USS Zumwalt - Are they worth it?

a1ex2001 said:
The real irony is the stupidly expensive armament was designed because the US Navy has a requirement to supply Naval Gunfire Support to troops operating significant distances ashore. This role was fulfilled by the Iowa class battleships of second world war vintage right up to the first gulf war, they had the one thing you can't do without if you want a conventional gun to fire heavy projectiles long distances ie size. The US navy decided to decommission all the Iowa class battleships and transfer gunfire support to these smaller ships but they needed some very fancy guns and shells to give them the ability to deliver the weight of fire at the correct range add in the stealth requirements and you have a ship so expensive even America can't afford it!

Would have been much much cheaper to keep a couple of Iowa's in active reserve for time of need!
Click to expand...

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/trump-s-crazy-idea-to-bring-back-battleships-might-actu-1731114811

The problem is the physical running cost of the old ship. They have had many plans to convert the battleships. But never came to anything.

I wonder though sometimes if its using a hammer to crack an egg. How often is a shore bombardment that useful that justifies the cost. Even in WWII shore bombardment wasn't really that useful. It was available so it was used. Could the same outcome be achieved some other way. Perhaps.
 
While I'm all for pushing the technology. Making less more complex and expensive units, rather than than more units of something simpler and cheaper. May prove to a an expensive mistake.
 
look at the germans v russians in WW2, germans had better technology, however the russians mass prodced inferior kit that won the day
 
HEADRAT said:
Who needs a missile, crazies and a dingy will do the trick, just look at USS Cole bombing
Click to expand...

That ship was in port. ;)

Zumwalt should be able to put up a good damn fight in a proper engagement.

Moses said:
Or one fairly expensive carrier killer, like the Chinese probably have.
Click to expand...

Russia just tested a new missile the other day, the Hypersonic "Project 4202" which is scary as hell.


HEADRAT said:
Because Europe shares a land border with the USA's greatest enemy, Russia, therefore it's in the USA best interest to protect Europe.
Click to expand...

Russia is not the enemy, Putin is not the enemy, I know you believe everything the media tells you they are the bad guys, but they just no different then anyone else.
 
The tech is GPS guided, propelled munitions.. so it's more like a missile fired from a gun.. Although the idea is to provide a accurate capability without needing the expense of a cruise.. lol. So they will simply look at blocking LM's involvement in other programmes until they decide to reduce the cost..

The difference is speed - the round probably is faster than a cruise so more effective as you can shoot down cruise missiles (they're like a slow sub-sonic fighter).

Cheaper than a cruise missile and cheaper than an aircraft carrier + complement..

However ships are going to be obsolete for fighting on the horizon by developments of railguns, so this means you can shell targets without being close ~20mile proximity.

Just read this bit - pretty much says it all..
But as the cost ballooned, the program shrunk from 24 ships to seven and, ultimately, the current plan of three ships. Of these, the USS Zumwalt is the only completed ship.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MikeB said:
look at the germans v russians in WW2, germans had better technology, however the russians mass prodced inferior kit that won the day
Click to expand...

That not strictly true. Often the German equipment was fragile, with a high failure or high accident rate. As the war progressed arguably the Russians had very good equipment, more robust and better suited to the battle.

But in general the point is still valid. No matter how good something is, if you don't have enough numbers, they can't be everywhere it has to be. Also a single unit failure has a much higher % loss of capability, then if that loss was spread over move units.
 
Quantity has a Quality all of it's own.

One ship (or plane or tank etc) can only be in one place at any one time so if you simply make more "objects" than a potential foe then you gain the ability to out manoeuvre him in the battlespace, which is why pouring extreme amount of money into an extremely small number of "Amazing Objects" is a bad idea. It's better to have a lot more "Very Good Objects" instead.

Luckily the US can do both right now but the replacement for the Burke/Ticonderoga classes might be a problem (high cost low numbers is my guess).
 
Guys, the gun & ammo on this ship isn't something spectacular.

Given the cost, is normal*, and the US is renown the last few years for some ludicrous spending on weapons that are at best adequate, if not mediocre.

Their new frigates, are back on the docks, because they got hacked by China on their first trips to Pacific.
While F35 has become a joke. Almost close to $2tn cost, 20 years old design and
a) it cannot dogfight a F16 Block 30 (from the early 80s)
b) cannot fly with bad weather
c) prone to hacking
d) is not that stealthy (AESA radars from other planes can pick it up). and if tried to fire it's weapons by opening the bay, is visible by everyone and it's dog.
e) is blind if not flying many in number, because their radars have narrow angle, to keep it stealthy.
f) Requires a huge amount of logistic support in terms of satellite support and maintenance.
g) By the time is operational around 2020-2022 going to be 25 years old project!!!
Usually up to now, the planes had a circle of 2-3 years from drawing board to full service.
and the list goes on....


