Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Navy Thinks This New $7 Billion Ship Is The Answer To All Its Chinese Concerns
Business Insider ^ | 06/03/2012 | Robert Johnson

Posted on 06/04/2012 6:36:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Looking a bit like an old Civil War Ironclad, the $7 billion DDG 1000 USS Zumwalt will focus on land attacks, relying heavily on its advanced stealth technology to slip in close to shore before unleashing its massive onboard arsenal.

A new take on the Zumwalt was published today by the Eric Talmadge at the Associated Press who points out that in addition to the ship's wide array of conventional weapons the Zumwalt will eventually carry the Navy's much anticipated "railgun".

The railgun is an electrically powered artillery weapon that launches massive projectiles at high speeds without the use of gunpowder or explosives. Instead, an electric current is run through the artillery shell, the current interacts with the magnetic fields in the rails and pounds the shell from the barrel.

The Navy successfully tested the railgun in February, but it has not yet been fielded for service.

The Zumwalt was originally estimated to cost about $3.8 billion, but so much technology crammed on board that its cost has nearly doubled, and after the first three are built, production will stop. Including the exhaustive research and development required by each vessel to total cost jumps to $7 billion apiece.

In addition the Zumwalt will be built to receive the Navy's new electromagnetic rail-gun that can fire projectiles at over five times the speed of sound. All this new technology adds up.

Defense analyst Jay Korman says "They were looking to introduce so many new technologies at once, and the cost ballooned." Korman works with the Avascent Group concluded, "I don't think people have changed their minds that it's a capable ship. It's just too expensive."

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: china; navy; ship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-62 last
To: katana
In a conflict with China (or even Iran) it is possible that our aircraft carriers will turn out to be what battleships were in WWII. Large and vulnerable anachronisms of the "Last War". I get worried whenever I hear that they have positioned a carrier inside constricted waters like the Persian Gulf or the Taiwan Straits to make a "statement".

So do a lot of admirals
51 posted on 06/04/2012 8:56:36 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Oatka; central_va


52 posted on 06/04/2012 9:12:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Oatka; central_va

53 posted on 06/04/2012 9:13:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
I had a thought for a radical, cheap fast attack force...

1. Not radical. This comes up every generation or so.

2. Cheap? you are keeping the cheapest part of the ship, the outer hull, going to the expense of gutting it and installing entirely new systems.

3. "Convert lower decks into hangar bays". Sounds so simple. But the only people I can think of who ever did it were the IJN with Hiyo and Junyo. And in that case it was an option allowed for in the original design.

4. C3: you can't really share it out.

54 posted on 06/04/2012 9:16:11 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Gott mit Mitt, Mitt mit uns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: central_va

CNS built ‘em that way to deflect cannon balls. USN is building ‘em that way to deflect RADAR emissions.


55 posted on 06/04/2012 9:18:57 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
It doesn't cost 7 Billion per ship. There has been billions in R&D spent so far. The cost per unit is sky high because we are building 2 or 3. If we built 12, the costs would be much less.
These are essentially battleships. Just wait for CGX.
56 posted on 06/04/2012 10:44:42 AM PDT by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

I misused the words “calling in” in this context, when what I intended to say was “selling”. China currently owns over $1 trillion in US debt in the form of bonds of various maturities, which it can theoretically sell any time it wants to whoever will buy them. However, mature debt securities must be accepted and redeemed by the issuer (the US) or else offered to be rolled over upon new terms acceptable to the buyer.


57 posted on 06/04/2012 11:15:37 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

Any ship without 16 inch armor isn’t a Battleship


58 posted on 06/04/2012 2:48:02 PM PDT by GreyHoundSailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: GreyHoundSailor
Any ship without 16 inch armor isn’t a Battleship
My recollection could be hazy, but our last battleships, the Iowas and South Dakotas, and North Carolinas only had a belt of 12 inches. The Montanas had thicker belts, but they were scrapped.

I suppose that one could call the Zumwalts Monitors. They do weigh as much as early dreadnaughts.

59 posted on 06/04/2012 5:08:23 PM PDT by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp
$7 billion for a destroyer is a crime. Seriously. And the Zumwalt doesn’t even have the Burke class’ anti-air capability. Not enough room to shoehorn that caliber of AA electronics into the current design.
I call shenanigans. The AN-SPY 3 Multifunction radar was designed from the beginning with anti-aircraft capabilities. In 2008, Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, redefined these capabilities out of existence with Potomac spin. Because the new system has not been configured, as of yet, for the SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, he decided that there was no such capability.

This ship is a multi-billion dollar solution in search of a problem.
Creating a stealthy fire support ship and being the basis of the CG(X).

Zumwalt would be appalled at his name being stuck on this turkey. He was all about “many and cheap”... building a huge fleet of small, easy to build and inexpensive warships vs. a small fleet with a few hyper-expensive behemoths. He was the brainchild behind the Sea Control Ship and the Perry class frigate. Sometimes I think someone in the Navy Department named this ship just to insult his memory.
No disagreement.

60 posted on 06/04/2012 5:20:09 PM PDT by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

The hull armor on the IOWA Class had a belt that was a tad over 12 inches, but the armor on top of the 16 inch turrets and that surrounding the ‘citadel’ was 16 inches thick.


61 posted on 06/04/2012 5:30:47 PM PDT by GreyHoundSailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
"In 2008, Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, redefined these capabilities out of existence with Potomac spin. "

How it it "Potomac Spin" to say "Look, anti-air won't work here"? That's not spin, that's a flat out statement of lack of capabilities. The spin is coming from Raytheon. And it can't do BMD, because again, space constraints prevent the version of AN-SPY3 going into Zumwalt to do everything that a "full" SPY3 system could do. From the Wikipedia page for the system:

It can combine the functions of up to five radars and ten antennas.


Notice the up to part. From what I've read in professional Naval blogs, the problem is that Zumwalt's "island" just doesn't have enough room to pack all of the needed electronics into a fully capable SPY3 package.
62 posted on 06/05/2012 10:20:44 AM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-62 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson