Comments on: Rapid Fire 11/25/05

By: Gab

Gab — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:01:05 +0000

Again your comments are a little misleading Byron; you’re assuming the DD(X)s and their CG(x) counterparts will cost 3.3 Billion a pop, that’s not entierly true.
3.3 billion is the stated cost of the lead ships, this includes development costs that are part of the R&D work so far (much like how people put the F-22s cost at 270 mil a plane, while it’s actually closer to 100–120).
In fact the DD(X) may turn out to be between 2 and 2.4 billion if 2 shipyards are involved, that’s about twice the AB class while getting three times the performance.
And btw the F-35A will not be cancelled according to Aviationweek.
“Over this last weekend, they convinced England that [the cut] is a very bad idea, and that has taken the CTOL-killing fervor out of him“
http://www.aviationweek.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/11285p2.xml

By: Colin D

Colin D — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:58:26 +0000

Absolutely interesting.. strange how so many high ranking officials inside military and politics have been quoted for having knowledge of aliens…
I state simple facts. Regardless of any theories that exist, it is strange, to say the least, to hear a nation talk so openly about aliens. I wonder what the Catholic Church will have to say.. I don’t think the Bible ever mentioned them..

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:20:35 +0000

Good Morning Gab,
Yes Gab. Your are correct on the technical specification of the new weapon that the DD(X) is being designed around or for.
But that wasn’t the point of my post. The point I was trying to make, is the DD(X) itself worth the “estimated” $3.3Billion per ship. At this price could the missions that this platform will be expected to perform be done by other and far less expensive weapon delivery platforms?
I think they can.
The Destroyer and later the Crusier varient of the DD(X) would be the most numerious and worked ships in the U.S. Navy. Both Hulls have expected lives of about 20–30 years range and at it’s current level of operations the U.S.N. would like to have about 60 Destroyers and about half of that number of Crusiers.
That would be an annual production rate of three ships a year average, both hulls. With two ship yards (Bath and N. Orleans) producing these ships this is not enough output to support both yards.
Simple math says that the cost of DD(X) over the next thirty years, it’s estimated life span, of the this programe would be nearly $300Billion or $10Billion a year with out counting in infulation. I beliewve that this program combined with other U.S.N. programs over theat period is simply unaffordable.
Of course the number of ships the Navy has could be reduced in order to afford the DD(X)‘s but with an estimated force of only 250/240 Vessels by 2008 when the current administration leaves office the Navy feels is to few shipt to handle it’s global missions. What is the Navy going to cut out to make room for the DD(X)?
Another suggestion would be to reduce the op. tempos. for the U.S.N., but with the expectations that the U.S.N. as well as the U.S.A.F. will be fielding “Expeditionary Battalions” to supliment the Army and Marines for low intensity Stableization and Peacekeeping missions. Buying expensive platforms like the DD(X) might just be affordable.
This “Blue-Green-Blue” manpower rotation will permitt ships to be “mothballed” while there crews serve as “grunts”. This could work.
Like the Army’s Commache Helicopter program that was recently cancelled the Army had a choice the Army or the Commache. The Army finally dumped the Commache. The Navy I believe will find itself in the same “Boat” with the DD(X).
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Gab

Gab — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:08:30 +0000

"Well the DD(X) has been funded, does the U.S.N. really need a $3.3Billion Destroyer whose claim for existence is a 5" Gun that has a range of 96 miles?" It actually carries 2 155mm cannons (6.1") firing LRLAP rounds out to 100nm with a burst fire rate of 12 rounds a minute. Plus you're forgetting the dual purpose SPY-3 radar, the SM-6, the brand new MK-57 VLS cells, and other relatively unique sub-systems. "U.S. Air Forces's F-35A version of the "F-35 Family" was going to be droped because it was to reduntant to the "Navy's B Version"." The Navy is investing in the F-35C, not the B which is the USMC's STOVL variant. Plus there's no real indication that they'll drop the A for the C (even if the C is more capable IMO) as congress usually has the last word in these matters.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:40:53 +0000

Good Morning,
Well the DD(X) has been funded, does the U.S.N. really need a $3.3Billion Destroyer whose claim for existence is a 5″ Gun that has a range of 96 miles?
For the price of one of these puppies why not just go in a buy up any target that would even be a consideration for such a weapon. I know there is also a stealth argurment bt I’m not buying it.
It seems like the CV-22, and the CV-21 the Navy just can’t pass up a weapons platform of dubious value no matter how much it costs, what a surprise.
The report in the “WSJ” a week ago that the U.S. Air Forces’s F-35A version of the “F-35 Family” was going to be droped because it was to reduntant to the “Navy’s B Version”. I’m assuming that will not happen either.
I suspose the old saying of “Spending like a a drunken Sailor.” is so politically incorrect at the Pentagon that no one remembers it.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner