"Navy Makes Plans for New Destroyer for 2030s" Topic
7 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article As the holiday season approaches, overstock toys of previous years show up in the dollar stores.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
| Tango01 | 10 Apr 2014 12:42 p.m. PST |
"The U.S. Navy is in the very early stages of developing a new destroyer -- called the Future Surface Combatant -- which will replace the existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and enter service by the early 2030s, Navy leaders told Military.com. Navy officials said it is much too early to speculate on hull design or shape for the new ship but lasers, on-board power-generation systems, increased automation, next-generation weapons, sensors and electronics are all expected to figure prominently in the development of the vessel. The Future Surface Combatant will succeed and serve alongside the Navy's current Flight III DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program slated to being construction in 2016. Overall, the Secretary of the Navy's long-range shipbuilding plan calls for construction of 22 Flight III DDGs, Navy officials said…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
Tgerritsen  | 10 Apr 2014 8:03 p.m. PST |
Wasn't that what the Zumwalts were supposed to be before they got too expensive because of all the whiz bang stuff on them? |
| Tango01 | 10 Apr 2014 11:28 p.m. PST |
News are news my good friend! (big smile).
Even those who contradict. (smile). Amicalement
Armand |
| Lion in the Stars | 11 Apr 2014 10:35 a.m. PST |
Wasn't that what the Zumwalts were supposed to be before they got too expensive because of all the whiz bang stuff on them? Yes and no. The Zumwalts were supposed to be "gun" destoyers, hence their hull numbers up in the 1000s. Gun Destroyers were supposed to be able to support the Marines ashore with Naval Gunfire, as well as carrying enough stuff in the VLS cells for self protection and the occasional Tomahawk. There was also a cruiser design (based on the Zumwalt hull just like the Ticos were built on Spruance DD hulls), but that was completely canceled. I think the problem with the Zumwalts was that their key technologies were still too expensive. Ie, too new, and not produced in sufficient numbers to bring the per-unit cost to a reasonable number. |
| Mako11 | 11 Apr 2014 5:42 p.m. PST |
A production run of three seems like a waste. Perhaps they are just meant as a test-bed to the next design, since that is the only logical explanation I can think of to spend all that money on design work, and then make so few. |
| Lion in the Stars | 12 Apr 2014 7:56 a.m. PST |
The Zumwalts? No, Mako, there were supposed to be 32 of them built. Congresscritters complained that the per-ship cost was too high, and then proceeded to raise that cost by about an order of magnitude because of the curtailed production! Apparently there weren't enough jobs created/maintained by their construction. |
|
