Imagine that every shell you fire costs $500k. Honestly would be cheaper to just buy the enemy a Rolls Royce each for them to quit fighting. Probably more effective.
Ehh. If it's the size of a cruiser, and quacks like a cruiser, you're sure as hell it's gonna cost like a cruiser. But nah, let's call it a destroyer and wonder why is it so expensive...
@@soulsphere9242 yes *and* no. It has less crew capabilities, and practically, it has less ballistic firepower, but that's more down to lack of munitions, rather than lack of design. It would almost certainly always get first shots on any other serving destroyer (to date). Battleships were designed to take hits. Modern naval warfare, has progressed ever further, towards avoiding the hits in the first place. Now even to the extent of you can get him by what doesn't, and soon (ideally) won't be able to, fire back. It's not as capable as a Burke at escorting a carrier, but the USN's intention was not to bottleneck it to that roll. If you've ever read the book "The last ship" or even seen the TV show (particularly the first two seasons). In that roll, she'd have performed better than a Burke, when kitted out with the additional marines, she's capable of carrying. So, yes, and no. She's (mostly successfully) designed as more capable than a Burke, at what she was/is intended to perform at. A bit like Swedish and Japanese tank design. Even today, despite purchasing licences to manufacture highly modified Leopard 2's. Sweden has a very specific set of requirements, to their terrain, intentions, and doctrine. The USN had (and to an extent still has) a specific set of roles for the Zumwalt and it currently has show it *can* perform those better than a Burke. Even if in some cases, it no longer will (such as GFS)
@@soulsphere9242 I still agree the Zumwalt *can* perform small scale support, and lone, or small scale alpha strikes against other water targets. But yes, at *Well* beyond the cost of a Burke. Especially with todays refined efficiencies in their manufacture. As for the break in production. A lot was learned from the Zumwalt research. Even if the ship itself may never be able to perform as intended today. I've always seen any kind of new knowledge/research in my engineering career as beneficial, no matter how big or small a scale. It may have been a really expensive and costly piece of R&D, but with the word invaluable applicable, I know many in the USN management likely see it as just paying the bills. As an extra side note, it's also a piece of proof, for any future design projects, for any platform in any military wing. Such a high level of future proof comes with a respectably big receipt.
@@soulsphere9242 maybe in it's current form. (I will not dwelve into specs, you can never be sure that publicly available data on active military assets is accurate) But it carries (now useless) cruiser-caliber guns...
@@soulsphere9242 I know the USN wanted to potentially bridge the gap between missile cruisers and DDG's with Zumwalt. the bow itself is extremely efficient at cutting through water, and in almost all weather conditions highly stable. The only issue is in a typical Northern hemisphere winter Atlantic storm (in which the hull of a Burke disappears under each wave), where artillery operation, and in particular, deck opperarions on the bow are increasingly dangerous. On a slightly less important note, potential deck space is also lost with the lack of a forecastle area. Honestly though, it's still seen as an all round better bow design. Stability, speed, and efficiency, are considered more important. It also happens to be additionally beneficial in the case of stealth. Many vessels today are built with coined X-bow's. For the same reasons. In particular, those carrying extensive survey equipment. As we've seen, Zumwalt can't practically bridge that gap today, or likely in the next few years, and continued modernisation of current missile cruisers is the available option. Is not the best, or ideal. Assault carriers are also partially taking up some cruiser roles these days aswell. Which is more a testament to *their* flexibility and capability, than a failure of the Ticon. One thing I'd be shocked over. Is if any new platform. Is not a semi-modular platform. Something the US have mastered since 1938. The ability to retrofit any hull with any various equipment, and superstructure for the intended role over any number of months, upon launch, or over a few (relatively, and respectably short) months. If the USN wanted to eg dedicate a hull to service as a fleet escort, or extended tour maritime patrol alone. A ready designed hull, does said job, engineering spaces, typically don't need to move, and the infrastructure is almost always there for the equipment. Whether it's hanger space, electrical warfare, ballistic, or (semi-)guided weapons. In short. As much as even the Irish news papers and I'm sure US media have blown up the "failure" of the Zumwalt (the maiden voyage, and sea trial teething problems was blown well out of rational proportion in a few papers here...), it's for the most part a successful ship. It's potentially a record holder, for carrying the most sets of untested designs and processes in one go, than any other nation's naval vessels. A similar looking base hull, with changed superstructure and proportions may quite likely be the Ticon's successor, 2, 5, 20 years from now. Taking full advantage of Zumwalt's history. The Dahlgren NSWRC or any future iterations may not be the chosen platform. But end up being a liquid propellant projectile cannon. Or a Burke IIIA subclass may emerge, with more dimension edits, changed power plants, and other various equipment, to replace Arleigh, and her early sisters. With an enlarged hull dimensions not dissimilar to Ticon., new superstructure, and space for the required systems as a new cruiser. Either way. Just like the Abrams in the last few months, and especially the last few weeks. Most heads of millitary requisitions, the engineering heads, and various paper pushers, aren't idiots. They, may spend more tax dollars than some like. But they try to produce what they believe is the required future standards, that simply haven't even been set yet. I'm 22, and have been told I have some people's respect, purely for accepting I know (almost) nothing. Nothing compared to the guys in their 50's. Even if, I have better paper qualifications, and will be able to run similar machines for a fraction the labour in the near future. Having multiple ship classes with almost identical production processes and equipment, makes shipyards very happy, makes the poor bastard budgeting happy, and even the crew happy. Anyway, sorry for the rant. I know realistically, Zumwalt has been quite screwed service wise. But I still see her as a potentially much more capable ship, for her roles (which the USN currently believe is the ever more evident future of naval warfare); is better than a Burke. Even if Arleigh isn't necessarily bad at that role even in her relative age. You could compare it with Japan or Sweden's tank program. Their national requirements for armoured division platforms are highly specific. While there may be newer or older tanks around the globe. Few *can* perform the required roles as needed. Japan's terrain, and doctrine is so unique compared to eg US and British armoured and infantry divisions; Chal.2 and AbramsA2E3 would not perform as Japan wants. Hence why Japan is happy to be still using hundreds of Type 74's. A slightly modified STB-1chassis and hull designed in the 60's, after the modifications from prototype to production, as it is today (along with steady modernisation). The Type 10 is one of the most modern armoured platforms in the world, and although it's expensive, and would be considered inadequate for a US army MBT in a trial today. Nothing else in the world matches the role the JSDF for Japanese soil. All a super long winded way of saying, Zumwalt may never herself equate to her cost, and even though she has a fraction her planned combat firepower, she's still one of the best platforms for performing her current patrol roles. In training, even US vessels struggle to identify her in buisy traffic lanes. It's just unfortunate she can't perform to her intended capabilities. Hey, she may indeed (to date) be the deadliest surface vessel, but with the capability of ground support to trump the US's vast and sub fleet. It's just advertised that she's pretty useless... XD
Having actually worked on Zumwalt, I can tell you that a big part of every cost overrun are "In Process Design Adjustments" - IPDAs. Also, when the composite superstructure arrived from GDBIW's southern partner it was 200 tons heavier than design spec. Its first captain was James C. Kirk, whom I had the fortune to meet one afternoon when he came down to the space that I was constructing. I have stood on the wall of the fort [Ft. Popham] past which Zumwalt sails at 6:00.
