Comments on: DDG 1000: On Target

By: bleh

bleh — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:26:43 +0000

The reason for the Swiss Army Knives is Congress.
If you design half a dozen specialized systems working together beautifully to provide a highly effective and cost efficient balanced force you can be certain that Congress is gonna kill one or two projects for some stupid reason or other.
Suddenly you lack some essential capability.
If instead you build hopelessly overengineered jack of all trades, very large, complicated and expensive weapons systems that can be neatly distributed across all 50 states and 220 congressional districts, and voila, you got yourself a cancel-proof program.

By: Razer

Razer — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:56:36 +0000

Wha? This ship far pre-dates the Obama administration. Not everything can be chalked up to those “dirty liberals”.
Valcan has made some solid points. The U.S. is in love with their Swiss Army Knife products. “We need a scout vehical… but it needs to carry 12 troops, have a cannon large enough to take out a Russian tank, and hell, lets make is amphibious”. There is no shame in making specialty ships/planes/vehicals and moving them together in formation. Isn’t that the entire point of a battle-group?

By: tiger

tiger — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:58:02 +0000

dddg1000.…… Pricey toy that can’t even stop Pirates off Africa. Sorry, but Bin Ladden is not scared of a 155mm deep in Pakistan. Pork project for Bath Iron and a pay off to the 2 senators form Maine for voting on the stimulus package for Obama.

By: tiger

tiger — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:57:42 +0000

By: justbill

justbill — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:39:57 +0000

Valcan wrote: “Its already been shown that even our carrier task forces are at risk from multiple fast missile boats like the chinese and well most likely enemy countries favor.“
I realize the Navy lost an important surveillance and ASuW asset with the retirement of the Viking, but what squadron(s) of missile boats will beat the Hawkeye/Hornet team? Throw a few Penguin-armed Seahawks and an escorting SSN or two into the mix and I think it’s game over for the missile boats. (All this assumes they weren’t sunk at their piers or unable to leave port courtesy of mining.)

By: Valcan

Valcan — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:14:00 +0000

Recon i wasnt talking about 2 or 3 missiles or aircraft but of 20 or 30.
Its already been shown that even our carrier task forces are at risk from multiple fast missile boats like the chinese and well most likely enemy countries favor.
My problem is this the navy wants a 320 or so ship navy. So it wants to create a ship that con do multiple job ok but not well. This leads to the current DDX which is just to expensive.
Im not saying i hate the whole DDX program many of the propulsion systems, hull design etc. are fantastic.
But in my opinion there trying to do to much, with to many new systems ideas before its ready.
I think the navy just needs to try to consentrate on making a good sold frigate class vessel for asw missions. And light patrol duties.
A air defense destroyer much like the new daring class of the brits. But cheaper. Though we will doubtless aquire more of them so they should be cheaper. As well as having done a large amount of the work in the DDX and in present ships.
It should be able to ingage track and destroy numerous (not 3 or 5) air threats at once. BMD is also an option.
Crusier class Vessel with the ability to engage multiple surface and land targets at good range and precision.
A heavy crusier/arsenal ship/battlescrusier Realy whatever you want to call it. Heavily armed armored and heavy defenses.
Every ship from destroyer to crusiers needs to be nuke powered. Assualt ships for marines also nuke powered. Better defenses from air threats.
All major combat ships need improved ECM systems power systems.
Subs were doing OK on for the moment and well im tired of typing. :)
——————————–
Stealth is a great thing. But not when it makes the ship or weapon cost so much it becomes to valuable to ever risk or makes the price so high that the weapons system becomes costly.
BTW why dont we (US), Japan, Britain, Australia, South korea, and other allied states start working together on ships.
The US, SK, Japan, as well as Australia need air/BMD defense ships and frigates for ASW. Also Why not work on a pocket carrier for marine actions/ASW/standard patrol duties and defense.
Just wondering

By: FormerDirtDart

FormerDirtDart — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:48:59 +0000

My understanding is that the primary reason the Zumwalt (DDG 1000) will not be able to perform the BMD mission is power supply. The ship power system can not produce enough to run the shipboard systems, and the planned Theater Ballistic Missle Defense (TBMD) radar. This is also the reason the CG(X) will not share the same hull design as the Zumwalt, as originally planned.
What I have seen is that the Navy is planning on a similar hull for ther CG(X), just longer and wider. They are also trying to figure out how to wedge in a nuclear reactor with enough power to operate all systems. It seems that while reactors currently used for subs would fit, they don’t surpass the power generated by the Zumwalts conventional power supply. And the possibility of using half of an Aircraft Carrier double reactor system is still to large for a Zumwalt sized hull.

By: ReconTeam

ReconTeam — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:00:50 +0000

Look, the ship may cost way more than it should, but it is not going to be “sunk easily.” The DDG-1000 is supposed to have ESSM, Block III SM-2MR, Block IV SM-2ER, and eventually SM-6 capability for defense against missiles and aircraft. Yet it seems it doesn’t have the all the systems needed for the BMD mission, which uses the SM-3. The planned CG-X will have full BMD capabilities, and the DDG-51 class ships that have it now will stay in service for a long time yet.
The Mk.110 57mm guns also have a multipurpose capability. Plus the stealthy design means a missile is more likely to be fooled by countermeasures.

By: Max

Max — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:23:08 +0000

Hear, hear, Vulcan!! Agree 100%

By: elgatoso

elgatoso — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:40:43 +0000

roland ‚I wish at least one Admiral could pick up your idea, I think is a problem of cost.