I'm interested as to any discussion on how these ships perform especially in heavier seas. There appears to be several people raising doubt about how seaworthy they are, but the fact the US is going ahead with 3 of the vessels and presumably did enough research ontop of that scaled down research vessel they constructed - seems to suggest that they'll be okay. Like many people I had no idea they were so far along in constructing these things!
new Burke, Flight III news article:
Next Gen U.S. Destroyers Already Questioned
Apr 6, 2012
By Michael Fabey
Read more: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ne=null&next=0Military analysts for a host of government watchdog agencies such as the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Research Service (CRS) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have questioned the Navy’s Flight III plans for some time, but it is the GAO review released earlier this year that highlights newly emerging cost and schedule risks.
In the coming years, when the real cutfest begins, the navy will regret this decision.
Will cost the life of more necessary projects and in the extreme, will force to rethink the number of carriers.
US Navy to Cut 12 Ships
To cut the Ticos?In the coming years, when the real cutfest begins, the navy will regret this decision.
Or to build a new nuclear cruiser?
I really think such a beast is needed to handle high end mission equipment like AMDR (physically large and requiring a tremendous amount of electrical power), and maybe some of the other futuristic systems being contemplated.
I really hate to say it, but I'm guessing that there will fewer carriers in our future.Will cost the life of more necessary projects and in the extreme, will force to rethink the number of carriers.
I really doubt we'll have as many Ford-class carriers in service at one time as we have Nimitz class (10 in commission).
It's not something that makes me happy, but I just worry that the cost to develop ships to handle high-end missions (like BMD) will end up driving the size of the fleet down to a tiny fraction of what it is today, and much less than what we need.
I think an AMDR CGN would be a useful addition to the fleet. 15k+ tons, AMDR radar, 200+ VLS, maybe one or two AGS, and ability to launch and recover mid-size UAVs. I just think the cost of such a thing would be astronomical. Unthinkable, even.
But Program management hasn't been our strong suite lately, though.
We need BuShips back.
When I think of netcentric warfare I think of economy of scale and decentralized centres of gravity.
Anti ship missiles are pretty spiffy nowadays.
And while carriers are the hub in the hub/spoke model....I wonder if it's possible to crank out fully plug/play hulls in small/medium/large that can decentralize the risk that big fat carriers represent if successfully targeted.
If you're going to operate in a fleet or strike group environment do you NEED every vessel to be fully kitted out with EVERY sensor under the sun?
Or can you plug in a bunch of VLS containers into a few lightly manned hulls slaved to the fully kitted and sensor laden hulls?
Carriers are awesome....but I wonder if next gen UAVs will be able to operate from smaller and less expensive hulls like America class?
The Navy has been playing around with a concept of an about 25,000-ton CGN using the LPD-17 hull with a single A1B reactor from the Ford class. The rough cost estimates were around $9 billion (today's dollars) for the lead ship and around $7 billion follow-on. The Navy would need at least 7 and more like 9 to get the desired coverage, and that's with a second class of 14-15 smaller, conventional "cruisers" (Flight III or BMD Zumwalt) as additional shooters.
I don't like the idea for a variety of reasons, price being chief among them. But also because, with even 9 CGNs, we'd be unable to do anything with them but escort the Carriers around. BMD patrols in the Med and Pacific, and the Gator Navy would be reliant on the conventional cruisers anyway, better to make all the 20+ BMD cruisers one conventional class (more affordable and better for the Industry) and then enhance the fleet sensor ability with some innovation.
Galrahn over at Information Dissemination has put forward a fairly straightforward solution: put a large-array AMDR on the Ford-class Carriers. The island on a Ford can take a fairly huge array on its 3 faces, and they have Power to be sure. He's also suggested mounting a turreted AMDR array on the next generation of support ships, but the Navy is already having enough trouble getting those paid for and I don't think adding the price of an AMDR would make the situation any better.
Fox was hyping the LCS this morning which I found funny, but we need a CGN but when they killed the CGX idk.