DDG-1000 dead in the water!

[phrogdriver]

With respect, I disagree. I do disagree with the decision to only produce two Zumwalt-class ships, but I am glad that at least we will get two. It will be much better than zero.

...

I also disagree that I am intellectually lazy, because I have thought about the alternatives. There are two--better procurement or no procurement. I firmly believe that a better procurement procedure will not happen until there becomes a critical need for it, such as an open, protracted war with Russia or China. So that leaves the option of no procurement. We can simply keep Perry-, Burke-, and Ticonderoga-class ships until they cost their initial price tag every other fiscal year to maintain.

Having two means that they will not be deployed forward when they are needed. It also means logistical and support costs are incurred for just two ships that would normally be justified for a fleet of them, e.g. spare parts, engineering programs, training programs, etc. The money spent on those two could have paid for a lot of capable ships that could be protecting sealanes, protecting CVNs, performing strike missions, and the like. I'm willing to bet that one could build several upgrades Aegis destroyers for the same price.

Also, there will never be a open protracted war with Russia or China, especially not one that allows time to do a lot of new contracting. War with one of them would be over in a matter of days or weeks, not years. This isn't WWII--either someone's pain threshold will be reached quickly, or it will escalate to nuclear combat.

 

[SkywardET]

Having two means that they will not be deployed forward when they are needed. It also means logistical and support costs are incurred for just two ships that would normally be justified for a fleet of them, e.g. spare parts, engineering programs, training programs, etc. The money spent on those two could have paid for a lot of capable ships that could be protecting sealanes, protecting CVNs, performing strike missions, and the like. I'm willing to bet that one could build several upgrades Aegis destroyers for the same price.

I understand the basic economics of scale, and that it is not good to have just two, which is why I would have preferred more, however I do not think the alternative you propose is better. We already protect a lot of sealanes, a lot of CVNs, perform a lot of strike missions, and etc.

Brett, I agree that there are better ways to field new tech, but I am glad that we are at least getting what we are getting. The reason why I believe only a major war could reform procurement is because of what the great urgency of WWII did to many of the precursors to our modern procurement problems. Union strikes were busted, contracts were issued on capacity and not necessarily limited by intellectual property rights (one company with a large manufacturing capacity building some other company's design, for instance), and etc. The red tape was cut in many places and great ideas were rushed into production (Higgins' boats, eventually). Only a similar sense of urgency will cut through the crap because quite frankly, our capabilities are much greater than we truly need for the activities we currently engage in.

 

[eddie]

I understand the basic economics of scale, and that it is not good to have just two, which is why I would have preferred more, however I do not think the alternative you propose is better. We already protect a lot of sealanes, a lot of CVNs, perform a lot of strike missions, and etc.

Brett, I agree that there are better ways to field new tech, but I am glad that we are at least getting what we are getting. The reason why I believe only a major war could reform procurement is because of what the great urgency of WWII did to many of the precursors to our modern procurement problems. Union strikes were busted, contracts were issued on capacity and not necessarily limited by intellectual property rights (one company with a large manufacturing capacity building some other company's design, for instance), and etc. The red tape was cut in many places and great ideas were rushed into production (Higgins' boats, eventually). Only a similar sense of urgency will cut through the crap because quite frankly, our capabilities are much greater than we truly need for the activities we currently engage in.

What you are arguing for sounds nearly fascist. It worked in a pinch, but I'm happy we got out of that way of operating.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Biggest reason the DDG-1000 gets canned... too much automation! Can't have that, nooooooo. Anything that doesn't require two sailors looking at an analogue steam gauge and reporting it's reading over stupid-ass sound powered phones can't be any good!

Computers? Automation? Technology? All anathema to the surface warfare community.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

Biggest reason the DDG-1000 gets canned... too much automation! Can't have that, nooooooo. Anything that doesn't require two sailors looking at an analogue steam gauge and reporting it's reading over stupid-ass sound powered phones can't be any good!

Computers? Automation? Technology? All anathema to the surface warfare community.

Automation works... in some things. Yeah, having a computerized CIC is much better than having guys writing positions in grease pencils. But you lose a lot with the small crews.

What I am most familiar with is damage control. Will that small crew be able to work 40 hours straight to save their ship after it struck a mine? Or is hit with a pair of Exocets? Fight a fire when the water main has been ruptured and supply hose needs to be run down the p-way?

How would the Stark have faired with a reduced crew

 

[ChuckMK23]

Do you honestly believe a US Navy warship - a capital warship - will ever be engaged or receive any sort of hostile fire? Isn't that notion completely outdated? I'm not talking a terrorist attack while in port..

Isn't the whole threat of an enemy weapon attacking a US Navy vessel outdated?

 

[Hozer]

From a Damage Control perspective, the ex-America was a testbed for advanced DC fittings, automatic watertight doors, etc in a direct effort to stem the argument made above (that real folks are required to keep a ship fighting in combat).
I thought DDGx was supposed to reflect the "smart-ship" minimum manning concept merged with, among many other goodies, advanced DC.

