Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Navy Christens Newest Virginia-Class Submarine Missouri($72 Mil under budget)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:33 PM
Original message
Navy Christens Newest Virginia-Class Submarine Missouri($72 Mil under budget)
Navy Christens Newest Virginia-Class Submarine Missouri


GROTON, Conn. (NNS) -- With the spray of bubbly from a champagne bottle, PCU Missouri (SSN 780), the Navy's newest Virginia-class attack submarine, was christened during a late morning ceremony at General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, Conn., Dec. 5.

Missouri, the fifth Navy ship to be named in honor of the people of the "Show Me State," is "a link in the honored chain of ships to bear the name; another chapter in the storied history of the Naval service," said Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Ray Mabus.

SECNAV and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates were among the many dignitaries and guests who attended the ceremony.

"We gather for this christening with the knowledge that Missouri's service builds upon a proud lineage of her namesake," said U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, the principal speaker for the event. "We gather in the belief that her service to our country silent as it may be will keep Americans safe by deterring would-be aggressors. We also gather today to confidently set the tone for the character of this submarine, which will sail with one foot in her proud past, but with an eye toward the future and all the potential that it holds."

Becky Gates, wife of the secretary of defense, serves as ship's sponsor. She broke the traditional champagne bottle against the boat's sail. Her initials were welded into a plaque inside the boat during last year's keel laying ceremony.

"I am humbled that in some way, I will go wherever the submarine sails," said Becky Gates. "As this, the latest Missouri, moves on to active duty, my thoughts will always be with the dedicated patriots who sail aboard her, and the loved ones who wait for their safe return."

The christening marks another milestone for the submarine, which is "now 90 percent complete with construction and is on track to finish $72 million under budget and well ahead of scheduled," according to director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Adm. Kirkland H. Donald.

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=50...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor!
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 04:45 PM by arcadian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well Said!
and the principle speaker at the ceremony is one of our Senators trying to be certain that this Health Care thing doesn't get out of hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Reverend Lowery said it at Coretta Scott King's memorial service.
Bush was behind him, about three feet away.

"We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. The Constitution grants congress the power to "Maintain" a Navy.
The older submarines are wearing out, as anything metal exposed to constant fatigue cycling eventually does. We have half as many submarines as we had a decade ago, and are still shrinking down. That said, you have to build new ones or risk sailors lives. How about you tell a mother or wife why their husband died because you didn't want to replace aging hardware.

or Would you prefer we not have a navy at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Hilarious, I knew somebody would be on here in seconds to defend the MIC and the DoD.
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 05:22 PM by arcadian
They are so embattled, don't you know? :rofl: Oh and did I give the impression that I thought somebody defending the MIC on here was hilarious? I meant it's sad and pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. The MIC, no. The Navy in general, Yes
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 05:56 PM by NutmegYankee
I stand proudly here to defend the US Navy. I'll be the first to admit I'm not a defense hater like you. I recognize that we need replacement hardware because I live in something called reality. Let me know if you want to visit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. You don't live in reality if you think we need another aircraft carrier or submarine.
That is nothing but Navy fandom right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Back up your opinion then.
I mentioned how we have cut the force in half and the current class, 688 class, has reached the limits for safe operation and must be retired. So the current ships are being decommissioned and something has to replace them. Or are you just ignorant and not understand the mission of submarines, and hence don't think we need them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Yeah, I know why the MIC says we need subs.
Deterrent. So they can build nukes which sit idly by then go obsolete and then they come out with a whole new weapons system which costs $$$billions$$$ which we absolutely must have because of those pesky Rooskies. Please, it's a farce. It's a con.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Perhaps you confused attack submarines with Ballistic Missile submarines?
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 07:14 PM by NutmegYankee
Attack submarines do not carry nuclear ICBM's. Impress me with your ability to actually look up something before passing judgment on it.

Strike one.


