12 ms·

The absurdity of this is not explained very well in the article because of a lack of context. The Zumwalt is not meant to be an "anti-air" ship, it was meant t

The absurdity of this is not explained very well in the article because of a lack of context. The Zumwalt is not meant to be an "anti-air" ship, it was meant to be a replacement for battleships in the role of shelling land targets from sea. One of the reasons why it is meant to be stealthy is so that it can go close to the shore. The program has been cut down because of problems, though not with the guns. Except that now there are much fewer ships and the rounds will be so expensive the navy won't buy them. They can use old rounds but they won't work better then the cheaper old rounds on the cheaper old ships using cheaper guns. And the point of the ship is .. what? If you are a US taxpayer you should weep.

grzm 10y ago
The Advanced Gun System/LRLAP have an effective range of over 80 nautical miles.[0][1] "Close to shore" is relative. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Land_Attack_Projectile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Land_Attack_Project...
- imglorp 10y ago
  The old heavy battleships would deliver 800lb shells 25 miles, using analog targeting and stabilizing computers. That was already way over the horizon. 80nm can get lots done.
  - AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
    Actually, a 1900 to 2700 lbs. shell (depending on type).
    - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
      Yeah, I once heard the weight of the shells compared to "Volkswagens". Which isn't far from the truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
Zumwalt's more of a technology demonstrator. And note, that they do plan to fit rail guns to the Zumwalt class later on, which is possible thanks to their increased electrical capacity. They're not useless.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  They're useless and expensive, and utterly unproven in anything like combat. All of this, for what? Our next adventure in the Middle East against an adversary armed with Russian surplus from the 80's? To stay ahead of the arms we sell to other countries, or the fantasy that a major war between superpowers would be conventional, rather than proxy or nuclear?
  - GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
    You know why we're doing it. We need to deter a resurgent Russia and China. People like you thought that nukes made conventional militaries obsolete in the 50's. That was wrong then and it's wrong now. In order to maintain control of the seas and skies, we need to maintain our edge in aviation and in naval technology.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      "People like me"... always a non-starter; it tells me that you're arguing with a model of who I am in your head, that probably has more to do with the people you argued with in the past than anything to do with me. I don't think nukes end conventional militaries, but I think they end conventional conflicts between nuclear armed nations. That's why we're fighting Russia in a proxy war in Syria, and not with tanks in the Ukraine. As for China, how many times could our navy and air force obliterate them as it stands? Besides, they're just taking a page from our book, letting us front the R&D, then... stealing the designs. Much cheaper, much smarter.
      - johncolanduoni 10y ago
        "People like you" isn't a non-starter if they just mean "people who think nukes end the need for competitive conventional capabilities", and the justification for such a model can be gathered entirely in this thread.
M_Grey 10y ago
>And the point of the ship is .. what? To funnel money into select pockets, in the name of "national security", to make politicians and some of their constituents happy, and to maintain the fiction that we require this ever-evolving arsenal in the face of threats which are decades behind us. All while ignoring that China, Russia, and whoever else we fantasize about large-scale conflict with, have nuclear weapons just like us. It's nonsense, but there is so much money to be made from nonsense... just ask any successful religion.
- eevilspock 10y ago
  But let's be fair. Can't the same be said of the startup tech industry? Tell me it doesn't exist to funnel money into select pockets? Why is it that Larry Page is a mega-billionaire, but people like Tim Berners-Lee or Linus Torvalds make so little? Furthmore, can't the same be said about the ad industry that effectively bankrolls the internet because everyone wants to get rich building something that people won't actually buy directly but whose money they can get at through a back door into their pocket (because all ad money is baked into something else the consumer buys)?
  - thatswrong0 10y ago
    One type of funnel is voluntary, the other is not. Not only that, but one type of funnel breaks windows, the other could be argued that it creates them. Of course, it can be said that there is value created by having a strong military in that it protects our nations ability to innovate and create value.
ryandrake 10y ago
