8 ms·

It has a very striking design: http://nationalinterest.org/files/styles/main_image_on_posts/public/main_images/zumwalttnibaby.jpg http://nationalinterest.org/fi

It has a very striking design: http://nationalinterest.org/files/styles/main_image_on_posts/public/main_images/zumwalttnibaby.jpg http://nationalinterest.org/files/styles/main_image_on_posts... but: > Given the sheer expense of the DDG-1000 class and its lack of certain ballistic missile defense capabilities—not to mention a number of outmoded technologies onboard—the Navy opted not to continue building the Zumwalt class. The three-ship class has cost the Navy $23 billion, with each ship coming in at roughly $4.25 billion per vessel when research and development is not factored in. > In the medium term, the future of the Navy’s surface fleet lies with the new Flight III Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer—which BIW will start building starting with DDG-126 and DDG-127. Flight III Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer#/media/File:130920-N-NX070-025_-_USS_Arleigh_Burke_(DDG-51).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer#... Naval shipbuilding needs a SpaceX.

fhood 9y ago
> Naval shipbuilding needs a SpaceX. Not just Naval shipbuilding. I can think of a few contractors that could stand to get shaken up. Problem is you probably need an obscene amount of money and connections to get into that space.
imglorp 9y ago
Or at least an honest procurement process that doesn't include congressional influence. Look at the the M1A1 thing with Ohio.
maxxxxx 9y ago
I wonder how all these super expensive and complex weapons systems will do if there ever is an all-out war against an enemy who has access to advanced technology. It seems you should be able to bring down a 4 billion ship with a swarm of thousand drones for maybe 1 million each for the total cost of 1 billion. Same for aircraft carriers. From what I have read about the maintenance needs of systems like the F-22 and B-2 someone who has simpler, easier to maintain airplanes should also have an advantage once things get busy.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > From what I have read about the maintenance needs of systems like the F-22 and B-2 someone who has simpler, easier to maintain airplanes should also have an advantage once things get busy. Also from a numbers standpoint. They keep buying fewer and fewer airframes as costs rise, which I'd assume means they'd be very vulnerable to attrition against a peer adversary. High-tech planes aren't very helpful if you have none left or too few to risk.
  - antishatter 9y ago
    You should read about the millenium wargames challenge. The US fleet was destroyed within the first 24 hours by a former vietnam era general using asymetric warfare and launched his planes via hand signals instead of radio etc.
    - dforrestwilson 9y ago
      Was curious and Googled. Some perspective here: https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-real-story-of-a-corrupted-military-exercise-and-its-legacy/ https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-r...
      - bjelkeman-again 9y ago
        That was interesting reading. Also a damming account on how the leadership of the U.S forces are not prepared to face the fact that they may be wrong about their capabilities.
    - pavpanchekha 9y ago
      Common misconception. The wargames effectively suffered a bug that caused the US fleet ships to be easily destroyed.
      - scrumper 9y ago
        A bug? I'm not sure the analogy holds. Why would the techniques used by the bad guy general not be available to a real adversary? Did he win by finding an exploit in the meta war-game (i.e. a cheat), or did he win fairly, entirely in the context of the game? I thought the latter.
lmm 9y ago
SpaceX works because a lot of people want to put satellites in orbit. In a time of unprecedented peace, how many navy ships do we realistically want to be building? $4.25B/ship is the wrong way to frame it. Think of it as $23B to keep our shipbuilding expertise current, to make sure we have the capability to build navy ships that incorporate a bunch of cutting-edge technologies (some of which have worked out and some of which haven't, as is the nature of cutting-edge technologies). If a shooting war started to look likely we'd be building a lot more than 3 of them and the unit cost would come way down.
- ghostcluster 9y ago
  Do you feel the same way about the F-35 and its contractors?
  - pavpanchekha 9y ago
    F-35 costs have come way down (~80M each for the latest signed contracts, if I recall, definitely below 100M), largely because we are building so so many of them, and tests seem to suggest it is an excellent plane (like the Red Flag tests of last year).
  - lmm 9y ago
    No, the F-35 is the opposite in a way: we're building thousands of them, piling on to the programme cost, in order to make the unit cost number looks smaller. Most of the F-35 isn't really cutting-edge technology; the F-22 is ahead of it in some respects. The lift fan business is cutting-edge, compromising the design even in the variants that don't use it; it would be much more appropriate for a small-production-run high-tech programme like the Zumwalts. Maybe there was space for a ground attack aircraft for the Navy and Air Force that could replace the F/A-18 and the A-10. But expecting the same plane to also replace the Harrier was a mistake, as was stopping production of the F-22.
erikig 9y ago
I need a human, a banana or a skyscraper for scale. The provided pictures make it tough to tell how large the actual vessel is.
jdietrich 9y ago
>Naval shipbuilding needs a SpaceX. Waste is the entire point of the exercise. Massive spending on complex military hardware is the New Deal of the post-Reagan era. The F-35 is widely regarded as a complete fiasco - massively over-budget, ineffective in most combat roles and plagued with defects. After 20 years and $1.5 trillion in spending commitments, it's still not contributing to the strategic defense interests of the US; many analysts think that the F-35 is simply incapable of being made combat-ready. To see the actual point of the program, you need to look at Lockheed Martin's Economic Impact Report. 32,000 direct and 138,000 indirect jobs. 1,400 suppliers across 46 states and Puerto Rico. It's not a multi-role fighter aircraft, it's a pork barrel with wings. It's politically unstoppable - a Democrat legislator can vote against wasteful military spending, a Republican legislator can vote against expensive job creation schemes, but nobody can vote against both.
- engi_nerd 9y ago
  It's even worse than what you're saying here, because the Initial Operational Test & Evaluation that will tell if the F-35 is actually effective for combat hasn't begun yet (scheduled to begin later in 2018).

