The Navy’s $7 Billion Stealth Destroyer Could Be ‘an Unmitigated Disaster’

[Samee Ulhaq]

Ciro Scotti
The Fiscal Times December 22, 2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USS Zumwalt, the stealth destroyer that was supposed to position America to reign over the high seas, is fast becoming a $7 billion bust, according to an extensive take down in the conservative National Review Online.

“The Zumwalt was going to be the United States’ 21st-century, cruiser-sized, super destroyer that would allow us to dominate the world’s oceans and littorals for the next 50 years,” writes Mike Fredenburg.

But, he concludes, “The Zumwalt is an unmitigated disaster. Clearly it is not a good fit as a front-line warship. With its guns neutered, its role as a primary anti-submarine-warfare asset in question, its anti-air-warfare capabilities inferior to those of our current workhorse, the Arleigh Burke–class destroyers, and its stealth not nearly as advantageous as advertised, the Zumwalt seems to be a ship without a mission.”

What’s more, The National Review tags the Zumwalt as yet another example of military weapons systems whose scope and costs have run amok. When the program was first proposed just before the turn of the century, the Navy estimated that building 32 ships would cost about $46 billion. That’s about $65 billion in 2016 dollars.

But as costs grew, the Navy first dialed the number of ships back to 16, then seven and now three. The National Review figures that when some $10 billion in development costs is added in, the true price tag is closer to $7 billion for one ship. And the total cost is expected to rise as upgrades are added before the Zumwalt and the other two stealth destroyers are combat-ready.

The power and promise of the Zumwalt was billed as nothing short of awesome:

• A gun system that can accurately hit targets 70 miles away.
• The ability to launch cruise missiles, surface-to-air missiles and anti-submarine rockets.
• A flight deck on the 610-foot, 15,000-ton ship that can accommodate F-35s and MV-22 Ospreys.

 

[C130]

well at least we only built 3 of them

let's see what we could have built and bought with $22.5 billion dollars

12 Arleigh Brukes
or
8 Virginia Attack subs
or
220ish F-35s
or
1 Gerald R. Ford Carrier and 80% of a second one

but no point in crying over spilled milk.

 

[Indika]

well at least we only built 3 of them

let's see what we could have built and bought with $22.5 billion dollars

12 Arleigh Brukes
or
8 Virginia Attack subs
or
220ish F-35s
or
1 Gerald R. Ford Carrier and 80% of a second one

but no point in crying over spilled milk.

too early to say its a failure. Its just been put to sea to iron out the kinks. Technical endeavors as such take years to get mature but you need to start somewhere.

 

[Desertfalcon]

Pretty much an "overpriced, worthless, unmitigated disaster", has been used to describe every single major weapons system that I can remember, going back to how the F-16 would never amount to anything, the F-15 was too expensive, too heavy, couldn't drop bombs, the M1 Abrams was too big, to complex, etc. It's a reporter thing, they wait on the sidelines with baited breath and when any complex weapon system goes through years of inevitable hiccups, they pounce and declare it to be a disaster. Several years later, everyone will rave about how wonderful it is. Never changes. Never fails.

 

[randomradio]

Pretty much an "overpriced, worthless, unmitigated disaster", has been used to describe every single major weapons system that I can remember, going back to how the F-16 would never amount to anything, the F-15 was too expensive, too heavy, couldn't drop bombs, the M1 Abrams was too big, to complex, etc. It's a reporter thing, they wait on the sidelines with baited breath and when any complex weapon system goes through years of inevitable hiccups, they pounce and declare it to be a disaster. Several years later, everyone will rave about how wonderful it is. Never changes. Never fails.

The end of the Cold War turned these projects into financial disasters. Budgets fell, numbers reduced etc. It made the programs unviable. But they make good headlines.

 

[Samee Ulhaq]

too early to say its a failure. Its just been put to sea to iron out the kinks. Technical endeavors as such take years to get mature but you need to start somewhere.

Now the U.S. Navy is admitting that the LRLAP round is too expensive to actually purchase, leaving the nearly $4 billion dollar destroyer's guns high and dry. Just 3 weeks after commissioning the USS Zumwalt, the U.S. Navy has admitted it is canceling ammunition specially developed for the ship's high-tech gun systems because the rounds are too expensive. The guns, tailor made for the destroyer, will be unable to fire until the Navy chooses a cheaper replacement round.
The LRLAP round costs $800k—or more—each, making the rounds prohibitively expensive. The Navy blames the rise in cost on the fact that the Zumwalt class went from a planned 32 ships to just 3, drastically cutting the number of LRLAP rounds it was going to purchase.
In May report by US Naval Institute News estimated each LRLAP round to cost between $400k to $700k. For context, the smaller Mk. 45 5-inch gun, standard on Navy destroyers and cruisers, fires an unguided round with a range of 21 miles. Each round costs between $1,600 and $2,200.

 

[Penguin]

The ship itself is not the disaster. The handling of the whole project is (including all sorts of political interventions). In various ways, economies of scale are lost, leading to higher unit price, which then lead to cost cutting / false economies via capability reductions.

 

[Hamza913]

well at least we only built 3 of them

let's see what we could have built and bought with $22.5 billion dollars

12 Arleigh Brukes
or
8 Virginia Attack subs
or
220ish F-35s
or
1 Gerald R. Ford Carrier and 80% of a second one

but no point in crying over spilled milk.

I love how you guys are so chill about potentially wasting 22 billion USD. If only we had that big a budget.

 

[C130]

I love how you guys are so chill about potentially wasting 22 billion USD. If only we had that big a budget.

it's not a total waste though. the tech and hard lessons learnt designing and building the Zumwalt can be used to build a better ship in the future.

the U.S just loves to waste money though. wish we were more efficient.

 

[BATMAN]

I love how you guys are so chill about potentially wasting 22 billion USD. If only we had that big a budget.

Only US can print $ legally, so billions are matter of time, which is far quicker than tech. development.

 

[shadows888]

I love how you guys are so chill about potentially wasting 22 billion USD. If only we had that big a budget.

nothing is free for life. someone payed for those. printing more money just means the existing money pool is worth less.

 

[Hamza913]

it's not a total waste though. the tech and hard lessons learnt designing and building the Zumwalt can be used to build a better ship in the future.

the U.S just loves to waste money though. wish we were more efficient.

Well when you have a 600 billion dollar budget you can afford to waste some money.

 

[oprih]

That junk should be stationed in a scrapyard.

 

[The SC]

The ship itself is not the disaster. The handling of the whole project is (including all sorts of political interventions). In various ways, economies of scale are lost, leading to higher unit price, which then lead to cost cutting / false economies via capability reductions.

It has also malfunctioned and stopped working, it had to be towed away!

 

[Penguin]

It has also malfunctioned and stopped working, it had to be towed away!

No? Really? My, that also happened with UKs Type 45s. You think it has something to do with these ships employing new marine propulsion concepts? When you check early adoption of new "advanced" marine propulsion systems, e.g. in the past steam and gas turbines, you also find not everything runs smoothly straight away. Certainly not in comparision to more traditional "mature" propulsion plants you find in warships of this size. And even then e.g. Kuznetsov doesn't travel without a fat ocean tug for permanent company. So that ship class too is a disaster?