US Navy christens huge $3 billion destroyer ship USS Zumwalt

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
US Navy christens huge $3 billion destroyer ship USS Zumwalt that appears as a fishing boat on enemy radar


The US Navy on Saturday christened the first of its newest class of destroyers – the more than $3 billion (£1.8 billion), 610-foot (186-metre)-long USS Zumwalt.

Named after the late Admiral Elmo “Bud” Zumwalt, the warship sports advanced technology and a stealthy shape designed to minimise its visibility on enemy radar and reduce the size of its crew.

Among the 15,000-tonne destroyer's cutting-edge features are a composite deckhouse with hidden radar and sensors and an angular shape that officials say will allow it to be confused for a small fishing boat on radars. It also has a wave-piercing hull designed to reduce the ship's wake.

It's the first US ship to use electric propulsion and produces enough power to one day support the futuristic electromagnetic rail gun, which will be tested at sea in 2016.

Rail guns fire a projectile at six or seven times the speed of sound – enough velocity to cause severe damage. The Navy sees them as replacing or supplementing old-school guns.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Another step towards our future Navy. One that will eventually consist of 6..maybe 7...astronomically expensive capital ships and a bunch of Boston Whalers.
 
Monello

Monello

Smarter than the average bear
PREMO Member
That is 1 heck of a price tag. No wonder all the other military benefits are being cut.
 
glhs837

glhs837

Power with Control
b23hqb said:
With that price tag, they are now.
Click to expand...

Well, that cost is a factor of units built. From the wiki, which I have no reason to doubt in this case.


" Originally 32 ships were planned, with the $9.6 billion research and development costs spread across the class, but as the quantity was reduced to 10, then 3, the cost-per-ship increased dramatically.[14][15] The cost increase caused the U.S. Navy to identify the program as being in breach of the Nunn–McCurdy Amendment on 1 February 2010.[16][17]"


9 billion spread over 32 units aint bad.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
The R&D number is a sunk cost and is not factored in to the cost to procure each vessel (or airplane, or tank..). It is "only" the procurement cost that is over 3 billion dollars for each of the three vessels. If only three are built, yes, that means the total program cost is silly high, but that has happened many times before.

9.6 billion on R&D..I hadn't seen that high of a number before. Good grief..entire navies have been built for less.
 
Last edited:
b23hqb

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Yes, but that cost would probably only be reduced some for any additional units. I could see a billon per unit, which is still very capital.
 
glhs837

glhs837

Power with Control
Gilligan said:
The R&D number is a sunk cost and is not factored in to the cost to procure each vessel (or airplane, or tank..). It is "only" the procurement cost that is over 3 billion dollars for each of the three vessels. If only three are built, yes, that means the total program cost is silly high, but that has happened many times before.

9.6 billion on R&D..I hadn't seen that high of a number before. Good grief..entire navies have been built for less.
Click to expand...

I wonder about that number. Does that number include all the railgun stufff, and all the stealth stuff too, even if those things were really outside the DDX program? Like including the HAVE BLUE program costs for the UCAV program?
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
b23hqb said:
I could see a billon per unit, which is still very capital.
Click to expand...

No way. The original procurement authorization for the first three ships was 8.9 billion. It now stands at over 12 billion. So that's actually roughly 4 billion per vessel, not three. BUT..there were some procurement cost increases associated with eliminating the option for any more vessels beyond the first three (procurement costs..nothing to do with the sunk R&D cost) and hence, its the 3 billion per ship that is still considered as the "correct" procurement cost to hang one's hat on. If another one or more are ordered now, they will cost at least 3 billion dollars each.

Three billion each for destroyers is nuts...IMHO.

Did some more digging to refresh my poor memory. Turns out that a decent chunk of the total RDT&E funding was for construction and T&E of the lead ship, which was originally estimated to cost about 2.2 billion. That's "better"..I guess...but 3 billion for a destroyer is still nuts.
 
Last edited:
glhs837

glhs837

Power with Control
Well, if it both survives and fights beyond it's weight class, does that mitigate the cost some? Say it can take out twice it's cost in enemy vessels? you know far more about naval combat than I do, that's why I'm asking. The railgun stuff really has the potential to be game changing as far as offensive capability, I think. Knowing what I know of lasers, I think the ability to stay in the fight even in a missile heavy environment is there.
 
MMDad

MMDad

Lem Putt
Gilligan said:
Three billion each for destroyers is nuts...IMHO.
Click to expand...

They are "destroyers" in name only. Larger than any cruiser since the Long Beach. Bigger gun than any US ship built in the last 60 years. They almost need a different type designation since they are in no way similar to the conventional use of the term "destroyer."
 
MMDad

MMDad

Lem Putt
glhs837 said:
Well, if it both survives and fights beyond it's weight class, does that mitigate the cost some? Say it can take out twice it's cost in enemy vessels? you know far more about naval combat than I do, that's why I'm asking. The railgun stuff really has the potential to be game changing as far as offensive capability, I think. Knowing what I know of lasers, I think the ability to stay in the fight even in a missile heavy environment is there.
Click to expand...

It's purpose is not to take out enemy vessels, it is to provide long range shore bombardment. Since we no longer have battleships, this will be the only platform capable of this mission. Yes, it does have anti ship capability, but that's secondary to the primary mission.

Is it worth the cost? Time will tell.
 
Vince

Vince

......
Cut the 1 billion to Africa for their energy program, cut the billion to the Ukraine, cut 50 million to whoever, viola, it's just about paid for. :shrug:
 
MMDad

MMDad

Lem Putt
Vince said:
Cut the 1 billion to Africa for their energy program, cut the billion to the Ukraine, cut 50 million to whoever, viola, it's just about paid for. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You mean pay Americans to build American ships using American materials? Are you serious? We can't do that!
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
MMDad said:
They are "destroyers" in name only. Larger than any cruiser since the Long Beach. Bigger gun than any US ship built in the last 60 years. They almost need a different type designation since they are in no way similar to the conventional use of the term "destroyer."
Click to expand...

That.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top