Type 45 vs. DDG-1000

they already are reusing components. Even the Artisan Radars, 20XX SONAR, other systems will be lifted from the type 23s for the type 26 initially.

I agree it’s possible to go overboard on technology. It occurs to me that the Royal Navy will surely be losing its last Type 42s soon, the budget cuts will see to that. Butthey have some good equipment on them which could be reused. Look at the weapons: not Sea Dart, obviously, but a 4.5″ gun, two Phalanx, sundry light guns, and a helicopter. Put that lot on a new hull and you’ve got the makings of a decent patrol frigate. The times ahead are going to be hard, and the Navy will have to think hard how to economise, otherwise we will end up with a surface fleet of six Type 45s and, maybe, six Type 26s. I can easily see it happening.

EF-2000 Vs F-22 😉

oh snap

The USN can’t even maintain the Aegis cruisers and destroyers. Going more sophisticated is a dimwit notion. The people in charge of the budgets are so disconnected from reality.

Type 45 vs. DDG-1000

EF-2000 Vs F-22 😉

There is sense in that, my concern would be USN and US manufacturing duplicating the UKs problems with the delay in atomic boat design and production.

I am still amazed that the mighty US industrial machine has not managed to design, build and market an FFG to export. Maybe that could be a focus for shipyards whilst the US concentrates on defining whaat it actually wants.

Well despite its price the Virgina class concept is working and I would hope be expanded. my ideal Future force structer for the main combatant line would be 65 Large high capability multi role surface ships, 65 SSN/SSGN’s, and then 50 modular OPV’s (like the BMT Venator or the Berthoth NSC or a LCS-2 with a parred down speed requirment.)

Is there enough work, & work of the right kind, in building auxiliaries & amphibs, to keep the surface ship yards alive? Without a steady flow of work, shipyards die, & it’s expensive & time-consuming to reconstitute them.
.

and that is why now is the time for some multi year contracts for the Auxillary fleet and amphibs, especially before DDG(X)-X and the SSBN-X take up the budget.

Also sort of off topic but i think the USN should take a break from building surface combatants for a few years

Is there enough work, & work of the right kind, in building auxiliaries & amphibs, to keep the surface ship yards alive? Without a steady flow of work, shipyards die, & it’s expensive & time-consuming to reconstitute them.

I am still amazed that the mighty US industrial machine has not managed to design, build and market an FFG to export. Maybe that could be a focus for shipyards whilst the US concentrates on defining whaat it actually wants.

It’s been too busy focussing on the more profitable business of building very expensive ships for the USN & USCG. Those expensive ships won’t sell abroad, & there’s been little incentive to try to cut costs & shift resources to lower price, lower margin exports.

Also sort of off topic but i think the USN should take a break from building surface combatants for a few years and spend the time to figure out what sort of new battleship they want and in the mean time focus on subs, auxiliaries and amphibs. A lot of our support ships are nearing the end of there projected services lifes.

There is sense in that, my concern would be USN and US manufacturing duplicating the UKs problems with the delay in atomic boat design and production.

I am still amazed that the mighty US industrial machine has not managed to design, build and market an FFG to export. Maybe that could be a focus for shipyards whilst the US concentrates on defining whaat it actually wants.

usually i agree but it seems like alot of the technology already in service on the T-45 is what is trying to be developed for the Zummwalt.

Also sort of off topic but i think the USN should take a break from building surface combatants for a few years and spend the time to figure out what sort of new battleship they want and in the mean time focus on subs, auxiliaries and amphibs. A lot of our support ships are nearing the end of there projected services lifes.

A vs B threads are pointless.

The ddg 1000 can provide a good AAW capability, it has the sensors, the weapons and the systems to preform that role, along with the guns and missiles to have a good land attack capability, the project in itself had/has a number of innovations that add to the current technology.

However i think now the program is being limited to 3 ships or so and the more Burke class III will be inducted instead of more DDG 1000.

So the any comparison should be between the new Burke class (Flight III?) and the Type-45. Which shouldn’t matter, as both ships serve different naval forces with different requirements.
The DDG 51 could add a new superstructure, evolved BMD capability, and if they like increase the size to accommodate a bigger new active radar, new systems and more VLS, it will however not be what the RN requires for its future, same goes for the USN w.r.t the T-45.

I don’t see much of a point in comparing 2 ships that are being built to perform completely different roles; one is a AAW Destroyer and the other is a Strike Cruiser.

Zumwalt is probably taking so long because the USN are trying to cram every new piece of technology in that they can.