Zumwalt is a piece of garbage. Almost nothing works, be its engine, gun or radar etc. The next gen destroyer design DDG(X) will have to copy the Chinese type-055
Yep. Then they try to blame crews for all the accidents. Even worse in war time? All that automation isn't a replacement for actual crews once stuff starts breaking down. Hell the soviet union fell into that trap with the sub program in the cold war, and that's where most of their accidents happened from. We're going to be in for a real bad awakening when someone that can fight back against us, decides to get uppity.
Damage and flooding control on a tumblehome with half the crew. You stop the water ingress, or you go overkeel where a conventional hull wouldn't have, with half the damage control personell. Brilliant, isn't it.
@@EgorKaskader On the bright side, when the ship sinks after being unable to keep up with repairs, you’ll only need half as many rescue boats to save the crew!
Its not that the tumblehome design is unstable in rough seas. Old British sailing ship were designed this way because they were more stable in rough seas. Its unstable when there's a hole in the ship from combat that let water in causing it to be more likely to capsize.
@@JimmySailor Seaworthiness was an issue if your tumblehome ship had gunwales, but this class of ship isn’t going to founder in the same way if it takes a wave on deck. The main issue is that they prioritised stealth over utility and flexibility. You have max displacement but no way to utilise that reserve of buoyancy over the lifetime of the class.
@@dzello Planes can't carry as many cruise missiles or missile defense capabilities. There is no Aegis equivalent for planes. Naval ships are also key in projection. There is no practical aviation equivalent for Aircraft carriers and long range designs alongside aerial refuelers can only get you so far. Even when ships and planes do share a similar niche, such as anti-submarine warfare or sea patrol, ships are still a much appreciated and cost effective asset and often times utilizing both in conjunction with one another has a greater benefit than just using many of a single type. While airforces are a much more important asset for domestic national defense, navies become key if one has the desired goal of force projection.
I oversaw the production of these, and they didn't fail because the systems were too advanced. They failed because of the sheer amount of money that was thrown at them and they ran into issue after issue during production and pre-production. Instead of bleeding money to build a fleet of them, they adopted the tech to the future versions of the Arleigh Burk series.
You with NAVSEA, or Bath? I work for a BIW supplier. This thing made me cringe on a lot of levels. Love the Burkes, they keep my company solvent. I do like the footage of the Zumwalt steaming out past Fort Popham, though.
Stealth warship in a nutshell: Radar operator: “Sir, there appears to be a fishing boat approaching.” Officer: Ok, what’s the deal? Radar operator: “Uh…It’s traveling at 30 knots.”
Ya, kinda my thought as well. If its being used as a picket ship along the coasts it might be able to take advantage of that stealth but in almost any other situation its going to be pretty obvious its not a fishing boat. Besides, if all the US destroyers got replaced with them and someone went to war with the US... well it just means they're going to be paying attention to every "fishing boat" they spot. Its not like stealth fighters where they're essentially invisible in most situations. It just looks like a different kind of boat which is only helpful when they aren't the standard.
Navies of the world have been building stealth ships with a surface radar contact smaller than fishing boats for over a hundred years. They're called submarines.
I always wondered that. The war in the Middle East where coalition forces would fire million $ ordinance at some guy in sandals with a rusty AK. Would it kill him: Sure. Is it effective: Yes. Did we win: No. Is it worth: Definitely not.
@@mikkel066h But the cost per unit dropped significantly as many more units were produced that would share the development cost. At least in theory, in practice I suppose the unit price was set based on the first batch, that including R&D costs, giving a huge profit to the weapon maker.
I think this actually worked out for the best. Now they have 3 ships to test out a plethora of new technologies and concepts, rather than a 32 ship potential liability. Also the stealth concept was not needed at all for a mass production model, but might be useful in certain situations, and 3 ships with this design should allow for increased flexibility in that regard. I would guess after a decade of testing the current design, a much more practical mass produced model will be proposed that combines the features that worked the best from the Zumwalt class, with proven design concepts from older classes of destroyers.
I was thinking this. Perhaps they take on a specialty role. Reconnaissance, especially through a storm where it's radar signature would be indistinguishable from sea spray.
basically: less capability than what it was meant to replace, cost half a carrier, guns shells that are too expensive to shoot. and the realisation that submarines cost less, more stealthy and holds just as much or more missiles.
Unfortunately. Should just rip the guns off and turn it into a big missile cruiser and install the Aegis system. Might have been a worthy replacement to the Ticonderoga class if that had been done, but known how this stuff works, it probably would have cost tens of billions.
Built in New England... a place run by the mafia and their minions (crooked politicians and union goons). New England is the place where EVERY project ends up being half as effective, and ten times as expensive as what was promised. Lots of pockets got lined with federal dollars throughout this silly escapade. I'm surprised they actually built any ships at all. Usually, they'd have just taken the money and run.
Yeah, those guided gun shells were experimented with years before the Zumwalt was a concept. They were very effective as a munition but too expensive, since it cost close to what more capable (actual) missiles cost. That never changed apparently, but the engineers always dwell on the best possible outcomes on paper-then reality raises its ugly heads again. Note the last one was made simply to keep a shipyard busy- which pretty much sums of the entirely of this massively expensive failed experiment.
@@chaosincarnate3724 no no no, hear me out. B-2 still got curves. F-117 on the other hand have sharper edges. In fact, F-117 is designed to not have curves.
Tumblehome hulls have been tried before, the problem isn’t when they’re sitting pretty in a storm, it’s after the enemy have put some holes in them they become far more unstable far more quickly than ships with a standard hull shape, take a look at the battle of Tsushima for a good example.
@@shawn97006 Overall though, I’d much rather trade that stability for stealth as in a open seas battle that would serve you better. Now if you were let’s say in the Persian gulf I’d definitely leave the Burke’s to deal with that in case of lower level attacks on it, and it’s not like the zumwalt was made for close quarters combat combat anyway as stealth at close range would be significantly reduced
When I was at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado for my naval surface fires class, they said we didn’t have a ship on station to do a live fire, even though I saw a zumwalt docked at bay. I asked why we couldn’t just use a zumwalt instead and my instructor pretty much explained what this video did.
As a now retired Master Chief Petty Officer told me in 2013...."The Zumwalts are under armored, under armed, slow, under manned, and over priced.."....Sooooo
“What killed the Zumwalt class destroyer was attempting to incorporate too many new technologies at once” **60 seconds earlier** “there are talks of installing a rail gun onto the ship”
also, another thing that hurt it was the fact that it was way late. Being late also makes the cost go way up. I think it would have been better to do evaluation change, not revolution. I would still like to see a new battleship, but a 21-century design.
