US Super Destroyer

P2000

Lantern Swinger
#4
Re: US Super Destroyer on price and on time

A seriously powerful ship, but they're going to have even fewer of them that we have Darings because they are massively expensive, and probably the wrong ship for the USN (or any other navy).

Instead the US is getting more Burkes.
 
#5
Re: US Super Destroyer on price and on time

For 'flying the flag' I doubt they'll have anything to compare mind you...


Burkes.... also arguably more capable than the Daring class...
 
#7
Re: US Super Destroyer on price and on time

Article I posted claims it is on time and schedule. That's where the title came from. Also, reading that article, it doesn't actually say it IS over time and budget... it makes several references to there being a high likelihood that it WILL go over time and budget, but nowhere does it admit that it is

ie

"...amid considerable uncertainties and a high likelihood of cost and schedule growth..."

So not sure I agree with you there i'm afraid Bergen, looks like it's more a warning than a report. :?: :?
 
#8
Re: US Super Destroyer on price and on time

The septics have the advantage of not being constrained by in year commitment. When their Treasury allocates funds, it’s allocated. It was/is difficult to impress on them the importance of “timing†when supplying kit to our programmes.

Their delays, unlike our delays, aren’t because the funds weren’t there in the year (or even Quarter) they were needed.
 
#9
Re: US Super Destroyer on price and on time

What are the advantages of such a system as the Americans have then? It seem's better than the one we seem to have, anyway!
 
#10
Re: US Super Destroyer on price and on time

WhizzbangDai said:
Article I posted claims it is on time and schedule. That's where the title came from. Also, reading that article, it doesn't actually say it IS over time and budget... it makes several references to there being a high likelihood that it WILL go over time and budget, but nowhere does it admit that it is

ie

"...amid considerable uncertainties and a high likelihood of cost and schedule growth..."

So not sure I agree with you there i'm afraid Bergen, looks like it's more a warning than a report. :?: :?
Your article is from a trade organization that has a vested interest in spinning the positive aspects of the Zumwalt class construction.

The full GAO report parallels testimony given by the GAO before The Senate Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.

In Senate Subcommittee parlance high likelihood means bet your bottom dollar.

It is too early in the process for the US Defence Industry to make such unrealistic claims and my money is on the GAO as an accurate reflection of the realities of the programme.

RM
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
 
#11
Re: US Super Destroyer on price and on time

A destroyer with towed array , hmmm interesting, a change in policy for our american cousins for ASW then?
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
#13
Re: US Super Destroyer on price and on time

WhizzbangDai said:
For 'flying the flag' I doubt they'll have anything to compare mind you...
As an ex-bunting, I think the signal deck provision looks woefully inadequate - there's nothing from which to fly a flag on that picture! :)
 
#15
Re: US Super Destroyer on price and on time

FlagWagger said:
WhizzbangDai said:
For 'flying the flag' I doubt they'll have anything to compare mind you...
As an ex-bunting, I think the signal deck provision looks woefully inadequate - there's nothing from which to fly a flag on that picture! :)

Ahh, I think that's where the "boat" comparison comes in, they probably raise and lower it (ala scope)... :D
 
#16
Re: US Super Destroyer on price and on time so far...

Actually, this is it:


Mark my words, Obama is Vader, Clinton is the emporer (ess) And Super star destroyers aside, once they get that death star of theirs operational, we're all fcuked.
 
#17
Re: US Super Destroyer on price and on time so far...

WhizzbangDai said:
Fair enough Bergen, there you go :)
After adding the words "so far" you now have 3 mistakes in your thread title :oops:

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf

The link is dated June 2009 and this little extract sums up your on price discrepancy. My bold:-

The Navy’s proposed FY2010 budget requests $1,084.2 million to complete the cost of a third
Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyer that was authorized but only partially funded in FY2009,

and $309.6 million in additional procurement funds to cover cost growth on the first two DDG-
1000s, which were authorized in FY2007 and funded in FY2007-FY2008. The Navy estimates
the combined procurement cost of the first two DDG-1000s at $6,634.2 million, or an average of
$3,317.1 million each, and the procurement cost of the third ship at $2,738.3 million. The Navy’s
proposed FY2010 budget requests $539 million in research and development funding for the
DDG-1000 program.


RM :thumbright:
 

P2000

Lantern Swinger
#19
I did notice BAe mentioned in the article claiming it was on time and on budget.

I have to admit that my spidey-senses are tingling...
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A Miscellaneous 0
Shakey Miscellaneous 0
A Miscellaneous 0

Similar threads

Top