Only the US would use a $10B aircraft carrier to launch a $100M aircraft to drop a $100K bomb on a kid hiding in a hole with a $100 AK-47.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  it would be a big freaking deal if any other country started doing it like when that guy simultaneously attacked the world power of Britain despite being under sanctions
- drblast 10y ago
  Don't forget the in-air refueling cost that's there to save the Navy the embarrassment of taking off and landing anywhere near where the Air Force does.
  - JoBrad 10y ago
    Duplication of function is a good thing, militarily. You wouldn't want the Navy to be unable to fly because the Air Force had an issue or was unable to immediately respond.
    - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
      When your life depends on it, you never want to count on another branch of the service. Or you wind up asking for help from a douche like US Army General McChrystal. Who won't give it to you. Here's one person's comments on how the general fucked over some Marines and Navy: they left our men to perish without fire support because of your rules of engagement I don’t retreat one iota from what I said there. McChrystal, with his ROE, is a murderer The request for help went all the way to General McChrystal, but he wouldn't give it to them. Asked again, he refused again. http://www.captainsjournal.com/category/general-mcchrystal/ http://www.captainsjournal.com/category/general-mcchrystal/ http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/02/17/reprimands-in-marine-deaths-in-ganjgal-engagement/ http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/02/17/reprimands-in-mari...
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
crdb 10y ago
> And the point of the ship is .. what? If you are a US taxpayer you should weep. Same as any prototype or sufficiently advanced aircraft like the F-117, pave the way for future generations like the Beast of Kandahar, demonstrate or invalidate a series of bold ideas. In particular, the number of innovations crammed in the Zumwalt makes it relatively cost-effective from a "things we had to try" point of view: new low RCS hull, new composite bridge, new launch system (VLS), new centralised control systems (TSCE). All of this stuff can now be iterated upon and integrated in newer ships. That the new gun system has "failed" in practice is itself a lesson probably worth the dollars spent on it. Not to mention: look up the name of its first captain [1]. There's few institutions that can do R&D with a multi-decade horizon and the armed forces are one of them. Is there waste in the process, sure, the ghost of Admiral Rickover must be turning in his grave, but it is not totally wasted, unlike a certain aircraft that is somehow manufactured in a full 45 states (have the remaining ones managed to get a piece yet, I haven't followed). [1] http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg1000/Pages/bio1.aspx http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg1000/Pages/bio1.aspx - shame the USS Enterprise was inactivated in 2012.
- jamescway 10y ago
  CAPTAIN James T. Kirk......just kidding James A. Kirk.
  - crdb 10y ago
    CVN-80 is going into service in 2025... just saying.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      maybe, the Ford class is having a lot of teething pains.
  - tbirdz 10y ago
    Or James R. Kirk, depending on the episode: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KLPqJ.jpg http://i.stack.imgur.com/KLPqJ.jpg
- 10y ago
sandworm101 10y ago
> One of the reasons why it is meant to be stealthy is so that it can go close to the shore. That is one of the ironic features that sounds great but is totally impractical. The moment this thing starts launching shells all that stealth doesn't matter anymore. Be as radar stealthy as you want, the giant balls of fire and shockwaves will give you away in seconds ... less than seconds if the enemy radar tracks the shells. Counter-fire from land units could be inbound before your first shells land. So I doubt the ship will every fire whilst relying upon stealth. That confluence of conflicting features (stealth+artillery barrage) makes it difficult to wrap my head around exactly what this ship is meant to do. These guns would have always needed cheap non-guided shells. Artillery isn't always about hitting targets or even destroying much of anything. Sometimes it is about area denial. A ship may shell the area behind a beach during landing to ensure the enemy cannot mobilize a defense. That's not killing the enemy but denying him the ability to move. In such cases volume and rate of fire matters far more than accuracy.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  But area denial with shells that cost that much is just hilarious. You could watch the US national debt grow if a fleet of these ships started a barrage.
edblarney 10y ago
They will buy the rounds when they need them until then it's a 'negotiation'. It's a paradox. I worked in space systems as an intern. We built the latches - plates that go onto satellites so the robot arm can hold them. It's just a simple piece of metal but they cost $200 000 each. Because they buy so few and a lot of R&D goes into them. That's partly why the F35's cost so much. You want 50 jets of one type, instead of 400 of varying types? Well, all those workers still have to get paid ... so, it ends up costing 'the same'.
Shivetya 10y ago
Not to defend the exorbitant costs but its so typical of today's military as initial budgets are based on forecast purchases and fall apart quickly when programs get slashed. happened to the stealth fighter too, but this one is absurd because of the ammunition cost and ship costs combined. maybe that new fancy rail gun of theirs will save the Navy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze#Production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze#Production is interesting because it shows how clearly mass production can save money on truly expensive items. The US Navy is so out of control is costs its frightening and the truly sad part is no past President or predicted one will fix it
Ras_ 10y ago
The big picture is darker. US Navy had future operating concept based on three types of new ships: * CGX: ASW/ASuW/AD workhorse * DDGX: land attack platform * LCS: cheap platform for everything else CGX got canned for being near $10B estimated. DDGX got canned according to CNO Roughhead because it's inadequate for the future and too expensive. Only LCS survived. It has two different classes (Independence from Austal USA and Freedom from Lockheed Martin) with very similar problems, mostly with engines. Their whole operating concept was just retconned. Now they have very lightly armed ships that cost almost as much as Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Combined with 10 B/each Gerald R. Ford class carrier program it looks like USN is having massive problems with all of its surface vessel programs. https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/52a095/us_navy_drops_lcs_plans_concept_after_latest/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/52a095... https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/440kj1/discussionthe_us_navys_littoral_combat_ship/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/440kj1/dis...
- georgeecollins 10y ago
  Exactly. All the surface vessels are too expensive, perhaps because the roles and missions aren't really viable anymore. Submarines continue to make sense, but making large surface warships that can survive attack in a modern conflict and perform the missions they are supposed to seems very difficult.
smacktoward 10y ago
> The Zumwalt is not meant to be an "anti-air" ship, it was meant to be a replacement for battleships in the role of shelling land targets from sea This is misleading. The design of the Zumwalt class is multi-role, oriented around a few core missions: battle against surface ships, air defense, and naval gunfire support (e.g. "shelling land targets from sea"). Air defense capabilities aren't as prevalent in the Navy's vision for the Zumwalts today as they were when the class was first coming off the drawing board -- there was a time when the Navy would cheerfully say that Zumwalt-class ships would be able to shoot down ballistic missiles, a claim they don't make today. But anti-air is still part of the overall bag of roles the class is (theoretically) supposed to fulfill. On the question of naval gunfire support, it's true that the Zumwalts are supposed to do that too. But that's complicated by the fact that the Navy, institutionally speaking, doesn't think of naval gunfire support as a mission that exists in the real world anymore. They believe that ground attack missiles have put an end to the days of ships firing guns at shore targets forever. So they have been noticeably unenthusiastic about including any gun capabilities on new ships, including the Zumwalts. Congress and the Marine Corps disagree with this assessment, however, and Congress found a way to make the Navy pay attention to the subject by legally mandating the Navy to provide certain levels of gunfire support capability over time. The Zumwalts got guns as part of a deal that would allow the Navy to retire the previous ships they'd used to meet those requirements, the World War 2-era Iowa-class battleships. The Navy had wanted to retire the Iowas pretty much from the moment they came out of mothballs in the 1980s, so they were willing to live with guns on the Zumwalts if that was the price of being able to do so. But the Zumwalts only ever had 6-inch (155mm) guns, as compared to the Iowas' 16-inch guns, so it's difficult to see them as a direct replacement in the gunfire support role. (The Navy argues that the increased accuracy of the Zumwalts' Advanced Gun System makes up for the decrease in weight of iron they can throw, but that's arguable.) There's a decent discussion of the various issues in play in the naval gunfire debate on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_su...
totalZero 10y ago
These are rocket-assisted, fin-gliding, GPS-guided high explosive rounds. The "cheaper old" rounds aren't cheap or old by anyone's standards, even the Americans'; they're just not bleeding edge. Not to mention that there are future artillery technologies, rail guns etc, that the Navy is planning to install on these ships.

grzm 10y ago

The Advanced Gun System/LRLAP have an effective range of over 80 nautical miles.[0][1] "Close to shore" is relative. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Land_Attack_Projectile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Land_Attack_Project...

imglorp 10y ago
The old heavy battleships would deliver 800lb shells 25 miles, using analog targeting and stabilizing computers. That was already way over the horizon. 80nm can get lots done.
- AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
  Actually, a 1900 to 2700 lbs. shell (depending on type).
  - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    Yeah, I once heard the weight of the shells compared to "Volkswagens". Which isn't far from the truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago

Zumwalt's more of a technology demonstrator. And note, that they do plan to fit rail guns to the Zumwalt class later on, which is possible thanks to their increased electrical capacity. They're not useless.

M_Grey 10y ago
They're useless and expensive, and utterly unproven in anything like combat. All of this, for what? Our next adventure in the Middle East against an adversary armed with Russian surplus from the 80's? To stay ahead of the arms we sell to other countries, or the fantasy that a major war between superpowers would be conventional, rather than proxy or nuclear?
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  You know why we're doing it. We need to deter a resurgent Russia and China. People like you thought that nukes made conventional militaries obsolete in the 50's. That was wrong then and it's wrong now. In order to maintain control of the seas and skies, we need to maintain our edge in aviation and in naval technology.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    "People like me"... always a non-starter; it tells me that you're arguing with a model of who I am in your head, that probably has more to do with the people you argued with in the past than anything to do with me. I don't think nukes end conventional militaries, but I think they end conventional conflicts between nuclear armed nations. That's why we're fighting Russia in a proxy war in Syria, and not with tanks in the Ukraine. As for China, how many times could our navy and air force obliterate them as it stands? Besides, they're just taking a page from our book, letting us front the R&D, then... stealing the designs. Much cheaper, much smarter.
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago
      "People like you" isn't a non-starter if they just mean "people who think nukes end the need for competitive conventional capabilities", and the justification for such a model can be gathered entirely in this thread.

M_Grey 10y ago

>And the point of the ship is .. what? To funnel money into select pockets, in the name of "national security", to make politicians and some of their constituents happy, and to maintain the fiction that we require this ever-evolving arsenal in the face of threats which are decades behind us. All while ignoring that China, Russia, and whoever else we fantasize about large-scale conflict with, have nuclear weapons just like us. It's nonsense, but there is so much money to be made from nonsense... just ask any successful religion.

eevilspock 10y ago
But let's be fair. Can't the same be said of the startup tech industry? Tell me it doesn't exist to funnel money into select pockets? Why is it that Larry Page is a mega-billionaire, but people like Tim Berners-Lee or Linus Torvalds make so little? Furthmore, can't the same be said about the ad industry that effectively bankrolls the internet because everyone wants to get rich building something that people won't actually buy directly but whose money they can get at through a back door into their pocket (because all ad money is baked into something else the consumer buys)?
- thatswrong0 10y ago
  One type of funnel is voluntary, the other is not. Not only that, but one type of funnel breaks windows, the other could be argued that it creates them. Of course, it can be said that there is value created by having a strong military in that it protects our nations ability to innovate and create value.

ryandrake 10y ago

Only the US would use a $10B aircraft carrier to launch a $100M aircraft to drop a $100K bomb on a kid hiding in a hole with a $100 AK-47.

