Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_14_T-birds_1543-1.JPG

Nellis_14_T-birds_1441-1.JPG

Nellis_14_T-birds_1491-1.JPG

Nellis_14_GR4_0963-1.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





US Navy News and updates

This is a discussion on US Navy News and updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Navy Secretary Donald Winter announced Friday that the new amphibious assault ship known as LHA 6 would be named America, ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 7 votes, 3.86 average.
Old July 3rd, 2008   #1
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,873
Threads:
US Navy News and updates

Navy Secretary Donald Winter announced Friday that the new amphibious assault ship known as LHA 6 would be named America, granting the wish of veterans of the aircraft carrier America, who have lobbied for another ship to take the name after theirs was sunk as a target in 2005.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/0..._name_063008w/

Quote:
New amphib to be named America

By Philip Ewing - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jul 2, 2008 13:13:02 EDT

Navy Secretary Donald Winter announced Friday that the new amphibious assault ship known as LHA 6 would be named America, granting the wish of veterans of the aircraft carrier America, who have lobbied for another ship to take the name after theirs was sunk as a target in 2005.

Winter made the announcement in Jacksonville, Fla., at a reunion of the America Carrier Veterans Association.

The new America is planned as a 45,000-ton, gas-turbine big-deck gator that has been dubbed “a Marine Corps aircraft carrier.” It has an axial flight deck like a Wasp-class amphib, but no floodable well deck for landing craft. The Marine Corps wants two such ships — one each for the East and West coasts — to carry helicopters, V-22 Osprey tiltrotors and the Marine Corps’ short takeoff, vertical landing version of the new F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter.

The new America would be the sixth ship in Navy service to bear the name, although three of the predecessors were not traditional warships — one America was part of the Civil War “Stone Fleet” deliberately sunk to block the harbor in Charleston, S.C.; one was a yacht pressed into naval service in the Civil War; and another was a German liner seized and used as a U.S. troop transport in World War I. The first commissioned warship named America was a 74-gun ship of the line that served briefly in the French navy at the end of the 18th century; the second was the Kitty Hawk-class carrier commissioned in 1965.

After a long career, the carrier America was pummeled by explosives, torpedoes and naval gunfire in the Atlantic in 2005, before being scuttled to show Navy observers how such a large ship behaved in battle.

Its veterans have lobbied ever since for another carrier to be named America, first calling for the ship that bears hull number CVN 78. But that carrier was named Gerald R. Ford, so the America veterans began focusing on the LHA 6, according to an announcement from Brian Skon, who works with the veterans association.

The LHA 6 is to be built at the Northrop Grumman shipyards in Pascagoula, Miss., where the amphibious assault ship Makin Island is already under construction. Although the Makin Island and the new America fall numerically into existing classes of ships — Wasp class for Makin Island and Tarawa class for America — the Navy considers each one a “first in class,” with different propulsion plants, electrical systems and other improvements over existing gators.
Good news, but I'd much rather have USS America be a CVN rather than a "mere" amphib. However for things like humanitarian missions a headline of "USS America helps those in <fill in the blank>" sounds very good from a public relations standpoint, so I guess it is a good choice.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!

Last edited by WebMaster; May 3rd, 2009 at 04:33 PM.
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2008   #2
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Jezza's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 197
Threads:
yeah the new carrier ford was suppose to be uss america.
marines carrier just doesnt cut it
Jezza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2008   #3
Defense Aficionado
Major General
Sea Toby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,473
Threads:
Ever since the Carter administration named the carrier Carl Vinson, carriers have been named after presidents. There are many more presidents to choose from, I do not see this practice being ended. America did much better than Independence, a lowly LCS.

Therefore, if you want former carrier names in the fleet, other ship types will have to be factored in. I much prefer an amphibious assault ship than a destroyer or a LPD/LSD. These signs have been in the works for twenty years, surely you didn't expect a carrier?
Sea Toby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2008   #4
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,688
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Toby View Post
Ever since the Carter administration named the carrier Carl Vinson, carriers have been named after presidents. There are many more presidents to choose from, I do not see this practice being ended.
There were carriers named after US presidents before that, & since then the USS John C. Stennis.

Personally, I don't like the idea of naming ships after anyone who's still alive, or politicians in general. I can tolerate exceptions to the second rule, but preferably only where they have been outstanding national leaders. I'll accept Charles de Gaulle, for example, or Abraham Lincoln, or Winston Churchill.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2008   #5
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 13,192
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
There were carriers named after US presidents before that, & since then the USS John C. Stennis.

