Futuro da US Navy:"Hara-Kiri" Naval?(DDG-1000,LCS)

[luis F. Silva]

Até parece que queres experimentar

Prefiro mesmo o desenho do LPD, pois tem na ré uma bela entrada para lanchas. NRP T. Taveira???

[P44]

up

(para o Sniper)

ps-Obrigado ao Sintra

Os Benfiquistas são assim mesmo!

[Sniper]

Comecei a estudá-lo agora pela hora do almoço...

Terei que continuar logo mais em casa meu chefe tá na cola...

Agradeço ao P44 por ressucitar esse grande tópico !

Abraço!

[P44]

Comecei a estudá-lo agora pela hora do almoço...

Terei que continuar logo mais em casa meu chefe tá na cola...

Agradeço ao P44 por ressucitar esse grande tópico !

Abraço!

depois mando a conta

[P44]

comparativo

DDG-1000

-----

CG ticonderoga

----

DDG Arleigh Burke

[Patton]

comparativo

DDG-1000

-----

CG ticonderoga

----

DDG Arleigh Burke

O Bicho sera' grandona!

[Tu160bomber]

O Bicho sera' grandona!

Enorme mesmo

[Sintra]

comparativo

DDG-1000

-----

CG ticonderoga

----

DDG Arleigh Burke

O Bicho sera' grandona!

É dizer pouco, é do tamanho de um couraçado de bolso Alemão da II Guerra Mundial...

[JLRC]

É dizer pouco, é do tamanho de um couraçado de bolso Alemão da II Guerra Mundial...

Que na realidade eram cruzadores-couraçados, um tipo de navios que entrou em desuso durante a I Guerra.

[Rui Elias Maltez]

No tópico "Marinha dos EUA" já escrevi o que pensava desse navio.

[P44]

Zumwalt Readies for Production After Successful Navy Review


(Source: Raytheon Company; issued April 29, 2008)



TEWKSBURY, Mass. --- Raytheon Company has successfully completed the mission system design readiness review for the Zumwalt-class destroyer program. The review confirmed that the mission system design for America's new multi-mission destroyer is mature and meets U.S. Navy requirements.

To date, Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) and the Zumwalt National Team have completed more than 2.7 million lines of software code and 10,127 drawings, conducted detailed design reviews of 92 percent of the program's detail design and integration elements, and transitioned 56 percent of those elements to production. Raytheon has also completed extensive land- based and onboard-ship testing of the prototype dual band radar.

"The team has done an outstanding job to ensure the mission system design meets the end-to-end requirements and is producible and affordable," said U.S. Navy Captain James Syring, Zumwalt program manager. "I was very impressed with the design maturity of the mission system and its readiness for production."

Raytheon IDS led the mission system design readiness review in cooperation with the Navy and a number of Zumwalt National Team partners. IDS is the Navy's mission systems integrator for Zumwalt, partnering with industry teammates and many small businesses. Raytheon leads the national team, working in close collaboration with the U.S. Navy, to ensure the highest level of program performance, technical quality and affordability.

The mission system design readiness review, attended by approximately 185 representatives from the U.S. Navy and the Zumwalt National Team, was a culmination of more than 100 individual walk-up reviews. It confirmed the maturity of the Zumwalt mission system design. The review focused on Zumwalt's mission systems, providing a status and technical assessment of the hardware, software and crew design.

The review included an in-depth assessment of Zumwalt's advanced mission area capabilities, including air defense and land attack. It also included surface, information and undersea dominance, all enabled by Zumwalt's state-of the-art open architecture design, surveillance, engagement and mobility capabilities, and unsurpassed level of stealth.

"The mission system design readiness review success is a testament to the strength, teamwork and resourcefulness of Zumwalt's government-industry team," said IDS' Ed Geisler, vice president and Zumwalt program manager. "Now, more than ever, we see the benefits of this effective collaboration as we successfully continue mission system design and production leading us to ship delivery."

