DDX Hits the press

[Railroad]

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050815/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/navy_new_destroyer

Considering the proposed uses of this vessel, what makes sense? I like the Battleship idea (always have, I love those ships), but Battleships don't do ASW and they require TRAINED technicians to keep 'em going (Congress has told Navy to not believe in training anymore).

Also, how badly do we really need NGFS?

It will be interesting to see how this program fares.

 

[Larry Gude]

I hate articles like that...

It tells us the dd(X) will cost $2.2 billion each but proposed limits may mean $1.7 billion is all the navy will be allowed to spend, thus the capabilties would have to be reduced if they still went with this new ship.

Then, the option, the comparison is to old battleships with ZERO mention of how much it would cost to re-commission one of them.

We're given 150 crew for the new things vs. 1,500 for the old, so, that's easy; 10:1, less cost per year for man power. If each sailor costs $50,000 a year or so for all expenses then the navy saves $70 million a year on man power going new.

But, if the new ship is paid for at something like a cost of 5% for the money over 20 years then you're looking at about double per year the cost of the extra sailors, $140,000,000 or so.

So, I would like to think that for what, 10% of the cost, or $200,000,000, some major renovations could be done to get the battleships up to date, requiring less man power and be back in service. Maybe not?

Certainly any new weapons technology could be put on a battleship, so, that's a rub to me.

$2 billion is a lot of money for a ship.

Of course, I think that's what subs cost these days?

 

[aps45819]

We're currently working on over 50 hulls in the current Burk class of DDGs. Time for a new class/design instead of adapting hulls to fit new technology.

 

[Bogart]

It tells us the dd(X) will cost $2.2 billion each but proposed limits may mean $1.7 billion is all the navy will be allowed to spend, thus the capabilties would have to be reduced if they still went with this new ship.

Then, the option, the comparison is to old battleships with ZERO mention of how much it would cost to re-commission one of them.

We're given 150 crew for the new things vs. 1,500 for the old, so, that's easy; 10:1, less cost per year for man power. If each sailor costs $50,000 a year or so for all expenses then the navy saves $70 million a year on man power going new.

But, if the new ship is paid for at something like a cost of 5% for the money over 20 years then you're looking at about double per year the cost of the extra sailors, $140,000,000 or so.

So, I would like to think that for what, 10% of the cost, or $200,000,000, some major renovations could be done to get the battleships up to date, requiring less man power and be back in service. Maybe not?

Certainly any new weapons technology could be put on a battleship, so, that's a rub to me.

$2 billion is a lot of money for a ship.

Of course, I think that's what subs cost these days?

That figure would be woefully inadequate.

 

[Railroad]

Good points all!!!

I know that the New Jersey, same class Battleship (BB) was updated when recommissioned and as far as I know did a great job as a weapons platform during Desert Storm. The ship certainly has enough real estate to accommodate the new 155 mm gun and ANY kind of electronics you want to install, but again, she doesn't do ASW.

At one time or another there were proposals out there to update the propulsion systems on the Battleships (gas turbine or nuke). My understanding back then was that the cost was too high.

Given the limited number of DDX hulls forecasted in the article, how big of a benefit can we expect?

I guess my thinking is something like this: if you want a good floating gunnery platform, use a big and stable and heavily armored one like a BB. If you want a good ASW platform, use a fast, lean and mean platform like a Destroyer (DD).

When the Navy went to Congress for a Cruiser (CG) back in the late 60s and early 70s, Congress said they couldn't have it. So the SAME hull formed the basis for the Spruance-Class DD, which Congress DID approve.

Then when it was okay to have CGs again, the Navy used the same hull for the Ticonderoga (Aegis) class cruiser. And now a similar (but different) hull is in use for the Arleigh Burke class Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG).

I see a blurring in the lines between ship classes and operational requirements as budgets are slimmed down below the level of ridiculous and politics play an increasingly detrimental role in Naval management (planning, procurement, logistics, training, etc.). We can no longer buy a system or platform that does its intended mission very well; in order to buy a system we have to make it do many missions poorly, with no trained personnel to man it or maintain it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

That figure would be woefully inadequate.

...what would be woefully adequate? Maye it costs too much to re-commission???

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

...when the Missouri was put back in service in 1986 it cost $475 mil.

So, yep I can see 'woefully inadequate' is appropriate.

It seems obvious that, from a dollars and sense standpoint (like that?) re-commissioning is likely out of the question.

As you were

 

[SamSpade]

I don't know the details of it, but --- my Dad worked for 35 years and one of his responsibilities involved decommissioning shisp and closing naval shipyards. I'd always been mesmerized by the big battleships, and would always ask why they didn't refurnish this. He always had a laundry list of reasons why they were military dinosaurs and simply far too outdated to continue to use - it was simply far more efficient to build new ones. The only really impressive thing about those old ships were the massive guns - now obsolete - and the heavy armor in places - now, also obsolete.

You might want to fix up a fifty year old race car - but NOT if you actually want to run it at Indy. Same thing - why bother?

 

[Railroad]

I don't know the details of it, but --- my Dad worked for 35 years and one of his responsibilities involved decommissioning shisp and closing naval shipyards. I'd always been mesmerized by the big battleships, and would always ask why they didn't refurnish this. He always had a laundry list of reasons why they were military dinosaurs and simply far too outdated to continue to use - it was simply far more efficient to build new ones. The only really impressive thing about those old ships were the massive guns - now obsolete - and the heavy armor in places - now, also obsolete.

You might want to fix up a fifty year old race car - but NOT if you actually want to run it at Indy. Same thing - why bother?

Not being a BB sailor myself, I'm no expert, but the BB is still just about the most stable gun (or missile, or whatever ballistics) platform next to dry land itself. That and the thickness of its armor plate (still excellent protection against conventional weapons and far superior to newer ships) are its two most noticeable redeeming technical characteristics. Less obvious is the sheer cubic footage available for non-acoustic sensors, communications and tactical systems.

Maybe you're 100% right, Sam; maybe the BB has had its day. In that case, is the DDX truly the answer to the Navy's needs? The 155 mm gun - is it what we really need, or is it what we would just like to have? How much difference would an 8 - 12 ship inventory really make worldwide?

And I hate to ask this, but what would DDX be able to do that can't be done from the air? Maybe I've been away from the surface ship community for too long.

 

[SamSpade]

And I hate to ask this, but what would DDX be able to do that can't be done from the air? Maybe I've been away from the surface ship community for too long.

And that is also my unqualified opinion - that the bulk of the Navy has seen its day - the future of warfare doesn't include surface ships, which just strikes me as big floating targets.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Well, DDX has been around the idea table for a while, I think that the whole thing is coming down to like the BRAC list, people are complaining about shipyard closings for lack of contracts. I personally don't like the smaller crew idea. Any of ya'll that have been on a ship can understand that. If they ever had an fire in the engine room out at sea they would be done. Another problem with the battleships that I think is overlooked is ammunition. I don't think they make the ammo for her big guns anymore and I have no idea what the cost of starting that up would be.

 

[aps45819]

Not being a BB sailor myself, I'm no expert, but the BB is still just about the most stable gun (or missile, or whatever ballistics) platform next to dry land itself. That and the thickness of its armor plate (still excellent protection against conventional weapons and far superior to newer ships) are its two most noticeable redeeming technical characteristics. Less obvious is the sheer cubic footage available for non-acoustic sensors, communications and tactical systems.

Maybe you're 100% right, Sam; maybe the BB has had its day. In that case, is the DDX truly the answer to the Navy's needs? The 155 mm gun - is it what we really need, or is it what we would just like to have? How much difference would an 8 - 12 ship inventory really make worldwide?

And I hate to ask this, but what would DDX be able to do that can't be done from the air? Maybe I've been away from the surface ship community for too long.

How stable of a platform do you need to fire GPS guided ammo? One of the big advantages of the DDx is the inclusion of stealth technology. It's small radar image makes it a difficult target. Each on will carry more firepower than most WWII task forces could muster.
The DDX can sit on station for months, don't know of any aircraft that can do that.

 

[Railroad]

How stable of a platform do you need to fire GPS guided ammo? One of the big advantages of the DDx is the inclusion of stealth technology. It's small radar image makes it a difficult target. Each on will carry more firepower than most WWII task forces could muster.
The DDX can sit on station for months, don't know of any aircraft that can do that.

Good points all, APS. Don't know about the firepower answer, but I'll believe it rather than risk talking about too much in detail online.