 

[eddie]

This might be an apples and oranges question, but if we still had the 600-ship Navy budget, would the procurement issues that exist today be as bad as they seem?

Or can we really not say / am I being myopic?

 

[Flash]

Biggest reason the DDG-1000 gets canned... too much automation! Can't have that, nooooooo. Anything that doesn't require two sailors looking at an analogue steam gauge and reporting it's reading over stupid-ass sound powered phones can't be any good!

Computers? Automation? Technology? All anathema to the surface warfare community.

Uhhh, no. Probably the biggest reason, cost. I have never heard manning mentioned once in all the press and professional exchanges I have had.

Do you honestly believe a US Navy warship - a capital warship - will ever be engaged or receive any sort of hostile fire? Isn't that notion completely outdated? I'm not talking a terrorist attack while in port..

Isn't the whole threat of an enemy weapon attacking a US Navy vessel outdated?

Are you joking? I hope that you are. There are numerous threats out there that could strike at US Navy assets, including carriers. As of right now, some would probably work getting a few hits.

And it is not just countries that have these weapons anymore, Hezbollah took a chunk out of an Israeli FFL during the 2006 war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Hanit

http://www.defense-update.com/2006/07/ins-hanit-suffers-iranian-missile.html

http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/articles/other/INSHanit.htm

 

[raptor10]

@Flash those links that I posted earlier mentioned manpower considerations as a contributing factor to the decision.

Here's another great post from th folks at ID on the disconnect between Navy shipbuilding and Maritime strategy:

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/07/in-no-case-can-we-exercise-control-by.html

 

[eddie]

@Flash those links that I posted earlier mentioned manpower considerations as a contributing factor to the decision.

Here's another great post from th folks at ID on the disconnect between Navy shipbuilding and Maritime strategy:

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/07/in-no-case-can-we-exercise-control-by.html

I'm not sure I quite understand the case they are making for the amphibs as the dreadnoughts of the modern era. Is it because everyone wants one, or because they offer jack-of-all-trade / master-of-none strategic flexibility?

I mean, how many other nations actually operate their ski ramps in the dual role of assault ship?

 

[SkywardET]

What you are arguing for sounds nearly fascist. It worked in a pinch, but I'm happy we got out of that way of operating.

It was nearly fascist. Never doubt that WWII required us to suspend, in the name of expediency, a lot of principles we now openly embrace. You can't fix the modern procurement system because it is legal and profitable, so only a pressing need that similarly requires us to to suspend our way of life will "fix" the acquisition system. We are not as frugal as the Japanese or as socialist as the Europeans; we are capitalists that sort of believe in a free market, and our procurement woes are what this sort of free market has evolved into.

 

[BigRed389]

Biggest reason the DDG-1000 gets canned... too much automation! Can't have that, nooooooo. Anything that doesn't require two sailors looking at an analogue steam gauge and reporting it's reading over stupid-ass sound powered phones can't be any good!

Computers? Automation? Technology? All anathema to the surface warfare community.

If you'd seen how many ways gauges, datalinks, and other remote systems can go to shit you wouldn't trust automation too much either. In fact, even conventional steam gauges aren't too trustworthy either.

The #1 reason the ARLEIGH BURKE ran aground a year or so back is because they were relying entirely on GPS...which was giving fixes that were WAY off.
The #2 reason is that the watchstanders were not paying attention.

VetteMuscle is also spot on with the DC issue. DC/Firefighting takes up a HUGE chunk of manpower...probably the biggest user of manpower during GQ. However, that is not the only reason manpower is essential. Basic watchstanding requirements, training time, and maintenance.
You need enough people to man up an adequate number of watch sections. Otherwise, your readiness goes in the shitter AND you burn people out.
You need enough people to get training time. If you can't let your people go off ship to go to schools/trainers, proficiency goes in the shitter as well.
And if you let people go to schools but don't have enough left to do the maintenance, equipment breaks, and then you're putting in longer hours to try to fix it.

 

[Hozer]

Basic watchstanding requirements, training time, and maintenance.
You need enough people to man up an adequate number of watch sections. Otherwise, your readiness goes in the shitter AND you burn people out.

My question is "What's driving the requirement?" A genuine need for a given watchstander, or a need to give someone something to do. Is there a real need for a particular job, given advances in technology, or changes in requirements? Or do we man a late model Nimitz carrier with the same number of folks that the Saratoga had as ships company because that's the way it's always been done.

Approx numbers, your CV/N may vary, but I doubt it.
Ex: - CV/N Navigation Bridge, approx 10 folks, 24/7
- TOP, immediately aft of Nav bridge, duplicates duties of Nav bridge, 8 folks
- Surface module in CDC, another 8 folks or so, they back up TOP which backs up the Nav Bridge.

Obviously, all those folks require berthing, chow, medical services, etc...something has to give. I'd like to see the argument that modern navigation equipment hasn't been adopted by the Navy in sufficient quantity to warrant less manning requirements.

There's definitely a middle-ground to be found between smart-ship manning and traditional manning models.

End rant//Begin Beer...:icon_tong

 

[Redux]

Damn shame, Elmo deserved a better more practicable namesake.