Come on Eagle1, don't hold back and beat around the bush, tell us what you really think.....
Seriously, it seems the DDG 1000 isn't right especially for cost and other problems it is supposed to help with.
The nagging worry is that we still might need to really bombard something like a beach or area, and guns seem to be better or perhaps more cost effective at that. Is that a false worry? Can the accuracy of missle systems with sufficient quantities of missles do the job? Can we design a ship that can do the bombardment job for a reasonable amount of money?
I think that was the idea behind the Arsenal Ship- 500 missiles, etc. Put a couple of those ships on scene with supporting ships and it's better than a battleship due to greater accuracy.
*BANG* *BANG* *BANG*
That's the sound of me banging my head against the wall as my Air Force does the exact same thing your Navy is doing.
TITAN can supposedly fit 48 of their affordable cruise missiles in one mission module sized container. Assuming the missile can be made to work, too bad the only ship that is built to carry mission modules that could actually fire the missiles is FSF-1, which appears to have torn up its hull recently in a storm.
Will 1 or 2 DD(X) ships be the modern version of the USS Bainbridge and USS Long Beach, introducing new concepts to be incorporated into the United States future fleet? While it would be nice to think so, if they are the next fleet is going to start an arms race with the Royal Navy, to see who can have the most powerful tiny fleet in the world.
http://fredericksburg.com/News/F...01172007/
251373
I think how this rail gun pans out will have alot to do with what our future fleet looks like. 200+ mile range in a rail gun will revolutionize the fleet. One such ship could hold a 400+ mile circle of sea or put lead on target 200+ miles inland.
If it works Big Electric generating ships will be needed and in short order a move to nuclear reactors. If that becomes the need then stealth and all the other components being tested in the DDX to protect this big mobile reactor gun platform will be the way to go. Even if this idea pans out I doubt the DDX will be much more than say the F-117 was basicly a stepping stone.
If it fails then it will be a small dispersed fleet using missiles as thier punching power at 500k-1mill a pop for the new age tomahawks to get the 200+ mile range.
I am holding to see how things go.
Lots of questions to be answered before this becomes a viable weapon. Some key areas of concern in my mind:
- cycle time
- targeting accuracy (and timeliness)
- barrel life
We are on the same sheet of music. My post tomorrow will cover the same thing.
God Only knows how to convince the Navy Leadership to get this type of program rolling.
There seems to be far too much good thinking in this most excellent suggestion.
Resistance fighters shoot down American Black Hawk helicopter in ar-Ridwaniyah Thursday afternoon.
WE F***YOU DIRTY S*** AMERICANS !!!
NEXT MONTHS WE TRY TO KILL 10-20 AMERICAN SOLDIERS...
LEAVE THE IRAQ MOTHER****** !!!
IRAQI RESISTANCE....VIVA JIHAD !!!
VIVA OSAMA BIN LADEN !!!
Edited By Siteowner
You don't need a new platform to have an arsenal ship. You only need something with a large storage space, speed, and a large electrical generation capability. You can get that with the SL-7 class of merchant ships, which are currently in the MARAD fleet:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/mi...ip/takr-
287.htm
I know the SL-7s steam plant is plagued with problems. I submit, that it would be relatively cheap to convert these huge plants to gas turbines. The huge cargo space, capable of carrying a full brigade of armor, including service vehicles, could be converted to magazines. The Sl-7 already has huge deck cranes, and I suspect that a dab of good engineering would allow these cranes to "cycle" complete modules or ammo packs to the weapons platforms. And the icing on the cake, is that SL-7 was designed for speed: it can easily do 33 knots, enabling it to keep pace with any screening ships. Gents, these ships are freakin' huge, damn near as big as a carrier. You could pack a hell of a lot of punch in one of these, and get them to the fleet, completely re-engineered, fully loaded out, for less than a third of what a new design would cost you.