Personally, I don't like the idea of naming ships after anyone who's still alive, or politicians in general. I can tolerate exceptions to the second rule, but preferably only where they have been outstanding national leaders. I'll accept Charles de Gaulle, for example, or Abraham Lincoln, or Winston Churchill.
How about a Joseph Stalin?
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8th, 2008   #6
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,683
Threads:
Yeah right, we could also name our next ship Adolf H. Would be as good as naming one after the old Georgian...
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8th, 2008   #7
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,688
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
How about a Joseph Stalin?
That's for the Georgian navy, right? AKA იოსებ ბესრიონის სტალინი. Along with the Lavrenti Pavles dze Beria/ლავრენტი ბერია.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 16th, 2008   #8
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 219
Threads:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...71&c=AME&s=SEA

Quote:
DDG 1000 Destroyer Program Facing Major Cuts
By christopher p. cavas
Published: 14 Jul 19:30 EDT (23:30 GMT) Print | Email

Indications are growing that the U.S. Navy is poised to forgo further construction of the advanced but very expensive DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers and end the program at two ships.


Eliminating five DDG 1000s could save as much as $25 billion. (Northrop Grumman) Those first two destroyers were authorized in the 2007 budget, and shipbuilders General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman will begin construction of each ship this summer. A third ship is in the 2009 budget request, and current plans call for a total of seven Zumwalts.

Related TopicsAmericas
Naval Warfare
But the price tag for the ships is staggering: $3.3 billion per copy according to Navy planners, over $5 billion and more by outside estimates. Even at the lower price, they would be the most expensive surface combatants ever built. With the Navy's shipbuilding program considered unaffordable by budget analysts at the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office (GAO), eliminating five ships could save as much as $25 billion.

On the record, Navy officials are mum about their plans. Service support for the DDG 1000 program has been lukewarm at best, and while publicly supporting the ships, Navy leaders behind the scenes have worked halt further production.

The move still awaits blessing from on high, sources said, including approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the White House.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead "holds his cards real close," said one Congressional source. "But read the body language. He knows he's in trouble with the DDG 1000s. That ship is going to cost anywhere from $1.5 billion to $3 billion more than advertised. And when that happens there's no slush fund. The only billpayer is Navy shipbuilding."

The Navy, said the congressional source, needs to protect other programs such as submarine and littoral combat ships from being cut to pay for potential DDG 1000 cost overruns.

Instead of the big destroyer, the Navy also hopes to protect the CG(X) cruiser, a bigger combatant designed to protect aircraft carrier battle groups and provide ballistic missile defense.

Roughead, the Congressional source said, "has his eyes on the cruiser. He's trying to make sure that ship is a national asset," the source said.

But the cruiser won't be ready to build anytime soon. Navy plans officially call for the first ship to be funded in 2011, but no design has been chosen and leaders admit the CG(X) will be delayed - at least to 2015, some say, and maybe beyond.

In the meantime, the Navy and its shipbuilding partners need more ships to build, and Congress - particularly House Seapower subcommittee chairman Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., who's district includes the sprawling Northrop Grumman Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula - has urged construction of more DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyers.

The Navy in past years steadfastly argued against more DDG 51s, but service leaders seemingly have had a change of heart. In March, then-Navy acquisition chief John Thackrah confirmed the service was analyzing the construction of more DDG 51s, and Roughead - in private - seems to have embraced the idea as well.

Northrop's Ingalls yard and the General Dynamics shipyard at Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, currently build DDG 51s, the last of which is to be completed in 2013.

A Navy official would not confirm the moves to curtail DDG 1000 production at two ships, but noted the need to protect other shipbuilding programs.

"We need traction and stability in our combatant lines to reach 313 ships, and we should not raid the combatant line to fund other shipbuilding priorities," Lt. Clayton Doss, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, said July 14.

Doss noted the program of record remains in place for DDG 1000, and Congress has yet to pass a new defense bill.

"Until the 2009 National Defense Act is signed by the president it is inappropriate to comment," Doss said.

Work on the new Program Objective Memorandum for 2010 - a key budget-planning document - is ongoing, Doss said. "Service inputs are to be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense later this month. While it would be inappropriate to discuss internal budget discussions, it is fair to say that, as one would expect, the Navy is discussing all options to develop the surface ship force for the future that will meet all identified requirements."

