DD(X) axed??????

I just heard a rumour the the US DD(X) has been axed? Can anyone on here confirm this?

[edit on 15-5-2006 by paperplane_uk]

Heard same rumor, due to the cost per ship approaching a nimitz carrier.

Hmm, a quick search on Google found nothing about it being cancelled. I know there have been talks that due to budget constraints it might be cut or perhaps cancelled but I don’t think they would do it. They’ve spent a lot of money and time developing and testing the systems for the ship. Where did you guys hear this 'rumor'?

Reported here

but, from what I have read, 2 DD(X) like ships may be built as technology demonstrators to capitalize on costs so far for the CG(X) program required by 2022 to replace the current AEGIS cruisers.

Seven billion per ship? Jesus. I can see why they cancelled it but we still need a replacement for the Burke’s and especially the Tico’s before 2025.

Or they could implement some of the sensor technology of the DD(X) into the Ticonderoga class. Does anyone see these ships being able to hang around until 2025? Cutting them would decrease our AAW capability.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by WestPoint23]

The ship is not being scrapped, my company is working on the motor for the ship and we just got more funding for it.

Those fiends at congress. Do they wan't us to fight with an ancient military. We need the DDX and CGX. I dont want our navy to use 50 ytear old ships by 2025. Seems like they only care about money and not our sailor's lives!!!

[edit on 16-5-2006 by urmomma158]

Originally posted by urmomma158
Those fiends at congress. Do they wan't us to fight with an ancient military. We need the DDX and CGX. I dont want our navy to use 50 ytear old ships by 2025. Seems like they only care about money and not our sailor's

What are you talking about? The oldest DDG-51 is just turned 16 years old, the last of the already paid for 62 haven't even had their hulls laid yet.

The first CG-52 isn't set to retire until 2022. That is when the CG(X) is planned.

The Surface fleet is the youngest portion of the Navy, and the only portion expanding in numbers already. While the submarine fleet, logistics fleet, and amphibious fleet is getting old and shrinking, you want to spend $50 billion on more surface ships, at a time when the US Navy already has 84 of the top 100 most powerful surface warships in the world with 62 of those 84 less than 16 years old?

Congress is doing good as best I can tell, they correctly see the Rumsfeld Navy as a Navy run by Surface Fleet Officers for Surface Fleet Officers.

Originally posted by urmomma158
Those fiends at congress. Do they wan't us to fight with an ancient military.

Those damn Al Qaeda rubber boats, China's non existent blue water navy and Russia's rusty few ships are a huge threat ofcourse.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Simon666]

I’m more concerned with the Ticonderoga class, the Burke class I don’t have a problem with but we have too few cruisers and they are getting old. Besides, the world does not stay static, if you think the US blue fleet will not be challenged in the coming future then you not paying attention to what’s going on.

To few Cruisers? There are around 30. Since the decom of the first few because they didnt have VLS. Ive ridden exclusively on Cruisers for my entire career so far. They have the most modern, and advanced technologies, and are still being updated daily with features, ask anyone with an ESWS pin from a Tico class CG. As far as being to old the first Arleigh Burke was comminsioned in 85 was it not, the first Tico was 80. So, are you saying a ship 5 years older, is not able to perform the capabilities of a DDG? There are ships, in combat use at this very moment, that were comissioned in the 50s and earlier. Because if you are, than you are sadly mistaken. They both have the same features from warfare to electronic capabilities, having ridden both. If you feel I am not speaking the truth, please feel to post a capability that a DDG has that a CG doesnt have

Originally posted by urmomma158
Those fiends at congress. Do they wan't us to fight with an ancient military. We need the DDX and CGX. I dont want our navy to use 50 ytear old ships by 2025. Seems like they only care about money and not our sailor's lives!!!

i agree, ive always loved seeing americas 'future projects'

but i feel europe and the rest of the world are catching up with the united states all the time, the brits new type45 destroyer comes into service next year:-

www.baesystems.com...

pound for pound that beats any ship the united states has, and the US don't have anything in development yet??