On edit: See post 22 for an overview of the Virginia Class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
25. Amazing how they crawl out from under the rocks
The take is

Those poor people THEY are Lazy

OR

I believe in Jayzeus I am rewarded with riches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. What are you trying to imply?
No where have I made any statement on the poor. I stated that the spending for a new ship was justified in light of the rather unfair attack by the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #27
40. You need to chill out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. I didn't make an angry post.
I just stated that I didn't imply anything against the poor, while you implied that I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. We should have a navy
just one about 1/2 the current size. Yes, hulls and airframes wear out and need to be maintained and or replaced, no doubt, but they don't need to be replaced with the newest "gee wiz" version of whatever the M I C can come up with to sell. They can be replaced with the same design (for which we have already paid the R&D costs). One has to ask, just how will this submarine advance our ultimate goals in our security and can that be done by having more or different units at a lesser cost? In the case of airframes do we really need to build F-35's when the F-16's F-15s and F-18's can still do the job very, very well? I haven't noted our current "enemies" fielding much of an air force or navy?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Read up on the Virginia Class - It was designed to be cheaper.
The Seawolf class was canceled and Virginia class designed to be cheaper and smaller with more functionality as requested by the Navy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
34. It may very well be, yet the question arises
who is this ship designed to battle? I understand we need a well rounded force, but do we need as many? Do we need 10 Carrier Battle Groups?

Just how much material of war do we need to defend the United States?


Must we spend as much if not more than everyone else combined?


The Virginia class may be cheaper than the Seawolf class (which as I recall was wildly over budget), but did we need that class or could have we continued to build LA class boats or a variant class of them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. The 688 Class was out of construction for 20 years.
They were designed for a different mission (killing soviet subs) than the Virginia, which was designed for post cold war missions. There was a lot to improve upon, so the Navy usually designs a new class. Even within a class there are drastic changes, which are typically known as flights or blocks. It was not possible to get the parts for the 688 class in the quantities needed to build new ones. Companies have changed or shuttered, and technology and manufacturing techniques changed as well.

As for the number in service, we are on schedule to reduce the submarine force to less than either Germany or the United States had in service at the start of WWII. Germany had 57 in 1939, the USA had 112 in 1941. They are getting cut deeply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. "Under budget"? How is that humanly possible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Easy
Deliver the ship below the expected cost. You have a planned cost for the ship, and it fell below that cost to build. The Navy has been pounding on shipbuilders to stop the cost creep so common in DOD programs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Gov exec has some good info on cost cutting in government
http://www.govexec.com/management/?oref=topnav

Kind of general, but worth a read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greennina Donating Member (295 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
32. It's Repuke accounting...
that sadly some Repuke supporters here believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. If you budget $100 for groceries and spend only $80, that's called being under budget. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phasma ex machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
42. Rickover's ghost. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. This will do a lot of good in Afghanistan, which is several hundred miles from the coast
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
26. Yes they can use it to find IEDs
LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
28. Most submarines can attack that far inland.
Attack subs can launch conventional cruise missiles that can fly inland and attack a building or compound. As much as I hated the whole war in Iraq and the lies that sold it, Persian Gulf stationed submarines launched a lot of the missiles during the shock and awe phase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. That's a very expensive way to blow up stone huts in Afghanistan
Besides, you could do that from a much cheaper surface transport fitted with cruise missile launchers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Which is why they probably would reserve those for better use.
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 07:39 PM by NutmegYankee
But the capability exists... It gives the commander on the ground a capability he could choose if needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
11. Under budget?
Good for the navy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. I'd be a little apprehensive sailing in a sumbarine built for $72 M
under budget...wonder what they left out.....


mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. "under budget...wonder what they left out....."
the screen doors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
13. Remember when naval vessels named after states were battleships?
http://www.ussmissouri.com /




I am rather shocked that a $72 million sub has been given the same name as The USS Missouri
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I wish it was $72 million.
It 72 Millions dollars below a budgeted cost of 2 Billion dollars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
20. Publicity Ploy to placate Mizzou so they don't crush Navy in the bowl game.
Go Tigers. Roar!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
22. illustration:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
24. Becky's Eagle Scout husband helped steal the election in 1980 from Carter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
29. I thought the USS Missouri battleship was still part of the inactive reserve
I guess not, if they're naming this new vessel with the same name. Fair winds and following seas!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #29
39. She was struck from the Navy List of Ships
in January 1995.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
35. Nutmeg Yankee....
Since I was a Marine, I call you "squid" with all due respect.

I don't want to get into the discussion of whether we need them or not, I just have a question.

What is the current mission of the boomers? I see those fucking things go by my place out of Bangor Sub Base in Washington all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. I think it's the same mission as always.
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 08:53 PM by NutmegYankee
Four of them got converted to conventional missile (cruise missile) submarines (SSGN Class).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. From Boomer to Sneaky Pete... but...
that's only 4. That leaves 10 as boomers. That's 240 Trident missiles.. MIRVed.

My question still stands... what's their mission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 18th 2017, 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC