Re: DD(X) Costs
- From: "Paul F Austin" <pfaustin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:27:56 -0400
"Henry J Cobb" <hcobb@xxxxxx> wrote
Paul F Austin wrote:billions.
What drives the cost of the DD(X)?
Based on the article in the current USNI Proceedings, the recurring cost
(not the first or second article) will likely run in the multiple
system.For a largish destroyer. One without an area air defense mission or
hull,
DD(X) has all the things the surface navy wants in a warship: stealthy
lotselectric drive, conformal, integrated aperature antennas, modern guns,
priceof automation for reduced manning. I can understand an stratospheric
shouldfor the first couple of ships, given all the new systems but if the
recurring price is anything like what's reported, then the architects
inbe fired. Fired for picking impossibly expensive systems for inclusion
the design.
I bet most of the cost comes from paying for half of the technical
developments needed for the future surface navy on the back of a tiny
number of ships.
It's like the F-22 all over again.
That's the point. DD(X) incorporates a lot of new technology which drives
the cost of the first article through the roof. That's understandable, the
cost of design and development have to be paid for. The recurring cost of
subsequent units shouldn't be unsupportable. If it is, then the system
managers failed in their jobs. The idea that a fairly simple destroyer with
no area air defense system should cost multiple billions in serial
production means that the series is going to be very, very short.
The basic mission of DD(X) is NGFS. Everything else can be and is done by
other platforms.
It's built with active phased array antennas that share communications, S
and X band RADAR functions in the same aperature. For a ship whose SAMs are
Evolved Sea Sparrow. Not needed for a self-defense SAM system (not even
close). This is a CG(X) system.
It's got a new, deeper VLS farm filled with T-hawks that fit in a Mk41
launcher. The new launcher isn't needed by the DD(X) mission, even if it is
for the CG(X) to accomodate larger ABMs.
The electric drive might be worth while but if the recurring costs add
hundreds of millions to the end-item cost, then the current technology isn't
affordable regardless of the wet dream of rail guns it engenders.
Data systems and automation should be a cost saver, not a cost driver.
Certainly with the rich COTS technology base available, no rocket science is
required. I'm intimately familiar with building military systems using
COTS-based parts. It ain't that hard.
The bottom line is that a NGFS ship isn't worth multi-billion dollar price
tag. There's a need for NGFS but not at that cost. DD-21 started out as a
fairly austere design but since it was the only hull in town, every
subsystem developer used it to "justify" his budget by getting on board.
Unless the USN strips out the systems that drive the recurring costs above a
gigabuck, there aren't going to be more than a couple of DD(X)s built. NGFS
ships compete for budget with too many other systems that can do the support
mission _and_ many other things as well. Things like CVNs and Air Wings.
Things like heavy bombers.
I have to say that the management of DD(X) proves that the USN doesn't love
the NGFS mission. If they did, they would have managed to the mission more
carefully. As it is, DD(X) was used as a mule to carry the development of
all the systems that go in the ships the Navy really loves.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DD(X) Costs
- From: Henry J Cobb
- Re: DD(X) Costs
- References:
- DD(X) Costs
- From: Paul F Austin
- Re: DD(X) Costs
- From: Henry J Cobb
- DD(X) Costs
- Prev by Date: Re: Bubba Goes Ballistic On ABC About Its Damning 9/11 Movie
- Next by Date: Re: Five Years On -- Far More Victories Than Setbacks Since September 11
- Previous by thread: Re: DD(X) Costs
- Next by thread: Re: DD(X) Costs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
