Reply With QuoteAre all 9 going into the Indian and Pacific Oceans?
9th Virginia-class SSN delivered a year ahead of Schedule
Are all 9 going into the Indian and Pacific Oceans?
A Western company producing something on time? A miracle indeed!
Indeed, the only question remaining is, was it on budget? Usually the cost of these things tend to spiral out of control...Originally Posted by BrickWall
The article states thats was delivered one year ahead and under cost.
I have an idea. Let's cut production rates in half now and stretch things out so we can get unit cost back up and efficiency and quality back down.
30 are planned, wow! It seems the USN will rule the seas, at least for the next 30 years.
So long as costs remain under budget and on time and that future cuts do not affect US Capabilities it would seem that way indeed
The pols are doing everything they can to ensure that doesn't happen.
http://www.ct.gov/oma/cwp/view.asp?a=3422&q=501076
"The mantra of building two boats per year, the minimum number advocates say is required to keep the highly specialized industry humming along, will be in place for the next few years.
However, the fiscal year 2013 budget proposal is throwing a wet blanket on these carefully laid out plans.
On the chopping block is one Virginia-class attack submarine slated for 2014. The completion of the Virginia-class submarine fleet would have dovetailed into a program to replace the Ohio-class submarines that carry the nation’s ballistic missiles, and kept the workflow steady.
The proposal has that program being pushed back two years, and research-and-development funding leading up to it is taking a hit.
This is causing a great deal of consternation in the submarine building industry. Only two boatyards currently construct the vessels — General Dynamics Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding. Yet, they depend on some 5,000 suppliers spread across all 50 states. And some of those suppliers, in turn, depend on them to stay in business.
While the large shipyards can better withstand the vagaries of the federal budget, these lower-tier suppliers are more vulnerable to changes to the two submarines per year plan, said Brian M. Wilson, Ohio replacement program director at GD Electric Boat."
Here's hoping Australia attempts to be sensible and doesn't rule out adopting Virginia class subs.
Damn, any idea on how the Virginia Class costs expected to rise with this Cut? And are more planned?
Question I would ask is whether the Virginia Class or the say Type 212 Diesels are best for the Australian Navy? I imagine Australia has less need for range that Nuclear offers and these Diesels if I am correct are generally a little bit more quiet, cheaper, lower manpower (important) and are able to operate in shallow waters...
@ DasVivo.....based on cost alone its the 212 over the Virginia or any nuclear boat for that matter.
Given that it was a year ahead of scheduled delivery, did the Navy budget the operating funds to sail the boat?
I think that's a very interesting idea.
Like the BRAC threat, the move to slow Virginia production was a move to force Congress to add it back in the budget.
She came in around $30 mil under-budget, I imagine that money was re-purposed for her operation.
Posting Permissions