Eagle, SAAR is a great idea. So is Visby. I'd rather see Burkes any day before that sea-going abortion called DD-X/DD-1000. But thosed damn hydrofoils? You gotta be kidding me. Those things were so fragile it wasn't funny, and seemed to purely be magnetized to the nearest whale, which really had a nasty affect on the foils. And this yardbird can tell you, that cleaning all that dead whale out of a mangled foil just to start working on that complex SOB was a truly nasty job 
SL-7s - ships like the USNS Denebola are a great idea, Byron! Not exactly "low profile" though...
And the hydrofoils? Just to add to some bad guys targeting woes... I'll take any idea for speed and weaponry- we just happen to have the blueprints for the Pegasus class. The HSVs with weapons might be good, but the idea is to get stuff out there without have "design delay."
Iris:
Rot in Hell.
Who cares about low profile? Everyone from the Commandant of the Marine Corps on down wants to bring back the BBs. And yes, you could put one helluva lot of firepower of all types on a ship that big...AND they can keep up with the fleet!
Iris: FOAD. The last three letters stand for "OFF AND DIE". I'll let you guess what the first one stands for.
REMEMBER 11 SEPT. !!!! THAT WAS A GREAT DAY !!! ABOUT 3.000 DEAD AMERICANS !!!!
GREAT !!!!!!
ONE DAY WE FLY IN YOUR S*** BUILDINGS AGAIN !!!!!
VIVA OSAMA BIN LADEN !!!!
Edited By Siteowner
YOU DIRTY STUPID F***NG AMERICAN !!!
COME TO US AND WE SHOW YOU WHAT WE DO WITH DIRTY AMERICANS !!!!
YOUR MOTHER WAS A OLD F***ING WHORE !!!!
TO BYRON AUDLER
Edited By Siteowner
OOO...touched a nerve there, did I? Well, my mom is old, Iris, but she could still take you out to the woodshed and teach you some manner
Can't help but compare this with the high/low mix debate that raged during the 60's/70's. Unfortunately it took getting our butts whipped by decidely low tech MiG-17's and -19's over N. Vietnam before a series of steps, including training and settling on a mix of F-15/-16 and F-14/-18 were put into place (a decade hence). Recall also how a handful of frigates gave an otherwise technologically and numerically superior RN the fits in 1812. Wonder if it will take a similar wake-up call here -- and will it come too late given development/ procurement/ construction times? Even then, the lesson doesn't seem to take hold for too long; in the current age of +$100M fighters, we seem to be regressing again...
-SJS
Gosh, I hope we have a Napoleon to help us next time, too.
AMERICANS DON`T FIGHT FOR FREEDOM !!!ONLY FOR CONTROL AND OIL !!!!AMERICANS ARE THE REALLY NAZIS !!!!!!
BUT WE F*** YOU !!!!! WE TRY TO KILL EACH DAY AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ !!!!AND OFTEN WE HAVE LUCK !!!!!!
AMERICANS ARE BLOODY KILLERS OF WOMEN AND KIDS !!!
IRAQI RESISTANCE !!!!!(sonnen_blume73@hotmail.com)
Edited By Siteowner
Mrs. Davis, we don't need the Corsican...we need someone like that fella from Texas, Chester Nimitz. And SJ Scribe, it was mostly training that turned the tide for Naval aviation over N. Vietnam. First the Aullt Report, and then the Naval Fighter Weapons School started pumping naval aviators out to the fleet that understood the concept of fight to train, train to fight, and fight to win (not to mention energy management and dissimilar tactics). US Navy owned the skies over N. Vietnam during the last months of the war, after all these aviators got back to the Fleet and started spreading the Gospel.
Oh...and after this, there have been no US Navy fighters without an internal gun
Iris:
In light of your charming additions to the conversation and to civilized discourse, you are, henceforth and forever banned.
Eagle1,
I've been reading about the DDG-1000 in my Sept '06 Proceedings. Yes, great capability but the 'sticker shock' is high. I can't really see where the class will ever be built in any number over two or three if at all. About the only thing that would make sense would be a experimental platform to test some or all of the new technologies in one package.
