The Navy's Newest White Elephant.

[Kutnupe14]

I did some time in @55crackistan in 2011, but not for the Navy. I was never enlisted, but work with the warfighter as do my colleagues.

My resume' is open to the public, it's not that impressive but I have been around a long time. Some people confuse that with wisdom. LOL. https://www.linkedin.com/profile/vi...Qz_CRrirLyyrlI&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile

Well, if im ever in the secret squirrel ship building business, ill bring in you and Birds Away for a consultation.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Well, if im ever in the secret squirrel ship building business, ill bring in you and Birds Away for a consultation.

I'm a federal employee brother, you could probably get me on the horn for free. Ha. Honestly, I'd love to hear more about the propulsion and energy since that's my world but alas not much available from the wizard (known as the WWW).

 

[actaeon277]

By the way, the Military film posted in the previous page shows the ASDS as part of the Navy's littoral insertion/extraction capability from submarines, but everyone knows there was only one copy and it burned back in 2008: http://op-for.com/2008/11/asds_fire.html

Article quotes it was conceived of in the 90s. Not quite. I had to deal with the SDVs before it. And it was conceived of back then. That was the 80s.
I see they're still "working" on it.

 

[Birds Away]

I hear ya. I strive to only talk about those things that are already in the open media for anyone with a modicum of google capability. I truly appreciate your service, I work with the warfighter and sailors and admire their abilities, patriotism and courage. Believe me I have very thick skin, as you do - anyone who survives 26 years in the Navy has thick skin. Radar, as you've mentioned, is extremely important. I did read about some combat capability that was "trimmed" away in order to keep the boat going forward. It would bother me more if there were 30+ copies under contract, but since this is turning out to be a technology demonstration I'm not too concerned. I am hopeful it will lead to something better for the Navy though, we are way over due for something in the Destroyer class that can compete in modern warfare.

Well, having served on an Arleigh Burke, I think they are extremely capable ships. I would be more than comfortable sailing into harm's way aboard one of those. But, I agree with what you have said here.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Well, having served on an Arleigh Burke, I think they are extremely capable ships. I would be more than comfortable sailing into harm's way aboard one of those. But, I agree with what you have said here.

Arleigh Burke is a hell of a ship - I'd rather be on one of those too!

I think they're way over playing the littoral aspect of this "destroyer", that's not really what a destroyer does. And since they have no birthing or other means of putting troops ashore (other than helos like you said) they're probably over playing that aspect. Not sure if their guns are the best for the fight ashore, but they have them. What you mentioned about the sensor and radar capability, crew reduction, survivability/stability in rough seas and this new "electric" propulsion system with natural gas decoupled kind of like a diesel locomotive - all that stuff working together - if they can prove all that stuff works then maybe Arleigh Burke (next) is the destroyer of the future. I doubt the DDG-1000 is the destroyer we buy, but hopefully we learn some things and get better at modern warfare within the destroyer mission.

 

[Birds Away]

Arleigh Burke is a hell of a ship - I'd rather be on one of those too!

I think they're way over playing the littoral aspect of this "destroyer", that's not really what a destroyer does. And since they have no birthing or other means of putting troops ashore (other than helos like you said) they're probably over playing that aspect. Not sure if their guns are the best for the fight ashore, but they have them. What you mentioned about the sensor and radar capability, crew reduction, survivability/stability in rough seas and this new "electric" propulsion system with natural gas decoupled kind of like a diesel locomotive - all that stuff working together - if they can prove all that stuff works then maybe Arleigh Burke (next) is the destroyer of the future. I doubt the DDG-1000 is the destroyer we buy, but hopefully we learn some things and get better at modern warfare within the destroyer mission.

That would be ideal. I think the long lead time for these programs sometimes does more harm than good. They tend to wander off target during the process.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Article quotes it was conceived of in the 90s. Not quite. I had to deal with the SDVs before it. And it was conceived of back then. That was the 80s.
I see they're still "working" on it.

SDV's are still in service. I came on the scene in 1985 and they were talking THEN about how SDV's were going away. It's 2015 and they're still here. PITA though they are, but until the S351 or the like or what ever, fills the gap, I believe SDV's will be around for a while yet. I remember talking about the ASDS in the 80's...can't remember the first program manager I talked to, but I do remember Northrop Grumman buying out the original contractor and bringing the boat to the water....over budget (WAY) and over due (WAY). Ha. If they'd stuck with Electric Boat or someone with submarine build capability they'd have been in around the time and money originally bid. But then, it was during acquisition reform - cheaper bids were in vogue - ability to deliver wasn't all that important (tongue firmly pressed in cheek).

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

That would be ideal. I think the long lead time for these programs sometimes does more harm than good. They tend to wander off target during the process.

Specification Creep!

Design Creep!

Technology Creep!

Obsolescence of parts!!!

Ahh....that is my world...and it is a mess. Oh, to be part of a "skunkworks" project just once in my career!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Is someone in DoD channeling the spirit of Robert McNamara? I see in both this and the F-35 a blind and obstinate effort to create something that is supposed to magically be all things to all people and in reality turns out to be nothing to anyone. Are we due for a Third Revolt of the Admirals?

 

[Birds Away]

Specification Creep!

Design Creep!

Technology Creep!

Obsolescence of parts!!!

Ahh....that is my world...and it is a mess. Oh, to be part of a "skunkworks" project just once in my career!

