Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  max steel on Wed May 13, 2015 9:33 pm

    Yup got it . My bad .
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3987
    Points : 4004
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed May 13, 2015 10:15 pm

    AirCargo wrote:
    max steel wrote:LRASM can be countered . Rest we're yet to see tomahawk back in service . Why are they testing it again ? Is it a modified Tomahawk like extended range etc ?

    Max if you read it you will know, 1000 miles (1600 km)  Laughing

    So the US is going against the IRBM treaty since when? Funny you guys complained about the R-500.
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  max steel on Thu May 14, 2015 12:37 pm

    If they are breaking IRBM treaty then Russia should break INF by testing required equipments .
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3987
    Points : 4004
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu May 14, 2015 12:43 pm

    The cat & mouse game has been going for too long to even be relevant.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22367
    Points : 22911
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 14, 2015 12:58 pm

    As long as it is ship based and not land based then it does not break the INF treaty...

    If it did the Russian versions of Club and Kalibr would easily break it... the mach 3 anti ship version of Club for domestic use is supposed to have a range of 1,500km and of course Kalibr has a range of 2,500km in its land attack version...
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  max steel on Thu May 14, 2015 1:10 pm

    Garry do you think US will bring tomahawk ashm back from retirement ? They just tested a 1600 km Tomahawk Ashm from their Naval Platforms . How much range is allowed for naval version ashms accorrding to treaty ?


    and What do you think how russian present BOTH NAVAL AND LAND BASED ashms will fair against SEA RAM , SEA SPARROW & ESSM ?
    KoTeMoRe
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3987
    Points : 4004
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu May 14, 2015 1:12 pm

    GarryB wrote:As long as it is ship based and not land based then it does not break the INF treaty...

    If it did the Russian versions of Club and Kalibr would easily break it... the mach 3 anti ship version of Club for domestic use is supposed to have a range of 1,500km and of course Kalibr has a range of 2,500km in its land attack version...

    The problem that the Phase 4 has been a thorn in the relationship of both nuclear powers for a while. Testing the Phase 4 needs prior work done ashore. Artjomh provided enough food for thought at MP.net relevant thread.

    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  max steel on Wed May 20, 2015 12:44 pm

    Raytheon Ramps Up Production of Anti-Ballistic Missiles for US Navy




    US defense contractor Raytheon said that advanced surface-to-air Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) has moved into full-rate production to provide the US Navy with more of the anti-ballistic missiles and anti-aircraft weapons.


    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) – The advanced surface-to-air Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) has moved into full-rate production to provide the US Navy with more of the anti-ballistic missiles and anti-aircraft weapons, US defense contractor Raytheon said in a statement on Wednesday.
    "Full-rate production allows us to significantly ramp up production and deliver to the US Navy the quantities it needs to further increase operational effectiveness," Standard Missile-6 senior program director Mike Campisi said in the statement.

    The SM-6 is a supersonic surface-to-air missile deployed on cruisers and destroyers that defends against manned aircraft and drones, as well as land attacks and anti-ship cruise missiles. The SM-6 will also be used by the US Navy as part of the US anti-ballistic missile defense system, according to Raytheon.

    Raytheon, one of the largest US defense contractors, has delivered more than 180 SM-6 to the US Navy to date.





    http://sputniknews.com/us/20150506/1021789174.html#ixzz3afrq6Bbv



    Can SM-6 neutralize China's anti-aircraft Dong Feng BM ?
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  max steel on Thu May 21, 2015 9:17 pm

    US Aegis Ships Could Pose Threat to Russia


    Russian Embassy to Washington Counselor Alexander Trofimov says that US Navy Aegis ships based in Europe could secretly carry cruise missiles threatening Russia. US Navy Aegis ships based in Europe could secretly carry cruise missiles threatening Russia, Russian Embassy to Washington Counselor Alexander Trofimov told a Congressional roundtable discussion on missile defense in Europe in the US Congress.


    "Aegis can fire [anti-ballistic missile] interceptors and attack [cruise] missiles like the Tomahawk," Trofimov said on Wednesday.


    Trofimov explained the defensive interceptors and offensive Tomahawk cruise missiles would be vertically deployed on the ships, making it difficult for air or space reconnaissance to identify them.
    On May 1, 2015, the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Porter joined two other destroyers, USS Donald Cook and USS Ross, at the Naval Station Rota in Spain as part of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to ballistic missile defense (BMD).

    A fourth Arleigh Burke-class warship, the USS Carney, will join them later in 2015.


    All four ships have had their Aegis combat systems upgraded to handle BMD threats.
    Trofimov said the deployment was continuing without any US-Russian dialogue to address Moscow's concerns that it was threatening the power balance in Europe.

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20150521/1022394345.html
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22367
    Points : 22911
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 22, 2015 11:48 am

    Garry do you think US will bring tomahawk ashm back from retirement ? They just tested a 1600 km Tomahawk Ashm from their Naval Platforms . How much range is allowed for naval version ashms accorrding to treaty ?

    Naval systems were not included in the INF treaty.

    And think of this step by the US just as a reaction to the Russian Navy introducing their UKSK launcher which allows their navy for the first time to carry enormous numbers of land attack cruise missiles and potent supersonic anti ship missiles and anti submarine weapons...

    and What do you think how russian present BOTH NAVAL AND LAND BASED ashms will fair against SEA RAM , SEA SPARROW & ESSM ?

    On paper those systems are very potent and should stop every threat directed at US ships.

    On paper the Sea Dart and Sea Wolf were also very potent and should have stopped the Exocet missile dead in its tracks during the Falklands War too... and for various reasons they didn't.

    Attack is easier that defence.

    Think of a tall skyscraper with thousands of windows and doors... in terms of security you have to allow certain people access to certain places, but you also have to keep everyone else out...

    A tricky job at the best of times... if the enemy masses up enough intruders at once your defences... no matter how formidable on paper can and will be overwhelmed...

    No different for sea or land targets.

    The main difference is that most large ships are high concentrations of missile and gun defence with radar and optronic sensors as well as soft kill and decoy systems as well.

    Trofimov said the deployment was continuing without any US-Russian dialogue to address Moscow's concerns that it was threatening the power balance in Europe.

    Of course when Russia starts fielding equivalent vessels with S-500 and hypersonic anti ship missiles (Zircon) and of course any future land attack missiles... perhaps upgraded to Kh-101/102 level range of 5,000km range and there will of course need to be serous talks...
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Aegis Ashore: Navy Needs Relief From Land

    Post  max steel on Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:54 pm

    Aegis Ashore: Navy Needs Relief From Land



    VIDEO: https://youtu.be/UCt6fq7cvSY

    CAPITOL HILL: Take my mission — please. The armed services are notorious for overselling their capabilities and grabbing turf to justify budgets. But when it comes to ballistic missile defense, the Navy feels so overburdened that it is talking up land-based alternatives as superior to its vaunted Aegis ships.

    [Click here for Part I of this story]
    http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/aegis-ambivalence-navy-hill-grapple-over-missile-defense-mission/

    “Anything that goes ashore…is the best way to defend ashore,” Rear Adm. Peter Fanta, director of surface warfare, told reporters after a June hearing on the Hill. “It allows more power, more aperture [for sensors], and a permanent presence there to cover that area.”

    An Aegis Ashore site, like those now being built in Romania and, soon, Poland, isn’t limited by the size of a ship’s hull. That means it can accommodate larger radar arrays to detect incoming missiles and larger numbers of interceptors to shoot them down. (Lockheed builds both the ship and shore versions of Aegis, which both fire the Raytheon Standard Missile). What’s more, a land base doesn’t have to sail home periodically for crew rest, training, and repairs.

    “I have to maintain my ships, [so they] may come off the station for a little while,” Fanta said. One Aegis Ashore site provides as many days of coverage as four Aegis ships — but costs less than a single ship.

    “There’s no question about that,” said Rep. Randy Forbes when I asked him to check Fanta’s math. As chairman of the House seapower subcommittee, Forbes is always quick to call for a larger fleet, but he’s a big advocate of land-based missiles as well.

    In fact, Forbes argues, the current strain on the fleet derives in large part from the Obama administration’s decision to delay and downsize land-based missile defenses in Europe while relying heavily on Aegis BMD ships instead. (This is the so-called European Phased Adaptive Approach). “If you’re going to place that on the back of the Navy,” he said, “you need to at least give the Navy the resources, and that’s not what is happening.”

    Meanwhile in the Pacific, Japan’s interest in buying Aegis Ashore is mired in the export control bureaucracy. Provisions to accelerate the ponderous process are now in conference between the House and Senate as the two chambers work out the National Defense Authorization Act for 2016.

