DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Stealth Destroyer

[John Picard]

Awesome ship, but at a price of twice an Arleigh Burke, they're only making two of them.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,389222,00.html

 

[Rii]

but at a price of twice an Arleigh Burke, they're only making two of them.

This seems to be a recurring theme in US defence projects since the Cold War. B-2, F-22, Seawolf...

USAF is apparently still committed to fielding an interim strategic bomber by 2020, unfortunately they don't appear to have informed those controlling the purse strings about it. An excellent evaluation of the clusterfuck that is the future of US strategic airpower can be found here.

 

[John Picard]

but at a price of twice an Arleigh Burke, they're only making two of them.

This seems to be a recurring theme in US defence projects since the Cold War. B-2, F-22, Seawolf...

USAF is apparently still committed to fielding an interim strategic bomber by 2020, unfortunately they don't appear to have informed those controlling the purse strings about it. An excellent evaluation of the clusterfuck that is the future of US strategic airpower can be found here.

But yet they couldn't kill that turd called "The Osprey". The SeaWolf was under construction in 1989 and was plagues with cost over-runs and problems with welds. It's a miracle that thing even sailed.

 

[BoxWhatBox]

But yet they couldn't kill that turd called "The Osprey". The SeaWolf was under construction in 1989 and was plagues with cost over-runs and problems with welds. It's a miracle that thing even sailed.

Well at least the Navy seems to learn were other services do not. The Sea Wolf was replaced by Virginia class which I believe is almost as capable and has a significantly smaller per unit cost.

 

[BoxWhatBox]

Is there a real picture of one of these things? All I have seen are artist concepts.

Is my memory correct that this particular hull shape is prone to flipping?

Also could the Navy be as effected switching to a sub fleet for everything but carrier battle groups?

 

[John Picard]

But yet they couldn't kill that turd called "The Osprey". The SeaWolf was under construction in 1989 and was plagues with cost over-runs and problems with welds. It's a miracle that thing even sailed.

Well at least the Navy seems to learn were other services do not. The Sea Wolf was replaced by Virginia class which I believe is almost as capable and has a significantly smaller per unit cost.

Well, the Seawolf was intended to combat the advancing technology of the Soviet submarine fleet; however, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union into separate republics pretty much nullified the need.

 

[Marc]

But yet they couldn't kill that turd called "The Osprey". The SeaWolf was under construction in 1989 and was plagues with cost over-runs and problems with welds. It's a miracle that thing even sailed.

Well at least the Navy seems to learn were other services do not. The Sea Wolf was replaced by Virginia class which I believe is almost as capable and has a significantly smaller per unit cost.

Maybe the seawolf class woul of had a lower cost be uit tif they'd planned to have more than two

Cost asiid I'm ot sure of the logic of having two of a class of sea going vessel - it really limits the deployment options.

 

[Rii]

Is there a real picture of one of these things? All I have seen are artist concepts.

Alas, there are grave difficulties involved in attempting to photograph ships before they've been built.

 

[BoxWhatBox]

Is there a real picture of one of these things? All I have seen are artist concepts.

Alas, there are grave difficulties involved in attempting to photograph ships before they've been built.

They're still playing with the 1/4 model?

 

[John Picard]

But yet they couldn't kill that turd called "The Osprey". The SeaWolf was under construction in 1989 and was plagues with cost over-runs and problems with welds. It's a miracle that thing even sailed.

Well at least the Navy seems to learn were other services do not. The Sea Wolf was replaced by Virginia class which I believe is almost as capable and has a significantly smaller per unit cost.

Maybe the seawolf class woul of had a lower cost be uit tif they'd planned to have more than two

Cost asiid I'm ot sure of the logic of having two of a class of sea going vessel - it really limits the deployment options.

Not when the first two that are being built experience so many construction problems and cost overruns. Besides that, the mission of the Navy's sub fleet had changed, which rendered the SeaWolf no longer needed. The SeaWolf class was going to be something along the lines of 25-30 subs. The same holds true here with the Zumwalt class destroyer. The costs are too prohibitive to keep producing it, which is why the project is killed at two copies.

 

[BoxWhatBox]

Not when the first two that are being built experience so many construction problems and cost overruns. Besides that, the mission of the Navy's sub fleet had changed, which rendered the SeaWolf no longer needed. The SeaWolf class was going to be something along the lines of 25-30 subs. The same holds true here with the Zumwalt class destroyer. The costs are too prohibitive to keep producing it, which is why the project is killed at two copies.

Well hopefully the Zumwalt will be followed by a Virginia, that is nearly as capable and less expensive.

 

[John Picard]

Not when the first two that are being built experience so many construction problems and cost overruns. Besides that, the mission of the Navy's sub fleet had changed, which rendered the SeaWolf no longer needed. The SeaWolf class was going to be something along the lines of 25-30 subs. The same holds true here with the Zumwalt class destroyer. The costs are too prohibitive to keep producing it, which is why the project is killed at two copies.

Well hopefully the Zumwalt will be followed by a Virginia, that is nearly as capable and less expensive.

In a way, it will be if the Navy pushes forward with more Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

 

[BoxWhatBox]

In a way, it will be if the Navy pushes forward with more Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

That's what I don't get. Why can't they just reconfigure the deck structures to include more stealthy features or the Arleigh Burke's?

 

[John Picard]

In a way, it will be if the Navy pushes forward with more Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

That's what I don't get. Why can't they just reconfigure the deck structures to include more stealthy features or the Arleigh Burke's?

#1) Design cost
#2) The Zumwalt is made of exotic, composite materials that are more costly. Doing that to the Burke class would most likely drive up the price, which goes back to item #1.

 

[Scout101]

But yet they couldn't kill that turd called "The Osprey". The SeaWolf was under construction in 1989 and was plagues with cost over-runs and problems with welds. It's a miracle that thing even sailed.

Well at least the Navy seems to learn were other services do not. The Sea Wolf was replaced by Virginia class which I believe is almost as capable and has a significantly smaller per unit cost.

Maybe the seawolf class woul of had a lower cost be uit tif they'd planned to have more than two

Cost asiid I'm ot sure of the logic of having two of a class of sea going vessel - it really limits the deployment options.

For starters, there are 3 Seawolf-Class subs. I've been onboard 2 of the 3. John_Picard is right on this one, though, the main killer for that project was that it no longer had a natural mission. We made it as a super-sub to be able to get the new-model Russian SSBN-equivalents... which never got produced. It's much more capable than any other sub in the fleet, but as such, it's not really needed, and too expensive to mass produce. The Virginia class was a compromise of capability and cost, something to start replacing the old 688 class as it decoms...