Armed Forces Journal Forums  

Go Back   Armed Forces Journal Forums > Darts & Laurels
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-02-2008, 02:06 PM
Administrator Administrator is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 0
Default Destroyer flip-flop

TO THE NAVY, for its next-generation destroyer flip-flop. Having spent 13 years and $10 billion in research and development, the Navy reversed course and decided the DDG 1000 program wasn’t right for the threat after all. Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of resources and capabilities, and Allison Stiller, the Navy secretary’s head of ship programs, cited a new “classified threat” as to why the Zumwalt-class destroyer program would be capped at two ships and production of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers would be resumed instead. Yet those same officials just four months earlier were championing the Zumwalts as superior to Burkes, which were built in the 1990s and based on 1980s technologies. The decision to build more Burkes may be prudent. But with so little hard information on why this multibillion-dollar reversal was necessary, it’s hard to know what to believe — harder still for Congress to trust the Navy when it next defends a multibillion-dollar program.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/09/3702857
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-10-2008, 08:30 PM
The Universal Curmudgeon The Universal Curmudgeon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Wet Coast
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Administrator View Post
TO THE NAVY, for its next-generation destroyer flip-flop. Having spent 13 years and $10 billion in research and development, the Navy reversed course and decided the DDG 1000 program wasn’t right for the threat after all. Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of resources and capabilities, and Allison Stiller, the Navy secretary’s head of ship programs, cited a new “classified threat” as to why the Zumwalt-class destroyer program would be capped at two ships and production of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers would be resumed instead. Yet those same officials just four months earlier were championing the Zumwalts as superior to Burkes, which were built in the 1990s and based on 1980s technologies. The decision to build more Burkes may be prudent. But with so little hard information on why this multibillion-dollar reversal was necessary, it’s hard to know what to believe — harder still for Congress to trust the Navy when it next defends a multibillion-dollar program.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/09/3702857
The "ZUMWALT" class, from its inception was too big, too expensive, too complex, and too under gunned to actually make sense.

They were, however, "sexy".
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.