[Lysandru]

All,

I was aghast here. A 14,000 ton "destroyer?"

Well, at least this guy understands that the politicians are shafting the USN....

[King Prout]

I'm curious... why have the shipbuilding costs gone up so much, so fast?

[sanchez810]

Will the LCS be built in these 6 shipyards?

[keepingtrack]

Part and parcel of what happens when you let your entire manufacturing industry move overseas in search of cheap labor.

[Texas_Jarhead]

Don't like the sounds of this.

[PAR35]

I can see $2 billion for a top of the line sub. But over $3 billion for a destroyer with only 2 6" (155mm) guns? Build 3 more subs for the same cost.

[blanknoone]

Why don't we just get Walmart to import some destroyers cheap from China?

(BTW, that is sarcasm)

[ken21]

the problem is no competition.

the politics is controlled by districts that benefit from the contracts.

it's basically middle class welfare.

[Chuckster]

Congress, seeking to sustain America's shipyards, wants as many big ships as possible

Here's the problem. Too much pork.

Yes, the shipyards are important and the state of our merchant marine and shipbuilding industries is a shame and an embarassment. Unneeded and unwanted (By the Navy) government contracts, however, are not the answer.

[RaceBannon]

Maybe they should make them in China?

[Strategerist]

I was aghast here. A 14,000 ton "destroyer?"

None of the cost has to do with raw size; sheet metal is cheap.

The cost is all electronics.

[G32]

This is turning into the Soviet Navy. They had some awesome ships (kirov) but could only afford 3 or 4.

Disgraceful that we're so poor now.

[fso301]

Like it or not, destroyers have traditionally been viewed as somewhat expendable. These are not expendable prices.

[Stonewall Jackson]

Thought you'd find this interesting.

[Fishing-guy]

Back to the quality versus quantity debate.

[Wiz]

US Armed Force has no enemy to match in traditional warfare, but has the worst enemy that can never be defeated which is called the budget and the complaining congressmen.

[ryan71]

The Navy is trying to take too large a leap on this DDX.

Everything on this ship is a new technology; the guns, the radar, the VLS system, propulsion, hull and ss shape, etc.

All those new technologies require very expensive research and development.

Our DDG's and CG's are comfortably ahead of any other navy.

We should develop these new technologies we want on the DDX one at a time and integrate them into our current ships.

It's a mistake to only build a handful of DDX's. Our ships and sailors are stretched to their limits of deployment, now.

Build more DDG-51's and CG-47's. We know what they are capable of and we know what they cost. Develop new weapons, propulsion, and sensors and integrate as we go.

We need more ships.

[taxed2death]

13 BILLION for a freaking boat?

Can't we just buy more cruise missles and save a few billion?

They hit more than they miss...with the exception of a Chinese embassey or two.....

[ryan71]

USS Ticonderoga (CG-47) was a very revolutionary ship. she was viewed to have enormously advanced war fighting capabilities.

Her major technological advancement was the AN/SPY-1 radar system. For propulsion, she was fitted with LM-2500 gas turbines that were developed earlier for Spruance DD's. CG-47's hull was even borrowed from the Spruance DD's. Her missile launching system (twin armed bandits) were nothing new. Her 5" guns came from Spruance DD's also.

That single development of the AN/SPY-1 radar made Ticonderoga a revolutionary platform in surface ship capability.

From CG-47, the Navy introduced DDG-51 with upgraded weapons, sensors, and a steel superstructure.

My point is that the Navy is VERY talented at building on current technologies and introducing them within a budget to achieve desired results.

Why is the Navy trying to do it all at once with DDX? Of course the costs will be out of this world.

[Mulder]

They keep reducing the quantity they want, then gripe about the price going up.