*The PzH 2000 ammunitions are dirty cheap, and still they can achieve half that distance with great accuracy, while the SMArt 155 shell, is something spectacular.
 
Last edited:
Seeing as they're near 20 Trillion in debt where is all this money coming from for all these promises he's making? New roads, new highways, defense budget doubled, etc. Probably gonna be closer to 30 Trillion in the hole by the time he's finished.
 
OspreyO said:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/trump-s-crazy-idea-to-bring-back-battleships-might-actu-1731114811

The problem is the physical running cost of the old ship. They have had many plans to convert the battleships. But never came to anything.

I wonder though sometimes if its using a hammer to crack an egg. How often is a shore bombardment that useful that justifies the cost. Even in WWII shore bombardment wasn't really that useful. It was available so it was used. Could the same outcome be achieved some other way. Perhaps.
Click to expand...

A modern Battleship might not be as expensive as you might think.

While, I agree, the occasions where one might use such a ship are rather limited. I would love to see a policy that might allow justification for the construction of just a few simply because big gun Battleships are just so damned cool! :cool: :D

Heavy Armour is not necessary any more (Because almost any anti ship munitions can penetrate it nowadays, speed agility and avoiding getting hit are the name of the game today)

I envisage a super Battle Cruiser. A Battle Destroyer perhaps, A powerful fast and agile but lightly built ship sporting large guns (Subject to the weight necessary to carry such guns)

She would not operate alone but under the protection of a carrier fleet.

Her mission would be to

a) Look Good!
b) Rain death on targets up to 30 miles (Or more) inland for which one might otherwise have to use missiles or risk an air attack for.

Next question, how big a gun can a big ship gun be in practice?

24"?? ;) :cool:
 
Ah so this is what the DDG1000 turned into. I was working on the MT30 RR Gas turbines back in 2009. Good to see a pair end up in these, same as the UK QE CVFs. Shame not so many made as a good amount of UK engineering in them.
 
Orionaut said:
A Battle Destroyer perhaps, A powerful fast and agile but lightly built ship sporting large guns (Subject to the weight necessary to carry such guns)

She would not operate alone but under the protection of a carrier fleet.

Her mission would be to

a) Look Good!
b) Rain death on targets up to 30 miles (Or more) inland for which one might otherwise have to use missiles or risk an air attack for.

Next question, how big a gun can a big ship gun be in practice?

24"?? ;) :cool:
Click to expand...

Sadly the weight of "big guns" is huge, 3000 tons per turret for the 18in Yamato! So the size of the ship also has to be very large to cope so no "super DD's".


However you could look back to the "Monitors" of the very early 1900's to mid 1940's where a single 1-2 gun turret (upto 18in gun) was fitted to a very small ship which couldn't move much and did so very slowly too.

HMS_Erebus_I02.jpg
 
Panos said:
While F35 has become a joke. Almost close to $2tn cost, 20 years old design and
a) it cannot dogfight a F16 Block 30 (from the early 80s)
b) cannot fly with bad weather
c) prone to hacking
d) is not that stealthy (AESA radars from other planes can pick it up). and if tried to fire it's weapons by opening the bay, is visible by everyone and it's dog.
e) is blind if not flying many in number, because their radars have narrow angle, to keep it stealthy.
f) Requires a huge amount of logistic support in terms of satellite support and maintenance.
g) By the time is operational around 2020-2022 going to be 25 years old project!!!
Usually up to now, the planes had a circle of 2-3 years from drawing board to full service.
and the list goes on....
Click to expand...

a)The F35 was never designed to be a dog fighter. It would shoot down an F16 before the opposing pilot even knew he was being engaged.

b)False - Climatic testing has cleared it for all weather flight

c) Software block 4 improves security

d) This is completely untrue

e) Also untrue. The JSF has the greatest battlefield awareness of any aircraft ever. Radar is only one instrument in it's arsenal (Sat Comms/Cameras/Lasers/More)

f) This is true. See point e.

g) Project was kicked off 20 years ago. But the technology is not this old. New designs are still being developed today. USMC declared IOC (Initial operational capability) back in 2015. RAF IOC is 2018. Your dates are complete fabrication.

I don't know what planet you live on, but no combat fighter has EVER gone from "drawing board" to FFR (first flight release) in 3 years. Let alone full operation.

Given the technology, increased safety regulations, type certification requirements and everything else, the length of the programme is not surprising.
 
Last edited:
Id argue that something so big and complicated is bound to have teething issues, the probability must be very high

but yeah, usually best if you can hide that from the world when it does happen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom