Comments on: A $50-Billion Warship Mystery

By: vessel sinks

vessel sinks — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:50:00 +0000

the Navy Sink the Zumwalt Destroyer and blog contain well presentation detail.

By: Bible Study Man

Bible Study Man — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:52:25 +0000

Shallow water in Vietname and WWII was controlled by gun boats and PT boats. Perhaps, light and fast is still the best answer. Stealth? I doubt that coastal snipers and shoulder-launched rockets are relying on radar to detect the presence of big ships.

By: Bible Study Man

Bible Study Man — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:52:25 +0000

By: cloakanddaggarbaby

cloakanddaggarbaby — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:33:01 +0000

DDG 1000 is not ship shape. A traditional sea hull has a “V” shape which utilizes hydrostatic forces to keep the ship upright. The DDG 100 has an “A” shape to bounce radar off – stealth – and consequently no hydrostatic forces to help keep it up right.

By: War Is Boring

War Is Boring — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:54:09 +0000

[...] : CVN-21 Ford-class aircraft carrier 20 : SSN-774 Virginia-class submarine 50 : DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer 25 : DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer 6 : Littoral Combat Ship 15 : LPD-17 San Antonio-class [...]

By: Robin, Frank

Robin, Frank — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 02:41:50 +0000

The consequences of such a move would be enormous. After all, the Navy’s own Maritime Strategy, published last year, emphasized that “lifeblood” global trade “relies on free transit through increasingly urbanized littoral regions.”

By: Gordon Moore

Gordon Moore — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:25:38 +0000

We need to fix the economy. when there is only so much money you have to use it wisely. From my college days I remember that the Multiplier Theorem states that the ratio for moving the money around is greater when we spend money on industries that produce domestic goods instead of “Military” goods. We're not going to be able to bomb Hamas out of existance it's much cheaper and wiser to negotiate with these people and continue negotiating.

By: Jaycal

Jaycal — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:04:13 +0000

So just why does the Navy need to increase it's number of front-line ships by 15%? Are we afraid that Russia might revive the old Soviet Navy and threaten our costal waters?

I'd also like to see what, if any, role the Air Force or Naval air support would fulfill in the littoral regions… why plunk down probably 100+ sailors to sit in a near-shore situation where they'd be accessible to most land-based forms of attack, when we can utilize air support with 1/10th or less the manpower and even less risk?

By: Gene Ha

Gene Ha — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:39:17 +0000

I'm no defense geek or Navy veteran, but the Zumwalt just sounds crazy. To defend shallow waters the obvious solution is to use smaller, lighter ships. They won't need as deep of water and they won't form a huge, aircraft carrier sized target that'd be indefensible against a coordinated assault by exactly the kind of missiles Hezbollah used. Giving 'stealth' capability to something that big is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If you need more firepower, add two older destroyers for half the price further out, or an aircraft carrier to provide air support. But keep the big ships far from shore.

I could be wrong, but this article assumes the Zumwalt is the natural solution without explaining why. Google provides lots of commentators who disagree. The impression I get from the article is that Congress is trying to protect contractors in their districts.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:59:34 +0000

There is nothing mysterious about the action by Congress to kill the program. It was over budget to an extent never seen before in Navy history, behind schedule and didn't do what it was supposed to do. Few project kills have been easier.

Also, the DDG-1000 fills a role, of sea based fire support, that only makes sense if it is more affordable than cruise misiles. That was originally the plan, but didn't work out.

Finally, the LCS while troubled, is not as troubled and can fill many coastal warship roles.

Now, one could call the incompetence of the contractor mysterious, but that would be contrary to known facts, history and all good sense.