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.
Posts
2 comments:
I agree. At this point, no other country in the world has matched the capability of the DDG-51 class destroyer, yet while we are flailing around testing these unknown technologies, the bad guys ARE CATCHING UP.
We should test these new technologies on the current destroyers, then when we figure it all out we can place it on a new fangled ship. That way even if that ship is messed up, we can be sure the technology on it works.
As for the politics, we look like we don't know what we are doing, and our Representatives and Senators are exposing this. We need to pick and steer a course, and let's make sure it's the right one!!!
I would agree with your first paragraph, though I would argue that the JMSDF and ROK have very similar capabilities (King Sejong the Great, aka KDX-III) and in some areas surpasses ours. For instance, the KDX-III has a full 64 cell MK41 VLS up forward as well as back aft. Thankfully, they're on our side.
The overall argument can't just reside on the Navy, though it appears as though we're to blame quite a bit. There is some political posturing going on with senators who want to create jobs in their home districts. Still, the overall impression is we, as a Navy, don't have a plan for what we actually need.
Post a Comment