If we stopped putting money into all the maintenance, and diverted it to building new ships, the problem would clear up more smoothly. It does not help that that "the drumbeat of war" is sounding, with many of our military leaders saying they feel war with China is coming as soon as 2027. Congress then wants "all hands on deck," and it is a fight to get anything let go.
If that war is as imminent as claimed, then a ship that breaks down 3 days out of port was not wise to have clung to, and if the war never happens, or didn't happen as soon as predicted, we don't have the new ships we should because we did not invest in them. People can get pretty irrational when coping with the future. We tend to believe whatever we imagine it to be is exactly how it will go. When it did not go down like that, we go into finger-pointing mode. The only thing certain about the future is that you and I will one day die. Okay?
Icebreakers would be more of a priority for the Russians. So, while I don't know the details of that, but I do know something of the financial picture, I will say they're not getting much funding. Yes, we also do have a labor shortage in the shipbuilding industry, but money would be the bigger problem in my book.
Not too many years back, the Navy's aircraft maintenance facilities were choked with a serious backlog of F/A-18Cs. The Navy finally quietly retired the entire F/A-18C fleet without fanfare...and before any numbers of F-35s started showing up. Now, you no longer read about that maintenance backlog, or all the money it was costing. And F-35s are coming on line, and hey...we're still not at war with China! Imagine that.
A lesson for the ship-side of the Navy house.
Give a man a soap box, see what you get.
Previous Message
the big question is can ANY NEW DESIGN SHIPS be BUILT , OR ANY REPAiRED by the US ,with the shortage of skilled shipbuilders?? repairs are years behind, especially subs, and carriers, and dont even think of mentioning ICEBREAKERS, 7 years to start the drawings, and another 10? to build, meanwhile Russia is building 3 a year despite sanctions! Previous Message
Interesting. If this is valid, it will be made known more officially in due course, along with an explanation of the changes. Off the top of my head, they are probably looking to specialize it more somehow. The ship has been put forth as a Burke replacement. The original 2022 rendition showed exactly that...a general purpose carrier escort with room for growth. However, as one of the articles I linked below notes, the latest Burkes are still useful general purpose carrier escorts, and cheaper. So, the only reason to replace them with DDGX is the room for growth. And, as then further noted, is that reason alone worth the cost involved? There's been talk of re-thinking its mission...find a more compelling reason why we "can't live without it." This may be a sign of that.
Or, it could just be a logo. Thank you for the heads-up. Will now be looking for new renditions and the reasons behind them. Previous Message
There is a new rendering, more a logo, but with some significant differences:
DDG(X): US Navy’s Next Gen Destroyer Loses Main Gun In Latest Rendering
Responses