The SteelNavy.Com Message Board: Re: Why USCGC Friedman was cancelled?

Well, from what I have read, Zumwalt was cancelled because the Navy ultimately realized it did not need an expensive littoral destroyer. All that stealth (which was the primary cost driver) was so that those ships could move close inshore with some sort of reasonable hope of not being so easily detected. And, of course those big guns were for USMC fire support. The follow-on cruiser was to use the Zumwalt hull, and be a carrier escort. Both were expensive, the cruiser even more so. Engineers finally figured out cooling issues with the Burke design to allow better radars and better solutions to the anti-ballistic missile problem, making the cruiser version of the hull unnecessary. The LCS was much cheaper for inshore work (though not able to provide fire support.) The Navy then made the decision to cancel, and build more Burkes.

The Zumwalt was certainly initially estimated too low. Estimates rose dramtically in the first years, but stabilized at around $3 billion to build. Zumwalt then actually cost $3.5 billion...pretty close to those estimates. I would note that the DDGX program estimates are starting at $3 billion and going up from there. CBO estimates are higher (as they usually are.) The projected cruiser in anti-ballistic missile defense form hit an estimate at the time of $9 billion, IIRC. So, that engineering breakthrough in system cooling to allow continued use of the Burke hull saved us some money. Burkes are currently running around $2.2 billion per copy. If the new DDGX actually does come out anywhere near the $3 billion figure, that's not that much more than a Burke for considerably more future growth ability.

The last of the cutters was cancelled due to a contract dispute between the Department of Homeland Security and the shipyard. I found no details, but the principal DHS complaint was that it was late, and running over budget. The yard had labor issues, among other possible problems. It was the 11th ship of a 12-ship program, which the Coast Guard has "lost interest in," turning its attention to other classes of ships. DHS then moved to simply terminate the contract.

Construction of the FFGX program was begun with the design only about 12% complete. "Automatic delays" come from that, as work halts while they wait for the design. Delays produce increased costs. The yard also had labor shortage issues. Etc. The project was pretty much dead in the water (without ever having gotten anywhere near the water.) We can't wait for it all to be designed and built. We dropped it and moved on.

Three separate programs with three separate stories. So, your "explanation" here is...um..."garbled" to say the least. You've run a lot of things into a lovely mildly incoherent rant, throwing in the current administration for good measure. Unfortunately, that part is not true. That administration is looking to the new South Korean run yard in Philadelphia to be the leading yard for its new BBGX, um...project. (Cough-cough. I would love to use other adjectives.)

Happy Christmas, David.

Previous Message

FRM WHAT I HAVE HEARD BOTH COAST GUARD CUTTER AND FRIGATE ARE CANCELLED DUE to ZUMWALDT DISEASE, no drawings on time, too many changes with not enough drawings, , not enough qualified ship builders, SO EVERYTHING COSTS TOO MUCH-leaading to project fundsgoing into first ships, and when it could be built to a merely horrendous cost cancelling the design and starting the whole disaster again., add to this Trumps LIICE, destroying the brilliant idea of leaning from KOREAN shipbuilders,the USN WOULD BE WORLDS 3 NAVY IF UKAINE WASNT SINKING RUSSIAS FLEET,
temperary solution repair and refit the pier queens whist training workers, if you can find anyone willing to do the work!

Previous Message

You need to study the realities of our shipyard abilities and capacities to better realize why we're making the choices we're making. What other nations are producing, or can produce (and the quantities they are producing them in) do not all fit with our system. One of the biggest reasons we've chosen this design is that the logistics and training systems for it are largely already in place. Creating a new ship does not just involve that vessel. A whole logistical pipeline which supports it must also be established. As the FREMM should have clearly demonstrated, one does not simply snap their fingers and incorporate "what others are building" which "better" fit our needs. We have a limited array of available hull types under construction, and with all the logistics in place. We selected the most suitable of those, not the "most suitable of all the world's designs" (which, as I have pointed out previously is most likely something very much like the Mogami. How fast do you think we can start building those?) Speed and cost trump (sorry) other concerns for this program. Your last paragraph pretty much nails it. We have to fix our shipbuilding industry. Simultaneously with that, we have to turn out a large number of small combatants. This is how that looks in the real world, not the realm of the hypothetical.

I wish Congress could get its act together and repeal Byrnes-Tollefson. Then, I wish we would immediately contract with Japan to buy Mogamis as fast as they can deliver. Another fantasy. "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." Reality is not so pretty.

Previous Message

Between a weakly armed patrol frigate and a Arleigh Burke class destroyer, there are a lot of options, which could be cheaper than a Arleigh Burke. Most navies have such ships. The failure of the LCS program is the cause of the problem here.

A patrol frigate could replace a destroyer for patrol duties (as could an LCS, even those with the defective gearing), but the situation today is much more dangerous than 15 years ago. To use a warships against drug smugglers is anyway ridiculous. That is normally not a task for a navy (stopping drug smugglers on one route will anyway not solve any problem; the addicted in the US will buy drugs from other sources. Fentanyl is not even coming from South America). Today, Russia and especially China are a much bigger threat and ships have to be built with them in mind.

Therefore, adding at least a small VLS (for ESSM) and a sonar would better - even if at some point ocean-going unmanned vessels with ESSM and sonar will be available.

I still consider the decision to replace a class because of the delays with another one, which was also cancelled because of delays, to be very interesting politics... For both classes, the issue causing the delays (lack of skilled workers?) have to be solved.