Congress already is split on whether to authorize the third DDG 1000, requested in the 2009 budget. Senate authorizers have approved the request, while the House wants to delay the ship. The issue now awaits resolution in conference.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, whose district includes Bath Iron Works, is perhaps the DDG 1000's strongest supporter on Capitol Hill. Aware of faltering Navy support for the ship, she and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., sent a letter July 10 to Navy Secretary Donald Winter urging him to continue support "without restriction," for the ships.

Collins has been trying to beat back the House move to delay the Zumwalts.

"The decision by the House Armed Services Committee to slash funding for the DDG 1000 has triggered a review within the Department of Defense on the future of the new destroyer," she said July 14 in a statement released by her office. "During the past several weeks, I have had extensive discussions with CNO Roughead, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, and Defense Assistant Secretary John Young about the future of the program, which Navy officials have repeatedly testified provides much-needed capabilities."

But Collins also seems to be accepting that additional DDG 1000s won't be built.

"If the Navy is considering changing its shipbuilding requirements, I would expect the CNO to work with me and other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to ensure a stable, well-funded shipbuilding plan that meets the need for expanded capabilities and keeps our skilled shipbuilding workforce strong."

A scheduled July 10 meeting between England, Winter, Roughead and Young to discuss DDG 1000 was postponed when Young was called to testify before Congress on an Air Force tanker program. Sources on Capitol Hill and the Pentagon said the meeting was to be a discussion of staying "on message," and not getting ahead of official decisions. The meeting has been rescheduled for later this month.

The DDG 1000 issue will get a further airing when Taylor holds a Seapower subcommittee hearing on July 31, and the GAO is at work on another critical review of the program.
So, two DDG 1000 may get built. This is not a big deal for the USN. The Burkes are excellent destroyers. The DDG 1000 are technolgy demonstrators. The USN threw almost all of their NG systems on the DDG 1000. The cost of the DDG 1000 are high, the USN is for paying for development costs of the the 57mms, PVLS, SPY-3/MFR radar, and the 155mms, etc. All those systems will be fully developed when CG(X) are built.

Last edited by Spacearrow99; July 16th, 2008 at 11:35 PM.
Spacearrow99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008   #9
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,873
Threads:
Only 2 DDG-1000's will be built.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/0...dg1000_072208/

Quote:
DDG 1000 program will end at two ships

By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Jul 22, 2008 19:28:29 EDT

The once-vaunted Zumwalt-class DDG 1000 advanced destroyer program — projected in the late 1990s to produce 32 new ships and subsequently downscaled to a seven-ship class — will instead turn out only two ships, according to highly-placed sources in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.

Instead of more 1000s, the Navy will continue to build more Arleigh Burke-class DDG 51 destroyers, construction of which had been slated to end in 2012.

Top Navy and Pentagon brass met Tuesday to make the decision, which means the service will ask Congress to drop the request for the third ship in the 2009 defense budget and forego plans to ask for the remaining four ships.

Each of the two ships now under contract will be built, according to the new decision. That means the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipyard in Bath, Maine will build the Zumwalt, DDG 1000, and Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls yard in Pascagoula, Miss., will construct the yet-to-be-named DDG 1001.

According to sources, the Navy also considered canceling the second DDG 1000 and building just one, but potentially high cancellation costs led to the decision to keep the ship.

The reprogramming decision was made at a conference Tuesday hosted by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and attended by Navy Secretary Donald Winter, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead and Pentagon acquisition chief John Young.

Officials were busy throughout the day and into the evening making personal phone calls to senators, congressmen and government and industry officials notifying them of the decision. Initial reaction on Capitol Hill seemed to be largely positive.

The move appears to be based on fears that potential cost overruns on the Zumwalts — estimated to cost about $3.3 billion for each of the two lead ships — could threaten other Navy shipbuilding programs. The service declined comment on the July 22 decision, but in a statement released July 17, Navy spokesman Lt. Clay Doss provided some insight.

“We need traction and stability in our combatant lines to reach 313 ships, and we should not raid the combatant line to fund other shipbuilding priorities,” Doss said. “Even if we did not receive funding for the DDG 1000 class beyond the first two ships, the technology embedded in DDG 1000 will advance the Navy’s future surface combatants.”

If the fears that rising costs could torpedo other new ships are indeed behind the decision, it is a tacit recognition that repeated warnings by budget experts from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Government Accountability Office that the ships face huge potential cost overruns — up to $5 billion each and more — were correct.

