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.

 

6 billion (thats right) dollar destroyer!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
www.defensenews.com...


A "future surface combatant" (FSC) and the accelerated development of an anti-missile radar could be the U.S. Navy's answer to new missiles under development by China.

The new ship could become even more central to Navy plans. The price tag for the DDG 1000 destroyer has hit $6 billion a copy, Pentagon documents show. The Zumwalts may be in a Nunn-McCurdy breach, which would require the Navy - already downplaying the ship - to recertify the program's value to the nation's defense.

The viability of the Zumwalt class was already in question because of its price tag, which the Navy has declared to be $3.3 billion per ship but which non-Navy analysts put at $5 billion to $7 billion.

A Jan. 26 Memorandum for the Record by John Young, the Pentagon's top acquisition official, said that the per-ship price as of last July is $5.964 billion. That's $2.7 billion, or 81 percent, over the Navy's estimate.


How the hell did it just become so expenisve? How much are our current destroyers? A little over a billion a copy right?




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
It must be inflation. That's got to be it. Everything else is expensive, so the price of that went up, too.

Unless it has, like, a spaceship attached to it. And the Hope diamond. And 600 Porsches.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Probably put so much weapons on it, that it would sink. Anti-aircraft lasers, anti-satellite missiles, anti-ship hypersonic missiles, etc.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

How the hell did it just become so expenisve?


Six hundred dollars a rivet adds up and let's not forget about the kickbacks.

Seriously, what government project isn't overpriced? It isn't their money they are spending so why should they worry about price?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Exactly. They are ALWAYS over budget. ALWAYS. Almost always in the 200-300% range.

They don't care. They know america will never cut their military spending or stop the no-bidding contracts. Even then, it's a cartel.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
hmmm, A destroyer?

This is for fighting the war on poverty, right?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
The DDG-1000 program is a repackaged version of the "DDX" program. The huge cost overruns are (at least in large part) to a combination of over-ambitious requirements for the ship...the Navy was asking for new and vastly different propulsion systems, electronic systems, on-board automation, weapons, and a new and different hull form, all on the same ship. Developing new technology is never cheap, and trying to develop so many new and different things at the same time and on the same platform increases the difficulty and the cost geometrically, even if everything goes according to plan (stop laughing, it might happen...someday). If (as happened with the DDG-1000) a few of the fancy gadgets get stalled in development, it stalls the entire program, and the extra time adds still more cost, and lets inflation get another bite of the budget.

It's also falling victim to the accounting game. The Navy's original price estimate was based on two things...a much lower development cost (which fell apart because they were trying too much, too fast), and a certain level of production (I can't remember how many DDG-1000's the Navy planned for initially, but I know the number was cut down to 8, then to 2). As the production run shrinks, per-unit cost goes up, since each individual unit has to pay for more of the overhead cost of the entire run.

We actually do need a new destroyer...the Arleigh Burkes are good ships, but they're starting to show their age. The DDG-1000 program is turning into a very expensive lesson in how NOT to get one.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


does your goverment *SNIP* money now?
6billion, this must have gold plated toilet seats and weapons
along with other stuff.

Mod Edit: No profanity please



[edit on 2/4/09 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
This is a tough one to understand. The Navy has not developed a new fleet ship in a very long time so there is almost no comparison to how much a modern ground up build with development should be priced. They also have to keep in mind other destroyer models such as the DDE, DDF and the other variants when making a new one.

On the other hand 6B is a lot of dough. If they had so much trouble getting all the requirements out of this one they might have considered a BB hull or something. Of course that gets back to then they wouldn't have a model to use for the basic DD, DDG, DDE or other ships.

They might also be thinking that if they have one and work the kinks out of it they can always order more at a cheaper price later. Who knows with the modern Navy? I wrote a thread about an officer from Annapolis who in my opinion (and of his sailors) committed treason and they just 'suspended' him - so he could get a Masters degree on his time off. So who knows?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Theres gonna be a Nunn-McCurdy review - and it`ll be cancelled - when you can buy 6 DDG-51`s for the price of 1 DDX and congress have allready asked why the cost is now 81% about the original estimate (and why it wasn`t mentioned before) its good bye to the ship - the capabilities can allready be done by the burkes - and i can see northrop being asked for at least some of the money back.

to give you a real idea of this cost, the USS George W Bush cost $6 billion to make , so a carrier or a cruiser for the same cost.

