Navy's newest destroyer named after Medal of Honor recipient and former Navy SEAL

[TU Curmudgeon]

From ABC News

Navy's newest destroyer named after Medal of Honor recipient and former Navy SEAL
​

The Navy will commission its newest destroyer on Saturday, named in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor.

The Navy SEAL was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor by President George W. Bush in 2008 for his actions in Ramadi, Iraq on Sept. 29, 2006.

The USS Michael Monsoor, the Navy's second Zumwalt-class destroyer, will be commissioned at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego, where the ship will be based. With its distinct angular shape designed to give it stealth capabilities at sea, the Zumwalt-class is the Navy's most technologically advanced and expensive destroyer ever built.

COMMENT:-

Now that doesn't sound like it's a very big thing, does it?

Unfortunately ABC News (and the rest of the American media) sort of forgot to include one or two minor details.

What are they?

US Navy’s stealthy new ‘ship killer’ Michael Monsoor has nothing to shoot from its hi-tech guns
​

Oops!
​

​

 

[Dutch]

Ooops would be right. The had originally planned 32 of these things.

The huge cost overruns and the fact the have decided they don't really need them for their original missions mean they quit at two.

 

[PeteEU]

This the ship that broke down several times and had to be towed to port because ****ty engines?

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Ooops would be right. The had originally planned 32 of these things.

The huge cost overruns and the fact the have decided they don't really need them for their original missions mean they quit at two.

Adjusted for inflation, the Graf Spee (10' longer and 10' narrower than the DD-1000 class "destroyers") cost approximately 1/6th as much as a DD-1000 class "destroyer". It also had a much greater range (and, with a slightly modified hull, higher top speed) as well as being able to deliver a higher throw weight of ordnance on target than the DD-1000 class "destroyers".

Besides, if you were in the Navy, would you prefer to serve on a ship that actually looks like a "lean, mean' fightin' machine" or serve on a ship that looked like a scaled up version of the CNS Virginia?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This the ship that broke down several times and had to be towed to port because ****ty engines?

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

Not a thing wrong with those engines, they met government specs. The problem was "operator error" (at least that's what the company's lawyers say).

 

[dcsports]

From ABC News

Navy's newest destroyer named after Medal of Honor recipient and former Navy SEAL
​

The Navy will commission its newest destroyer on Saturday, named in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor.

The Navy SEAL was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor by President George W. Bush in 2008 for his actions in Ramadi, Iraq on Sept. 29, 2006.

The USS Michael Monsoor, the Navy's second Zumwalt-class destroyer, will be commissioned at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego, where the ship will be based. With its distinct angular shape designed to give it stealth capabilities at sea, the Zumwalt-class is the Navy's most technologically advanced and expensive destroyer ever built.

COMMENT:-

Now that doesn't sound like it's a very big thing, does it?

Unfortunately ABC News (and the rest of the American media) sort of forgot to include one or two minor details.

What are they?

US Navy’s stealthy new ‘ship killer’ Michael Monsoor has nothing to shoot from its hi-tech guns
​

Oops!
​

​

That's crazy! Why would they plan an entire class of ships around a gun that essentially doesn't work?

 

[Xelor]

From ABC News

Navy's newest destroyer named after Medal of Honor recipient and former Navy SEAL
​

The Navy will commission its newest destroyer on Saturday, named in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor.

The Navy SEAL was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor by President George W. Bush in 2008 for his actions in Ramadi, Iraq on Sept. 29, 2006.

The USS Michael Monsoor, the Navy's second Zumwalt-class destroyer, will be commissioned at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego, where the ship will be based. With its distinct angular shape designed to give it stealth capabilities at sea, the Zumwalt-class is the Navy's most technologically advanced and expensive destroyer ever built.

COMMENT:-

Now that doesn't sound like it's a very big thing, does it?

Unfortunately ABC News (and the rest of the American media) sort of forgot to include one or two minor details.

What are they?

