"America will always need a strong navy and DD(X) is transforming the way that Navy will work," Meehan said. "In a world in which land and littoral (shallow water) operations are more likely than standoffs with other navies, the DD(X) recognizes the changing spectrum of threats in the 21st century and is designed accordingly."It's easy to see how the "bringing home the bacon" boys like Sen. Kennedy and Rep, Meehan keep getting elected. Not only do they bring the pork, they do it with Navy beans.
U.S. Rep. John Olver, a senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, declined to comment through a spokeswoman.
Meehan also said the destroyer could "monitor much of (al Qaeda's) activities" throughout the world.
"The DD(X) program could be used in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Middle East," he added. "You're able to use the technology to monitor activities in a large number of countries." Opinions differ on that account.
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense research outfit in Virginia, said production of the destroyer would put the U.S. Navy in a "category by itself." But it would not enhance the nation's ability to track terrorists, he said.
"I cannot imagine how anyone could make such a claim with a straight face," Pike said, adding that the DD(X) "just doesn't have anything to do with that."
"It's for fire support," he said. "It's for when the Marines want to kick down the door in a big way."
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
An editorial that lays out the debate over multi-billion dollar destroyers in a new era here: