Navy resigned as DD(X) sinks
hcobb
In a statement released last week , the Navy seemed resigned to an
early end for the program. "Even if we do not receive funding ...
beyond the first two ships, the technology embedded in DDG 1000 will
advance the Navy's future," the statement asserted.
scott s.
news:dc39423b-017b-4f06...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> http://www.military.com/news/article/cost-could-sink-new-destroyer-pr
> ogram.html?col=1186032310810 In a statement released last week , the
> Navy seemed resigned to an early end for the program. "Even if we do
> not receive funding ... beyond the first two ships, the technology
> embedded in DDG 1000 will advance the Navy's future," the statement
> asserted.
>
I've seen it suggested that CNO decided to kill the program, using Rep
Taylor as the vehicle.
scott s.
.
g lof2
That or the Navy realize that if the Democrates win the next election,
they are sunk, and there is nothing they can too do to save itself.
Taylor a real idiot if he thinks the nave will save money by bying
ships that won't last twenty years because they too expensive to man.
Tiger
Good bye and good riddance to the DDX. Your manning red herring is a bad
one. For the price of one DDX you can pay the fuel bill for the USN for
a year. The Navy has plenty of warm bodies to man ships.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Good bye and good riddance to the DDX. Your manning red herring is a bad
:a year.
You think DDX cost over $5 billion each?
[Navy fuel costs this year will be about $5.4 billion.]
:
:The Navy has plenty of warm bodies to man ships.
:
Well, no, it doesn't, even if you could man ships with 'warm bodies',
which you can't. You might want to look at what personnel costs are.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
hcobb
> Taylor a real idiot if he thinks the nave will save money by bying
> ships that won't last twenty years because they too expensive to man.
There is no lifetime manpower savings.
None.
The reduced number of bodies on board (or floating in Iran's Gulf
after the third McBush term) is neatly canceled out by the extra work
it needs between deployments.
-HJC
Fred J. McCall
hcobb
> hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :The reduced number of bodies on board (or floating in Iran's Gulf
> :after the third McBush term) is neatly canceled out by the extra work
> :it needs between deployments.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Cite?
The article URL I posted at the top of the thread.
Don't you consider Roughead a reliable source?
-HJC
The projected savings have all but disappeared, however. Adm. Gary
Roughead, the chief of naval operations, wrote last month that "cost
savings associated with DDG 1000's smaller crew ... are largely offset
by higher estimated maintenance costs for this significantly more
complex ship."
Tiger
> Tiger <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> :Good bye and good riddance to the DDX. Your manning red herring is a bad
> :one. For the price of one DDX you can pay the fuel bill for the USN for
> :a year.
> :
>
> You think DDX cost over $5 billion each?
>
> [Navy fuel costs this year will be about $5.4 billion.]
Last estimate i've seen is $4 billion. 4 Billion CVN's are one thing,
When your escorts cost that much, you have a problem.
>
> :
> :The Navy has plenty of warm bodies to man ships.
> :
>
> Well, no, it doesn't, even if you could man ships with 'warm bodies',
> which you can't. You might want to look at what personnel costs are.
>
Congress seems to want to keep adding pay raises, Gi bills & etc. to
boost people costs.
Fred J. McCall
:On Jul 23, 7:53 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> :The reduced number of bodies on board (or floating in Iran's Gulf
:> :after the third McBush term) is neatly canceled out by the extra work
:> :it needs between deployments.
:>
:> Wrong.
:>
:> Cite?
:
:The article URL I posted at the top of the thread.
:
:Don't you consider Roughead a reliable source?
:
No, I don't consider YOU a reliable source.
:
:The projected savings have all but disappeared, however. Adm. Gary
:Roughead, the chief of naval operations, wrote last month that "cost
:savings associated with DDG 1000's smaller crew ... are largely offset
:by higher estimated maintenance costs for this significantly more
:complex ship."
:
There's some difference between ESTIMATES that say "largely offset"
and your claim of "canceled out".
g lof2
> hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On Jul 23, 7:53 am, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote::> hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> :The reduced number of bodies on board (or floating in Iran's Gulf
> :> :after the third McBush term) is neatly canceled out by the extra work
> :> :it needs between deployments.
> :>
> :> Wrong.
> :>
> :> Cite?
> :
> :The article URL I posted at the top of the thread.
> :
> :Don't you consider Roughead a reliable source?
> :
>
> No, I don't consider YOU a reliable source.
>
> :
> :The projected savings have all but disappeared, however. Adm. Gary
> :Roughead, the chief of naval operations, wrote last month that "cost
> :savings associated with DDG 1000's smaller crew ... are largely offset
> :by higher estimated maintenance costs for this significantly more
> :complex ship."
> :
>
> There's some difference between ESTIMATES that say "largely offset"
> and your claim of "canceled out".
Here we go again.
I guess this is just another instants of the navy not having enough in
house experence it know what happening, My guess is they are appling
those rule of thumb for non automation system at say that maintaince
cost will way rise over the life of a system.
I worked in automation for over twenty years now, and maintains cost
always follows the same pattern, no matter what the system does or
where it is installed.
The original cost of maintaince during the start up/ breaking period
is much high than later as the system are dial in and problem shoot in
required, This alway take a little long to do than estimated. But once
they system are set, the maintains cost drops rapidly as it better to
keep hands off the system. This is because 'maintain' often not only
unnecessary, but result inthe system breaking down. All that is
necessary is to inspect the systems using non contact method too spot
excessive wear.