Navy to seek third DDG-1000
Alright, in another twist to the DDG 1000 story, the Navy has decided to purchase a third Zummwalt class destroyer.
The Navy has reversed course and decided to push for construction of a third DDG-1000 destroyer that would be built at Bath Iron Works, Sen. Susan Collins said Monday.
Am I the only one getting tired of political handouts? The argument found in Navy Times is this:
In a letter to Collins, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England indicated that the shift in the Navy’s thinking was due in part to concerns about a potential disruption in the nation’s shipbuilding base.
“This plan will provide stability of the industrial base and continue the development of advanced surface ship technologies such as radar systems, stealth, magnetic and acoustic quieting, and automated damage control,” England wrote.
Stability of the industrial base? We haven't had that since WWII. If we really wanted to have true stability in our industrial base/capacity, then we'd have more than two shipyards that we could build surface combatants. Not only that, but we'd be building a lot more than we currently are.
As a country, we're spending a little more than 3% of our GDP in defense. Now, contrast that to ten times that number in WWII! While we may not be fully engaged in the same manner with GWOT as we were in WWII, the fact of the matter is we're still committing troops to a war with very little to back them up financially.
Now, back to the initial matter that I posted about. What credibility does the Navy actually have with regard to shipbuilding anymore? It's great to come up with these whiz-bang ideas. That's the only way things progress. However, it needs to be backed up with a rational plan. Take, for instance, the SPY-1 RADAR. A single panel was originally placed on the USS Norton Sound (AVM-1). This allowed for the testing of the concept prior to implementation to the fleet. WHY HAVE WE GONE AWAY FROM THIS? Now, we have LCS and DDG-1000 that are both untested platforms, with untested technologies, and untested ideas. Couple that with the extremely high price tags (1 DDG-1000 can buy TWO DDG-51 class ships) and it's no wonder that we complain about shipbuilding in this country.
I recommend the following:
1. Scrap DDG-1000 all together. While we're at it, scrap any further ideas with LCS and the mission modules.
2. Take the ideas that are to be used on DDG-1000 (Sensors, AGS, etc.) and place them on the proven DDG-51 hull.
3. Take the lessons learned from that, and then implement the technology into a new class of ship.
I honestly think that if we did that (among other things), we'd see far fewer problems getting what the Navy needed and would then be better able to protect this great nation of ours.
18 August 2008
12 August 2008
New Arleigh Burke Design
From Navy Times:
"Even though the Navy will resume building Arleigh Burke-class destroyers because the ships are cheaper and the costs are predictable, the eight new Burkes could get new refinements that set them apart from earlier siblings, according to a congressional report. According to written testimony submitted Thursday to the House Seapower Subcommittee by Navy shipbuilding expert Ron O’Rourke, the Navy has several options to improve and accessorize the new series of destroyers that will resume with the ship carrying hull number DDG 113."
"Even though the Navy will resume building Arleigh Burke-class destroyers because the ships are cheaper and the costs are predictable, the eight new Burkes could get new refinements that set them apart from earlier siblings, according to a congressional report. According to written testimony submitted Thursday to the House Seapower Subcommittee by Navy shipbuilding expert Ron O’Rourke, the Navy has several options to improve and accessorize the new series of destroyers that will resume with the ship carrying hull number DDG 113."
Alright, long story short, I like this idea. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised this idea
To use our current (and proven, I might add) platform, the Arleigh Burke class destroyer, to essentially test the new technology that the Navy wants to develop is a smart and effective way to properly develop not only the technology, but also the tactics to properly employ it.
This should be a model for future development in that it saves money (makes Congress and the taxpayers happy) and makes it easier for the crew to learn the components of a few systems vice a whole ship (makes the crew happy). The other key aspect is that it shows the taxpayers that the Navy is fiscally responsible, thus contributing to a better image for the Navy. As it stands, the Navy has a hard enough time validating itself to the general public, so this can only help. Now, if we had started with this from the get-go, it would've been even better.
Having served on an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, I can say with certainty they are excellent ships. Are they perfect? Far from it. But are they capable? Absolutely. By merging new technology with these ships we will be able to forge ahead and build the Navy for the 21st century that we've been talking about about for many years now.
-Crudes
P.S. After talking with my wife, I've determined that I should elaborate on the name. The correct pronounciation is Crew-Des, which stands for Cruiser-Destroyer. Having served on these types of ships, I figured it was appropriate.
