US Navy Seeks to build 3rd Stealth Destroyer

August 20, 2008
Associated Press


PORTLAND, Maine - The Navy has reversed course and decided to push for construction of a third stealth destroyer, Sen. Susan Collins said yesterday.

The Navy had said a month ago that it was scrapping the Zumwalt destroyer program once the first two are built. The DDG-1000 warship has massive firepower but is costly. The Navy said then that it was opting instead to build more of the current-generation DDG-51, or Arleigh Burke, destroyers.

Collins, a Maine Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Navy Secretary Donald Winter informed her of the decision and of the Navy's plans to buy spare parts for DDG-51s that could also be used to restart production of that class of ships.

The ship will be built at Maine's Bath Iron Works, Collins said.

"This is great news for Bath Iron Works," she said in a telephone interview. "It means that the third (DDG-1000) ship is very likely to go forward, and yet there's also the potential of building more DDG-51s."

In a letter to Collins, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England indicated the Navy was concerned about a potential disruption in the nation's shipbuilding base.

"This plan will provide stability of the industrial base and continue the development of advanced surface ship technologies such as radar systems, stealth, magnetic and acoustic quieting, and automated damage control," England wrote.

The Zumwalt features composite materials, an unconventional wave-piercing hull and a smaller crew than the Arleigh Burke. At 14,500 tons, the Zumwalt is 50 percent larger than its predecessor and costs twice as much

I guess this is a compromise to the senators Collins, since she was the one fighting to keep DDG-1000 open. Other than that, I think building more advanced variants of AB is the right way to go.

With only two to rotate between active service and refit, there'd be a lot of time where only a single ship would be available for action. With three in the fleet, you're guaranteed to have two at any time. And since most of the money has already been sunk in for development, building one more won't raise the price that much.

I think it's about time the USN makes up it's mind of what it wants. What's the strategic goal, it's mission; what ships does it need for that and in wich numbers. This back and forth is not really helpfull.
I also think in the end 2 or 3 doesn't matter that much. A third unit still will cost a lot of $ and the development money is not really sunk, IMO, since the technology persists for future ships. Maybe a downscaled version could lead to a future destroyer design that can and will be produced in numbers. Perhaps similar to how the Seawolfs, introducing a number of new technologies, preceded the Virginias wich seem to perform well now.
But then again, there are also 3 Seawolfs.

Totoro said:

With only two to rotate between active service and refit, there'd be a lot of time where only a single ship would be available for action. With three in the fleet, you're guaranteed to have two at any time. And since most of the money has already been sunk in for development, building one more won't raise the price that much.

Click to expand...

I believe three things drove this:

1) The situation in Georgia and a return to some cold war thinking of staying well ahead technologically and challenging the Russians to do likewise.

2) The absolute desire to have enpough vessels where one is guaranteed to be deployed at all times, with the potential for suging two at any given time.

3) To keep US naval shipbuilding expertise and technology going with no interruption.

I believe the same thing could be accomplished, at lower cost, and with many more vessels with something like:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yea, I believe Jeff Head got it. I mean before this crisis, they weren't going to build any more, now they demand it because they want an edge over Russia.