22 Billion here, 22 billion there ... the USS Zumwalts are "a failed concept"

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

We just can't help tripping on our own dicks.

https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-largest-destoryer-uss-zumwalt-us-navy-ship-biggest-2022-6

[Captainant 27465]

Not to mention all the Freedom Class LCS hulls that are being prematurely retired due to stress cracking in the hull

https://news.usni.org/2022/03/29/all-freedom-littoral-combat-ships-in-commission-tapped-for-early-disposal

a cool $432,000,000 per hull, with sixteen hulls... Damn near seven billion fuckin wasted.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9308]

"Did the checks cash? Then it's a successful program." /General Dynamics

[TwiceHorn 31283]

"Largest destroyer" always struck me as an oxymoron.

[Underdog 28457]

9 hours ago, Captainant said:

with sixteen hulls...

Whataya get?  Another day older and deeper in debt… 

[aggie08 21434]

Why is this cloak room?

[Macanudo 12928]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

"Largest destroyer" always struck me as an oxymoron.

Kind of like being the smartest Aggie.

[RomaVicta 29794]

The Zumwalt always looked like a step too far in design trying to accommodate a step behind in utility. 

I love the surface navy, but  think we really need to rethink what kind of navy best fits the future. I just read that the Zumwalt's gun system required shells that cost $800K each and provided less punch and accuracy than the slightly more expensive cruise missile.

I don't know what that future navy should look like. Maybe there should be numerous small, fairly cheap platforms for drones. I stumbled upon a Massachusetts Maritime Academy magazine that included an article about a remote control system for seagoing vessels. It's fairly advanced in testing with a small vessel in the Baltic Sea.

I don't think we need to be spending so much money on carrier groups, but that's another discussion.

[TexasEd 8064]

I was a contractor working on Navy communications systems when the LCS and DD21 (Zumwalt class) programs where in the requirements, design and build phases.

There were questions back then about trying to do too much with these platforms.  The LCS in particular was designed like a Swiss army knife with all the attachments you rarely used making it harder to do the things you needed more often.  Bulky Swiss army knives are shitty to use as a knife.

I get the need to retire the older ships but some of the revolutionary work cost more and breaks more than the evolutionary designs.  It just seems like saving the revolutionary work for things like propulsion, communications, radars, missiles, and other attack/defense systems has a higher success rate and ROI than the hull and platform changes.

Is there a reason why the only nuke powered surface ships we have are CVNs?  I know at one time it was because of port restrictions in Japan but is that still an issue?  Putting a proven submarine power plant in a new Cruiser or Destroyer platform seems interesting and could be steam or electrically driven. 

Apparently we have a lack of platforms for long range surface to surface missiles and rely heavily on aircraft based anti-ship missiles while our tier 1 adversaries seem to be going more long range surface to surface anti-ship missiles to negate our aircraft carrier superiority.

The Navy needs to focus on the endurance range, anti ship, and anti-sub missions based on what I understand China is doing.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

"Largest destroyer" always struck me as an oxymoron.

Ask somebody in the Navy why it’s a destroyer instead of a cruiser.  It’s like swapping clip and magazine when talking about guns.  

[atomheartbevo 89449]

2 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Is there a reason why the only nuke powered surface ships we have are CVNs?  I know at one time it was because of port restrictions in Japan but is that still an issue?  Putting a proven submarine power plant in a new Cruiser or Destroyer platform seems interesting and could be steam or electrically driven. 

Budget cuts.  Expensive for their size/roles.  We’ve had nuke cruisers.  Even a nuclear USS Texas through the 1990s

Quote

The ships had relatively short service lives. As with any nuclear-powered ship, they were expensive to operate. The class was just coming up for their mid-life reactor refuelings when the 1994 Defense Authorization Bill was being formulated, which would effect cuts of 38% to the Navy's budget, compared to the 1993 bill. The $300-million-plus cost of each refueling and other upgrades made the class easy targets for decommissioning. Each ship was therefore retired starting with Texas in July 1993 and ending with Arkansas in 1998; all went through the nuclear vessel decommissioning and recycling program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Texas_(CGN-39)