cloudjacker 10y ago
it would be a big freaking deal if any other country started doing it like when that guy simultaneously attacked the world power of Britain despite being under sanctions
drblast 10y ago
Don't forget the in-air refueling cost that's there to save the Navy the embarrassment of taking off and landing anywhere near where the Air Force does.
- JoBrad 10y ago
  Duplication of function is a good thing, militarily. You wouldn't want the Navy to be unable to fly because the Air Force had an issue or was unable to immediately respond.
  - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    When your life depends on it, you never want to count on another branch of the service. Or you wind up asking for help from a douche like US Army General McChrystal. Who won't give it to you. Here's one person's comments on how the general fucked over some Marines and Navy: they left our men to perish without fire support because of your rules of engagement I don’t retreat one iota from what I said there. McChrystal, with his ROE, is a murderer The request for help went all the way to General McChrystal, but he wouldn't give it to them. Asked again, he refused again. http://www.captainsjournal.com/category/general-mcchrystal/ http://www.captainsjournal.com/category/general-mcchrystal/ http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/02/17/reprimands-in-marine-deaths-in-ganjgal-engagement/ http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/02/17/reprimands-in-mari...
- Godel_unicode 10y ago

crdb 10y ago

> And the point of the ship is .. what? If you are a US taxpayer you should weep. Same as any prototype or sufficiently advanced aircraft like the F-117, pave the way for future generations like the Beast of Kandahar, demonstrate or invalidate a series of bold ideas. In particular, the number of innovations crammed in the Zumwalt makes it relatively cost-effective from a "things we had to try" point of view: new low RCS hull, new composite bridge, new launch system (VLS), new centralised control systems (TSCE). All of this stuff can now be iterated upon and integrated in newer ships. That the new gun system has "failed" in practice is itself a lesson probably worth the dollars spent on it. Not to mention: look up the name of its first captain [1]. There's few institutions that can do R&D with a multi-decade horizon and the armed forces are one of them. Is there waste in the process, sure, the ghost of Admiral Rickover must be turning in his grave, but it is not totally wasted, unlike a certain aircraft that is somehow manufactured in a full 45 states (have the remaining ones managed to get a piece yet, I haven't followed). [1] http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg1000/Pages/bio1.aspx http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg1000/Pages/bio1.aspx - shame the USS Enterprise was inactivated in 2012.

jamescway 10y ago
CAPTAIN James T. Kirk......just kidding James A. Kirk.
- crdb 10y ago
  CVN-80 is going into service in 2025... just saying.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    maybe, the Ford class is having a lot of teething pains.
- tbirdz 10y ago
  Or James R. Kirk, depending on the episode: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KLPqJ.jpg http://i.stack.imgur.com/KLPqJ.jpg
10y ago

sandworm101 10y ago

> One of the reasons why it is meant to be stealthy is so that it can go close to the shore. That is one of the ironic features that sounds great but is totally impractical. The moment this thing starts launching shells all that stealth doesn't matter anymore. Be as radar stealthy as you want, the giant balls of fire and shockwaves will give you away in seconds ... less than seconds if the enemy radar tracks the shells. Counter-fire from land units could be inbound before your first shells land. So I doubt the ship will every fire whilst relying upon stealth. That confluence of conflicting features (stealth+artillery barrage) makes it difficult to wrap my head around exactly what this ship is meant to do. These guns would have always needed cheap non-guided shells. Artillery isn't always about hitting targets or even destroying much of anything. Sometimes it is about area denial. A ship may shell the area behind a beach during landing to ensure the enemy cannot mobilize a defense. That's not killing the enemy but denying him the ability to move. In such cases volume and rate of fire matters far more than accuracy.

lostlogin 10y ago
But area denial with shells that cost that much is just hilarious. You could watch the US national debt grow if a fleet of these ships started a barrage.

edblarney 10y ago

They will buy the rounds when they need them until then it's a 'negotiation'. It's a paradox. I worked in space systems as an intern. We built the latches - plates that go onto satellites so the robot arm can hold them. It's just a simple piece of metal but they cost $200 000 each. Because they buy so few and a lot of R&D goes into them. That's partly why the F35's cost so much. You want 50 jets of one type, instead of 400 of varying types? Well, all those workers still have to get paid ... so, it ends up costing 'the same'.

