US navy will cancel new destroyer

Discussion in 'Boats, Planes, Other' started by GT40 2, Aug 3, 2008.

  1. Destroy the destroyer ololololo
     
  2. Seek and Destroy 'er
     
  3. #28 426 Hemistage 8, Aug 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  4. Our defense procurement system is broken. Nearly every major weapons system that we've tried to bring online over the past 15 years - F-22, Joint Strike Fighter, this destroyer, 3 attempts at replacing the M-16, the Joint Combat Pistol, the V-22, the Comanche, the Crusader artillery piece to name a few - have run way over budget, way too long, and have wound up with acquiring far fewer units than necessary or having programs bagged all together.

    Part of the blame lies with the "peace dividend" approach in the 1990s to defense procurement (thanks Clinton!). Part of it also lies on the Bush administration, who has let procurement budgets quietly sag despite its year-2000 campaign promises to re-strengthen the military. Of course, a major part of that could be preoccupation with the war on terror - probably hard to concentrate on what we need for the future when we're fighting a war in two theaters right now that relies more on boots on the ground than high-tech air and sea systems.

    Another - and perhaps even bigger - part of the problem is that the DoD has an archaic cost-control process that comprises over 1,000 separate systems. Most officials have no idea how it works and millions of dollars are lost every day. Those who have looked into the matter say that we could save $50-75 billion on our annual defense budget just by streamlining the costing and acquisition processes. The only person who ever tried to do something about it was Donald Rumsfeld. He was actually making some progress - until 9/11 hit.
     
  5. A single diesel-electric sub can take out a carrier, so protection is essential, even if a large scale naval battle is unlikely.
     
  6. I think there's a floor under how small you can make a truly useful naval ship in that it needs to be able to host helicopters for anti-submarine work.
     
  7. nuclear submarines are so #$%#ing awesome. gigantic metal tubes that go underwater and the missiles to destroy #$%#ing nations.
     
  8. jesus christ no idea they could be that big

    I want one NOW
     
  9. yes, they have their place, theres no denying that. its just that we already have boats to do this purpose, and the threat of a submarine attack on any of our ships is getting smaller. so theres no reason to pour unnecessary money making these ships more advanced, when the enemy is getting less advanced.

    especially considering our economy is shit right now. maybe when we have more money, and theres a larger threat of submarines, possibly from china, maybe Russia.... then we can start upgrading our defenses a little.
     
  10. We have ships that can detect submarines, but other countries already have subs that have proven able to overcome the detection of an entire carrier group actively looking for them. While we aren't facing the big bad soviet union anymore, we do have to worry about everyone they're selling submarines to as well as anyone who has a decent electric-diesel sub. Then again Russia itself is getting very aggressive. I say that we're much more prone to attack from these smaller countries, as well as China, and even Russia as things are panning out. We need greatly increased ASW and ballistic capabilities before our carrier groups become obsolete.

    The federal government only has a few real, constitutional responsibilities, one of them is defense. In that game we have two choices, be average or dominate. If our technology is merely on par then we'll pay with lives when we get into conflicts. I'm not advocating building these things, but every once in a while we need to create stuff like this to unlock and test new technologies. Then use what we have learned and implement it in cheap and useful forms.

    Also, for no reason at all the Navy is pushing to have a third destroyer in this class built. I'm telling you, we need to make cheap, mission specific destroyers and scrap these things. Instead of having this thing that really is disappointing for the money why don't we build 3 different versions in it's place? Each that focuses on something different and has a secondary function. How about one with great ASW capability that also has some ASUW abilities. An AA platform with Aegis that also has ASUW. And a shore bombardment ship that uses the Zumwalt system with some TASM loadout.
     
  11. They're building a third now. Hooray!
     
  12. So right. Destroyers haven't been relevent since WWII. The only battleships that are strictly necessary now days are carriers.
     
  13. I'd laugh if it weren't for the fact that I'm afraid you're actually serious.
     
  14. Actually, I would say that this threat is getting greater. So far, only a few countries have advanced diesel subs, but if some got into the wrong hands they would be really dangerous. Given that these are relativly cheap (about $250M) compared to a nuclear sub, which are more or less reserved for larger nations, a larger number of countries are able to operate them. So if you happen to be a cost conscious crazy dictator looking for a fast way to do more than deliver empty threats, one of these should be high up on your wish list.

    As already mentioned these subs have shown to be able to avoid detecton from a carrier group activly looking for them. In coastal waters they are even harder to detect.
     
  15. #40 Corvettewillkillyou, Aug 29, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I think this proves that something is amiss in our anti sub carrier group defense.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

    "American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

    By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier."
     
  16. I wonder how the carrier task force will evolve to counter the threat of diesel subs. Maybe staying in deep waters and deploying escort subs to sweep underneath will minimize surprises. In shallow waters, there is not much that I imagine can be done to detect a sub waiting for an ambush.
     

Share This Page