    “The advantage to Aegis Ashore is it reduces the stress on our over-worked Navy… allowing them to focus on other mission areas,” Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House strategic forces subcommittee and co-author of the legislative language, said in a statement to Breaking Defense. But, he added, “inexplicably, the bureaucracy is slow-rolling the process to sell Aegis Ashore to allies who already have bought Aegis ships from us.”

    “There’s no real objection, it’s just this damn process,” a House Armed Services Committee staffer told me. “You guys [at the Pentagon] have been studying this for over a year.”

    “For the love of God, people, you went through this process [already],” the staffer continued. “We decided it was okay to sell the Japanese Aegis ships.” Those warships can not only do missile defense, they can also hunt submarines, sink hostile vessels, and launch Tomahawk cruise missiles hundreds of miles inland. If we trust a country with the full range of technologies that come with an Aegis ship, the staffer argued, surely we can trust that same country with the limited, purely defensive subset of those technologies that makes up Aegis Ashore.




    Shore-Based vs. Sea-Based

    As much as the Navy likes Aegis Ashore, it still wants Aegis BMD ships at sea. It just wants them for different purposes. A permanent, fixed-site ashore is the most cost-efficient way to protect any given landmass 365 days a year. But only ship-based systems can move with the fleet.

    “We have to defend against ballistic missiles at sea, and we have to defend our expeditionary sites,” Fanta told reporters. “If I’m setting up a runway or a base or anything somewhere, I can now move a ballistic missile capability to defend that.” If the Navy lands Marines to capture a key island, for example, the fleet’s Aegis BMD ships could simultaneously protect both the ships at sea and the troops ashore.

    That’s somewhat of a novel concept. Traditionally, warships didn’t need protection against ballistic missiles, which were too inaccurate to hit a moving target, even one as gigantic as an aircraft carrier. Ballistic missiles like the notorious Scud were for bombarding static targets on land. Cruise missiles were the threat to ships at sea, because they could actually hit them.

    Today, however, you can add precision guidance to ballistic missiles, as with China’s DF-21 “carrier killer.” The actual capabilities of the DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) are much debated, but its significance is clear. “It’s serious enough that you’ve seen it impact behavior, thinking, and investments,” said Tom Karako, head of the missile defense program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The Navy is already working on ballistic missile defenses for the fleet.

    But the anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) threat hasn’t gone away: In fact, it’s getting worse. That means an advanced adversary could threaten a Navy task force with a simultaneous salvo of cruise missiles — skimming in low over the water — and ballistic missiles — plummeting down from the upper atmosphere. Such a two-pronged attack is the 21st century equivalent of torpedo bombers (low) and dive bombers (high) converging on carriers at Midway.

    This one-two punch creates a major problem for the Navy: Most Aegis BMD systems in service can defend either against ballistic missiles or cruise missiles at any given time, but not both at once. So while there are 33 Aegis BMD ships now in service, just three have Aegis “Baseline 9,” the software capable of engaging both kinds of missiles simultaneously. For a major war, the Navy says it needs 40.

    “What you really heard [from the Navy] was, I need 40 apples and, by the way, I have 33 oranges,” Rep. Forbes told me scornfully. On the current modernization schedule, the number of ships with Aegis Baseline 9 won’t reach 40 until 2026.

    Now, the 30 ships that lack Baseline 9 are hardly worthless. They’re arguably inadequate for a high-tech, high-intensity war. But they’re adequate against lower-end threats, which might not be able to launch cruise missiles and ballistic missiles in quick succession against the same target. In particular, they can address the need of the theater combatant commanders (COCOMs) for ballistic missile defense of sites ashore.

    But the Navy’s ambivalent about this mission, because it’s insatiable. The COCOMs have identified enough sites needing protection that it would require 77 Aegis BMD ships to protect them. Remember there are only 33 Aegis BMD ships today. (Even if you upgraded every Aegis ship in the fleet to have BMD capability, that’s still only 84). And a ship devoted to ballistic missile defense of a given area of land must stay nearby on patrol, making it unable to maneuver with the fleet.

    “I often hear, although notably never from anyone currently in the Navy, that the Navy doesn’t want to perform ‘picket duty,'” said Hudson Institute scholar Rebeccah Heinrichs. “For dual-purpose ships like Aegis ships equipped with the BMD capability, it is hard to justify taking them away from their current missions in the Pacific and putting them in areas that might need an exclusive BMD mission.”