04 August 2008
A Start
Alright,
I really haven't done much blogging. As much as I love technology, I really haven't gotten onboard with the whole Web 2.0 revolution. Maybe it's my job (no Myspace or Facebook on the ship), or simply just don't have anything to say. Well, as stated in my description, the intent of this blog is simply to address what I see from my level as a Junior Officer in the US Navy. I love what I do and in no way want to criticize those above me. I only hope to bring to light what I'm seeing to the general public and hope to help garner more support for the Navy mission. There was a poll taken a while back (sorry, I can't find the source) that showed the Navy had the lowest response in terms of which branch of the military was the most vital for national security. I hope to change that.
Anyway, I wanted to call attention to the article that I posted the link too the other day, America's Elegant Decline. It very gracefully addresses what I see as a real problem with the way our country manages it's defense spending.
For the last 70+ years, and in particular, the last 20, the US Navy has been unparalleled in size, strength, and capability. Recent missteps combined with bad press regarding LCS and DDG-1000 have really brought to light some issues that I see. In it's fight to remain relevant (and thus get a slice of the pie) with OIF and OEF, it seems that the Navy has done a very poor job of promoting what our job actually is. While this is NOT a criticism of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, it is an attempt to address current naval spending.
In real dollars, we spend more than any other country in the world, however as a percentage of our GDP, it's no where near what our next biggest rival, China, is spending. According to globalsecurity.org, China has been increasing it's spending largely since 2000, currently up to $57.22 billion in 2008. Granted, this is the stated budget, with no mention of what the actual spending is. Comparing that to our spending is like apples and oranges simply due to the nature of the labor in our two countries.
Anyway, I've taken a long road to get to a simple point. We, as a nation, are grossly understating the importance of our Navy and it's power or projection. I'm sure everyone remembers the debacle of going to the UN for permission to deploy our soldiers for Iraq. Contrast that to sending a carrier strike group 12 nautical miles (approximately 13.8 statute miles for you land types) off the coast of an aggressor country; no permission needed.
I do feel there is a fundamental flaw in the current thinking about how our Navy operates as well. There is a continual push for a more business-like approach both within the service as well as within Congress that's pushing for more savings and fewer people. What this leads too is an over-reliance on technology and shore sites that simply won't be available if and when a conflict arises. While I'm all about technology and using it to enhance our capabilities, we cannot rely on it as our sole source of ability. There's something to be said for manpower. Men won the Battle of Midway, not technology.
Anyway, that's enough ranting for now. I'd love your comments and questions. Thanks!
-Kiitana
I really haven't done much blogging. As much as I love technology, I really haven't gotten onboard with the whole Web 2.0 revolution. Maybe it's my job (no Myspace or Facebook on the ship), or simply just don't have anything to say. Well, as stated in my description, the intent of this blog is simply to address what I see from my level as a Junior Officer in the US Navy. I love what I do and in no way want to criticize those above me. I only hope to bring to light what I'm seeing to the general public and hope to help garner more support for the Navy mission. There was a poll taken a while back (sorry, I can't find the source) that showed the Navy had the lowest response in terms of which branch of the military was the most vital for national security. I hope to change that.
Anyway, I wanted to call attention to the article that I posted the link too the other day, America's Elegant Decline. It very gracefully addresses what I see as a real problem with the way our country manages it's defense spending.
For the last 70+ years, and in particular, the last 20, the US Navy has been unparalleled in size, strength, and capability. Recent missteps combined with bad press regarding LCS and DDG-1000 have really brought to light some issues that I see. In it's fight to remain relevant (and thus get a slice of the pie) with OIF and OEF, it seems that the Navy has done a very poor job of promoting what our job actually is. While this is NOT a criticism of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, it is an attempt to address current naval spending.
In real dollars, we spend more than any other country in the world, however as a percentage of our GDP, it's no where near what our next biggest rival, China, is spending. According to globalsecurity.org, China has been increasing it's spending largely since 2000, currently up to $57.22 billion in 2008. Granted, this is the stated budget, with no mention of what the actual spending is. Comparing that to our spending is like apples and oranges simply due to the nature of the labor in our two countries.
Anyway, I've taken a long road to get to a simple point. We, as a nation, are grossly understating the importance of our Navy and it's power or projection. I'm sure everyone remembers the debacle of going to the UN for permission to deploy our soldiers for Iraq. Contrast that to sending a carrier strike group 12 nautical miles (approximately 13.8 statute miles for you land types) off the coast of an aggressor country; no permission needed.
I do feel there is a fundamental flaw in the current thinking about how our Navy operates as well. There is a continual push for a more business-like approach both within the service as well as within Congress that's pushing for more savings and fewer people. What this leads too is an over-reliance on technology and shore sites that simply won't be available if and when a conflict arises. While I'm all about technology and using it to enhance our capabilities, we cannot rely on it as our sole source of ability. There's something to be said for manpower. Men won the Battle of Midway, not technology.
Anyway, that's enough ranting for now. I'd love your comments and questions. Thanks!
-Kiitana
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