[edit on 27-5-2006 by Sepiroth]

Actually the first DDG-51 was ORDERED in 1985. She was commissioned in 1991. She's got a good 8 years on the first CG-47. The Tico was ordered in 1978 and commissioned in 1983. Eight years in terms of radar, missiles, and electronics is a long time. While the Tico is still a good ship, and they're making a lot of improvements, they're limited in the changes they can make. If you have a square hole for the original component, and your new component is round, you are either out of luck, or you have to do some reconstruction. The more reconstruction, the more cost. That's why the first few Tico's were retired, because it would cost too much to go to a VLS system.

Logreq

There are only 22 Ticonderoga's in service, with the last one (CG-73) being commissioned in 1994.
Now, like Zap said they were first designed before 1980 and the design and technology originally used can only be upgraded and maintained up to a point before the ship becomes cost prohibitive and out-dated. Seeing as how the oldest of the current ships will be 39 in 2025 there’s a good chance that that’s exactly what will happen. The oldest Burke ship is only 15 years old and 62 ships will be built with the last one being commissioned in 2010. The Burke class has, and currently is, being upgraded as newer ships are built, this allows for newer technology to be implemented from the ground up. Overall the Ticonderoga class is more vulnerable than the Burke class if we go without a new Cruiser or Destroyer until 2025.

Originally posted by Sepiroth
pound for pound that beats any ship the united states has...

Not quite, if you want a further explanation feel free to ask.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Not quite, if you want a further explanation feel free to ask.

well then i ask, because i get my information from various websites!

but i don't care either way.. the US/UK are allies, if any nation got in a conflict the other would be there to back each other up.

the US offered help in the falklands if i remember right.





[edit on 28-5-2006 by Sepiroth]

My understanding is that the Type 45 is the RN equivallent of the DDG-51 class of the USN. Newer electronics, different weapons load but fairly equivallent to each other.

Originally posted by Sepiroth
but i don't care either way.. the US/UK are allies, if any nation got in a conflict the other would be there to back each other up.

Very true UK ships cant really be considered a threat to the US in any realistic scenario. The nations one would consider competitors still have a huge gap in naval power (except Russian naval nuclear forces)

IMO the only one in real position to close the gap in the near future is perhaps China and they still have a great deal to do.

Originally posted by sepiroth
well then i ask, because i get my information from various websites!

Look, the Type-45 is good ship and will be a great addition to the UK surface fleet, however as things stand now IMO it cant be compared to the Burke class. The Burke class carries a greater number, and variety of weaponry.

Type 45 is only about 75% of the size of a DDG-51, limiting it's weapons capacity. It does however have significant room left for expansion. IIRC there is room left in the ships for a further 24-32 VLS cells, which would give it a missile magazine capacity closer to the Burkes. However a Burke's VLS is typically stocked with more than just Standard SAM's, cells are needed for Tomahawks and VL ASROCs too, so in terms of area AAW capability they are closer than it might seem at first glance.

In keeping with RN doctrine, Type 45 is a more specialized AAW vessel than the Burkes, which are multirole DDG's that perform AAW, ASW, ASuW, and strike roles.

It's hard to tell how the systems compare, considering how new the major systems on the Type 45 (Sampson/Aster) are. Aster 30 has somewhat less range than Standard, but appears to have somewhat greater agility and a quicker response time. It's hard to compare Sampson to SPY1, as the exact capabilities/limitations of each are very classified. I would say Type 45 is a more advanced basic design (not surprising considering the fact that it's 15 years newer), but the Burkes have the advantage in terms of raw firepower and flexibility.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Look, the Type-45 is good ship and will be a great addition to the UK surface fleet, however as things stand now IMO it cant be compared to the Burke class. The Burke class carries a greater number, and variety of weaponry.

thank you for your analysis, but unfortuantly you never changed my mind with 'your opinion' which you said you would give me an explainion on why it wasn't yesterday.

therefore i think i will carry on going on what hundreds of internet websites tell me.

en.wikipedia.org... (encyclopedia)
www.baesystems.com... (offical website of the project)


but as i said above, i don't care either way.