    The Limits Of Land

    The Navy is pushing Aegis Ashore because it frees up warships to do Navy missions. Each fixed-site, single-purpose BMD site on land can liberate multiple mobile, multi-purpose warships to whatever is required, wherever they’re needed on the water: to fight enemy ships, hunt submarines, strike land targets, or defend the fleet against aircraft and cruise missiles.

    But Aegis Ashore isn’t a universal substitute. Not every country we want to protect will let us build a missile defense site on their soil. There may be some countries we don’t realize we want to protect until the crisis erupts, at which point it’s too late to build anything. In both these cases, the only option may be to send a ship.

    Ships can also evade attack better than a land base. “As our Russian friends are fond of reminding us, any fixed site is also a target,” Karako said. In fact, Rep. Rogers’ subcommittee has called for the European Aegis Ashore sites to have anti-aircraft capabilities for self-defense against Russian airstrikes.

    If the enemy has to fire their missiles across a body of water — as China or North Korea would against Japan, for example — a ship could also provide a first line of defense that intercepts the missile earlier in its flight, potentially in its vulnerable ascent phase. In fact, one of the fathers of the Aegis BMD program, former Strategic Defense Initiative director Amb. Hank Cooper, argues Aegis ships — not a Ground-Based Interceptor site on land — might be the best missile defense for the East Coast.

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Aegis-10
    Aegis East Coast - Cooper & Williams July-29-2014-IGraphic courtesy of Amb. Hank Cooper & Vice Adm. Hank Williams

    That doesn’t mean tying Aegis BMD ships down on coastal patrols, Cooper emphasized. “I have never bought into the idea that Aegis should be assigned a ‘picket ship’ role, which the Navy would rightly oppose,” he told me, “but the ships normally near our coasts have the inherent capability to shoot down ICBMs from Iran” — or a sneak attack from a ship offshore.

    There are already several Aegis BMD ships off the East Coast at any given time, Cooper told me, either on training exercises or coming and going from overseas deployments. If their crews were trained to keep their BMD systems on alert even in home waters, and if those systems were tied into radars on land, he said, “they should be able to provide a meaningful defense of those of us who live along the East Coast almost immediately, for little additional operations expense.”

    That said, Cooper isn’t averse to building Aegis Ashore sites on the East Coast, either. They’d just cost more than multi-tasking ships we already have.

    In the Navy’s ideal world, Aegis Ashore might take over the entire burden of static missile defense, freeing up Aegis ships for mobile missions. But tactical, strategic, and political realities mean the ships will be doing some of both.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13900
    Points : 14395
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  George1 on Sun Nov 29, 2015 3:36 pm

    In the United States began testing new anti-ship missiles

    The magazine "Jane's Missiles & Rockets" publishes an article by Richard Scott "First free-flight test for Harpoon Block II +" and "LRASM begins Super Hornet flight testing", which reported that the US Navy began flight tests of two types of new aircraft anti-ship missiles - Boeing AGM-84N Harpoon Block II + and Lockheed Martin Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM).

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1600419.html
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13900
    Points : 14395
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  George1 on Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:27 am

    Τhe US Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a $49.1 million modification contract to equip five more DDG51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with Aegis ballistic missile defense systems

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151202/1031085009/us-navy-equip-destroyers-aegis.html#ixzz3t9MZav30
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  max steel on Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:36 pm

    Navy’s Latest $1.8 Billion Destroyer Hit the Waves

    U.S. Navy recently launched the latest in its line of guided missile destroyers.

    Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Ingalls Shipbuilding division launched its latest Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, called the Ralph Johnson, on Dec. 16, and the company has released time-lapse footage of the process.

    28 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers for the Navy to use in both offensive and defensive combat missions. The ships are armed with 56 Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missiles that can be used to hit targets on land or against anti-ship missiles.

    Each ship costs around $1.8 billion and four more are currently under construction. The price tag for the entire weapons effort, including maintenance, is estimated to come in at around $95 billion.

    The $1.1 trillion government spending bill signed into law last week by President Obama included about $1 billion for the destroyer program.
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty us destroyer

    Post  max steel on Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:15 am

    Navy Awards General Dynamics Bath Iron Works $644 Million for Construction of DDG 51 Class Destroyer

    he U.S. Navy has awarded funding for the planning and construction of DDG 124, the Fiscal Year 2016 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer under contract at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works. The $644.3 million contract modification fully funds this ship, which was awarded as part of a multi-year competition for DDG 51 class destroyers awarded in 2013. The total value of the five-ship contract is approximately $3.4 billion. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works is a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD).