Even the rail gun prototype is better than the joke gun currently on Zumwalt. I'd actually understand the Zumwalt main gun if it could fire conventional ammunition just fine, but could also be used for those scam smart projectiles if necessary. So, the ships could carry a good load of cheap, traditional ammo and a few of the smart ones, on the off chance they would be better than a good old missile in some specific situation.
A company I worked for had proposals out for the SC-21 program in its inception, and I followed it a bit for years afterwards. The video's author almost got to the root cause of the failure; it wasn't that it had too many new technologies, that isn't unusual. It's that it had way too many missions planned for it, a story that has been the bane of US weapon platform development for decades. A stealth ship is a fantastic weapon for intercepting smugglers or spying on enemy fleets - it may have a slight value for getting into range of a coastline for its land bombardment. Obviously, it wasn't really going to be used for coastal defense with that weapon payload. It had to be useful to deploy special forces in rubber rafts - good for a stealth ship, but they already have good delivery systems that don't require a very distinctive surface ship at all. It wasted hullspace was full of crap to facilitate this mission. It had to have space for a helicopter. Maybe two. It had to still serve the normal destroyer roles of fleet defense. They still wanted it to serve in shallower water, despite its ballooning weight. That at least sounds like pushed them into a fantastic hull design. It had to take on the inexplicable role of shore bombardment - not just the invasion support role that hasn't been very relevant for 70 years, but 100 mile inland. A destroyer just isn't going to carry the ammo for a sustained inland bombardment, and of course we have much better weapon systems for that mission. Two guns was never going to be an effective volume of fire. They did want it railgun capable, but all of the other things they wanted the ship to do meant it was never going to have the space required to store the energy required to fire a railgun projectile 100 miles repeatedly. So they went with a more standard gun, but now its limited ammo space was full of chemical propellants, not explosive warheads. this happens over and over again in the US military. Every time someone proposes a new weapon system, every single subgroup in the military want a piece of it and they start loading up the weapon platform with more and more mission requirements that serve the needs of that subgroup. The F-22 only escaped oblivion by the clever move of calling it "modular", so the mission could be easily changed by changing the equipment in the plane. However, this has always been done! There is no doubt at all the US military has the highest tech capability, but the politics surrounding new platforms and every single pentagon leader wanting to put their own use for the new toy, as well as politicians wanting to make sure their bases have a use for the platform, as well as different companies wanting to have some of their equipment on it, turns most weapon platforms into expensive boondoggles where the original mission for the platform gets buried. This is a parody: www.duffelblog.com/p/dod-announces-new-inverted-multi-purpose-ballistic-tomahawk-bayonet-imbtb
Defence contracts are a living hell to write. In the 70s I wrote them for Lockheed. Phone book thick line by line. You had to show where every dollar went. What every person working on the project would make. What every spare part would cost and locking in that price for decades. And when it's a billion dollars. Wow, I worked for Howard Hughes. He was the DEFENCE industry.
I helped build the first 2 of these. They are truly impressive. The real reason we went over budget is because we took the contract over from another shipyard. Hurricane Katrina damaged thier yard. So it was a new design never been done before, made by another shipyard and we had to make sense of all the plans they made. So it took 4 years longer to finish the first one lol.
Do you work at BIW? I've lived here in Maine my whole life, loved seeing different navy ships in the docks growing up. The Zumwalts were monstrous compared to what I was used to seeing
Don't blame the shipyard, its because the money was invested on the wrong things rather than weaponry innovations. The budget was soo tight they bought missiles from a 3rd party who actually made the retarded weapon system for the Zum-Walt-Disney which costs the navy at $500k/missile. Stealth is practically useless for a navy destroyer, you're not trying to hide your ass off, you're trying to destroy shit. Zum-Walt-Disney can never say peak-ka-boo out of no where and attack another modern destroyer.
@The Paragon Effect I remember traveling up to Boothbay back in 2012 and seeing this monster being built in the bay below the bridge from the backseat of my grandmas van. It was really jawdropping, especially as a 14 year old kid.
@@alexrossouw7702 % is used so they can hide the spending, % calculations is very easy to make figures up how you like and hide money for say for other black ops projects like the Politians new swimming pool.
What killed her and her class is how often she broke down... Leaking hull, broken screw shaft (or drive shaft... I can't remember it's proper designation.) A ton of things went wrong with it's design alone.
Your wrong it's guns didn't work and will never work it's a floating power plant that they can't use imagine having that much power with no way to use it that made the ship useless not enough room for any other type of guns so made it useless
@@charlestorruella8591 Oh really? Add it to the pile. Zumwalt was a mess. But I remember hearing more about how she spent most of her time in a repair dock. She was refitted with different weapons a couple times because her "standard" load out didn't work. She failed for a lot of reasons. But what I remember hearing was that her hull was faulty.
Having built several Burke class destroyers, I have to say that they are not "older" types. They are constantly upgrading the electronics suite and the weapons capabilities.
Still the Burke is old even the flight 3. The Burke is able to compete against udaloy 2 ships, but barely. No matter how many refits Burke gets, US still need a more advanced and updated ship, like zumwalt . Even the Russians know they need to update and upgrade new ship projects.
Daniel Mak if the zumwalt program went as planned, we would’ve had the most overpowered ship type in the seas, way beyond the capabilities of China or Russia. But since it’s been completely fucked, the Chinese have caught up with the Burke’s. I Remmeber hearing about the 2000’s concept of 4 different ship types to replace the fleet, but here we are 21 years later and nothing.
@@NarasimhaDiyasena TBH, I really wish to Zumwatt class to be relaunched, a refitted one, with more advanced technology then the prototype. But then US is out of funds in reality. US cannot afford a "better" destroyer, wondering how are they going to maintain the carrier fleets.
Ben Rich, who managed Lockheed’s “Skunk Works" during the F-117 Stealth Fighter program, explained the problem with stealth ships: In heavy seas, radar can see the waves. So you look for places on the radar screen where there are suddenly no waves, and that’s probably a stealth ship. Skunk Works discovered this problem when they built a proof-of-concept ship, the Sea Shadow. It was essentially a stealth fighter shaped ship, but easier to build because it didn’t have to fly.
@@theterminaldave This is how it actually works. That quote sounds like it came from someone that doesn't actually understand how shipboard radar works. All radar has to deal with clutter. It does this by being set so that clutter just doesn't show up. In the case of stealth aircraft, they're designed to have the signature of objects the radar is normally set to ignore, just so the screens aren't filled with returns from every bird and bug in the region. If the gain was turned up, stealth aircraft would be detected, but so would a lot of other things. In the case of ships, the waves send back returns. I've seen this watching the screen on the console that sees the data from SPY before it gets filtered for the other consoles. There were sometimes huge swaths of the screen that would light up from the returns coming off the waves (the other consoles would have marks indicating the strongest returns, but not nearly as big). So for a ship to be stealthy, it just needs to give back a return similar to the waves around it. There is no "blank space" where there are no waves. Especially in heavy seas, where the waves can be as big as the ship. And even if the ship could create a "blank space", that would only be for the ship itself. There would still be waves around it. It would simply look like empty ocean on the screen. In light seas, with no waves to give clutter, it would be about as easy to detect as any other. The idea of a stealth ship (which should really be labeled as a "low profile" ship) is sound. The problem is executing it in a way that creates a functional warship. So far all attempts have failed miserably. The Zumwalt might have worked, if they had chosen one area to focus advancement on, and used tested technology for the rest.