[edit on 3/2/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
The Type 45 Daring Class is a nice hull. Modular construction would allow it to be adapted to USN needs. A fully kitted out 45 has a price tag of some £560 million.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Fang
 


the DDG-1000 also are double the displacement and longer by 100 feet - the name destroyer for these ships really is a misnomer as they are firmly in the cruiser class - they are bigger and heavier than the CG-xx tico ships!



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
www.defensenews.com...


Navy officials say the primary advantage of DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class ships equipped with the Lockheed Martin Aegis combat system is that they can shoot down ballistic missiles - a capability the Navy never asked for in its high-technology and high-priced Zumwalts and its new Raytheon-developed combat system.


apparantly the arleigh burkes can allready perform missions the `new` DD(X) cannot - without spending more money to `upgrade` the still unbuilt ships.

the CG(X) was to be the BMD ships - but at $6 BILLION each i think that a buy more arleigh burkes since they are better would be the best option.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by Fang
 


the DDG-1000 also are double the displacement and longer by 100 feet - the name destroyer for these ships really is a misnomer as they are firmly in the cruiser class - they are bigger and heavier than the CG-xx tico ships!


Yep, you're right. I was just looking at the bare hull displacement (around 10 tonnes). That's one big 'Destroyer'.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fang
The Type 45 Daring Class is a nice hull. Modular construction would allow it to be adapted to USN needs. A fully kitted out 45 has a price tag of some £560 million.


We need something superior to an Arleigh Burke not inferior.

The Type 45 doesn't have a solid state radar (mechanically scanned) its VLS cells are air defence only, no VLS Harpoons or ASROCs, plus it only has 48 cells as opposed to the Burke's 90 cells, it lacks mission flexibility.

It would be a major retrograde step.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


SAMPSON is an AESA set whilst AEGIS is a PESA set , and whilst some of the system might rotate 2/3rds are fixed panel.

also the ship is an air defence ship not multi mission , that role is supplied by the royal navy frigates.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
It must be inflation. That's got to be it. Everything else is expensive, so the price of that went up, too.

Unless it has, like, a spaceship attached to it. And the Hope diamond. And 600 Porsches.


and 50 Chuck Norrisseses.


-



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
And i still cant really understand why America is in financial trouble.
Isnt America pretty much an impenetrable fortress?Why would they need $6000000000 warships for?
But its ok money grows on trees and im sure they'll be very impressive.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Exactly, the Type 45 lacks both firepower and flexibility.

We need those attributes now, the future state demands even more.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
www.defensenews.com...


A "future surface combatant" (FSC) and the accelerated development of an anti-missile radar could be the U.S. Navy's answer to new missiles under development by China.

The new ship could become even more central to Navy plans. The price tag for the DDG 1000 destroyer has hit $6 billion a copy, Pentagon documents show. The Zumwalts may be in a Nunn-McCurdy breach, which would require the Navy - already downplaying the ship - to recertify the program's value to the nation's defense.

The viability of the Zumwalt class was already in question because of its price tag, which the Navy has declared to be $3.3 billion per ship but which non-Navy analysts put at $5 billion to $7 billion.

A Jan. 26 Memorandum for the Record by John Young, the Pentagon's top acquisition official, said that the per-ship price as of last July is $5.964 billion. That's $2.7 billion, or 81 percent, over the Navy's estimate.


How the hell did it just become so expenisve? How much are our current destroyers? A little over a billion a copy right?


Important issue to take from ths is that they need to this respond to Chinese tech - in otherwords what you have now aint gonna cope.

I feel this may be a direct reference to the Sunburn Missile sold to china by the Rissians- you guys should never have backed georgia,....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join