    Fred Harris, president of Bath Iron Works, said, "This funding will allow us to continue our efforts associated with planning and construction of DDG 124. The men and women of Bath Iron Works are working hard to continuously improve our processes as we contribute to the U.S. Navy's important shipbuilding programs."

    There are currently four DDG 51 destroyers in production at Bath Iron Works: Rafael Peralta (DDG 115), Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), Daniel Inouye (DDG 118) and Carl M. Levin (DDG 120).

    The Navy has named DDG 124 the Harvey C. Barnum, Jr., after a retired U.S. Marine Corps officer who received the Medal of Honor for valor during the Vietnam War. Colonel Barnum served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs and as Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs).

    The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is a multi-mission combatant that offers defense against a wide range of threats, including ballistic missiles. It operates in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups, providing a complete array of anti-submarine (ASW), anti-air (AAW) and anti-surface (SuW) capabilities.

    Designed for survivability, the ships incorporate all-steel construction and have gas turbine propulsion. The combination of the ships' AEGIS combat system, the Vertical Launching System, an advanced ASW system, two embarked SH-60 helicopters, advanced anti-aircraft missiles and Tomahawk anti-ship and land-attack missiles make the Arleigh Burke class destroyers the most powerful surface combatants ever put to sea.Bath Iron Works currently employs approximately 6,100 people.


    Last edited by max steel on Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13900
    Points : 14395
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  George1 on Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:08 pm

    The latest DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class Aegis missile system destroyer Rafael Peralta has passed its acceptance tests and is now about to join the operational fleet of the US Navy, defense contractor General Dynamics said in a press release.

    he US Navy will take delivery of the destroyer in February and the ship will depart Bath later this spring. She joins the other 34 active Bath-built DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class warships in active service, the release stated on Wednesday.
    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201701051049276497-peralts-completes-tests/
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13900
    Points : 14395
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  George1 on Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:53 pm

    Navy, GD Hit Crossroads in Destroyer Negotiations

    WASHINGTON — The US Navy has or is building 75 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, considered among the most powerful surface ships ever fielded. The service is banking that the 76th ship — probably — is even more effective, incorporating a powerful new radar designed to deal with the threat from enemy ballistic missiles. The Navy is likely to spend more than $50 billion over the next decade to build 22 of the new ships, according to a government report.

    But negotiations to build the version of the Arleigh Burke, dubbed Flight III, are proving tough. The Navy wants its preferred builder, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW), to agree to a fixed-price contract – a standard tactic to hold down cost growth and, along the way, please Congressional critics. The shipyard, which built the original Arleigh Burke in the late 1980s and remains the lead yard for the program, contends there are too many changes in the design to accurately predict the costs. And the Navy, turning the negotiating screws, is considering switching the ship to rival Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) – a move sure to displease Maine’s powerful Congressional delegation.

    Complicating the picture is the situation at Bath’s Maine shipyard, where virtually every ship is behind schedule due to delays in the three-ship Zumwalt-class destroyer program and a series of management decisions on dealing with the delays. The shipyard picture is improving, company officials say, after reaching a nadir in 2015 when a disgruntled workforce chaffed under yard president Fred Harris’ handling of contract negotiations. A new labor agreement eventually was reached, but Bath’s shipbuilding schedule woes continued, and hopes for the future received a major blow in September when the company lost out on a construction program worth up to $2.4 billion as the US Coast Guard picked a Florida shipyard with no experience building ships for the government over the Maine shipbuilders.

    The combination proved lethal to Harris’ career, and his retirement was announced in November. He’s been replaced by Dirk Lesko, formerly the company’s head of surface combatants.

    In contrast to Bath, rival Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi has multiple shipbuilding projects well in hand. Both yards build Arleigh Burke destroyers, with Ingalls building all the Navy’s amphibious ships and large National Security Cutters for the Coast Guard. By many accounts, the Pascagoula shipbuilder has overcome most of the many problems from recent years, including poor workmanship, bad management decisions and, perhaps most famously, the devastation suffered in 2005 from Hurricane Katrina and the efforts under previous owners Northrop Grumman to get the Navy to pay for much of the repairs. Recently, Ingalls has been starting a new destroyer every nine months.

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tough-destroyer-negotiations-between-navy-gd
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13900
    Points : 14395
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  George1 on Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:16 pm

    US Navy Commissions 63rd Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer USS John Finn DDG 113

    Sponsored content

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer - Page 2 Empty Re: Arleigh Burke class destroyer

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:19 pm