@@grappo77 The F-117 worked by redirecting radar returns somewhere other than the originating radar. Multiple radar sites all watching the same piece of sky would pick up each other's returns off an F-117, and if they were networked together, they could combine those redirected returns into a target location. The F-117 really only worked because at the time radars in the regions they were used weren't networked.
As a software engineer, I remember quite a few projects where people (myself included) tried to use too many cutting-edge technologies. Some of these projects failed after cost overruns, just like that destroyer. I guess that's a common thing in the entire field of engineering.
@Ralph Freeman I think this misses a bit of context in that war has changed a rather lot over the ages. Whereas a truck built in 1950 can still do an okay job at being a truck, assuming it has been well taken care of and maintained, a warship built in 1950 is likely completely unfit to purpose. And that unfitness is a result of how much the technology to perform its job has changed in the last seven decades. And even car designers do a clean sheet redesigns ever few years when a model reaches the limits of its old chassis.
Can you imagine reading these orders: “Skipper, you are to sail this new ship into this storm off Alaska. Give us a call if . . . eeeeeee when you get out the other side.” Yeah, sure, on my way.
It’s stealthy. It carries a lot of missiles. Anyone can see it with a Mark One Eyeball. Submarines are stealthier and also carry lots of missiles. Of course I’m not biased at all, despite being an ex submariner...
In all honesty, Submarines definitely seem to be greater in the stealth department, especially considering that two of them ran into each other out on the seas without detecting each other. Not to mention that they also can carry quite a payload, like the Russian Typhoon for example.
My biggest problem with the Zumwalt class is that, last I heard, they cut catholic protection to save money. If you connect two different metals, like what the hull is made of, and what the main engines are made of, and put them in an environment that carries a charge, like salt water? You get galvanic corrosion. Normally, they bolt bars of zinc onto the hull. The zinc corrodes away so the hull doesn’t. But not on the Zunwalts. I wouldn’t serve on one.
To be fair, the zumwalt is more like a land attack platform(which it can't even do now) lol. It was more so made to replace the iowas(yeah the battleship). But yeah, idk what they expected when they put a bunch of new and less developed technologies into a single ship.
Probably the best, most concise summary of the Zumwalt Class failure. Well done! Now, has the U.S. military-industrial complex learned anything from this? 🤔 Probably not what we'd _want_ them to learn from their costly mistakes. 😒
The stealth and exterior shape were NOT the cause of over budget, it was the administrative flip flopping and over-design on what to put INSIDE the ship...
Exactly. And the constant reviews of how many ships to order, the economy of scale plays a part. When you make a project that relies on another few projects for it's success, and you delay or cut back the others it will impact them all and drive up costs.
My dad and uncle both worked on different parts of the 3 ships construction. It was fascinating to hear about all the work put into them. They definitely cost a lot but they are no doubt very impressive to see in person! Great video!
@The Sad Mug The missiles onboard Kirov cruisers have the capability to detect any ship or boat even so small as a fishing boat ( war experts have said this) so how can you Kirov doesn't have better aim. The Kirov cruiser is equipped with a medium range missile defense system and a short range missile defense system and two close in defense systems. This proves all you points against my comment is wrong.
@@theeternal1766 I was not being biased all I did was make a comment of what I think and some thing just being Russian doesn't make bad nor being American make it better.
"Stealth" on a destroyer is not primarily about avoiding detection. Current air and naval warfare is conducted with missiles which use radar to guide themselves to their targets. The advantage of stealth here is reducing the range at which enemy missiles can lock on.
@@puellamservumaddominum6180 Radar on the missile are smaller and weaker, so you have to fire by using main ship systems from as far distance as possible. Camera on the rocket would be used in very the last moment ONLY if it reach the target really close and not jammed.
What is your point Mr. Navy Clown guy? At that same range which the enemy modern destroyer ship can not practically detect the Zum Walt Disney, the Zum Walt Disney can not also practically sense or see the enemy modern destroyer or do any jack shit damage to it. The Zum Walt Disney doesn't have any better radar system as to the enemies, the Zum Walt Disney is just a floating boat made by Gucci hired by US Navy. Enemy modern destroyer ships ain't stupid, no mama raise no navy fool.
that's the only long-term benefit of the zumwalt, the navy will no longer have to start from scratch when making a new ship (please make it a cruiser, almost a third of the operational fleet are destroyers)
8:13 "What killed the Zumwalt-class destroyer was attempting to incorporate too many systems and technologies all at once." That reminds me of how Admiral Rickover had to fight the navy to keep experimental technology off of the USS _Enterprise._ He reasoned that the nuclear propulsion also was enough experimental technology, and that any more would pointlessly increase the chance of failure.
The second you fire the weapon the stealth is gone thing doesn't make sense to me. Isn't First Strike opportunity a MAJOR advantage? You'd want to get somewhere without being seen and then fire first and go away best you can.
@@felicytatomaszewska It's not like it would only shoot one shot, those AGS are supposed to be capable of firing every six seconds along side it's missile load out. It's not like it doesn't have a good Alpha strike
Well sometimes you might not see all the targets so if you give away your position since all a ship you can’t see has to do to figure out where you are is contact the ship that got hit with a missile So it could work but it also has a 50/50 chance of fucking up And you don’t take 50/50 chances in the military usually
So Zumwalt stealth is like 97% effective against radar? The US Navy already has a bunch of stealth ships that are 100% effective against radar. They are called submarines.
Zumwalt is a piece of garbage. Almost nothing works, be its engine, gun or radar etc. The next gen destroyer design DDG(X) will have to copy the Chinese type-055
P GR, Not all guided shells are that expensive, M982 Excalibur shell price was down to $68,000 by 2016. Laser aiming was added in 2015, and by 2018, 1400 rounds had been fired in combat in Afghanistan in the Army's M777 Howitzer. Search for M777 Howitzer. - Upgrade created by the Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) project to extend range from 30 to 70 km (19 to 43 mi)
Some people think they can outsmart guided missile with stealth, ecm, counter measures, and CWIS. Maybe, *sniff* maybe. I have yet to meet one that can outsmart shell!
The only reason it's so expensive is because the executives need to line Thier pockets. Boeing and Lockheed famously won't get out of bed for a contract under a billion dollars
@@MistaTofMaine im am not 100% sure because im to lazy to google. But i think its partly metal and then other stuff, it has to because else what os the purpose in building them if u have a u-boot which is supposed to be stealthy show up on any radar the they dont need the u- part.
