[margotb822]

4. Expendable?

You think the 300+ people that man this are expendible? You are insane.

Who is going to shoot that satellite out of the sky? A cruiser/destroyer that's who! Destroyers are the most versatile ships in the Navy today, and they do much more than guard the carrier.

Please, think ahead to what the Navy can be. This is not your grandfather's WWII Navy!

[lapfog_1]

6. That would be my FATHER's WWII Navy

where he served on a destroyer. Something that I did a bunch of research on when taking a history class in college.

And they aren't sending a destroyer to launch a missile, they are sending (according to one source) 3 Aegis class cruisers. Which are somewhat different ships. Destroyers have the primary role of defending the fleet (which has been their role since WWII) from submarine and surface action. Still their primary role.

They are much more capable now than in WWII.

Here is a good definition for you...

n the US Navy, destroyers operate in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups. The destroyers currently in use by the US Navy are the Arleigh Burke-class. Destroyers (with a DD hull classification symbol) primarily perform anti-submarine warfare duty while guided missile destroyers (DDGs) are multi-mission (anti-submarine, anti-aircraft, and anti-surface warfare) surface combatants. The relatively-recent addition of cruise missile launchers has greatly expanded the role of the destroyer in strike and land-attack warfare. As the expense of heavier surface combatants has generally removed them from the fleet, destroyer tonnage has grown (a modern Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has the same tonnage as a World War II light cruiser). Arleigh Burke is billed by her builders as ton-for-ton the most powerful warship in history.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer

So, yeah, they do have bigger missions than their old WWII counterparts... but the main role of support of carrier battle groups, especially in anti-submarine, anti-surface, and anti-air (though the carriers OWN air defense as embodied in the role of at least one air wing is likely superior to that of any surface ship). And, yeah, before you lose a carrier, the destroyer is the vessel you put in harms way. So in that sense, they are expendable. But not at a cost of $3B per ship!

[margotb822]

7. I don't need wikipedia

I'm in the Navy. Both cruisers and destroyers operate Ageis, and both can carry the same missiles. Yes, they have been doing the SM-3 tests on a cruiser. Destroyers in the modern fleet perform a wide range of duties, from carrier plane guard to ASW. But, the USN would never sacrifice any DDG for a CVN. See, the CVN has speed on its side and can out maneuver any naval threat, while the escort (which, BTW, is most likely a CG) is more likely to be attacked by an enemy.
It's ok to admit that you don't know what it costs to develop an effective ship in 'today's Navy,' I do. $3bn is more acceptable than 4000+ lives!

[margotb822]

3. This is old news

These have been in the works for at least five years.

But before you get down on the Navy, think about how influential it can be. We can put a battery of ships, an air wing, and a battalion of Marines off the coast of any country (that has one), without firing a shot.

So, I believe that the Navy is the most diplomatic of any of the services.

However, I believe that these ships will fail due to their lack of manpower. (I'm in the Navy, so that's just my personal view). No one can wok for 18 of 24 hours for any extended period of time, and that's what these ships expect people to do.