I think the best thing you stated was that you didn't know any captain who would take a $3B ship into the littorals willingly. Oh, I'm sure you can do it but you'd better be ready to deal with the consequence when, not if, they happen (grounding, mines, BBIED's, etc.).
Good move on Iris. May he'll get his virgins sooner rather than later.
DWB
I personally think that we should have bought this as an LCS ship: http://www.knmskjold.org/english...lish/
index.html
The KNM Skjold came to the Naval Academy while I was there, and all the mids got tours of it. It is a very interesting ship which has many excellent littoral characteristics and packs a significant punch still.
Don: Thanks.
TZ: I like it!
Byron - Agree re. NV and training, but that laid the groundwork for the procurement plans that followed for the F-16 and F-18; the high/low argument had been decided, at least for a while, in favor of a mix of aircraft type...
-SJS
One of the truly stupid things I've seen in naval design was putting the missile tubes down the port and starboard sides either side of the after gun mount...right next to the side shell. Is it just me that sees lot's of problems with putting a whole mess of explosive warheads and highly combustible fuel close to the skin of the ship, AND have the mags for the guns just inboard. One good hit, and you got half a ship gone in a real loud bang.
Eagle1 -- what does the domestic shipbuilding industry say to procurement of foreign designs, even license-built? One need look no further than the vitriol exchanged between Boeing and N-G/Eads over the KC-X...
- SJS
Byron:
Exhibit a: F-35C (re. no guns)
-SJS
SJS, the AF version will have an internal gun. The Navy and Marine Corps will have an external gun, missionized in a stealth pod. I personally think this is criminally stupid, especially since it was the Navy, via the Ault Report that re-learned the hard fact that fighters WILL end up in a furball, and it's a lot better to have a gun when you're out of missiles, than it is to not have the gun and either die right there or run like hell. At least the Air Force didn't forget.
Agreed -- and we all know how successful the external gunpods were on the Phantoms in Vietnam too, speaking of lessons unlearned...
- SJS
Yeah, SJS, stupid move, I agree. Pilots hated to strap the damn things on, because they were tempermental, especially pulling G (duh, imagine a gun fight and not pulling G) and had an enormous amount of drag. Shame to say the AF wasn't stupid...
I think the Navy version will have an internal gun pod. The USMC one will not, like the AV-8B it is replacing. This is to save weight on the STOVL version since it is primarily for CAS, so it gives you more options for the type/number of ordinance it will carry. My biggest question/concern about the C model is how will it survive in an expeditionary environment? If you are familiar with Harrier ops at all, you will know that they are flown out of just about anywhere with minimal support.
TZ:
Navy version has been notable for not having a gun. C is also notable for larger wing surface - unless there is something *really good* back in the black program shops (not saying there is or isn't) to take the place of a gun, just fail to see the logic other than fom a pure weight-saving matter. Also don't foresee the C model operating in an expeditionary environment anymore than (or perhaps less so) a E/F Hornet...
-SJS
Spot on with your appraisal here.
Anyone with a brain knows that the DDG 1000 should and probably will get canceled.
I certainly wouldn't want to risk an expensive zumwalt class multi billion dollar ship in a fight against a cheap old Chinese diesel electric sub.
Better to put several smaller units in the fight.
Pitty the us naval brass has never really liked smaller warships.
And whats so wrong with the ddg-51 class that we couldn't just build updated versions ?
kiwiruss
I'd like to know why the shipyards are having such a hard time building anything these days. It just doesn't make any sense.
I could see a few more patrol boats, but the LCS did fill a niche that we're going to be short on soon, in the 3-6KT range. The only problem was that the LCS had the armament of a corvette. How hard is it to slap some Mk41s in a frigate-sized hull? Couldn't the FSF-1 design be upsized to a frigate?
Personally, I'd rather see a few dozen frigates with a decent gun, good engines, and the 41s to handle a good warload than LCS as designed. All-electric propulsion should definitely be a goal, but it should be tested out on small prototype ships first.
And then, at some point, railguns or coilguns could change everything.
Commenting by HaloScan