I had metalurgy or how tf its called in english but i didnt do well xD i think the shop in main should be able to suply metal for submarines. It not that hard to make different metals just add the right amount of minerals at the right heat
IMO they should be reclassified as cruisers. Their VLS can carry lots of TLAM, SM series, ESSM and future missiles of the USN. Operating in an integrated or networked combat system they do not need to use their own sensors as the targeting data etc can be fed to the ships. I would also consider the ship as the basis for the Ticonderoga class replacements. As unlike the Burkes, this design has two important features that the Burkes now do not have: lots of surplus energy generation and empty space (designed in a modular fashion as well) for future sensors and weapons. In regards to the gun, I thought they were going to be replaced with or use 127mm or 155mm guns/ammunition depending upon the replacement option chosen. It was unfortunate that the USN decided to try giant technology leaps, like the LCS and Fords, that drove up the R&D costs and with the reduction in the numbers of units ordered made each ship more expensive to absorb the R&D.
they have less VLS than existing cruiser and are totally inferior to the chinese type 055 in term of VLS capacity while costing 3 times as much... but that is not the reason it is cancel, the primarily reason is it is impossible to install a cruiser level aegis system like those on type 055 and the latest dual band aegis system for future USN ship without cutting up the hull and losing the stealth, thus making such a modernisation pointless... it was simply cheaper to build new ship for the next gen aegis system then trying to fill it in an oddly shaped vessel that has to have all the sensor designed to fill it rather then the other way around of designing a ship to fit the sensor... and honestly if you just want a stealth missile boat... there is something call a missile submarine that is both stealthier and cheaper! really the only reason to build a surface platform is to provide area control, without the latest radar, you can't really do that. stealth and detector just don't mix.
@@lagrangewei As a rule all US ships carry less weapons than chinese / russian designs. US ships require global deployment range, while the chinese operate mainly near their own coast. When the chinese start patrolling the gulf of Mexico, you'll see less weapons on those ships. More space for fuel and food. Packing tons of weapons into a ship also makes maintenance difficult as there is little space to get in there and work.
So whenever the costs of each individual ship goes up congress cuts the number of ships it's buying, and every time congress cuts the number of ships it's buying the cost of each individual ship increases due to economy of scale?
I think it'd be foolish to think congress was axing numbers acquired without knowing thats how it worked. The projected cost overruns included the total acquisition. Adjusted acquisitions would then be based on the reduced economy of scale as well. The future of the project would then be based on them hitting the cost marks but if you constantly go out of control on costs no economy of scale can save you when you have 6 of 12 key technologies not mature enough to be affordable even in a 32 ship class. Remember, this entire acquisition system was when not managed by congress prone to huge overruns even if they let them buy as many as they wanted. Military planners have a tendency to shop like orange county housewives who buy into all the marketing.
I am not from the USA, so don't take this as a criticism, my friends. But I am sure that money would be enough to provide so many academic sponsorships, that those future students would render all those systems obsolete in no time.
"sir, we are being invaded by a fleet of over priced fishing boats that are heading for critical defense locations, what shall we do?" "send them a hail and ask if they need directions to the markets"
Nah the issues with the Linux system were when HAL tried to launch every single missile during a simulation early in the development process. Capt Kirk was not happy that day...
Installing a wireless printer in Linux: Step 1: sudo apt-get install cups You are done. Maybe you need a driver depending on the age of the printer and therefore another package.
That "ships traveling in a fleet" reminded me of something very funny Johnny Carson said in a monologue about the stealth bombers when they were made public. I parapharase, "They say it has the radar cross section of a sparrow. Don't you think the Soviets will be suspicious of a formation of sparrows flying 500 miles per hour at 30.000 feet headed their way?" He also suggested, "If they can't see them anyway, why don't we just TELL them we have them."
To be fair, the flyaway cost of an F-35A is $77.9MM. By comparison, the new F-15's that the US just contracted for will run $99.9MM a copy (combat capable) and are not stealthy. The case studies, including this one represent the loss of economies of scale. Lawmakers want low cost/unit but cut back production which results in the exact opposite. See B-2, F-22 among others.
Not the military's budget, more the budgets of the suckers who have to pay for all the overpriced junk that's supposed to stop the Chinese from coming ashore (forget about the millions of cheap-labour migrants being shipped in by GOP-donors to make life/existence that bit harder and more insecure for the ever-gullible taxpaying little people).
@@joebuckaroo82 Dems and GOP are both pro immigration, legal and illegal. Despite the fact that voters have been opposed to immigration in every poll for 75+ years. They'll just keep bring in more people until the demographics make the polls say what they want. Never forget that Reagan did amnesty ...with the false promise of shutting down all future illegal immigration after.
no its definitely a destroyer. it said so on the design plans. :) yes i'm being sarcastic mate. you are quite right its clearly a cruiser and 4.5 billion is not a bad price for what it is.
@@tommyfred6180 Classification is arbitrary, and only loosely based on historic precedent. USA tends to overclass it's ships compared to similar ships in other navys. Most other countrys would call Burkes large frigates and Tichs large destroyers.
@@p51mustang24 I dont think so.......many destoriers from other countries are even smaller than brukes. Back to the WW2 era, there were 2000tons destroyers, and over 10000tons is definally cruisers.
You don't mention the distributed propulsion and power systems. Also, VLS mounted not in a big patch but around the entire destroyer. This gives an immensely more survival capability in case of a direct hit on the missiles
Not really cuz of the Tumblehome design. Once an enemy finds you and causes damage, you're going to be sunk. That design is great if you're not taking any damage.
There's two ways of looking at the BLS system being distributed around the ship. Especially your wrapping the ship in your magazine. Any it could be fatal. Not to mention you don't have enough people surviving keep the ship afloat assuming you even have power.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer The cells are built like the blow-out panels on modern MBTs. Any explosion is vented outward, away from the ship, and a single hit can't detonate the entire magazine like it would with a conventional VLS system.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Their design is assuming they are intact. Damaged cells may not be quite so predictable. I know of M1's where the blast doors performed but other damage allowed the explosion to vent inward.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer The M1's blast doors are also internal. With the Zumwalts, the only two access points for the VLS cells are an external impact, and the cell doors themselves. The cells are also fully enclosed, so the blast has nowhere to go but up and out, and unlike the M1, if the armor on the interior side of the cell is breached, a small explosive jet isn't going to kill the entire crew or detonate an entire magazine.
TBH, this is a familiar story among the 'big three' defense contractors. And that's largely due to the fact that the government has a long history of accepting over-budget weapons systems without penalty.
I read an article in a military magazine that they are having recurring failures of their newly designed drive transmissions. Main shaft bearings would burn out, shafts would break, & so on. One Stealth Destroyer departed from Norfolk recently and made it less than 10 miles offshore before breaking down & having to be towed back to the yard. The failures have been so frequent that General Dynamics agreed to cover the cost of the repairs.
so effectively, tiger syndrome. a machine that's so overengineered that the most basic parts hardly work because all the money and effort went into semi-functional technical gizmos that may or may not be an improvement.
