Skip to comments.
The USS Zumwalt Can't Fire Its Guns Because the Ammo Is Too Expensive
Popular Mechanics ^
| November 7, 2016
| Kyle Mizokami
Posted on 11/07/2016 5:47:10 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: sukhoi-30mki
Aptly named “Zumwalt” class, after one of the worst CNOs in U.S. Navy history.
To: sukhoi-30mki
3
posted on
11/07/2016 5:52:03 PM PST
by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
Setback is a terrible thing. Rocket propelled would be much cheaper.
4
posted on
11/07/2016 5:52:54 PM PST
by
soycd
To: sukhoi-30mki
On the plus side, when they install the rail gun, the ammo needed will be basically hunks of inert metal. More or less.
5
posted on
11/07/2016 5:53:45 PM PST
by
ClearCase_guy
(Abortion is what slavery was: immoral but not illegal. Not yet.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
"The USS Zumwalt Can't Fire Its Guns Because the Ammo Is Too Expensive"Boy, I've been there. I sympathize.
6
posted on
11/07/2016 5:54:44 PM PST
by
Wyrd bið ful aræd
(Flag burners can go screw -- I'm mighty PROUD of that ragged old flag)
To: nickedknack
These are essentially cannon-fired guided missiles, if I read this correctly. Why even bother with guns for this? Can’t small smartbombs be launched without them?
7
posted on
11/07/2016 5:54:56 PM PST
by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: nickedknack
These are essentially cannon-fired guided missiles, if I read this correctly. Why even bother with guns for this? Can’t small smartbombs be launched without them?
8
posted on
11/07/2016 5:54:57 PM PST
by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: ClearCase_guy
9
posted on
11/07/2016 5:55:54 PM PST
by
HiTech RedNeck
(Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
This is beyond embarrassing.
Folks need to suffer harshly for this... but they won’t.
10
posted on
11/07/2016 5:56:28 PM PST
by
Bogey78O
(We had a good run. Coulda been great still.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
...and it currently has the attacking power of a 50 foot fishing boat. Way to go, Navy.
11
posted on
11/07/2016 5:56:46 PM PST
by
beethovenfan
(I always try to maximize my carbon footprint.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
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.Has Lockheed EVER been able to bring in a project on-time and on-budget? Perhaps the U-2?
12
posted on
11/07/2016 5:56:46 PM PST
by
PAR35
To: sukhoi-30mki
This is nothing new. While serving in the Marines Corps infantry in the 80’s we hardly ever shot our M2 .50 cals because the ammo was too expensive. We NEVER fired our Mk 19 grenade launchers. I’m sure glad our forces had 6 months to train in the desert before the Desert Storm assault into Iraq.
13
posted on
11/07/2016 5:57:20 PM PST
by
BBell
(calm down and eat your sandwiches)
To: soycd
Well, this puts us on par with the Russians - their crews never get to practice with first-line weapons because they are too expensive to use. They are getting some practice in Syria.
ON the good news front, our military has very good simulators - I always wondered how soldiers train with MANPADs at 250K a pop (never mind the cost of the target). I saw on television that they have an amazing simulator and to “pass” the test, I believe they actually get to fire one (1) real one.
14
posted on
11/07/2016 5:58:25 PM PST
by
The Antiyuppie
("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day")
To: sukhoi-30mki
Well, the main point is that they want to wreck our military. Obama and pals are doing a pretty good job at that.
Maybe they can invent a transvestite missile that will fit into those guns. . . .
15
posted on
11/07/2016 5:58:44 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: sukhoi-30mki
16
posted on
11/07/2016 5:59:12 PM PST
by
W.
(Half the political candidates are insane. And most of the Republicans aren't any better. Go Trump!)
To: sukhoi-30mki
17
posted on
11/07/2016 5:59:29 PM PST
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country.)
To: sukhoi-30mki
According to Defense News, the LRLAP round costs $800,000... Roughly what I'm paying for .22LR ammo at the moment... :-)
To: sukhoi-30mki
They Navy should rename them to the SS McNamara class.
19
posted on
11/07/2016 6:00:51 PM PST
by
Spirochete
(GOP: Give Obama Power)
To: sukhoi-30mki
Another option is to get rid of the Advanced Gun System entirely and go with railguns. Which doesn't really solve the problem. The guidance system for precision targeting is the expensive part. Propulsion is cheap compared to that so having a propellant free system won't save much.
For comparison, the current rev of the Tomahawk cruise missile is about $1.6 million each.
20
posted on
11/07/2016 6:01:41 PM PST
by
KarlInOhio
(" T'was the witch of November come stealin' " And who could the stealing Witch of November be? Hmm?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
