DDG-1000…canceled?

A 14000 ton DESTROYER?! I blame the Brits for that!

Umm, biggest ships they’ve called a destroyer is their new T45 which are still smaller then a burke.

The Japanese on the other hand have their Hyuga Class DDH’s. 😉

A 14000 ton DESTROYER?! I blame the Brits for that!

The whole project was a nightmare in slow motion. So much new technology, and yet real questions as to whether it was actually the right solution. For instance, the 155mm guns: developed at huge costs, and yet there really was not good reason for doing it; the Mk45 Mod 4 had the potential to fill all the naval gunfire support roles. The PVLS – again, an innovative solution, but an answer looking for a question; the current Mk41 is good enough, and very versatile.

It would have made a lot more sense to just develop improvements that could be applied to other ships. For example, fund improvements to the current 5in gun, and its ammunition, or a ‘drop in’ replacement for it. Another example is the radar – it should have been possible to simply develop it as a replacement for the SPY-1D used on the current destroyers. It may not be glamorous to just make incremental improvements on existing designs, but in the long run, it can make a lot more sense.

For the stealthy AAW role, perhaps we could have had a version of the GD/Austal LCS, enlarged a bit; with a 5in gun on the bow, a Mk41 VLS amidships, and a suitable radar and Aegis-type suite fitted. It would have been more interesting, and possibly had more export potential.

I agree absolutely and I have expressed such opinions before. The real bit of the package that was viable was SPY-3, otherwise systems wise nothing there was needed. Sure a stealthier hull form and more efficient machinery would be good too.

However I have a funny feeling that DDG-1000, will re-appear in a few years time under the title of CG-X, just without the 155mm guns. All the development costs have now been attributed to DDG-1000 so they should even be able to keep the costs down.

As for the DDG-51 class, well with continual upgrades (which they have had) they still represent the most powerful destroyer in the world with the possible exception of the KDX-3 and that is just a case of missile counting. the type is still a very powerful vessel and the fact is that the Aegis system is still being procured by new customers. I see no reason whatsoever to end its production yet.

The whole project was a nightmare in slow motion. So much new technology, and yet real questions as to whether it was actually the right solution. For instance, the 155mm guns: developed at huge costs, and yet there really was not good reason for doing it; the Mk45 Mod 4 had the potential to fill all the naval gunfire support roles. The PVLS – again, an innovative solution, but an answer looking for a question; the current Mk41 is good enough, and very versatile.

It would have made a lot more sense to just develop improvements that could be applied to other ships. For example, fund improvements to the current 5in gun, and its ammunition, or a ‘drop in’ replacement for it. Another example is the radar – it should have been possible to simply develop it as a replacement for the SPY-1D used on the current destroyers. It may not be glamorous to just make incremental improvements on existing designs, but in the long run, it can make a lot more sense.

For the stealthy AAW role, perhaps we could have had a version of the GD/Austal LCS, enlarged a bit; with a 5in gun on the bow, a Mk41 VLS amidships, and a suitable radar and Aegis-type suite fitted. It would have been more interesting, and possibly had more export potential.

You seem to have an obsession.;)

confirmation, only 2 DDG-1000 will be built!

Senator Collins’ Reaction to Navy Cancellation of DDG-1000 Program

(Source: Senator Sue Collins (Maine); dated July 22, 2008)

The Secretary of the Navy today informed members of the Senate and House of its plans to cancel the DDG-1000 program after completion of the first two ships, one of which is scheduled to be completed at Bath Iron Works.

Senator Collins, who is a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, worked successfully to include in the Senate version of the Defense Authorization bill the $2.6 billion the Navy had requested to build a third DDG-1000, which also was scheduled to be built at Bath Iron Works. The House version of the authorization does not include any funding for the DDG-1000 program or for Bath Iron Works.

Senator Collins released this statement:

“The Navy’s decision to curtail the DDG-1000 program is a blow to Bath Iron Works. It was triggered by the decision of the House Armed Services Committee to eliminate funding for the DDG-1000 program, which prompted a review within the Department of Defense on the future of the new destroyer program. Unfortunately, Maine currently has no member on the House Armed Services Committee to advocate for programs critical to BIW’s workforce.

“The Navy is likely to propose continuing the DDG-51 program but at inadequate production levels. Compared to the DDG-51 program, the DDG-1000 program provides far more work and about three times the amount of money for BIW per ship. Bath’s share of the DDG-1000 it now has under contract is $1.4 billion, while the shipyard’s share of the most recent DDG-51 it now has under construction amounts to only about $500 million.

“I have spoken with Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England who committed to working with me to mitigate the impact on Bath Iron Works’ workforce of the termination of the DDG-1000 program. In addition, I will meet tomorrow with Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead and Navy Secretary Donald Winter to discuss ways to lessen the impact of the decision on BIW.” (ends)

Skelton and Taylor Applaud Navy Decision to Modify Shipbuilding Plan

(Source: House Armed Services Committee; issued July 23, 2008)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-MS) made the following statements on the Navy’s decision to modify its shipbuilding plan with respect to surface combatants.

“I am pleased with the Navy’s decision to focus its resources on the DDG 51 destroyer, with its known costs and capabilities, rather than the increasingly expensive DDG 1000,” said Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO). “Our committee recommended this action in the fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, and I am pleased to see the Navy heed our advice. It is a responsible decision that will benefit both the Navy and the taxpayer for years to come.”

“I believe this is the right thing for the men and women of our Navy and the citizens who pay for these ships,” Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-MS) commented. “The DDG 51 class destroyer is the premier destroyer in the world today. The ship has tremendous flexibility in a variety of warfighting missions, including the ability to serve as a ballistic missile defense platform. Just as important, the costs of these ships are well known. The Navy has built 62 of these superb vessels and our shipyards know how to build them on budget and on schedule.

Taylor continued, “The two DDG 1000s that our nation will build will be extremely capable ships. However, virtually every independent organization with expertise in ship cost analysis has predicted the first two ships will cost up to $5 billion each, or more than $1.5 billion more than the Navy has budgeted. Such cost overruns would cripple the Navy’s plan to reach a 313-ship fleet.

“I believe that our Navy and our nation are better served by building a large number of DDG 51s and then proceeding with a timely and orderly plan to begin construction of the next generation of nuclear powered cruisers. I look forward to working with Admiral Roughead and Secretary Winter during the return to DDG 51 production,” concluded Taylor.

-ends-

www.defense-aerospace.com

from REUTERS

UPDATE 1-US Navy explains plan to scrap DDG-1000 destroyer
Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:19am BST
(Adds statements from Navy, lawmakers and industry executives)

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, July 23 (Reuters) – A U.S. Navy decision to scrap the DDG-1000 destroyer program after just two ships could have “potentially devastating consequences” said Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican whose state includes General Dynamics Corp’s (GD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Bath Iron Works shipyard.

U.S. Navy Secretary Donald Winter and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead spent hours with lawmakers on Wednesday explaining their decision.

Collins said Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England had promised to work with her to “mitigate the impact on Bath Iron Works’ work force of the termination of the DDG-1000 program.”

Bath Iron Works is building one of the new destroyers, Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) is building the other at its Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

Defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said the net effect on Northrop and General Dynamics would be minimal since they would likely get more work building older model DDG-51 destroyers.

Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research), which builds the Aegis combat system used on the DDG-51 ships, but had lost the contract for the combat system on the DDG-1000 to Raytheon Co (RTN.N: Quote, Profile, Research), would also benefit, Thompson said.

The Navy has spent almost $10 billion to develop the new stealthy warship over the past 15 years and was due to spend another $19 billion in coming years, according to the Pentagon’s latest acquisition report to Congress.

Government watchdog agencies and critics in Congress argue the cost of each DDG-1000 destroyer have already soared and could reach $5 billion apiece — a price so high the Navy would have trouble reaching its goal of a 313-ship fleet.

Thompson said the Navy was “flailing about trying to define its requirement for warships,” but had clearly decided it did not need as many of the new destroyers, which were designed to attack targets on land up to 100 miles away. “Without a major threat to organize our priorities, we’re not very good at defining what we’ll need in the future,” Thompson said.

Collins said Winter called her late on Tuesday to give her the news after a high-level meeting at the Pentagon.

Winter made the call after meeting with England and chief Pentagon arms buyer John Young, according to sources familiar with the decision.

Collins said the Navy’s decision was prompted by the House Armed Services Committee’s decision to eliminate funding for the DDG-1000 program in its latest defense spending bill. The Senate version of the defense authorization bill included $2.6 billion for the program for fiscal 2009, which begins Oct. 1.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, and Rep. Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat and head of the sea power subcommittee, issued a statement welcoming the Navy’s decision as good for taxpayers.

Taylor said the DDG-51 could be used for many different missions, including missile defense, and the shipyards already “know how to build them on budget and on schedule.”

His subcommittee scheduled a hearing on the issue on July 31.

The Navy may face termination fees for the program, since it is being canceled “for convenience” rather than cost, said one source briefed on the issue. The scope was not yet clear.

Navy spokesman Lt. Clay Doss declined comment on internal budget briefings, but confirmed that Winter and Roughead met lawmakers on Wednesday.

Industry executives said the Navy was still working out plans to produce more Arleigh Burke-class DDG-51 destroyers, also built by General Dynamics and Northrop, instead.

That could help offset the lost revenue from the DDG-1000 ships, but much would depend on the rate at which the Navy decided to purchase the older model destroyers, they said.

In a statement, Collins said the Navy was considering buying nine more of the older style destroyers, but the DDG- 1000 program provided more work and about three times the amount of money for Bath Iron Works on each ship than than the older model DDG-51s.

“It’s a very dynamic situation,” said Randy Belote, spokesman for Northrop, adding the company would “support the Navy” whatever it decided.

General Dynamics spokesman Kendell Pease said it would be inappropriate to comment since his company had not been informed of any decision. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Tim Dobbyn and Andre Grenon)

http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKN2332179620080723