Are you sure you’re not confusing this ship with the littoral combat ship? That ship has a problem with its multi engine combiner gears breaking. Maybe both types of ships uses similar systems? If so our the Navy is in trouble
Heh, Drachinfel talked about tumblehome designs in his episode on French pre-dreadnoughts. They're actually more stable than regular designs... until they start flooding on one side. Then they like to tip over pretty easily.
A buddy at Raytheon used to tell me about the amazing Zumwalt… and I always thought it seemed ideal if we ever invaded Mogadishu again. It seemed tailor made for such a mission. We have a bloated military and it’s been that way forever. In graduate school I learned about SWOT, and an annual swot analysis might do wonders.
Back in the 80's and 90's when I was in the USN, we often referred to the Pi Rule - take the proposed cost of a government contract, multiply it by the basic value of Pi - 3.14 - and you'd have close to the final cost.
@@peck3034 that’s generally harder than you think - without help from someone on the inside. Also, it often costs more to do business with government agencies with the paperwork that’s often involved. But my main point was that when governments try to sell some service to the public, they lowball the estimate to make it an easier sale to the tax payers. The estimate is already low and then it tends to naturally climb as things progress and missed items are discovered or actual site conditions are realized. The reports of $400 hammers generally aren’t true. What happens is the contractor develops a total bid price and then given a form to fill out where they have to fit the price into the "cost buckets" listed on the form. The forms never have all the buckets necessary to list all the costs so all that extra money just gets thrown into the buckets listed. So the price for a hammer looks expensive but the number has money in it that covers overhead and supervision and miscellaneous costs and even contingency fees so read out over the whole sheet. Does that make sense. There are times when things cost a lot more than you think, but that’s usually when they have to be specially made on a very limited run. There you have to tool up, make a small run and then tool back to normal production.
Over reach: Expectations that futuristic technology would be available before launch. instead of getting the NCC-1701, they got the Minnow. Oh, one more thing: excessive greed by the contractors without sufficient oversight by congress.
Lol, I have a skippers cap from the admiral of the zumwalt, I also remember when they got stuck because someone did a dumb and didn’t account for depth and width of the channel
This is like when a computer scientist spends years studying a problem because it is extremely hard and requires all kinds of advanced mathmatical tools, but then when publishing the paper he/she realizes the problem itself is of little interest to practitioners.
Yeah, so you're "littoral," meaning your objective is to sneak into someone's harbor un-noticed. So perhaps you evade coastal radar, but everyone living within half a mile of the pier has called the police, so what's the point?
It would be very interesting to have these integrated with a laser defense system. Since laser weapons are pretty much impossible to detect where the shot came from, having a stealth ship firing it seems like a good idea. Basically would transform this into an anti-missile/drone platform.
The Zumwalt class is a great example of why/how the DOD procurement system is broken. What is needed is an all new, and more realistic approach. Which is a fancy way of saying renegotiation. The contract/concept involving this hull design needs to be streamlined. Certain excessively expensive items, will have to be replaced by less expensive alternatives. The "battleship gun" focus was just plain goofy. Longer ranged guns can be built. So can rocket assisted guided munitions. But not at the cost,contractors demanded. Clearly the program structure was written for the advantage of contractors. This precedent needs to be excluded from future projects. We have a great hull design. So? It's time to talk about using the money/research already spent? To build something based on the Zumwalt class hull. Using weapons and other systems. The whole of which is both affordable and effective. Even if extra expensive stealth paint and similar expensive features aren't included. Using the same basic design, allows for later and less expensive upgrades in the future.
All of these ships are made of aluminum. One of the countermeasures is that they use is passing an electric charge through the hull. When you pass electricity through aluminum in salt water, you greatly increase its rate of corrosion. The ship builders told this to the Pentagon BEFORE they were built.. several times. The Zumwalts are literally falling apart. This is why they are being killed off.
Not to mention when the USS Belknap's super structure burned down to the weather deck after a collision with CV 67. The USN swore off aluminum construction in their future vessels.
My father used to work for Bath Iron Works, mostly on cargo and support ships, but he also did some minor secondary design work on the Zumwalts; he liked talking about all the weird little quirks and design details, and especially the strange choices that had to be made to meet the demands for it, specifically the close defense weapons, which he said had to be redesigned several times to get them to work correctly, and he was always skeptical of the stealth, mostly because it would be pretty hard to not see, since it’s way taller and rides a lot higher in the water than you’d think
There’s a Burke class destroyer parked right on the other side of BIW and the zumwalt looks so big and futuristic in comparison. Definitely a cool looking vessel.
That’s the thing about TH-cam, if you ever need to know US State Secrets, you’ll always find an Evangelical Conservative Patriot has posted it here! They are just Soooooo proud of their nation , they just can’t contain any secret, they’ve got to boast about it and tell EVERYONE about EVERYTHING !
missed the whole point of it....if this thing sneaks into lets say Chinese waters with 2 or 3 fishing boats around it the coastal radar or patrol ships wont be able to tell which is which .....they wont know it's there till they see it with their own eyes ...and then it'll be too late to do anything
Its more than likely a proof of concept. Stealth is BIG especially in aviation so why not make a stealth ship. War doctrine would likely evolve from there.
The worst thing about so much money being spent on making the Zumwalts stealthy was that they almost immediately started undermining it by planting additional antennas and domes all over what was supposed to be a fully integrated topside.
The interesting part here is that the bridge (with all command staff and control systems) are still on top of the ship. With this level of automation and AR that bridge could also be put in a fortified area in the centre or rear centre of the ship. With HD cameras combined with AR and zoom functions without the distraction of windows (which by themselves are vulnerable parts) it makes no sense to put that bridge on top.
Zumwalt is a piece of garbage. Almost nothing works, be its engine, gun or radar etc. The next gen destroyer design DDG(X) will have to copy the Chinese type-055
Actually the real reason why the Zumwalt ships got canceled is the over whelming amount of xray welding on over whelming high strength steel that needed labor intensive preheat set-up time. So each of the three ships was built three times due to over whelming xray weld failures, and in most times it was weld failures that was the size of a spec of dust!!!!!! And then also the ship structure was installed off location half the time by as much as 6" down to 1" or less and that required lots of labor intensive re-work from multiple trades. But at the end the day least the US Navy got a very well built ship that is 2nd to none........
I'm not a Navy expert, but don't live feed drones and satellite imagery kind of negate a stealth advantage? If you keep constant tabs on all of your adversary's ships then stealth capes seem somewhat redundant
The folks that get rich off this 'shell game' of military contracting, development, over-budgeting, procurement, and then cancellation should be hanged.
Too easy, and not entertaining enough - to raise money for a mature Zumwalt II design, we should do a series of PPV's, where all those that get rich off the 'shell game' get shot, courts-martialed, AND sent to the Russian Front! (Those designing and building the Zumwalt II will take note of what happened, which was done, as Napoleon would say, '...pour encouragement des autres...'
Yeah politicians bribed is not an issue. What do you think of all the blackmail they caught a whole bunch on Epstein island. Mossad can out them whenever unless they give money to Israel and defense companies owned by this chosen people.
In the area around Bath (where they were built) the locals asked them to install radar reflectors. It seems a 16,000 ship may look like a 15 ton fishing boat, but if you assume it can turnor stop like one you just might get run down after dark, in fog etc. The stealth really works and makes most homing weapons useless.
The tactics were revised to giving each enemy fighter the money worth equal to one LRLAP shell. Then, the fabricators worst nightmare became true: there were no more enemies to fight.
@Mark Hepworth The Zumwalt has marginal combat utility. It has fewer VLA cells than either a Tico or a Burke, a limited sensor suite & the only guns it carries are a pair of kludged on 30 mm bushmasters. Good for shooting up speed boats, basically. Zumwalt can’t operate alone, especially in green/brown water because it has no organic defenses that would be of any use against ASMs or submarines & whatever stealth capabilities it may retain become useless if it’s operating as part of a task force. It does generate a lot of power with it’s IEP system but doesn’t have anything to use it on. Bet you could run some kick-ass gaming PCs with all that juice, though...
@Mark Hepworth How on earth is a Destroyer designed for shore bombardment that cannot afford its ammo an example of the Zumwalt working? Thats as dumb as releasing Cyberpunk on a console that cannot run it like the PS4.
The complete opposite of the creation and deployment of the P8A Poseidon. That bird was created on an existing 737 frame and each new technology was individually rolled out over almost a decade. One of the best run and produced Navy programs.
That's about maximum fail as far as the sense of the comment counts... My country has far more hilarious and idiotic ways to spend the taxes and our taxes are high... I would be glad if it would have been invested in military.
Yup. I checked on Wikipedia a while back and apparently the production for the guns ammo was halted because the ammo was too expensive. The guns can only use that ammo by the way so the Zumwalt class’s guns don’t even have ammo.
Imagine that every shell you fire costs $500k. Honestly would be cheaper to just buy the enemy a Rolls Royce each for them to quit fighting. Probably more effective.
True, if the person I fight offers me just 200 000$, I drop my rifle and start a new peaceful life.
@@ousou78 brings up a good point, what if instead of spending money on military we just spent it on giving people money so they don’t want to fight.
@@Alsry1 5 trillion wasted on irak/afghainstan hellholes. 120000homelss in L.A.
@@Alsry1 да, идея хорошая. Но проблема в том, что вы не можете давать тем людям деньги, потому что вы пока что их "деньги" забираете и на это живете.
But that mean military industrial complex is not making money, thousands of Americans worker will lose their job blah blah blah.
the Zumwalt Destroyers is so stealthy it will never be seen on the battleground ever
They can throw darts off the main deck.
wouldnt be so sure with todays satelite tec ...
@@PiconPrimeKnight it’s a joke that you don’t get so stfu
It was so stealthy they couldn't see the cost overrun coming.
@Sumit Dev th-cam.com/video/0uPWB1gNXDA/w-d-xo.html
Ehh. If it's the size of a cruiser, and quacks like a cruiser, you're sure as hell it's gonna cost like a cruiser. But nah, let's call it a destroyer and wonder why is it so expensive...
@@soulsphere9242 yes *and* no. It has less crew capabilities, and practically, it has less ballistic firepower, but that's more down to lack of munitions, rather than lack of design. It would almost certainly always get first shots on any other serving destroyer (to date). Battleships were designed to take hits. Modern naval warfare, has progressed ever further, towards avoiding the hits in the first place. Now even to the extent of you can get him by what doesn't, and soon (ideally) won't be able to, fire back.
It's not as capable as a Burke at escorting a carrier, but the USN's intention was not to bottleneck it to that roll.
If you've ever read the book "The last ship" or even seen the TV show (particularly the first two seasons). In that roll, she'd have performed better than a Burke, when kitted out with the additional marines, she's capable of carrying.
So, yes, and no. She's (mostly successfully) designed as more capable than a Burke, at what she was/is intended to perform at.
A bit like Swedish and Japanese tank design. Even today, despite purchasing licences to manufacture highly modified Leopard 2's. Sweden has a very specific set of requirements, to their terrain, intentions, and doctrine. The USN had (and to an extent still has) a specific set of roles for the Zumwalt and it currently has show it *can* perform those better than a Burke. Even if in some cases, it no longer will (such as GFS)
@@soulsphere9242 I still agree the Zumwalt *can* perform small scale support, and lone, or small scale alpha strikes against other water targets. But yes, at *Well* beyond the cost of a Burke. Especially with todays refined efficiencies in their manufacture.
As for the break in production. A lot was learned from the Zumwalt research. Even if the ship itself may never be able to perform as intended today. I've always seen any kind of new knowledge/research in my engineering career as beneficial, no matter how big or small a scale. It may have been a really expensive and costly piece of R&D, but with the word invaluable applicable, I know many in the USN management likely see it as just paying the bills.
As an extra side note, it's also a piece of proof, for any future design projects, for any platform in any military wing. Such a high level of future proof comes with a respectably big receipt.
@@soulsphere9242 maybe in it's current form. (I will not dwelve into specs, you can never be sure that publicly available data on active military assets is accurate) But it carries (now useless) cruiser-caliber guns...
@@soulsphere9242 I know the USN wanted to potentially bridge the gap between missile cruisers and DDG's with Zumwalt. the bow itself is extremely efficient at cutting through water, and in almost all weather conditions highly stable. The only issue is in a typical Northern hemisphere winter Atlantic storm (in which the hull of a Burke disappears under each wave), where artillery operation, and in particular, deck opperarions on the bow are increasingly dangerous. On a slightly less important note, potential deck space is also lost with the lack of a forecastle area.
Honestly though, it's still seen as an all round better bow design. Stability, speed, and efficiency, are considered more important. It also happens to be additionally beneficial in the case of stealth.
Many vessels today are built with coined X-bow's. For the same reasons. In particular, those carrying extensive survey equipment.
As we've seen, Zumwalt can't practically bridge that gap today, or likely in the next few years, and continued modernisation of current missile cruisers is the available option. Is not the best, or ideal.
Assault carriers are also partially taking up some cruiser roles these days aswell. Which is more a testament to *their* flexibility and capability, than a failure of the Ticon.
One thing I'd be shocked over. Is if any new platform. Is not a semi-modular platform. Something the US have mastered since 1938.
The ability to retrofit any hull with any various equipment, and superstructure for the intended role over any number of months, upon launch, or over a few (relatively, and respectably short) months.
If the USN wanted to eg dedicate a hull to service as a fleet escort, or extended tour maritime patrol alone. A ready designed hull, does said job, engineering spaces, typically don't need to move, and the infrastructure is almost always there for the equipment. Whether it's hanger space, electrical warfare, ballistic, or (semi-)guided weapons.
In short. As much as even the Irish news papers and I'm sure US media have blown up the "failure" of the Zumwalt (the maiden voyage, and sea trial teething problems was blown well out of rational proportion in a few papers here...), it's for the most part a successful ship. It's potentially a record holder, for carrying the most sets of untested designs and processes in one go, than any other nation's naval vessels.