 

[Railroad]

And that is also my unqualified opinion - that the bulk of the Navy has seen its day - the future of warfare doesn't include surface ships, which just strikes me as big floating targets.

Except carriers, maybe?

 

[Railroad]

Well, DDX has been around the idea table for a while, I think that the whole thing is coming down to like the BRAC list, people are complaining about shipyard closings for lack of contracts. I personally don't like the smaller crew idea. Any of ya'll that have been on a ship can understand that. If they ever had an fire in the engine room out at sea they would be done. Another problem with the battleships that I think is overlooked is ammunition. I don't think they make the ammo for her big guns anymore and I have no idea what the cost of starting that up would be.

Well, yes and no, BD. Modern ships (including refurbished BBs) have halon sprinkler systems in the engine rooms that will kill the blaze. These systems are automatic. More conventional damage control is accomplished by small parties of (at most) 20 trained crewmembers. A lot of energy has been expended in minimizing the human effort involved with damage control, so that the ship can continue to fight despite taking potentially fatal hits.

On the other hand, a .45 slug would penetrate the superstructure of the Spruance Class destroyer I was on many moons ago, so I have to wonder about the life expectancy of such a ship in close-quarter fighting.

 

[aps45819]

And that is also my unqualified opinion - that the bulk of the Navy has seen its day - the future of warfare doesn't include surface ships, which just strikes me as big floating targets.

That's where the stealth technology comes in. It no longer matter if you can see a target, other than small arms, nothing is controled/aimed visually. If your fire control systems can't lock on, you won't hit.

 

[Railroad]

That's where the stealth technology comes in. It no longer matter if you can see a target, other than small arms, nothing is controled/aimed visually. If your fire control systems can't lock on, you won't hit.

Straying off topic a bit - it's interesting to note that in the Civil War, the Confederate Navy chose to slope casemate (superstructure) sides approximately 50 degrees (I think it was something like 51 or 53 degrees) to deflect cannon shots, and that corresponds to the solution for radar stealth in ships and aircraft today.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Well, yes and no, BD. Modern ships (including refurbished BBs) have halon sprinkler systems in the engine rooms that will kill the blaze. These systems are automatic. More conventional damage control is accomplished by small parties of (at most) 20 trained crewmembers. A lot of energy has been expended in minimizing the human effort involved with damage control, so that the ship can continue to fight despite taking potentially fatal hits.

On the other hand, a .45 slug would penetrate the superstructure of the Spruance Class destroyer I was on many moons ago, so I have to wonder about the life expectancy of such a ship in close-quarter fighting.

I know all about that, but about a third of the crew made up damage control parties on my ship. We had three repair lockers with two hose teams each, pipe patching teams and extra bodies. Halon is not always 100% and they also have AFFF bilge sprinklers that is all lit off first, but you still have to send in hose teams in the end.

Close hand fighting though is a different subject. How close do you mean? These ships, including the BB's aren't built for close in fighting. We're still pretty much a blue water navy and the current effort now is projection of force ashore.

 

[Agee]

In the 80's the Navy spent 1.7 billion to "re-activate and modernize" four Battleships. A large part of this cost was a result of the modernization. The ships were outfitted with Tomahawk, Harpon, CIWS, new fire control systems, Radar, Electronic Counter Measures, new Communications suites, antennas. Of course, existing gunnery, Power Plants, Ships Hotel Services, et all, required upgrades and/or replacements.

The ships in thier current configurations, once "re-activated" could still fit the bill for long range gun support. Would the Navy be happy with the ships in thier current configurations? Probably not, which would mean additional modernization costs added to re-activation, and operational costs. Speaking of which, the BB's burn a huge amount of fuel, and are powered with in-efficient power plants. They require 1500 crew members, constant maintenance, and an escort ships.

They are impressive vessels, and its to bad the only purpose they serve now is as a museum. I just don't see the Navy taken a step backward to bring the BB's back into service.

 

[Railroad]

I know all about that, but about a third of the crew made up damage control parties on my ship. We had three repair lockers with two hose teams each, pipe patching teams and extra bodies. Halon is not always 100% and they also have AFFF bilge sprinklers that is all lit off first, but you still have to send in hose teams in the end.

Close hand fighting though is a different subject. How close do you mean? These ships, including the BB's aren't built for close in fighting. We're still pretty much a blue water navy and the current effort now is projection of force ashore.

What kind of ship were you on, BD?