Ron O’Rourke of CRS testified March 14 before the House Seapower subcommittee that cost overruns on the first two ships could drive their combined cost to $10.2 billion — an increase of $3.9 billion. Using CBO’s figures, O’Rourke pointed out that the remaining five ships, projected by the Navy to cost about $12.8 billion, would likely jump about $8 billion.

“The combined cost growth for all seven ships would be roughly $11.8 billion in then-year dollars, which is a figure roughly comparable to the total amount of funding in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation account in certain recent years,” O’Rourke testified at the hearing.

Publicly the Navy has long resisted the notion of building more DDG 51s, noting no more of the ships were needed — the class had been planned to end with the 62nd ship — and significant improvements to the design were hard to come by. But in March acting Navy acquisition chief John Thackrah told an audience that the service was looking at working in to the design a new SPY-3 radar to replace the current SPY-1 Aegis arrays, and the Navy also has studied fitting the 155mm Advanced Gun System into the DDG 51 hull. Both systems are part of the DDG 1000 design.

While it is not clear how many more 51s will be built, all sides seem in agreement that the majority of the hulls will go to Bath, which builds only destroyers. Northrop’s Ingalls yard, in addition to destroyer construction, remains busy building three classes of amphibious ships and the Coast Guard’s new National Security Cutter, and is still working to rebuild its infrastructure following damage from 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.

“Bath will have to get the majority of these DDG 51s,” said one source familiar with the situation. “They won’t be able to go 50-50 with Pascagoula. Ingalls doesn’t have the work force right now and Bath needs them.”

Depending on the price of the new 51s, anywhere from 8 to 11 ships could be provided over the six-year future years defense plan. “They may continue to build these for the foreseeable future,” the source said. “Nothing wrong with the hull, that is a good ship.”
I think this is a good move, the USN does not need more than 2 over specialized shore bombardment platforms. Fitting the AGS on a Burke doesn't make sense either since in order to fit it I would imagine that one of the VLS's would have to go (probably the forward one with the existing cannon) since the AGS is a very heavy and space intensive system.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Jezza's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 197
Threads:
it would of been better to keep them simple.
aegis ships would of protected them.

All they needed was 3 to 4 main guns with extended rounds and cruise missiles. Just a big gun ship with heaps of storage for rounds.
Large helo deck for re supply.

self defense should of been 2 ciws and 4 double 50 cals or 25mm
remote cannons and 2 ram launchers.

1 ship per fleet would of been better.
Jezza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 506
Threads:
So why does Bath Iron Works only build destroyers, surely they can build other vessels?
KiwiRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008   #12
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Jezza's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 197
Threads:
Notable ships built
Virginia-class battleship
USS Georgia (BB-15), launched in 1904
Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates
USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58), launched in 1984 and repaired after being punctured by a mine in 1988
USS Simpson (FFG-56), launched August 31, 1984. One of four U.S. Navy ships in commission to have sunk an enemy vessel with shipboard weaponry, the others being the USS Constitution, USS Porter (DDG-78), and USS Carter Hall (LSD-50),
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51), commissioned July 4, 1991.
USS Bainbridge (DDG-96), launched in 2005
USS Gridley (DDG-101), launched in 2006
USS Sterett (DDG-104),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Iron_Works

500 odd ships--- http://www.gdbiw.com/
Jezza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008   #13
Senior Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,474
Threads:
Re:

Deleted

Last edited by weasel1962; October 20th, 2008 at 01:17 AM.
weasel1962 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2008   #14
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 506
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel1962 View Post
Don't see much else it could build.
What about the new Coast Guard ships?

I just noticed on the ship list for Bath Iron Works that there is a Burke Class Destroyer called the John S McCain, so if the old boy is elected will he be the first serving President with a ship in active service named after him?
KiwiRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2008   #15
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Jezza's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 197
Threads:
Northrop grumman build the national security cutter.
Not sure about the Fast Response Cutter (FRC) or
Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC)

The National Security Cutter will be the largest and most technically advanced class cutter in the U.S. Coast Guard. Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin are teamed to build eight of these state-of-the-art vessels.
http://www.northropgrumman.com/about...pbuilding.html

Last edited by Lucasnz; April 4th, 2013 at 03:27 AM. Reason: Link removed - Leads to Website selling product.
Jezza is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:39 AM.