Most that have them, do, when they actually sail them.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
DDG-1000 dead in the water!
- Thread starter raptor10
- Start date
Most that have them, do, when they actually sail them.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I agree that the current acquisition process is broken beyond belief, but I think it's because the government doesn't hold the contractor's feet to the fire. So when they charge us extra for a meeting to discuss being over budget, no one says anything about it. Guess what, it's a $4 Billion dollar contract, and you're going over budget - you can suck up the cost of the meeting out of your insane profit.
There is some benefit to ridiculously overpriced development contracts. You make it cheaper to retrofit other equipment, or build new platforms. Using the Seawolf as an example, it was grotesquely over budget - and I would argue that a good reason for that is they were trying to design a future technology, so there were high R&D costs. So when it got cancelled, guess what? Most of that technology found it's way into the Virginia class for a lot cheaper.
I do agree there's got to be a cheaper way, but I'm not smart enough to know it.
There is some benefit to ridiculously overpriced development contracts. You make it cheaper to retrofit other equipment, or build new platforms. Using the Seawolf as an example, it was grotesquely over budget - and I would argue that a good reason for that is they were trying to design a future technology, so there were high R&D costs. So when it got cancelled, guess what? Most of that technology found it's way into the Virginia class for a lot cheaper.
I do agree there's got to be a cheaper way, but I'm not smart enough to know it.
whalepelt
New Member
Swiped shamelessly from neptunuslex:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/navys-stealth-d.html
As someone only casually familiar with the program, I was pretty surprised to hear about the lack of air defense capability.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/navys-stealth-d.html
As someone only casually familiar with the program, I was pretty surprised to hear about the lack of air defense capability.
SPY-1 radars don't do any guidence. The guidance is provided by SPG-62s
Actually, SPY is one of the guidance systems for SM-2s.
The folks over at the information dessemination blog have been following the DDG-1000 boondoggle, and have some really intelligent commentary on the subject.
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/
As much as I am not a fan of the Navy's recent ship procurement choices, I think you have to read what the VADM says very closely. Specifically "the current program of record".....
"However, in the current program of record, the DDG-1000 cannot perform area air defense; specifically, it cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6, and is incapable of conducting Ballistic Missile Defense. "
My assumption, and while it could be incorrect I think I am on going down the right path, is that the way that the ships are currently set up they could not do the mission. I think that is a snapshot in time though, and the integration issues in incorporating SM-3's and SM-6's are planned to be fixed down the road. For many newer radars, it is simply a matter of doing some computer reprogamming in order to add capability. I imagine that is what wuold probably be done with the SPY-3 on the Zumwalt's.
I think it is a disingenuos to talk up the capability of the Burke's when they have been contuinually modified since thier introduction to the fleet, and many of their current capabilites were not "in the current program of record" when they were being built.
It looks to me that big Navy is throwing a program they don't want to deal with anymore under the bus. Overall a smart decision, and the higher ups gotta do what they gotta do, but be careful of taking everything said at face value.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...08/18/AR2008081801894.html?hpid=moreheadlines
A third one. There's still time to change our minds yet again.
I don't think there should be any reason why the SPY-3 couldn't have the capability added to provide guidance to a modified SM-2. SPY-3 is a much bigger radar, supposedly, than SPY-1 so I'm sure adding an additional processor or software wouldn't be that much of a burden. Perhaps a part of the SPY-3 could replicate what the SPG-62 does?
A third one. There's still time to change our minds yet again.
I don't think there should be any reason why the SPY-3 couldn't have the capability added to provide guidance to a modified SM-2. SPY-3 is a much bigger radar, supposedly, than SPY-1 so I'm sure adding an additional processor or software wouldn't be that much of a burden. Perhaps a part of the SPY-3 could replicate what the SPG-62 does?
I'd wager that by the time the DDG-1000 actually comes online, the SM-6 will be around in sufficient number to equip 3 of them.