The successful mission system design readiness review represents an important milestone as the national team prepares for the total ship system production readiness review in October 2008.

The team continues to achieve program milestones with standard and interim design and program reviews with the U.S. Navy to verify system and element design, scope and maturity. Most recently, IDS successfully completed the software design review of the ship's Total Ship Computing Environment and the Software Systems Safety Technical Review Panel. Zumwalt program and technical performance continue to be on schedule and on cost over six years of design, development, integration, test, and production.

Under the Navy's Zumwalt Detail Design and Integration contract awarded in 2005, Raytheon IDS serves as the prime mission systems equipment integrator for all electronic and combat systems for the Zumwalt-class destroyer program.


Integrated Defense Systems is Raytheon's leader in Joint Battlespace Integration providing affordable, integrated solutions to a broad international and domestic customer base, including the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, the U.S. Armed Forces and the Department of Homeland Security.

Raytheon Company, with 2007 sales of $21.3 billion, is a technology leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 72,000 people worldwide.

-ends-

[P44]

Op-Ed: Navy Destroyer Plans Don’t Make Sense

(Source: Lexington Institute; issued June 4, 2008)


(© Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)



By Loren Thompson, Ph.D.

If you think that having three surface warfare officers in a row at the helm of the U.S. Navy has created a bias in favor of surface combatants, then you must not be paying attention to news about naval shipbuilding. While a reasonably coherent roadmap has emerged for replacing cold-war aircraft carriers and submarines, plans for a family of future surface combatants are in disarray. That's a problem, because surface combatants -- frigates, destroyers, cruisers -- are the most common types of warship in the modern Navy. A growing chorus of critics is complaining that the failure of service leaders to provide a convincing rationale for next-generation surface combatants is putting the entire fleet modernization plan in jeopardy.

The latest salvo in this on-going battle was fired Monday by Christopher P. Cavas of Defense News, arguably the most capable journalist currently covering the Navy. Reporting on the service's limp efforts to explain to Congress why a bloated next-generation destroyer designated DDG-1000 needs to be built, Cavas noted that after ten years of development the Navy still hasn't come up with a convincing rationale for the warship, and "many officers remain confused about the destroyer's abilities and intended use." He went on to cite a veteran officer opining that the failure of Navy leaders to strongly support the destroyer is gradually killing the program.

That certainly seems to be the case. DDG-1000 grew out of an earlier program called DD-21 that was superseded in 2001 by a proposed family of future surface combatants. In addition to the new destroyer, there would be a missile-defense cruiser designated CG(X) and a frigate replacement designed for shallow-water operations called the Littoral Combat Ship. The Littoral Combat Ship has made good progress, although Navy Secretary Donald Winter recently picked a fight with both of the industry teams developing the vessel, objecting to cost growth that arose mainly out of the service's unrealistic cost estimates when the effort first began. Winter will depart government service soon and the littoral ship program can then get back on track.

But DDG-1000 and the companion missile-defense cruiser are another matter. At first the Navy said it wanted 32 next-generation destroyers. Then it said 24. Then it said 12. Now it says it wants seven, and congressional critics such as Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi are saying two should be enough. The problem with DDG-1000 isn't the technology, which is cutting-edge and can eventually be applied across the whole fleet. The problem is that the basic concept of the warship was misconceived. It displaces 14,500 tons of water, making it about 50% bigger than current DDG-51 destroyers, because it is built around two rapid-firing 155 mm. guns that are supposed to lob highly accurate shells a hundred miles inland in support of forces ashore.

Imagine floating off the coast of China or Iran and firing shells ashore. How long would such a ship survive? The whole idea is improbable. Which is why Congress needs to listen to Rep. Taylor and others who say the best course of action is to end the DDG-1000 effort and continue buying the existing DDG-51 destroyer.

DDG-51 only costs half as much to build as DDG-1000, and internal naval studies show it still has plenty of margin for growth in missions such as missile defense, anti-submarine warfare and land attack. It is already the most capable surface combatant operating anywhere in the world, and transitioning its Aegis combat system to a continuously improving open architecture would enable it to stay that way for decades to come, with sizable reductions in crew size.