As an end user it was sometimes frustrating. They delivered our ship (DDG 66) to a contract that had been written many years before. Then, they immediately had to start tearing stuff out and modifying it to the current standard. I know why it is but, it's still counter-productive.

 

[Birds Away]

Is someone in DoD channeling the spirit of Robert McNamara? I see in both this and the F-35 a blind and obstinate effort to create something that is supposed to magically be all things to all people and in reality turns out to be nothing to anyone. Are we due for a Third Revolt of the Admirals?

You're right on target.

 

[actaeon277]

SDV's are still in service. I came on the scene in 1985 and they were talking THEN about how SDV's were going away. It's 2015 and they're still here. PITA though they are, but until the S351 or the like or what ever, fills the gap, I believe SDV's will be around for a while yet. I remember talking about the ASDS in the 80's...can't remember the first program manager I talked to, but I do remember Northrop Grumman buying out the original contractor and bringing the boat to the water....over budget (WAY) and over due (WAY). Ha. If they'd stuck with Electric Boat or someone with submarine build capability they'd have been in around the time and money originally bid. But then, it was during acquisition reform - cheaper bids were in vogue - ability to deliver wasn't all that important (tongue firmly pressed in cheek).

SDVS are still in service. That actually surprises me. Thought they'd have replaced them.
Of course, I guess they're still working on that.
The SDVs were maintenance intensive, but they worked.
I didn't maintain them myself, I just lived with the guys who did, in a steel tube, 6 months at a time.
My credentials, if they can be called that, would be USS John Marshall SSN-611 1988-1991.

Specification Creep!

Design Creep!

Technology Creep!

Obsolescence of parts!!!

Ahh....that is my world...and it is a mess. Oh, to be part of a "skunkworks" project just once in my career!

Yup. Design by EVERYONE has killed so much.
Sometimes "multi-mission" is necessary and possible.
F-14s bridged the fighter and interceptor roles. Not as well as the individual role, but good enough to save room on a carrier.
F-18s bridged fighter and attack roles. Once again, not quite as good, but good enough.
But the LCS? Holy hell in a handbasket.
Still on the fence about the zumwalt.
Advance is necessary, but remember, the Tiger Tanks were the king of a battlefield, but couldn't be produced in enough numbers, and had teething problems.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yup. Design by EVERYONE has killed so much.
Sometimes "multi-mission" is necessary and possible.
F-14s bridged the fighter and interceptor roles. Not as well as the individual role, but good enough to save room on a carrier.
F-18s bridged fighter and attack roles. Once again, not quite as good, but good enough.
But the LCS? Holy hell in a handbasket.
Still on the fence about the zumwalt.
Advance is necessary, but remember, the Tiger Tanks were the king of a battlefield, but couldn't be produced in enough numbers, and had teething problems.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that anything has to be a one trick pony in order to be any good. The F-14 and F-18 not only bridged two basic roles, but did so well enough to be competitive with anything they are likely to encounter in battle. By contrast, when McNamara tried to shove the F-111 down the Navy's throat as a carrier fighter, a role for which it had no aptitude whatsoever, with the argument that it just needs more thrust, he precipitated the Second Revolt of the Admirals in which several high-ranking officers bucked against the system by testifying to Congress about the stupidity of McNamara's plan, including the quote that "there isn't enough thrust in all Christendom to make a fighter out of the F-111." Needless to say, this led to some early forced retirements, but those men are to be commended for placing honorable service to their country above their own careers, and for laying the foundation of the F-14 program.

 

[Birds Away]

I wouldn't necessarily argue that anything has to be a one trick pony in order to be any good. The F-14 and F-18 not only bridged two basic roles, but did so well enough to be competitive with anything they are likely to encounter in battle. By contrast, when McNamara tried to shove the F-111 down the Navy's throat as a carrier fighter, a role for which it had no aptitude whatsoever, with the argument that it just needs more thrust, he precipitated the Second Revolt of the Admirals in which several high-ranking officers bucked against the system by testifying to Congress about the stupidity of McNamara's plan, including the quote that "there isn't enough thrust in all Christendom to make a fighter out of the F-111." Needless to say, this led to some early forced retirements, but those men are to be commended for placing honorable service to their country above their own careers, and for laying the foundation of the F-14 program.

Sadly, you would never see that today.

 

[actaeon277]

I wouldn't necessarily argue that anything has to be a one trick pony in order to be any good. The F-14 and F-18 not only bridged two basic roles, but did so well enough to be competitive with anything they are likely to encounter in battle. By contrast, when McNamara tried to shove the F-111 down the Navy's throat as a carrier fighter, a role for which it had no aptitude whatsoever, with the argument that it just needs more thrust, he precipitated the Second Revolt of the Admirals in which several high-ranking officers bucked against the system by testifying to Congress about the stupidity of McNamara's plan, including the quote that "there isn't enough thrust in all Christendom to make a fighter out of the F-111." Needless to say, this led to some early forced retirements, but those men are to be commended for placing honorable service to their country above their own careers, and for laying the foundation of the F-14 program.

Yup. Honor above career

Sadly, you would never see that today.

Cause they've all been fired.
Have you seen the number of commanders relieved lately?

 

[Birds Away]

Yup. Honor above career




Cause they've all been fired.
Have you seen the number of commanders relieved lately?

Yup, professional/political cleansing.

 

[Alpo]

This turned into an interesting thread!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Boats are pretty.

 

[Birds Away]

Boats are pretty.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I wanted to contribute, but at a level appropriate to my knowledge.