It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Navy Eyes Yet Another Arleigh Burke Destroyer Variant After Warship Plans Hit Snags

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Sheeeeesh as if the USAF's procurement process was a big enough disaster, the USN is vying for the top spot:

It looks like the Large Surface Combatant (one hull, many platforms) is getting more and more delayed. The LSC is meant to replace The Ticonderoga class ships which are based on a seriously old hull design and have really reached the end of their lifecycle. the the USN is now looking at a 4th version of the DDG-51 class aka the Arleigh Burke.

Details on what this would include compared to the FLight III is pretty vague at this time and short of say propulsion changes, The navy has already admitted that they have reached the "naval architectural limits of the ... hullform."

We would have:

Inital class
Flight I
Flight II
Flight IIA (of which there is no less than 5 sub classes)
Flight III
Flight IV ????

For those keeping score the major USN projects :

LCS: an unmitigated disaster. Those vessels should be turned over to the Coast Guard
Ford Class: Lots of problems from EMALS/weapons elevators etc etc. Can't launch F-35C's
Zumwalt: No revolutionary main battery and they keep bolting on crap that makes it less and less stealthy
America Class: This program seems to be okay with ships being produced and the USMC's lighting carrier concept is a winner IMHO
Virginia Class SSN's: Also seems to be okay
LCS: Increasing delays
Columbia Class SSN: Haven't started yet and costs for the lead ship are 6.2 billion (they hope to get it down to 4.9 with future ships)

FFG(X) ongoing but no type selected. projected to be almost 1 billion each

www.thedrive.com...


edit on 8/12/19 by FredT because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

The Coast Guard doesn't want the Little Crappy Ships (LCS)

The EMALS problem is just about solved. Don't ask how I know.

The problems with the Ford Class is that they didn't build mock-ups and test units before putting them in the ship. It was deemed too expensive and would have cut into the Navy's Sexual Harassment and Inclusiveness training budget.



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 04:05 PM
link   
What are the Navy's "tic tac's" classified as?

Asking for a friend...



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: FredT

The Coast Guard doesn't want the Little Crappy Ships (LCS)

The EMALS problem is just about solved. Don't ask how I know.

The problems with the Ford Class is that they didn't build mock-ups and test units before putting them in the ship. It was deemed too expensive and would have cut into the Navy's Sexual Harassment and Inclusiveness training budget.


....and the LGBT and Tranny integration and sex change operations budget, and the budget for rewrite of all Navy physical/exams so that any woman with a pulse can pass

All much more important items to the military than mere equipment, boats, guns....



posted on Aug, 12 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Tripoli hit some kind of snag in the yard. She'll be delayed.



posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 07:33 AM
link   
The Coast Guard would not want those class ships. If it does not work for the Navy. Why offer to the Coast Guard? Beside the Coast Guard is building several new Cutters of various size. That will be around for another 30-50 years. If the Navy cannot build a good ship. Then quite putting out unrealistic goal. Build within the technology that is avilable for today, and maybe 5-10 years into the future.




 
7

log in

join