HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Foreign Affairs & National Security » National Security & Defense (Group) » The U.S. Navy’s Most Expe...

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 07:53 AM

The U.S. Navy’s Most Expensive Warships for 2014

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/the-us-navys-most-expensive-warships-for-2014-cm378514



The U.S. Navy’s Most Expensive Warships for 2014

~snip~

The United States has an impressive array of weapons systems, but it could be argued that none are as imposing as the U.S. Navy's warships. In fact, the U.S. often uses the deployment of these weapons as a "show of force" to intimidate would-be-aggressors into backing down -- and who wouldn't be intimidated by a veritable floating fortress in your backyard?

~snip~

3. LHA 6 America -Class Amphibious Assault Ship



~snip~

More importantly, this ship is an essential when it comes to transporting Marine Expeditionary Units and their equipment. In fact, it can carry up to 1,871 troops, in addition to its 1,204-person crew. The Government Accountability Office's, or GAO, estimated program unit cost for this titan? $3.4 billion -- and while that might seem like a staggering number, it's still not as expensive as the next two vessels on this list.

2. DDG 1000 Zumwalt -Class Destroyer



~snip~

Speaking of dominating, the Zumwalt has a truly impressive array of weapons, including Advanced Gun Systems, Peripheral Vertical launch Systems, a number of missile systems, and a power plant that can produce 78 megawatts of electricity. This means the Zumwalt could be used for futuristic weapons like the Electromagnetic Railgun -- an extended range launcher that uses electricity to fire projectiles at 4,500-5,600 mph. More importantly, thanks to automation technologies, the Zumwalt can be crewed with 142 sailors. That's less than half of what's needed on traditional destroyers. The GAO's estimated program unit cost for this stealth destroyer? $7.3 billion. Expensive, but not nearly as expensive as the last ship on this list.

1. Gerald R. Ford -Class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier (CVN 78)



~snip~

It's 1,092 feet long, its beam is 134 feet high, its Flight Deck is 256 feet wide, and it has a crew of 4,539. More importantly, the Gerald R. Ford is the first new design for an aircraft carrier since the Nimitz , and it comes power-packed with new technology. This includes: an electromagnetic aircraft launch system, new reactor plants that increase electrical power generation, and there's more space for Flight Deck operations thanks to a decreased island. Further, the Gerald R. Ford 's weaponry includes the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, Rolling Airframe Missile, Phalanx Close-In Weapon System, and it can carry 75+ aircraft. Clearly, this is one ship you don't want to mess with, and it comes with an equally daunting price: an estimated $12 billion per program unit cost, according to the GAO.

9 replies, 2717 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply The U.S. Navy’s Most Expensive Warships for 2014 (Original post)
unhappycamper Aug 2014 OP
MADem Aug 2014 #1
pangaia Aug 2014 #2
MADem Aug 2014 #3
pangaia Aug 2014 #4
MADem Aug 2014 #5
pangaia Aug 2014 #6
MADem Aug 2014 #7
pangaia Aug 2014 #8
MADem Aug 2014 #9

Response to unhappycamper (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 08:13 AM

1. Ships are like a good suit used to be in the old days...

Something that was built to last, and even handed down across generations. It's really important that they not make a mistake because they're going to be in service for the next forty years, at least, if they're done right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 08:37 AM

2. This is sarcasm, right...

I hope so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:25 PM

3. Not at all. I'm entirely serious.

If you've never served in a ship, you couldn't possibly understand. The crews down the years become family to one another.

I'd love to get a good look at this 'un:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:37 PM

4. Too many ships.

Waste of money.

John Adams supported the concept of a strong Navy as a means of defense -his 'wooden wall- not as a way to spread imperialism everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:48 PM

5. You're welcome to your opinion.

I think you might want to do a little homework, though.

We're many, many HUNDREDS of ships away from Ronald Reagan's dream of a six hundred ship Navy. In fact, our Navy is the smallest it has been in many, many years.

When your Navy is small, it needs to be high quality, fast, and reliable. That's what we're on about with these vessels, which require much less in terms of manpower than vessels of yore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:51 PM

6. SMALL???

I don't think comparing anything to that POS Reagan counts.
Perhaps compare the size of the US Navy to the rest of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:56 PM

7. Yes, it most certainly is true that our Navy is larger than, say, Bolivia's.

But it is also true that our nation has more coastline than Bolivia, and most other countries in the world, as well. We've got the Atlantic to our right, the Pacific to our left, and a lot of power to project in defense of our many allies.

Like I said, you're welcome to your opinion. I simply don't share it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #7)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 03:41 PM

8. MADem, I think we are on the same side here in general, or not, but..

first you compare our Navy to what Reagan wanted.. and now you compare us to.... Bolivia. :>

..." and a lot of power to project .."

THAT is the problem.. TOO much arrogant projection. This is not about defense. We have a Department of War, as it was called in the beginning. It is about bullying, plain and simple.
Rome, Britain, Japan, Carthage, Oman (to a certain degree), et al....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 05:17 AM

9. I think you would miss the sea lanes of communication once they disappeared.

And I would invite your attention to all the effort Putin is "putin" into revitalizing the old Soviet fleet, down to trying to regain his old ports from the old allies of the USSR. Putin is looking for a fight, make no mistake about it. An efficient, effective and capable Navy deters that kind of shit, just as they deter any shenanigans (look at what's happening at sea between China and Japan lately) from Beijing.

Ask yourself these questions-how do most goods, everything from natural resources, to foodstuffs, to manufactured goods, get to USA from overseas? How does most of what USA produces get sent abroad? What would happen if those sea lanes of communication were interrupted by some asshole country wanting to give us some shit? How would we respond if we didn't have a Navy to do the "don't even think about it" deterring? With a strongly worded letter?

Funny how when there's a taifun in Indonesia or a natural disaster "where-ever" or the need for a swift noncombatant evacuation, with military force available to deter bloodshed, people want the US Navy to just turn on a dime and show up there with relief aid or an evacuation plan. That can't be done without ships deployed around the globe, preserving our access to those sea lanes of communication I'm talking about.

Like it, or not, our heritage is seafaring, we do most of our trade by sea, and the oceans of the globe are vital to our well being-- and we have command of the sea, and we are interested in keeping those sea lanes OPEN. Mark my words, if we don't have that command, someone else will--and they may not be so pleased to let trade progress quite so freely. There's money to be made in highway robbery, even if those robberies happen at sea (ask the pirates of Somalia).

The Bolivia thing was hyperbolic, but the point is, even BOLIVIA has a Navy (and yes, they are landlocked but they operate on tributaries to the Amazon and Lake Titicaca--many of their ships are gifted USN vessels). Bolivia believes that Chile is denying them access to the sea, and they're not satisfied with the situation at hand. Sea lanes of communication are IMPORTANT, even to landlocked nations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread