<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why is the Navy Building DDG-1000?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.behindbluelines.com/2009/07/07/why-is-the-navy-building-ddg-1000/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.behindbluelines.com/2009/07/07/why-is-the-navy-building-ddg-1000/?utm_source=subscriber&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rss</link>
	<description>Samizdat from the Blue Northeast</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:02:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Destiny of the Frigate Pt 2 &#171; New Wars</title>
		<link>http://www.behindbluelines.com/2009/07/07/why-is-the-navy-building-ddg-1000/comment-page-1/#comment-1039</link>
		<dc:creator>Destiny of the Frigate Pt 2 &#171; New Wars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behindbluelines.com/?p=6014#comment-1039</guid>
		<description>[...] Burkes, are all armored. It is the most expensive non-carrier warship in all history, with really no reason for being built other than &#8220;because we can&#8221;. The Navy wasted a whole decade of funding on this ship [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Burkes, are all armored. It is the most expensive non-carrier warship in all history, with really no reason for being built other than &#8220;because we can&#8221;. The Navy wasted a whole decade of funding on this ship [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MAURICE KEMP</title>
		<link>http://www.behindbluelines.com/2009/07/07/why-is-the-navy-building-ddg-1000/comment-page-1/#comment-976</link>
		<dc:creator>MAURICE KEMP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:23:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behindbluelines.com/?p=6014#comment-976</guid>
		<description>The Navy doesn&#039;t know what it wants in a warship these days.   I knew the Zumwalt was going to fail.  Despite all those new technologies and new concepts in DDG-1000/DD(X), I was waiting for this ship to sink!  But, I do agree with one thing, we need to advanced beyond DDG-51.  Every other country is designing and building new warship designs and we&#039;re still stuck with the Burke.   The design is late &#039;70s and &#039;80s.  It&#039;s too bad the Navy doesn&#039;t have a backup in case Zumwalt doesn&#039;t make it, other than the Burkes.  And, finally, where are all those new sensors, propulsion and weapon systems (Mk57 PVLS)  for DDG-1000 are going?  I doubt that they will fit on DDG-51, especially the PVLS.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Navy doesn&#8217;t know what it wants in a warship these days.   I knew the Zumwalt was going to fail.  Despite all those new technologies and new concepts in DDG-1000/DD(X), I was waiting for this ship to sink!  But, I do agree with one thing, we need to advanced beyond DDG-51.  Every other country is designing and building new warship designs and we&#8217;re still stuck with the Burke.   The design is late &#8217;70s and &#8217;80s.  It&#8217;s too bad the Navy doesn&#8217;t have a backup in case Zumwalt doesn&#8217;t make it, other than the Burkes.  And, finally, where are all those new sensors, propulsion and weapon systems (Mk57 PVLS)  for DDG-1000 are going?  I doubt that they will fit on DDG-51, especially the PVLS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sea Links &#171; New Wars</title>
		<link>http://www.behindbluelines.com/2009/07/07/why-is-the-navy-building-ddg-1000/comment-page-1/#comment-497</link>
		<dc:creator>Sea Links &#171; New Wars</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behindbluelines.com/?p=6014#comment-497</guid>
		<description>[...] Why is the Navy Building DDG-1000? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Why is the Navy Building DDG-1000? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Aston</title>
		<link>http://www.behindbluelines.com/2009/07/07/why-is-the-navy-building-ddg-1000/comment-page-1/#comment-478</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Aston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:19:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behindbluelines.com/?p=6014#comment-478</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that Time has flown past this ship.
Cost considerations have become more important during the birthing process.  Some smart people consider the ship to be entiely too much &quot;state of the art&quot;. More consider it to be far too expensive to procure in numbers.   The fiscal stress of the DOD and that of the Nation argue for a quick  termination. Sad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that Time has flown past this ship.<br />
Cost considerations have become more important during the birthing process.  Some smart people consider the ship to be entiely too much &#8220;state of the art&#8221;. More consider it to be far too expensive to procure in numbers.   The fiscal stress of the DOD and that of the Nation argue for a quick  termination. Sad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Burleson</title>
		<link>http://www.behindbluelines.com/2009/07/07/why-is-the-navy-building-ddg-1000/comment-page-1/#comment-477</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Burleson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behindbluelines.com/?p=6014#comment-477</guid>
		<description>David, to me it more resembles the HMS Dreadnought of 100 years ago, which it nearly matches in size, and almost as outdated! 14,000 ton destroyer? Please! I think the size and cost bothers me the most, as another wasting asset leading to the further decline of USN ship numbers and influence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, to me it more resembles the HMS Dreadnought of 100 years ago, which it nearly matches in size, and almost as outdated! 14,000 ton destroyer? Please! I think the size and cost bothers me the most, as another wasting asset leading to the further decline of USN ship numbers and influence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pem Schaeffer</title>
		<link>http://www.behindbluelines.com/2009/07/07/why-is-the-navy-building-ddg-1000/comment-page-1/#comment-476</link>
		<dc:creator>Pem Schaeffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:37:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.behindbluelines.com/?p=6014#comment-476</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s tragic how the Navy let the cost of the Zumwalt get away from them.  

The ship had incredible promise for taking ship design, in every area, to a new and exciting generation.  At one point, the propulsion concept was azimuthing pods for superb maneuverability, coupled with interior design freedom because shafts and reduction gears would not be required.  Crew size, and hence &quot;ownership&quot; costs, were to be reduced by more than half, with superb quality of life.

I was involved in the proposal process for 3+ years, and after 35 years in Naval ship systems, it was a pure delight to watch the brightest and the best given the opportunity to advance the state of design, through very intensive efforts, to a remarkable concept.

Somehow, and I was retired by then so no longer in close touch, the Navy let the concept get away from them.  Too much technology, too much risk, many say.  But those are things to be managed actively, and scaled back when appropriate.  The ship was originally planned to cost approx $750 million a copy (in 97 dollars) once in production.  Cost control was a fundamental of the design process, as was risk management.

Now the program hangs by a thread as more or less a curiosity, and were it not for the shipyard political support involved, the program would likely be dead.

Does anyone remember the so called Arsenal Ship that never made it to detailed design?

It&#039;s a sad, sad thing to watch so much superb innovation and hard work by brilliant minds hanging by a thread rather than leading the way in a new Surface Navy of the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s tragic how the Navy let the cost of the Zumwalt get away from them.  </p>
<p>The ship had incredible promise for taking ship design, in every area, to a new and exciting generation.  At one point, the propulsion concept was azimuthing pods for superb maneuverability, coupled with interior design freedom because shafts and reduction gears would not be required.  Crew size, and hence &#8220;ownership&#8221; costs, were to be reduced by more than half, with superb quality of life.</p>
<p>I was involved in the proposal process for 3+ years, and after 35 years in Naval ship systems, it was a pure delight to watch the brightest and the best given the opportunity to advance the state of design, through very intensive efforts, to a remarkable concept.</p>
<p>Somehow, and I was retired by then so no longer in close touch, the Navy let the concept get away from them.  Too much technology, too much risk, many say.  But those are things to be managed actively, and scaled back when appropriate.  The ship was originally planned to cost approx $750 million a copy (in 97 dollars) once in production.  Cost control was a fundamental of the design process, as was risk management.</p>
<p>Now the program hangs by a thread as more or less a curiosity, and were it not for the shipyard political support involved, the program would likely be dead.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the so called Arsenal Ship that never made it to detailed design?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a sad, sad thing to watch so much superb innovation and hard work by brilliant minds hanging by a thread rather than leading the way in a new Surface Navy of the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