So why would we stop building a winner like DDG-51 when its planned replacement is clearly such a loser?

-ends-

[P44]

para grande desgosto do Sintra....


CONFIRMADO, APENAS 2 DDG-1000 serão construidos!!!!!

Senator Collins’ Reaction to Navy Cancellation of DDG-1000 Program


(Source: Senator Sue Collins (Maine); dated July 22, 2008)



The Secretary of the Navy today informed members of the Senate and House of its plans to cancel the DDG-1000 program after completion of the first two ships, one of which is scheduled to be completed at Bath Iron Works.

Senator Collins, who is a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, worked successfully to include in the Senate version of the Defense Authorization bill the $2.6 billion the Navy had requested to build a third DDG-1000, which also was scheduled to be built at Bath Iron Works. The House version of the authorization does not include any funding for the DDG-1000 program or for Bath Iron Works.

Senator Collins released this statement:

“The Navy’s decision to curtail the DDG-1000 program is a blow to Bath Iron Works. It was triggered by the decision of the House Armed Services Committee to eliminate funding for the DDG-1000 program, which prompted a review within the Department of Defense on the future of the new destroyer program. Unfortunately, Maine currently has no member on the House Armed Services Committee to advocate for programs critical to BIW’s workforce.

“The Navy is likely to propose continuing the DDG-51 program but at inadequate production levels. Compared to the DDG-51 program, the DDG-1000 program provides far more work and about three times the amount of money for BIW per ship. Bath’s share of the DDG-1000 it now has under contract is $1.4 billion, while the shipyard’s share of the most recent DDG-51 it now has under construction amounts to only about $500 million.

“I have spoken with Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England who committed to working with me to mitigate the impact on Bath Iron Works’ workforce of the termination of the DDG-1000 program. In addition, I will meet tomorrow with Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead and Navy Secretary Donald Winter to discuss ways to lessen the impact of the decision on BIW.” (ends)



Skelton and Taylor Applaud Navy Decision to Modify Shipbuilding Plan


(Source: House Armed Services Committee; issued July 23, 2008)



WASHINGTON, D.C. --- Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-MS) made the following statements on the Navy’s decision to modify its shipbuilding plan with respect to surface combatants.

“I am pleased with the Navy’s decision to focus its resources on the DDG 51 destroyer, with its known costs and capabilities, rather than the increasingly expensive DDG 1000,” said Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO). “Our committee recommended this action in the fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, and I am pleased to see the Navy heed our advice. It is a responsible decision that will benefit both the Navy and the taxpayer for years to come.”

“I believe this is the right thing for the men and women of our Navy and the citizens who pay for these ships,” Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-MS) commented. “The DDG 51 class destroyer is the premier destroyer in the world today. The ship has tremendous flexibility in a variety of warfighting missions, including the ability to serve as a ballistic missile defense platform. Just as important, the costs of these ships are well known. The Navy has built 62 of these superb vessels and our shipyards know how to build them on budget and on schedule.

Taylor continued, “The two DDG 1000s that our nation will build will be extremely capable ships. However, virtually every independent organization with expertise in ship cost analysis has predicted the first two ships will cost up to $5 billion each, or more than $1.5 billion more than the Navy has budgeted. Such cost overruns would cripple the Navy’s plan to reach a 313-ship fleet.

“I believe that our Navy and our nation are better served by building a large number of DDG 51s and then proceeding with a timely and orderly plan to begin construction of the next generation of nuclear powered cruisers. I look forward to working with Admiral Roughead and Secretary Winter during the return to DDG 51 production,” concluded Taylor.

-ends-

[old]

Mas Burkes

[Sintra]

para grande desgosto do Sintra....


CONFIRMADO, APENAS 2 DDG-1000 serão construidos!!!!!

Estou tristissimo, nem imaginas o quão triste estou...