Posts tagged as:

DDG-51

Mulling Bath’s “Bad” Bid

by admin on January 19, 2017

Reports claim that General Dynamics Bath Ironworks is trying to force the Navy to grant it a cost-plus contract to build the initial Flight III DDG-51 destroyer. The cost-plus request is a real head-scratcher for observers–and it is an action that should concern every Blue-Water Navalist out there. Obviously, a cost-plus proposal is a pretty […]

{ 0 comments }

If the Trump Administration is going to build a 350-ship Navy, then Bath Ironworks will have a big role. I had a chance to talk with the Times Record’s Nathan Strout, and offered a few thoughts on the future fleet’s impact upon Bath Ironworks. There’s some skepticism out there about the 350-ship goal. Let me […]

{ 0 comments }

The Fight For DDG-1004 Has Begun

by admin on March 9, 2015

Love the DDG-1000 or hate it, supporters of America’s multi-billion dollar “battleship-as-destroyer” program have largely been–up to now–quiet on the sidelines of Washington’s unseemly post-Sequestration budget scrum. In the vast array of American defense programs desperate to avoid closure, an old survivor like DDG-1000 (previously known as the arsenal ship, the DD(X), etc., etc.) has […]

{ 22 comments }

The current global crop of “conventional” frigates (which I loosely define as a multi-purpose combatant of somewhere in the vicinity of 2,000-4,500 tons), has reached something of a developmental dead end. These ships cannot be improved–or, in the case of foreign models, brought into compliance with U.S. Navy standards and then improved–without a huge investment–An […]

{ 28 comments }

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Greenert’s call to put “Warfighting First” has focused attention on the Navy’s overall lack of offensive firepower. The Surface Navy, in particular, is wringing their hands over their community’s now ingrained (and almost congenital) Praetorian Guard “protect-the-carrier-or-big-deck-amphib” defensiveness, and there’s now an effort afoot to remedy things. That’s good. […]

{ 14 comments }

So, last week the Small Surface Combatant Task Force announced a call for ideas on a small future surface combatant, complete with substantial pricing and production information and–if a boat-load of pricing and production data wasn’t enough–operational concepts as to how the ship will fit and fight with the fleet. Goodness. Where does one sign […]

{ 7 comments }

If the Navy is going to spend time thinking about new frigates or pondering “up-gunning” the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), then America should also be thinking about developing a low-mix, austere DDG-51. Look, if the U.S. Navy is looking for a low-end Destroyer, then why not use the excellent high-end DDG-51 as a starting point? […]

{ 35 comments }

Some ASW counsel that never gets old:

by Craig Hooper on April 5, 2011

While doing some research on anti-mine and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) issues, I came upon this wonderful gem from a September 1964 ASW paper in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings. I strongly suspect that, at least for ASW, similar sentiment still holds true today: “The problems in the field are tremendous, and getting worse, not only […]

{ 9 comments }