Posted on 11/07/2016 5:47:10 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Just three 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 Zumwalt-class destroyers were conceived in the late 1990s as the first of a new generation of stealthy warships. The radar signature of the 610 foot long warship is that of a 50-foot fishing boat, making the Zumwalts great for getting in close to an enemy coastline and then using the 155-millimeter Advanced Gun Systems mounted on the front of the hull. The guns were designed to fire the advanced Long Range Land Attack Projectile, a GPS guided shell with a range of 60 miles.
The result would have been a destroyer that could rain shells down on enemy targets incredible accuracy, clearing a path for U.S. Marines as they advance inland. Alternately, they could strike targets such as terrorist training camps, military bases, and other static targets. Each Advanced Gun System is fed by a magazine containing 600 rounds of the ammunition, making it capable destroying hundreds of targets at a rate of up to ten per minute.
Here's how the Advanced Gun System was supposed to work.
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.
According to Defense News, the LRLAP round costs $800,000—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.
A May report by US Naval Institute News estimated each LRLAP round to cost between $400,000 to $700,000. 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.
The LRLAP round was developed by Lockheed Martin. In 2001, the director of Lockheed's guided projectiles division claimed the LRLAP would cost "less than $50,000 each." Even factoring in inflation, the rounds have ended up costing nearly twelve times as much.
According to Defense News, the U.S. Navy is considering alternatives to LRLAP. One alternative is the Excalibur GPS-guided artillery round. First developed for Army howitzers, contractor BAE Systems has come up with a naval version that can hit targets out to 26 miles. Excalibur costs about $68,000 each—which coincidentally is the same as Lockheed Martin's 2001 estimate for the LRLAP, adjusted for inflation.
Another option is to get rid of the Advanced Gun System entirely and go with railguns. The Navy has been planning to build the third Zumwalt-class destroyer, USS Lyndon B. Johnson, with railguns—provided the technology was mature enough. It may just be worthwhile to send the first ship back to the shipyard to be refitted with railguns, and delay the second ship so it can be fitted with railguns from the get-go.
A third option would be to get rid of the guns and devote their space to missiles. The Zumwalt-class was developed during a period when the U.S. Navy didn't face the prospect of fighting other navies on the high seas. In a search to remain relevant, the Navy developed the Advanced Gun System, which has zero capability to target other ships. In the nearly two decades since the Zumwalt class was proposed, the Chinese and Russian Navies have undergone a period of expansion, and their respective governments have grown more aggressive.
The Zumwalt-class destroyers have only 80 vertical launch missile silos, the least of any U.S. Navy destroyer or cruiser class. Under the missiles-only alternative, the Zumwalts could swap both guns for even more silos. These silos could house SM-6 long range anti-air missiles, Evolved Sea Sparrow short range anti-air missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and the new Long Range Anti-Ship Missile. Replacing the AGS with a field of silos could give the Zumwalts up to 200 missile spaces, more than any other ship in the Western world.
According to USNI News, the U.S. Navy wouldn't talk about LRLAP costs as late as last May. The Navy has known it wasn't getting 32 Zumwalt-class destroyers since 2008—the better part of a decade. Why it has taken this long to announce it would not be buying ammunition for a $22.5 billion dollar weapon system—which was specifically developed to use that ammunition—is a mystery.
And the new tank the McNamara.
Early in WW2 we supplied our subs and other boats with defective torpedos. I believe many didn’t go off on target and the government wouldn’t do exhaustive tests because each unit was too expensive.
The government made it a crime for a ships crew to open and ‘fix the problem ‘. Men Died be of it. Crews tinkered and made them work anyway. Government is an ass.
Line the decks with Phalanx CIWS and use the missile tube/space for ammo storage - target Irtanian style small boat attacks. Or better yet forget the Phalanx and buy the Russian Kashtan CIWS.
Otherwise sell the ship for scrap.
The Kashtan is supposedly not too well regarded by the Russian navy and export customers ... its missiles are not reliable.
The Russians are using the old AK-630 CIWS with medium-range SAMs on several of their new-built ships, India and China have also opted against going for new Kashtan orders.
A naval Pantsir is said to be in the works.
The solution seems obvious....... practice a lot and thus increase the market for the manufacturer thus lowering the unit cost per round
I thought of the AK, but did not know the Kashan was not as hot as the videos made out. Still, let’s compromise and have a live fire shoot off between the Phalanx and the AK on Iranian small boat swarms - the Iranians would get to test their tactic and we’d get to see who made the best Gattling-stye naval gun.
IIRC, the U2 was a preexisting plane that they just attached longer wings to.
I saw the cockpit of a U2 once. The seats were made of wood!
Powder bags cost nothing because we have hundreds left over from WW2.
Unless of course we destroyed them all for some inane reason.
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.in/2008/10/indian-navys-ciws-saga.html
Other than the great visual effect, neither the Phalanx nor the AK-630 are ideal for swarm boats. You are better off with a stabilized weapon system like the Israeli Typhoon and French Narwhal. A good compromise CIWS system is the 35mm Millennium Gun.
OK then, let’s add your selections to the mix of the rearmed Zumwalt and see who the winner is.
The Zumwalt-class destroyers were conceived in the late 1990s
I blame crystal meth
The fuselage was based on the XF-104 prototype (only two built). The XF-104 first flight was in March, 1954, and the Air Force rejected the U-2 design in June, 1954 with a first flight in August, 1955.
The U-2 was 63 feet long, and the XF-104 was a little over 49 feet, so there was clearly quite a bit of modification.
The F-104 was developed from the XF-104 (fuselage shy of 55 feet). The F-104’s first flight was in 1956.
So is the U-2 based on the 104, or is the 104 based on the U-2?
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.