US Navy’s stealthy new ‘ship killer’ Michael Monsoor has nothing to shoot from its hi-tech guns
​

Oops!
​

​

Red:
I read both articles link-to in the OP. For the life of me, I see neither gravitas nor contextual germanity in the OP-er's "red" remarks. I don't because:

1. The ABC story is about the man for whom the ship is named, about the honor accorded to him, not about the ship. The destroyer itself is incidental to the story. ABC's story wouldn't be materially different had the Navy named a building, instead of a boat, after the fallen sailor. Because the subject of ABC's article is Michael Monsoor, not the USS Michael Monsoor, that there is a shortage of munitions with which to arm the boat's "guns" is irrelevant to the story of Michael Monsoor.
2. Although it appears there is a paucity of munitions for Zumwalt-class destroyers, of which the USS Michael Monsoor is one, the article you referenced, "US Navy’s stealthy new ‘ship killer’ Michael Monsoor has nothing to shoot from its hi-tech guns," states clearly:
   • With the reduced number of ships in the class, the cost of the gun system’s rocket-guided shells also jumped to at least US$800,000 apiece, which analysts said contributed to the change in the destroyers’ mission.
     
     The US Navy chose to cancel purchase of those munitions, and new ammo for the guns has yet to be determined, though the service is “actively looking” for other rounds, Captain Scott Smith, commanding officer of the Monsoor, said.

Accordingly, (1) the loss of the originally aimed-for economy of scale that would have made the shells cost-effective, and (2) having, therefore, nothing to shoot, is a temporary status. There'd be "something to talk about" were the Navy to send the boat into battle with no weapons, but that's hardly the case.

In the meantime, what would you, OP-er, have ABC and the Navy do?​

• 
  [*=1]Navy --> Not name the boat after the fallen SEAL on account of there being a currently unresolved weaponry issue? Defer naming the ship after the man until it has resolved the munitions matter? Not commission (or defer doing so) the ship even though it's completed its sea trials, performed sail-away and has been accepted from the supplier who built it?
  [*=1]ABC --> On account of there being a currently unresolved weaponry issue, not report that the Navy named a Zumwalt-class destroyer after a SEAL who as posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor?

 

[HK.227]

That's crazy! Why would they plan an entire class of ships around a gun that essentially doesn't work?

Originally, they were planing to name them after Steven Segal. Made perfect sense back then.

 

[marke]

From ABC News

US Navy’s stealthy new ‘ship killer’ Michael Monsoor has nothing to shoot from its hi-tech guns
​

Oops!
[/INDENT]

​

Oops is right. This is more evidence of problems caused by big government projects with poor planning. Very expensive. Will no doubt force higher taxes on Joe the Plumber trying to pay his rent and car payment while feeding his three kids on whatever is left. I wish politicians were more sympathetic for those young families bearing the brunt of political extravagance and wasteful government spending.

Speaking of boondoggles, I am reminded of the unbending legal requirements placed on oil refineries to include certain kinds of biofuel additives in their refined products by 2010. The problem with all that feel good legislation was that the proposed product was not even in initial production by 2010. That did not stop the Obama administration from suing and fining the refineries for failing to meet the aggressive leftist liberal regulatory standards.

Companies Face Fines For Not Using Unavailable Biofuel NY Times, Jan 9, 2012

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/...-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html
https://

 

[PeteEU]

Oops is right. This is more evidence of problems caused by big government projects with poor planning. Very expensive.

Don't blame government as a whole...blame the senators that forced through stuff like this despite the military not wanting the material. Why? Jobs in their home states.

When politicians have that much power and go against recommendations, then they should be exposed and impeached unless they can explain why.



Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

 

[marke]

Don't blame government as a whole...blame the senators that forced through stuff like this despite the military not wanting the material. Why? Jobs in their home states.

When politicians have that much power and go against recommendations, then they should be exposed and impeached unless they can explain why.



Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

I suspect that all lawmakers who have been in the business very long have contributed to some plans which have been unwise.

 

[RetiredUSN]

From ABC News

Navy's newest destroyer named after Medal of Honor recipient and former Navy SEAL
​

The Navy will commission its newest destroyer on Saturday, named in honor of Medal of Honor recipient Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor.

The Navy SEAL was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor by President George W. Bush in 2008 for his actions in Ramadi, Iraq on Sept. 29, 2006.

The USS Michael Monsoor, the Navy's second Zumwalt-class destroyer, will be commissioned at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego, where the ship will be based. With its distinct angular shape designed to give it stealth capabilities at sea, the Zumwalt-class is the Navy's most technologically advanced and expensive destroyer ever built.

COMMENT:-

Now that doesn't sound like it's a very big thing, does it?

Unfortunately ABC News (and the rest of the American media) sort of forgot to include one or two minor details.

What are they?

US Navy’s stealthy new ‘ship killer’ Michael Monsoor has nothing to shoot from its hi-tech guns
​

Oops!
​

​

Thank god wasn't named after another Gabby Giffords............ who did nothing to deserve her name on a US Navy vessel.

 

[Hicup]

Adjusted for inflation, the Graf Spee (10' longer and 10' narrower than the DD-1000 class "destroyers") cost approximately 1/6th as much as a DD-1000 class "destroyer". It also had a much greater range (and, with a slightly modified hull, higher top speed) as well as being able to deliver a higher throw weight of ordnance on target than the DD-1000 class "destroyers".

Besides, if you were in the Navy, would you prefer to serve on a ship that actually looks like a "lean, mean' fightin' machine" or serve on a ship that looked like a scaled up version of the CNS Virginia?

The Spee was a cruiser, just sayin..


Tim-

 

[PeteEU]

You know...dunno what is worse this or building an aircraft carrier that has no planes... [emoji848]

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

 

[Dutch]

Adjusted for inflation, the Graf Spee (10' longer and 10' narrower than the DD-1000 class "destroyers") cost approximately 1/6th as much as a DD-1000 class "destroyer". It also had a much greater range (and, with a slightly modified hull, higher top speed) as well as being able to deliver a higher throw weight of ordnance on target than the DD-1000 class "destroyers".

Besides, if you were in the Navy, would you prefer to serve on a ship that actually looks like a "lean, mean' fightin' machine" or serve on a ship that looked like a scaled up version of the CNS Virginia?

I was in the navy. Given a choice I want one that’ll get me back home.

 

[Fledermaus]

The Spee was a cruiser, just sayin..


Tim-

In German an Armored ship. It carried 11" guns when 8" guns were the largest allowed on a cruiser.

Too big for a cruiser, not enough punch to fight real battleships.

It went after the weak.

 

[Fledermaus]

I was in the navy. Given a choice I want one that’ll get me back home.

Not like the USS Belleau Woods?

AKA USS Balsa Wood....

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Red:
I read both articles link-to in the OP. For the life of me, I see neither gravitas nor contextual germanity in the OP-er's "red" remarks. I don't ...

If you can't see something that connects "the launching of a ship" with "the launching of a ship with guns that don't work" then I don't think that I'm going to be able to help you out.

Naming a ship after someone is a great honour for that person.

Naming a ship that can't do what it was designed to do after someone is somewhat less of an honour.

While I appreciate the Navy's thoughts, I have some qualms about the Navy's "execution of commander's intent".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oops is right. This is more evidence of problems caused by big government projects with poor planning. Very expensive. Will no doubt force higher taxes on Joe the Plumber trying to pay his rent and car payment while feeding his three kids on whatever is left. I wish politicians were more sympathetic for those young families bearing the brunt of political extravagance and wasteful government spending.

Speaking of boondoggles, I am reminded of the unbending legal requirements placed on oil refineries to include certain kinds of biofuel additives in their refined products by 2010. The problem with all that feel good legislation was that the proposed product was not even in initial production by 2010. That did not stop the Obama administration from suing and fining the refineries for failing to meet the aggressive leftist liberal regulatory standards.

