- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,358
- Reaction score
- 82,750
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
3.22.22
The Navy plans to replace the giant guns on three futuristic San Diego-based warships with launchers for new hypersonic missiles. The USS Zumwalt and USS Michael Monsoor are already in San Diego, and the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson will be based here as well. According to the nonprofit United States Naval Institute, plans are to remove the two 155mm guns from each destroyer and replace them with missile tubes for the Common Hypersonic Glide Body being developed for the Army, Air Force and the Navy. Few details have been released, but the hypersonic missiles are expected to fly at 17 times the speed of sound to attack targets nearly 2,000 miles away. Unlike ballistic missiles, they will be maneuverable in flight to avoid anti-missile systems.
San Diego-based General Atomics is one of the defense contractors working on the hypersonic program. Russia and China claim to already have working hypersonic missiles, although U.S. officials say the ones reportedly used against Ukraine were actually traditional ballistic missiles launched from aircraft. The Zumwalt will be the first destroyer converted to launching hypersonic missiles, with work completed by 2025. Though called destroyers, the three ships in the class are about the size of small World War II battleships. They are designed to focus on land-attack missions while evading detection through stealth technology.
Navy to Retrofit 3 New San Diego-Based Warships to Launch Hypersonic Missiles
Bravo. These should eventually replace all of our Tomahawk missiles.
How was the failure Lockheeds? And wasn't the "failure" more a matter of not making the ammo affordable?They should force Lockheed to pay for it after the company failed to deliver ammo for the guns on those ships.
How was the failure Lockheeds? And wasn't the "failure" more a matter of not making the ammo affordable?
Did they give reasons?Indeed. The promised the Navy (aka the taxpayers) they would deliver functioning ammo at a specific price, then when the Navy was locked in to building guns that could only use that ammo, they jacked up the price by more than 50 times.
Did they give reasons?
Most contracts are not as binding as you think they are.Does it matter? They couldn't deliver on their contract.
Most contracts are not as binding as you think they are.
I studied it in college.Tell me of your expertise in contract law.
and the U.S. Navy said they were going to build a lot more than THREE Zumwalt class destroyers. When the U.S. Navy cut the Zumwalt class program to only three ships it radically jacked up the unit prices of the ammunition being ordered for their guns.Indeed. The promised the Navy (aka the taxpayers) they would deliver functioning ammo at a specific price, then when the Navy was locked in to building guns that could only use that ammo, they jacked up the price by more than 50 times.
I never got a teaching degree. I got a business administration degree which required so many hours of Business Law.To get a teaching degree?
Fascinating.
and the U.S. Navy said they were going to build a lot more than THREE Zumwalt class destroyers. When the U.S. Navy cut the Zumwalt class program to only three ships it radically jacked up the unit prices of the ammunition being ordered for their guns.
Lockheed isn't responsible for the idiosyncrasies of U.S. naval procurement.
Left-libertarians should seize the means of weapons of mass destruction production.
I didn't say 155 mm shells, straw left-libertarian. I took your most excellent idea further "left-libertarian."
Why? Given the Zumwalt class was canceled after only three ships built I doubt the Navy was that interested in having them or their six total guns and ammunition.The production line should have been seized and produced by the government at unit cost with zero markup going to corporate profits.
Why? Given the Zumwalt class was canceled after only three ships built I doubt the Navy was that interested in having them or their six total guns and ammunition.
That was our government's choice. Not Lockheed Martins.Because now they have six guns that can't even fire that we spent billions of dollars on.
That was our government's choice. Not Lockheed Martins.
Ah so you aren't talking about the topic I was. You're just trolling.
Easily fixed.
No more contracts for Lockheed Martin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?