fhood 9y ago

> Naval shipbuilding needs a SpaceX. Not just Naval shipbuilding. I can think of a few contractors that could stand to get shaken up. Problem is you probably need an obscene amount of money and connections to get into that space.

imglorp 9y ago

Or at least an honest procurement process that doesn't include congressional influence. Look at the the M1A1 thing with Ohio.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I wonder how all these super expensive and complex weapons systems will do if there ever is an all-out war against an enemy who has access to advanced technology. It seems you should be able to bring down a 4 billion ship with a swarm of thousand drones for maybe 1 million each for the total cost of 1 billion. Same for aircraft carriers. From what I have read about the maintenance needs of systems like the F-22 and B-2 someone who has simpler, easier to maintain airplanes should also have an advantage once things get busy.

Slansitartop 9y ago
> From what I have read about the maintenance needs of systems like the F-22 and B-2 someone who has simpler, easier to maintain airplanes should also have an advantage once things get busy. Also from a numbers standpoint. They keep buying fewer and fewer airframes as costs rise, which I'd assume means they'd be very vulnerable to attrition against a peer adversary. High-tech planes aren't very helpful if you have none left or too few to risk.
- antishatter 9y ago
  You should read about the millenium wargames challenge. The US fleet was destroyed within the first 24 hours by a former vietnam era general using asymetric warfare and launched his planes via hand signals instead of radio etc.
  - dforrestwilson 9y ago
    Was curious and Googled. Some perspective here: https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-real-story-of-a-corrupted-military-exercise-and-its-legacy/ https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-r...
    - bjelkeman-again 9y ago
      That was interesting reading. Also a damming account on how the leadership of the U.S forces are not prepared to face the fact that they may be wrong about their capabilities.
  - pavpanchekha 9y ago
    Common misconception. The wargames effectively suffered a bug that caused the US fleet ships to be easily destroyed.
    - scrumper 9y ago
      A bug? I'm not sure the analogy holds. Why would the techniques used by the bad guy general not be available to a real adversary? Did he win by finding an exploit in the meta war-game (i.e. a cheat), or did he win fairly, entirely in the context of the game? I thought the latter.

lmm 9y ago

SpaceX works because a lot of people want to put satellites in orbit. In a time of unprecedented peace, how many navy ships do we realistically want to be building? $4.25B/ship is the wrong way to frame it. Think of it as $23B to keep our shipbuilding expertise current, to make sure we have the capability to build navy ships that incorporate a bunch of cutting-edge technologies (some of which have worked out and some of which haven't, as is the nature of cutting-edge technologies). If a shooting war started to look likely we'd be building a lot more than 3 of them and the unit cost would come way down.

ghostcluster 9y ago
Do you feel the same way about the F-35 and its contractors?
- pavpanchekha 9y ago
  F-35 costs have come way down (~80M each for the latest signed contracts, if I recall, definitely below 100M), largely because we are building so so many of them, and tests seem to suggest it is an excellent plane (like the Red Flag tests of last year).
- lmm 9y ago
  No, the F-35 is the opposite in a way: we're building thousands of them, piling on to the programme cost, in order to make the unit cost number looks smaller. Most of the F-35 isn't really cutting-edge technology; the F-22 is ahead of it in some respects. The lift fan business is cutting-edge, compromising the design even in the variants that don't use it; it would be much more appropriate for a small-production-run high-tech programme like the Zumwalts. Maybe there was space for a ground attack aircraft for the Navy and Air Force that could replace the F/A-18 and the A-10. But expecting the same plane to also replace the Harrier was a mistake, as was stopping production of the F-22.

erikig 9y ago

I need a human, a banana or a skyscraper for scale. The provided pictures make it tough to tell how large the actual vessel is.

jdietrich 9y ago

>Naval shipbuilding needs a SpaceX. Waste is the entire point of the exercise. Massive spending on complex military hardware is the New Deal of the post-Reagan era. The F-35 is widely regarded as a complete fiasco - massively over-budget, ineffective in most combat roles and plagued with defects. After 20 years and $1.5 trillion in spending commitments, it's still not contributing to the strategic defense interests of the US; many analysts think that the F-35 is simply incapable of being made combat-ready. To see the actual point of the program, you need to look at Lockheed Martin's Economic Impact Report. 32,000 direct and 138,000 indirect jobs. 1,400 suppliers across 46 states and Puerto Rico. It's not a multi-role fighter aircraft, it's a pork barrel with wings. It's politically unstoppable - a Democrat legislator can vote against wasteful military spending, a Republican legislator can vote against expensive job creation schemes, but nobody can vote against both.

engi_nerd 9y ago
It's even worse than what you're saying here, because the Initial Operational Test & Evaluation that will tell if the F-35 is actually effective for combat hasn't begun yet (scheduled to begin later in 2018).