[Slater]

http://www.navytimes..._ddg100_071408/

It's kind of looking that way, although anything is possible. Seems that everyone still has sticker shock over this class of ships.

[DesertFox]

Hopefully most of the technology developed on this ship can be used in later designs

[Josh]

Slater, on Wed 16 Jul 2008 0230, said:

http://www.navytimes..._ddg100_071408/

It's kind of looking that way, although anything is possible. Seems that everyone still has sticker shock over this class of ships.

Actually it seems far more likely that this is a precursor to the whole class being cut before it touches the water. Rightly so IMO. The class was a couple bridges to far IMO.

LCS on the other hand, despite the problems with the program, is absolutely necessary both for filling specific needs and for maintaining sheer number of hulls.

[Gunguy]

The Navy needs to focus on the LCS ships if they really want them. They have so many irons in the pot, they can't keep them all going. LCS is messed up and they need to sort it out very quickly. Congress and others in D.C. have no faith at all in the Navy having a viable vision of the future, and how to fund the ships needed to make the future happen. The first issue that they need to deal with is getting smaller. If they keep giving lip service to the 313 ship Navy, nothing good will happen. If they articulate an affordable 260 ship Navy, they would get massive support from Congress. Always acting like an unaffordable number of ships is realistic keeps Congress thinking the Navy does not have control over their vision of the future, or even if they have a vision for the future. The services must realize that they need to plan heavily for getting smaller and saving money.

On the other hand, the Army and Marines are already cutting back in their future planning. They are looking at massively cutting back on JLTV buys, cutting the MRAP buy and killing off completely the MRAPII buy. They are loking at buying a LOT of updated Humvees, as they are cheaper than all of the new vehicles. This is the type of planning that the Navy and Air Force need to do so they can afford a future that makes sense.

[Gregory]

Carrier SLEPs run about a billion per ship and add about 15 years worth of service. Would it really cost us more then $3 billion per ship to recommission the stricken Ticos and update them with DDG 1000 level technologies?

[Josh]

Gregory, on Wed 16 Jul 2008 1632, said:

Carrier SLEPs run about a billion per ship and add about 15 years worth of service. Would it really cost us more then $3 billion per ship to recommission the stricken Ticos and update them with DDG 1000 level technologies?

Yes. DDG1000 tech, such as it is and to the extent it works, I believe requires heavy reworking. IMO the money is better spent on LCS or additional Burkes. Are any more Burkes under construction currently?

EDIT: I should have said, "AFAIK Yes"

This post has been edited by jua: 16 July 2008 - 1255 PM

[Hellfish6]

How many Spruances are in mothballs? I know the last one up here at Bremerton just got towed off for sinking.

[hojutsuka]

jua, on Wed 16 Jul 2008 1754, said:

Are any more Burkes under construction currently?

Bath Iron Works in Maine is working on the tail end of the contracts. STOCKDALE (DDG 106) has been christened but is still being completed (due December 2008), and WAYNE E. MEYER (DDG 108) is scheduled to be christened October 18, 2008. The keel for DUNHAM (DDG 109) was laid April 11, 2008. SPRUANCE (DDG 111) and MURPHY (DDG 112) have also been assigned to be built by Bath Iron Works.

GRAVELY (DDG 107) and LAWRENCE (DDG 110) are being built by Ingalls.

http://www.globalsec...ddg-51-unit.htm

Hojutsuka

[ScottyB]

Hellfish6, on Wed 16 Jul 2008 1453, said:

How many Spruances are in mothballs? I know the last one up here at Bremerton just got towed off for sinking.

I want to say there is a few here on the east coast but don't quote me on it. I know the Radford and one of the ABL ships are supposed to sunk as targets this year, hell they might be gone now! I also think there might be one or two in Pearl Harbor.

Scott

[ScottyB]

Gregory, on Wed 16 Jul 2008 1232, said:

Carrier SLEPs run about a billion per ship and add about 15 years worth of service. Would it really cost us more then $3 billion per ship to recommission the stricken Ticos and update them with DDG 1000 level technologies?

Its going to be tough to refit the Vally Forge, she's on the bottom of the Pacific.

Scott

[aevans]

Gregory, on Wed 16 Jul 2008 1632, said:

Carrier SLEPs run about a billion per ship and add about 15 years worth of service. Would it really cost us more then $3 billion per ship to recommission the stricken Ticos and update them with DDG 1000 level technologies?

I'd be surprised if a single one of them was in a material condition to make that possible, at any amount of money. They were all worked hard and put up wet.

[ScottyB]

aevans, on Wed 16 Jul 2008 1632, said:

I'd be surprised if a single one of them was in a material condition to make that possible, at any amount of money. They were all worked hard and put up wet.

I agree and the Tico will probably end up as a museum ship somewhere.

Scott

[Gregory]

aevans, on Wed 16 Jul 2008 1332, said:

I'd be surprised if a single one of them was in a material condition to make that possible, at any amount of money. They were all worked hard and put up wet.

I don't doubt it, but we kept carriers near up to 40 years with service life extension programs, and they didn't spend a lot of time tied up either. According to Naval Register, 5 Ticos (including class lead) are currently listed as "Stricken", awaiting disposal.

[aevans]

Gregory, on Wed 16 Jul 2008 2234, said:

I don't doubt it, but we kept carriers near up to 40 years with service life extension programs, and they didn't spend a lot of time tied up either. According to Naval Register, 5 Ticos (including class lead) are currently listed as "Stricken", awaiting disposal.

The carriers were SLEPed rather than stricken, not stricken and brought back.

[Brasidas]

In the future, war will stop being an option just because it will be so damn expensive.

[TomasCTT]

Brasidas, on Thu 17 Jul 2008 2032, said:

In the future, war will stop being an option just because it will be so damn expensive.

Nah. They'll find ways to make it cheap. Africa and other third world countries serve as stellar examples. <_<

[Chris Werb]

Brasidas, on Thu 17 Jul 2008 1332, said:

In the future, war will stop being an option just because it will be so damn expensive.

In future, war will be fought in a computer simulation and those deemed killed will have to step into booths to be disintegrated.

At least that's what they did in one episode of the original Star Trek.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Chris Werb, on Thu 17 Jul 2008 1613, said:

In future, war will be fought in a computer simulation and those deemed killed will have to step into booths to be disintegrated.

At least that's what they did in one episode of the original Star Trek.

Till Kirk and the gang destroyed the booths because they considered it 'Immoral'. Or maybe it just wasnt as much fun.

This post has been edited by Stuart Galbraith: 17 July 2008 - 1238 PM

[Exel]

When will the US military stop spending billions on vaporware? When will the Congress stop funding vaporware?

[Red Ant]

Well, the Navy might soon run out of ships but at least they'll get shiny new, completely redesigned uniforms every 2 years or so. <_<