Is the USS Zumwalt sinking?

[Werner]

The August 2007 issue of U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings contains a particularly unflattering and damning article about what they call the "gravely inadequate" DD-1000 class destroyer program. One can only conclude that this is the position of the opinion leaders of the Professional Navy.

They suggest the program will siphon uncounted dollars into "an untried kludge of techno-babble" (their words) which would be better used developing an effective counter to the immense lead submarines currently have in ship-sub warfare. Zumwalt will go to sea with a high-powered active sonar suite which has changed little since the 1950s. It will not be able to dance over sea mines or dodge a barrage of sea-skimming missiles.

The author suggested this money also be diverted to purchase a modest number of austere warships built abroad. The US shipbuilding cartel could not build a ship like the frigates seen today in Europe or Asia for under a half billion dollars.

I have to think that especially if the White House changes parties in 2008, we will see a new direction for the USN. I'm pretty sure that course will not include the DD-1000.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Seasick]

The Zumwalt class is a perfect example of the total failure of Donald Rumsfeld's 'Transformation'. The major problem was that an already too ambitious program had more added to it.

[Werner]

The Zumwalt class is a perfect example of the total failure of Donald Rumsfeld's 'Transformation'. The major problem was that an already too ambitious program had more added to it.

There was already plenty of that mentality in the Pentagon before Rumsfeld.

[Seasick]

There was already plenty of that mentality in the Pentagon before Rumsfeld.

And he did nothing to change it. Rumsfeld was WBush's hatchet man to push through the Iraq invasion, and push missile defense.

[Werner]

And he did nothing to change it. Rumsfeld was WBush's hatchet man to push through the Iraq invasion, and push missile defense.

I personally believe that missile defense is a good idea. It has improved the breed for the Standard Missile and AEgis. It is a meaningful defense against despots like Kim and the Mullahs. In five years it may even be able to protect us from rogue Indian or Pakistani missiles.

Considering the new aggressive stance of Russia, it may be Providential.

The Iraqi invasion was horribly bungled by both the military and their civilian masters. I still could not sit by while Iraqi rape rooms and torture chambers were instruments of state. I said so in an interview with BBC at the time. I would have preferred to "get" North Korea first, but one plays the hand that is dealt.

The current issue of Proceedings certainly heaps blame on the Joint Chiefs for the outcome in Iraq; they stand accused in the journal of being a useless council with rubber stamp in hand, which ought to be abolished.

These events explain the desert of finance the USN sails through, but it does not absolve the DD(X) legacy, which truly goes back to Clinton's first term ("Needs Statement" issued 6/22/95), and cannot be laid only at the feet of the Bush Administration.

[Seasick]

Kim Sung is content to stay within his boarders. He just likes to yank the chain of the President of the United States. He also knows attacking the USA would put him in a bind with China and most likely give them a pretense to invade the PRK. Iran's agenda does not include attacking western nations. Iran is probably developing the a-bomb as a deterent against its Sunni neighbors as well as the West. One of the goals of main cell Al-Quida is to put an end to Shia Islam, that is not lost on anyone in Iran's political/religious leadership.

The WBush administration has done quite a bit to make Iran become an active threat. While Iraq posed a threat to its neighbors, it seemed to be lost on many that Iran posed a serious threat to Iraq. Up until the Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iran had to hold a significant portion of its military resources in reserve in the event of a new war with Iraq. Since then Iraq is no longer a major threat and Iran has been massivly reequiping Hezbolah and it has been able to conduct offensive operations against Israel like it hasn't been able to since the 1970s. None of this is a good trade off for getting rid of Saddam and building an ABM system that is becoming a very destabilizing in America's relationship with Russia.

[jjb]

What I find worrying is that with the Zumwalt unaffordable and now more of a technology demonstrator/proving platform than a full class program, and the LCS costs spiralling out of control and suffering appalling management it seems some US politicians seem to advocate building nuclear powered 25,000T cruisers? Just what planet do some of these people live on? Personally, I think the USN needs a follow on FFG as a good general purpose, affordable, surface combatant, and a new generation Arleigh Burke which can be manufactured in volume, as that design has lost it's edge of superiority over other types and if the USN wants to keep it's technological edge then the type needs upgrading.

[Jack Ray]

What I find worrying is that with the Zumwalt unaffordable and now more of a technology demonstrator/proving platform than a full class program, and the LCS costs spiralling out of control and suffering appalling management it seems some US politicians seem to advocate building nuclear powered 25,000T cruisers? Just what planet do some of these people live on? Personally, I think the USN needs a follow on FFG as a good general purpose, affordable, surface combatant, and a new generation Arleigh Burke which can be manufactured in volume, as that design has lost it's edge of superiority over other types and if the USN wants to keep it's technological edge then the type needs upgrading.

This is similar to the concept of building the Spruance class with plenty of room for upgrade.

Jack

[Werner]

I think the packaged loadable mission modules seen in several foreign designs and the USN's LCS are a great idea which should be included in the next major design, instead of the current, highly organic, integrated platform.

The ship should be designed as a ship. It should have weight and space reservations for a variety of mission packages, and it should be built in sufficient numbers to provide economies of scale.

If this idea is followed, it would be unnecessary to limit production of the hulls to domestic yards.

[chuck]

The author suggested this money also be diverted to purchase a modest number of austere warships built abroad.

The author is not living on this planet.

[Werner]

The author suggested this money also be diverted to purchase a modest number of austere warships built abroad.

The author is not living on this planet.

Like I said above, the US shipbuilding cartel could not currently design and build a motor whaleboat for under $500 million. None of the foreign designs I looked at cost their governments 10% of that amount.

[chuck]

It would be politically easier to break the cartel and reduce hull cost from 10 X to 5X of what can be achieved in a foreign yard than to actually order from a foreign yard.

[Werner]

It would be politically easier to break the cartel and reduce hull cost from 10 X to 5X of what can be achieved in a foreign yard than to actually order from a foreign yard.

That's all well and good. Anything that can be done would help. Bear in mind the cartel arrangement was assembled with the cooperation of the Navy due to the very small number of orders possible. The cartel distributes the orders to the separate companies as a means of keeping three organizations alive on orders that could be satisfied by any one alone.

Update: the DDG 1000 website says the lead ship will cost $3.3 billion. The 5th ship is expected to cost $2.3 billion vs about $800 million for DDG 99 & 100.

Hopefully, DDG 1004 will have three times the capability as well. Somehow, I doubt it.

For comparison, the USS George H. W. Bush has a "cost limit" of $4.8 billion. In other words, the "maximum price" of a Nimitz-class carrier is 70% the current price of DDG 1000

[richter111]

America needs to wake up

We need more submarines

We need more destroyers

and we need more carriers

If the lessons of war taught us anything, these Navy tools are the real backbone of a protracted war, especially in the Pacific.

And if we are stupid enough to start building our warships overseas, then in the event of war, we deserve to have whatever befalls us.

Ric

[Guest]

I think you have to be careful with the mission module idea, it works for minor systems but the more capable systems get the harder it is to not build them into the ships architecture, and once you go above point defence and short range the C&C suite becomes a fixed item which is a massive cost of the vessel. I can see the attraction for minor vessels, but I can't see it becoming a major aspect of larger ship design as the weapons and sensors then determine ship layout, power, hull volume etc.

[Werner]

I think you have to be careful with the mission module idea, it works for minor systems but the more capable systems get the harder it is to not build them into the ships architecture, and once you go above point defence and short range the C&C suite becomes a fixed item which is a massive cost of the vessel. I can see the attraction for minor vessels, but I can't see it becoming a major aspect of larger ship design as the weapons and sensors then determine ship layout, power, hull volume etc.

This is really a networking issue. Even now, the various modules really only interact in the fire control system. Radar, Sonar, ESM, missiles and guns are all pretty confined systems. Anyone who has seen a modern hospital knows what is possible with fibre optic cables and off-the-shelf standards. The speed of these networks is currently accellerating from 2GHz to 16GHz or more. My home computer's operating system supports a 16GHz network NOW.

I would say the real downside is building in "maximum" electrical power to take future loads is the one sticking point. Even so, the new electrically driven ships ought to provide a solution there.

Think about it: many systems have been designed to fit the slot occupied by an ASROC launcher and below-decks reload magazine. The most notable was the VLS launcher, but even deck-mounted canisters for Tomahawk were a partial solution using this space.

The entire CIC computer system ought to fit into a series of shipping containers. A large onboard "auditorium" could be outfit with off-the-shelf display and input systems as needed.

This is really a logical extension of the "CV" concept and the SCS of the 1970s. The SCS even featured shipping container shops for the kind of aircraft the ship was going to carry during that mission. Face it: the planes don't go far without their shops, and duplicating the facilities and inventories is a waste of tax dollars. Modular warships would be more useful and flexible than the DDG 1000. They could be optimized for the "Littoral" mission one month and in the next month be a "blue water" sub hunter.

[G. Shoda]

Ok. Let's send the money to the UK to build our frigates. We have bought ships from the UK before (salvage vessels). We don't seem to be able to design & build new surface ships any more no matter how much money we throw at them (San Antonio class & CG ships are eminent examples of this failure).

Anyway, who needs arsenal ships unless you are serious about duking it out with Iran? N. Korea seems to be less of a hot spot. The arsenal ship concept is a bad one.

[Werner]

I vaguely recall President Reagan purchasing a tender... HMS Maidstone for some reason sticks in my mind. In any event it was something on the order of 10,000 tons.

[Gone Asiatic]

Mustn`t build our ships overseas - very bad idea - ship building is not the textile industry.

[Fast and Feared]

Been stewing on this idea for a while myself, as a naval engineer, I can think of 2 points why the USN can't just order ships like it was mail-order.

First-Giving the building yard a spec. does not ensure that the ship will conform to it. When Bath Iron Works had the dry dock built in Korea, or China I can't remember which now, when the Dry Dock was delivered nothing worked as it should. The builders had fouled the plumbing. It took a couple of months to make repairs and getting working as it should. The order included some new cranes, well when the cranes came the gears were all out of whack, moreover the crane could only do one task at a time, lift or traverse, but not both.

Second-So we order Chinese, do we get a ship with no substitutions? Or do we say, well I guess we trust you please install this top secret radar? Please don't copy it...Here is the missile launcher, please close your eyes while you install it.

When I worked at BIW I was working on 3 different DDGs, 81,90,92, mostly 92. Unless you have been in the belly of one of these beasts then it is hard to believe the amount of gear that is in them, and a lot of it is ship specific as engineers make minor changes through successive builds. A DDG is a hand made marvel.

One more point, if the Zumwalt does sink, and there are no orders to fill soon after the City of Bath, Maine will sink too.

V/r
-Ben

Minor PS
When I worked at the Yard, I represented the 3rd generation to work there, My Grandad retired in 1980, and my dad is still employed there...Also I was born and bred in Bath so I hope it all works out.