Shivetya 10y ago

Not to defend the exorbitant costs but its so typical of today's military as initial budgets are based on forecast purchases and fall apart quickly when programs get slashed. happened to the stealth fighter too, but this one is absurd because of the ammunition cost and ship costs combined. maybe that new fancy rail gun of theirs will save the Navy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze#Production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze#Production is interesting because it shows how clearly mass production can save money on truly expensive items. The US Navy is so out of control is costs its frightening and the truly sad part is no past President or predicted one will fix it

Ras_ 10y ago

The big picture is darker. US Navy had future operating concept based on three types of new ships: * CGX: ASW/ASuW/AD workhorse * DDGX: land attack platform * LCS: cheap platform for everything else CGX got canned for being near $10B estimated. DDGX got canned according to CNO Roughhead because it's inadequate for the future and too expensive. Only LCS survived. It has two different classes (Independence from Austal USA and Freedom from Lockheed Martin) with very similar problems, mostly with engines. Their whole operating concept was just retconned. Now they have very lightly armed ships that cost almost as much as Arleigh Burke class destroyers. Combined with 10 B/each Gerald R. Ford class carrier program it looks like USN is having massive problems with all of its surface vessel programs. https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/52a095/us_navy_drops_lcs_plans_concept_after_latest/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/52a095... https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/440kj1/discussionthe_us_navys_littoral_combat_ship/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/440kj1/dis...

georgeecollins 10y ago
Exactly. All the surface vessels are too expensive, perhaps because the roles and missions aren't really viable anymore. Submarines continue to make sense, but making large surface warships that can survive attack in a modern conflict and perform the missions they are supposed to seems very difficult.

smacktoward 10y ago

> The Zumwalt is not meant to be an "anti-air" ship, it was meant to be a replacement for battleships in the role of shelling land targets from sea This is misleading. The design of the Zumwalt class is multi-role, oriented around a few core missions: battle against surface ships, air defense, and naval gunfire support (e.g. "shelling land targets from sea"). Air defense capabilities aren't as prevalent in the Navy's vision for the Zumwalts today as they were when the class was first coming off the drawing board -- there was a time when the Navy would cheerfully say that Zumwalt-class ships would be able to shoot down ballistic missiles, a claim they don't make today. But anti-air is still part of the overall bag of roles the class is (theoretically) supposed to fulfill. On the question of naval gunfire support, it's true that the Zumwalts are supposed to do that too. But that's complicated by the fact that the Navy, institutionally speaking, doesn't think of naval gunfire support as a mission that exists in the real world anymore. They believe that ground attack missiles have put an end to the days of ships firing guns at shore targets forever. So they have been noticeably unenthusiastic about including any gun capabilities on new ships, including the Zumwalts. Congress and the Marine Corps disagree with this assessment, however, and Congress found a way to make the Navy pay attention to the subject by legally mandating the Navy to provide certain levels of gunfire support capability over time. The Zumwalts got guns as part of a deal that would allow the Navy to retire the previous ships they'd used to meet those requirements, the World War 2-era Iowa-class battleships. The Navy had wanted to retire the Iowas pretty much from the moment they came out of mothballs in the 1980s, so they were willing to live with guns on the Zumwalts if that was the price of being able to do so. But the Zumwalts only ever had 6-inch (155mm) guns, as compared to the Iowas' 16-inch guns, so it's difficult to see them as a direct replacement in the gunfire support role. (The Navy argues that the increased accuracy of the Zumwalts' Advanced Gun System makes up for the decrease in weight of iron they can throw, but that's arguable.) There's a decent discussion of the various issues in play in the naval gunfire debate on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_su...

totalZero 10y ago

These are rocket-assisted, fin-gliding, GPS-guided high explosive rounds. The "cheaper old" rounds aren't cheap or old by anyone's standards, even the Americans'; they're just not bleeding edge. Not to mention that there are future artillery technologies, rail guns etc, that the Navy is planning to install on these ships.