The Navy's Newest White Elephant.

[JeremiahJohnson]

You know, with a night to sleep on this, I wonder if this ship might actually have a use in a Spratley Islands type situation. I know it cuts against the littoral aspect, being in the wide open sea, but one thing that sounded strange was a stealthy littoral ship. I mean, if you're that close to shore, radar isn't necessarily what you're worried about.

But, the South China Sea might need a multi-role ship.

Of course, there's no way the military planners had anything like Spratley in mind when they started that boondoggle.

Blue water is how a ship gets to the fight. It must remain undetected in open water to get there.

 

[Birds Away]

You know, with a night to sleep on this, I wonder if this ship might actually have a use in a Spratley Islands type situation. I know it cuts against the littoral aspect, being in the wide open sea, but one thing that sounded strange was a stealthy littoral ship. I mean, if you're that close to shore, radar isn't necessarily what you're worried about.

But, the South China Sea might need a multi-role ship.

Of course, there's no way the military planners had anything like Spratley in mind when they started that boondoggle.

The question is its survivability.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

It can, theoretically, provide NGFS or Naval Gunfire Support. It cannot insert troops. It has no troop carrying capacity, well deck or boat capacity. Yes, it could insert a SEAL team by helo. That's about it.

Not in the conventional sense, but littoral insertion is about moving troops from blue water to shallow - there are lots of ways to do it and lots of options if you can get there while protecting yourself and your crew and passengers at the same time. Littoral insertion/extractions and NGFS was the intent and they have that capability.

 

[Birds Away]

Not in the conventional sense, but littoral insertion is about moving troops from blue water to shallow - there are lots of ways to do it and lots of options if you can get there while protecting yourself and your crew and passengers at the same time. Littoral insertion/extractions and NGFS was the intent and they have that capability.

You might be confusing this with the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

The question is its survivability.

All ships are submitted to shock testing as well as sea trials and that is the purpose of the testing currently under way. I haven't read any public reports of shock testing, but the technology is supposed to evade and deflect/defend...not get hit in the first place. Sea state at-sea trials should confirm/deny model testing. It will be interesting to see if it does as well in the real world.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

You might be confusing this with the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

LCS is much lighter, faster and does get much closer. That is not the mission of a DDX.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

You might be confusing this with the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

Early reports back in '10 of the LCS were very positive. Been to Panama City a few times, but haven't seen the LCS.

Mission Packages Key to LCS Capabilities

 

[Birds Away]

All ships are submitted to shock testing as well as sea trials and that is the purpose of the testing currently under way. I haven't read any public reports of shock testing, but the technology is supposed to evade and deflect/defend...not get hit in the first place. Sea state at-sea trials should confirm/deny model testing. It will be interesting to see if it does as well in the real world.

I have always respected your opinion, JJ. But, I don't think this is your area of expertise.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I have always respected your opinion, JJ. But, I don't think this is your area of expertise.

31 years with the navy in power sources, have been involved in power sources shock and sea trials testing, but not ships. I do T&E in the power sources realm which much match or exceed capability aboard a number of platforms. I do not have first hand knowledge of the DDX only what I hear and read, but early reports are very good. I believe - haven't read - but believe the early model testing and shock testing results were very good. That's why I am hopeful the sea trials will confirm this technology's survivability at high sea state and maneuver as well as predicted.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

By the way, the Military film posted in the previous page shows the ASDS as part of the Navy's littoral insertion/extraction capability from submarines, but everyone knows there was only one copy and it burned back in 2008: http://op-for.com/2008/11/asds_fire.html

 

[Birds Away]

31 years with the navy in power sources, have been involved in power sources shock and sea trials testing, but not ships. I do T&E in the power sources realm which much match or exceed capability aboard a number of platforms. I do not have first hand knowledge of the DDX only what I hear and read, but early reports are very good. I believe - haven't read - but believe the early model testing and shock testing results were very good. That's why I am hopeful the sea trials will confirm this technology's survivability at high sea state and maneuver as well as predicted.

Okay, I stand corrected. When I think of survivability I am thinking in terms of "fighting the ship". I have great reservations about this platform.

 

[Birds Away]

By the way, the Military film posted in the previous page shows the ASDS as part of the Navy's littoral insertion/extraction capability from submarines, but everyone knows there was only one copy and it burned back in 2008: http://op-for.com/2008/11/asds_fire.html

I didn't watch it but assumed it was a propaganda film. We make them too.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

If you're really interested in submersible littoral insertion/extraction the ASDS "replacement" is the S351, it's sea trials appear to be going pretty well: https://www.linkedin.com/company/3964911?trk=hp-feed-company-name

 

[Kutnupe14]

31 years with the navy in power sources, have been involved in power sources shock and sea trials testing, but not ships. I do T&E in the power sources realm which much match or exceed capability aboard a number of platforms. I do not have first hand knowledge of the DDX only what I hear and read, but early reports are very good. I believe - haven't read - but believe the early model testing and shock testing results were very good. That's why I am hopeful the sea trials will confirm this technology's survivability at high sea state and maneuver as well as predicted.

Doh! ^^^^ the man has the resume.

 

[Birds Away]

Doh! ^^^^ the man has the resume.

Yes, but it isn't on the warfighting end.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Okay, I stand corrected. When I think of survivability I am thinking in terms of "fighting the ship". I have great reservations about this platform.

Not all of the technology in this ship is open to the public, which means I don't know about it either since I'm not involved in the DDX. But, keeping my eyes open about what's been going on in the world of missile defense and sensor capability I have to believe this ship has the electronic warfare and missile defense capability at least current with other platforms under development. If that's true I wouldn't want to take it on without some serious stand off capability and survivability of my own. LOL. My concerns are - as always - new technology and real world application...and of course to see if it really can maneuver well in an extremely high sea state mission scenario. If we hear nothing in the open media...that's usually very good. Ha.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Yes, but it isn't on the warfighting end.

I did some time in @55crackistan in 2011, but not for the Navy. I was never enlisted, but work with the warfighter as do my colleagues.

My resume' is open to the public, it's not that impressive but I have been around a long time. Some people confuse that with wisdom. LOL. https://www.linkedin.com/profile/vi...Qz_CRrirLyyrlI&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile

 

[Birds Away]

I understand that they made some compromises on the Combat Systems and radar suite. The deletions they made are scary.

 

[Birds Away]

I did some time in @55crackistan in 2011, but not for the Navy. I was never enlisted, but work with the warfighter as do my colleagues.

My resume' is open to the public, it's not that impressive but I have been around a long time. Some people confuse that with wisdom. LOL. https://www.linkedin.com/profile/vi...Qz_CRrirLyyrlI&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile

I wasn't trying to demean you, sir. I am sorry if it came off that way. I served in the Navy for 26 years but I, like most everyone, have an area of expertise and many areas where I would not offer an opinion.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I wasn't trying to demean you, sir. I am sorry if it came off that way. I served in the Navy for 26 years but I, like most everyone, have an area of expertise and many areas where I would not offer an opinion.

I hear ya. I strive to only talk about those things that are already in the open media for anyone with a modicum of google capability. I truly appreciate your service, I work with the warfighter and sailors and admire their abilities, patriotism and courage. Believe me I have very thick skin, as you do - anyone who survives 26 years in the Navy has thick skin. Radar, as you've mentioned, is extremely important. I did read about some combat capability that was "trimmed" away in order to keep the boat going forward. It would bother me more if there were 30+ copies under contract, but since this is turning out to be a technology demonstration I'm not too concerned. I am hopeful it will lead to something better for the Navy though, we are way over due for something in the Destroyer class that can compete in modern warfare.