DDG-1000

[sferrin]

From GAO's "WEAPON SYSTEMS ANNUAL ASSESSMENT" April 2018 (my highlights).

If the Zumwalt hull ends up forming a baseline for the CG, it's imperative that additional units are purchased to bridge the gap until Cruiser buys start. Every year of gap will just make the process of re-starting that much more problematic.

This would appear to be unobtainium, might as well bring the cruiser requirement forward but that would have to be new money which is unlikely.

If the case is there for the Zumwalt to form the basis of the next cruiser then it could be argued that keeping the line "hot" would reduce the overall program cost.

[Moose]

From GAO's "WEAPON SYSTEMS ANNUAL ASSESSMENT" April 2018 (my highlights).

If the Zumwalt hull ends up forming a baseline for the CG, it's imperative that additional units are purchased to bridge the gap until Cruiser buys start. Every year of gap will just make the process of re-starting that much more problematic.

This would appear to be unobtainium, might as well bring the cruiser requirement forward but that would have to be new money which is unlikely.

Adding "extra" money for shipbuilding has become something of par for the course. A sizable chunk of the LPD-17 class has been funded by Congress inserting in money that the Navy didn't explicitly request, and the Columbia-class may (may) end up funded in part outside the shipbuilding budget. If Richardson and Co. walked over to the Hill and said "hey we believe ordering 2-3 more DDG-1000s would help make the transition to the CG easier and more affordable, plus jobs" they might get it.

[NeilChapman]

At one point, the IPS was supposed to be somewhat common between the Future Surface Combatant family of ships.  What is the status of IPS today?

Thanks!

[Moose]

At one point, the IPS was supposed to be somewhat common between the Future Surface Combatant family of ships.  What is the status of IPS today?

Thanks!

Status as in how is it doing on DDG-1000 or as in what are it's prospects for the future? In the former, none of the hulls have been in service long enough to really see how IPS performs, but thus far it's not waved any big red flags. As to the future, the Navy can't get its story straight about the next combatant so it's hard to nail it down. They know they need lots of power, and they view IPS as a good way to make a lot of power available in the next hull, but they won't be pinned down on anything yet. They claim they want to start buying the new combatant in 2023, so it seems a bit silly that they can't define the goal for something as basic as the general power architecture, but here we are.

[NeilChapman]

At one point, the IPS was supposed to be somewhat common between the Future Surface Combatant family of ships.  What is the status of IPS today?

Thanks!

Status as in how is it doing on DDG-1000 or as in what are it's prospects for the future? In the former, none of the hulls have been in service long enough to really see how IPS performs, but thus far it's not waved any big red flags. As to the future, the Navy can't get its story straight about the next combatant so it's hard to nail it down. They know they need lots of power, and they view IPS as a good way to make a lot of power available in the next hull, but they won't be pinned down on anything yet. They claim they want to start buying the new combatant in 2023, so it seems a bit silly that they can't define the goal for something as basic as the general power architecture, but here we are.

At one point, IPS was to be ubiquitous.  An efficient design solution for most of the new ship designs.  Another way to simplify training and maintenance.  In fact, Columbia-class will be using IPS.  So the question is how confident should we be at this stage of IPS development and deployment?  Is it meeting the design metrics for dependability, efficiency etc?