The CRS said the navy was happy to just get the same capability but In their defense the DDG-51 Flight III is a 30 year old design
either way I think the fix is in for HII to get the LX(R) and NASSCO to get the T-AOX
| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| T-AOX US Navy http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5869 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Philbob [ February 3rd, 2015, 2:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | T-AOX US Navy |
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /22606093/ first concept art. I hope they go NASSCO personally. |
|
| Author: | rd77 [ February 3rd, 2015, 7:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T-AOX US Navy |
The proposal from Huntington Ingalls is a joke. They can't seriously be thinking of proposing an update of a nearly 30-year old design? |
|
| Author: | Philbob [ February 4th, 2015, 2:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T-AOX US Navy |
The CRS said the navy was happy to just get the same capability but In their defense the DDG-51 Flight III is a 30 year old design either way I think the fix is in for HII to get the LX(R) and NASSCO to get the T-AOX
|
|
| Author: | jabba [ February 4th, 2015, 8:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T-AOX US Navy |
1st Paragraph: "[the ships] are being tied together in a bid to increase competition..." 2nd Paragraph: "The plan, first briefed to industry in January by Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley, will allow only two shipyards ... to bid on the T-AO(X) fleet oiler, the LHA 8 assault ship, and the LX(R) class of amphibious ships" Does limiting the bidding to only two companies really 'increase competition"? I'm not sure everyone involved here fully understands how markets work: More competition = more competitors, no? |
|
| Author: | JSB [ February 4th, 2015, 11:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T-AOX US Navy |
Its worse than that, only 2 can bid and they both win ! (the 1st gets one contract and the other gets the 2nd class). Its not really about competition but about stopping the shipyards closing IMO. JSB |
|
| Author: | Colombamike [ February 4th, 2015, 2:14 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: T-AOX US Navy | |
The proposal from Huntington Ingalls is a joke. They can't seriously be thinking of proposing an update of a nearly 30-year old design? I fully agree with your on this "ageing design"a radical newer design, more automated (crew-reduction) & modular is better here the French-DCNS "BRAVE" design ![[ img ]](http://www.nationaldefense.ru/dyn_images/img9550.jpg)
|
||
| Author: | JSB [ February 4th, 2015, 3:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T-AOX US Navy |
Looking a bit deeper is this actually a competition at all ? HI has made all the Amphibs so far NASSCO has made all of the last class of Oilers So is anybody going to compete ? or is this just a fix to cover up a single bid on each ? as Philbob says I would lay very large amounts on the result being fixed already so why pretend it isn't ? |
|
| Author: | Judah14 [ February 4th, 2015, 3:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T-AOX US Navy |
If the USN offers a real competitive bidding, we might see US shipyards offering license-built foreign designs, like the USCG's OPC program. |
|
| Author: | Voyager989 [ February 4th, 2015, 7:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T-AOX US Navy |
It ties into how US shipbuilding works - there are certain very specialized yards left, and the Navy wants to spread the money around to ensure there are two shipyards left the next time a contract comes up to bid. These are the only two who both need and could design the LHA - and for that reason, one gets the oilers, one gets the LHA, so they'll still be in business for the next contract. |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ February 4th, 2015, 7:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: T-AOX US Navy |
with all due respect guys, but phillbob makes a good point: if the USN can keep building it's main frontline combatand on the same hull for 30 years, why would they not do so with a tanker? the differences in the hull are simple, only the environment rules (double hull required for tankers, mostly)(on tankers, double hulls actually are worse for safety). all other modernisations are in superstructure and accomodation layout, engines, (unmanned engine room), computers and possibly the propeller. so, why not start out with an existing, proven hull design and fit an all new superstructure on it? the ship is also build following civilian standards, and apart from the UNREP masts these ships have a lot in common with the tankers that sail around the world as we speak. so, keeping that in mind, no design would be that different from what they have now! crew saving can be done in more ways then designing a new ship....... and on the crew there is, they save a lot because the sailors already know how to handle the ship. while an new design also has it's benefits, we can not (especially not without knowledge of changed requirements etc) condemn a vessel because it looks a lot like the earlier design. EDIT: oh and colombamike, that french design is unrelated to the US competition - it is not a tanker/oiler (it can refuel but it is not purely an tanker, having repair, command, and solid stores replenishment capability equally promoted by DCNS) is too small (the USN requires at least 3 replenishment points per side), is probably built to military standards, looks armed, is thus probably military crewed, and it is designed and built outside the USA when half the point of the procurement is to keep both shipyards capable of both designing and building ships. Modularity also seems wasted on a single purpose ship that is going to be doing one thing its' entire life - the only advantage I can see of the 'Brave' design is the fact that it looks a lot more modern, which in this case has drawbacks for it actually being usable and acceptable to the people making the decisions on which ship to order |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|