Companies Face Fines For Not Using Unavailable Biofuel NY Times, Jan 9, 2012

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/...-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html
https://

What you have to remember is one of the absolutely iron clad rules of government planning, and that is

Once you have spent enough time and money on plans and studies for a project that a sufficient number of people have significant 'career points' at stake in, the project MUST be completed because otherwise all that time and money will have been wasted and some careers will be harmed if the project is not completed.

Corollary - If the damn thing doesn't pan out, it is essential that no one discover what a flop it is until the people who had significant 'career points' at stake in the project have moved up a minimum of two ranks on the 'career progression' ladder.
​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Spee was a cruiser, just sayin..


Tim-

With 11" guns that actually had shells that worked.

 

[Xelor]

If you can't see something that connects "the launching of a ship" with "the launching of a ship with guns that don't work" then I don't think that I'm going to be able to help you out.

Naming a ship after someone is a great honour for that person.

Naming a ship that can't do what it was designed to do after someone is somewhat less of an honour.

While I appreciate the Navy's thoughts, I have some qualms about the Navy's "execution of commander's intent".

Red:
I can see correlates between those two things....but your rubric article and thread title is about the honoring of a fallen sailor, not the ship itself. I made that very clear, though you chose to delete those remarks when you replied to my post.

Red:
I read both articles link-to in the OP. For the life of me, I see neither gravitas nor contextual germanity in the OP-er's "red" remarks. I don't because:

1. The ABC story is about the man for whom the ship is named, about the honor accorded to him, not about the ship. The destroyer itself is incidental to the story. ABC's story wouldn't be materially different had the Navy named a building, instead of a boat, after the fallen sailor. Because the subject of ABC's article is Michael Monsoor, not the USS Michael Monsoor, that there is a shortage of munitions with which to arm the boat's "guns" is irrelevant to the story of Michael Monsoor.
2. Although it appears there is a paucity of munitions for Zumwalt-class destroyers, of which the USS Michael Monsoor is one, the article you referenced, "US Navy’s stealthy new ‘ship killer’ Michael Monsoor has nothing to shoot from its hi-tech guns," states clearly:
   • With the reduced number of ships in the class, the cost of the gun system’s rocket-guided shells also jumped to at least US$800,000 apiece, which analysts said contributed to the change in the destroyers’ mission.
     
     The US Navy chose to cancel purchase of those munitions, and new ammo for the guns has yet to be determined, though the service is “actively looking” for other rounds, Captain Scott Smith, commanding officer of the Monsoor, said.

Accordingly, (1) the loss of the originally aimed-for economy of scale that would have made the shells cost-effective, and (2) having, therefore, nothing to shoot, is a temporary status. There'd be "something to talk about" were the Navy to send the boat into battle with no weapons, but that's hardly the case.

In the meantime, what would you, OP-er, have ABC and the Navy do?​

• 
  [*=1]Navy --> Not name the boat after the fallen SEAL on account of there being a currently unresolved weaponry issue? Defer naming the ship after the man until it has resolved the munitions matter? Not commission (or defer doing so) the ship even though it's completed its sea trials, performed sail-away and has been accepted from the supplier who built it?
  [*=1]ABC --> On account of there being a currently unresolved weaponry issue, not report that the Navy named a Zumwalt-class destroyer after a SEAL who as posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Red:
I can see correlates between those two things....but your rubric article and thread title is about the honoring of a fallen sailor, not the ship itself. I made that very clear, though you chose to delete those remarks when you replied to my post.

​

In the meantime, what would you, OP-er, have ABC and the Navy do?

Navy --> Not name the boat after the fallen SEAL on account of there being a currently unresolved weaponry issue? Defer naming the ship after the man until it has resolved the munitions matter? Not commission (or defer doing so) the ship even though it's completed its sea trials, performed sail-away and has been accepted from the supplier who built it?
ABC --> On account of there being a currently unresolved weaponry issue, not report that the Navy named a Zumwalt-class destroyer after a SEAL who as posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor?
​

NAVY--> Don't commission a ship that you know doesn't work (and, even better, don't build one that you know won't work).

ABC--> Include full details in articles.

Are you OK with that?