A similar looking base hull, with changed superstructure and proportions may quite likely be the Ticon's successor, 2, 5, 20 years from now. Taking full advantage of Zumwalt's history. The Dahlgren NSWRC or any future iterations may not be the chosen platform. But end up being a liquid propellant projectile cannon.
Or a Burke IIIA subclass may emerge, with more dimension edits, changed power plants, and other various equipment, to replace Arleigh, and her early sisters. With an enlarged hull dimensions not dissimilar to Ticon., new superstructure, and space for the required systems as a new cruiser.
Either way. Just like the Abrams in the last few months, and especially the last few weeks. Most heads of millitary requisitions, the engineering heads, and various paper pushers, aren't idiots. They, may spend more tax dollars than some like. But they try to produce what they believe is the required future standards, that simply haven't even been set yet. I'm 22, and have been told I have some people's respect, purely for accepting I know (almost) nothing. Nothing compared to the guys in their 50's. Even if, I have better paper qualifications, and will be able to run similar machines for a fraction the labour in the near future.
Having multiple ship classes with almost identical production processes and equipment, makes shipyards very happy, makes the poor bastard budgeting happy, and even the crew happy.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I know realistically, Zumwalt has been quite screwed service wise. But I still see her as a potentially much more capable ship, for her roles (which the USN currently believe is the ever more evident future of naval warfare); is better than a Burke. Even if Arleigh isn't necessarily bad at that role even in her relative age.
You could compare it with Japan or Sweden's tank program. Their national requirements for armoured division platforms are highly specific. While there may be newer or older tanks around the globe. Few *can* perform the required roles as needed. Japan's terrain, and doctrine is so unique compared to eg US and British armoured and infantry divisions; Chal.2 and AbramsA2E3 would not perform as Japan wants.
Hence why Japan is happy to be still using hundreds of Type 74's. A slightly modified STB-1chassis and hull designed in the 60's, after the modifications from prototype to production, as it is today (along with steady modernisation).
The Type 10 is one of the most modern armoured platforms in the world, and although it's expensive, and would be considered inadequate for a US army MBT in a trial today. Nothing else in the world matches the role the JSDF for Japanese soil.
All a super long winded way of saying, Zumwalt may never herself equate to her cost, and even though she has a fraction her planned combat firepower, she's still one of the best platforms for performing her current patrol roles. In training, even US vessels struggle to identify her in buisy traffic lanes. It's just unfortunate she can't perform to her intended capabilities.
Hey, she may indeed (to date) be the deadliest surface vessel, but with the capability of ground support to trump the US's vast and sub fleet. It's just advertised that she's pretty useless... XD
amen. too bad for the design, it does have bucket loads of potential. Also, some of the systems will find their way into Arelys, and other ships.
Having actually worked on Zumwalt, I can tell you that a big part of every cost overrun are "In Process Design Adjustments" - IPDAs. Also, when the composite superstructure arrived from GDBIW's southern partner it was 200 tons heavier than design spec.
Its first captain was James C. Kirk, whom I had the fortune to meet one afternoon when he came down to the space that I was constructing.
I have stood on the wall of the fort [Ft. Popham] past which Zumwalt sails at 6:00.
Is that a business jargon for scope creep or feature creep?
he really needs to change his middle name from Charles to Tiberius
Zumwalt is a piece of garbage. Almost nothing works, be its engine, gun or radar etc. The next gen destroyer design DDG(X) will have to copy the Chinese type-055
@@aburetik4866 lmao 😂
I think I saw that episode. Was it in the original series?
As a Navy veteran, all I can say is half the crew working twice the hours. Automated systems don’t clean, paint, do maintenance and other upkeep.
Yep. Then they try to blame crews for all the accidents. Even worse in war time? All that automation isn't a replacement for actual crews once stuff starts breaking down. Hell the soviet union fell into that trap with the sub program in the cold war, and that's where most of their accidents happened from. We're going to be in for a real bad awakening when someone that can fight back against us, decides to get uppity.
Damage and flooding control on a tumblehome with half the crew. You stop the water ingress, or you go overkeel where a conventional hull wouldn't have, with half the damage control personell. Brilliant, isn't it.
Corrective maintence and checks quarterly and above had to be done by off ship personal by 3m instructions... Gee wonder what could go wrong
They tried the same thing on the LCS's. It failed. They had to increase the crew size and berthing spaces later.
@@EgorKaskader On the bright side, when the ship sinks after being unable to keep up with repairs, you’ll only need half as many rescue boats to save the crew!
Its not that the tumblehome design is unstable in rough seas. Old British sailing ship were designed this way because they were more stable in rough seas. Its unstable when there's a hole in the ship from combat that let water in causing it to be more likely to capsize.
I was just thinking the same thing. Under some circumstances it's actually more stable.
Most ships are. Ahrrr!
Tumble home always has negative effects on sea keeping in heavy weather as the bow tends to dig into waves. It was universally abandoned for a reason.
Isnt it the same if a huge wave hitting side on of that type of hull? As well how top heavy the ships with that hull design is
@@JimmySailor Seaworthiness was an issue if your tumblehome ship had gunwales, but this class of ship isn’t going to founder in the same way if it takes a wave on deck. The main issue is that they prioritised stealth over utility and flexibility. You have max displacement but no way to utilise that reserve of buoyancy over the lifetime of the class.
It's only okay when the air force goes way over the budget.
Air forces are more useful tbh.
dzello not more useful but having a strong air force is a key to victory in more occasions than ships
@@canborcbakan4206 It is more useful. Ships are remnants of ancient times... As time goes on, planes will just make them obsolete.
@@dzello Planes can't carry as many cruise missiles or missile defense capabilities. There is no Aegis equivalent for planes. Naval ships are also key in projection. There is no practical aviation equivalent for Aircraft carriers and long range designs alongside aerial refuelers can only get you so far. Even when ships and planes do share a similar niche, such as anti-submarine warfare or sea patrol, ships are still a much appreciated and cost effective asset and often times utilizing both in conjunction with one another has a greater benefit than just using many of a single type. While airforces are a much more important asset for domestic national defense, navies become key if one has the desired goal of force projection.
@@dzello lol you’re delusional
I oversaw the production of these, and they didn't fail because the systems were too advanced. They failed because of the sheer amount of money that was thrown at them and they ran into issue after issue during production and pre-production. Instead of bleeding money to build a fleet of them, they adopted the tech to the future versions of the Arleigh Burk series.
And what caused all those issues you mentioned, if not the new technology?
@@ntdscherer I can't speak on details due to NDA, but it boils down to design flaws.
@@ThePaladinGod Design of what? New technology, or established technology?
@@ntdscherer Loose lips sink ships
You with NAVSEA, or Bath? I work for a BIW supplier. This thing made me cringe on a lot of levels. Love the Burkes, they keep my company solvent. I do like the footage of the Zumwalt steaming out past Fort Popham, though.
Plot twist: there actually are 32 Zumwalts, it's just that they are so stealthy that even DoD thinks there are only 3.
This cracked me up. Genius.
They are so stealthy that we shouldn't rule out a possibility that even their crews don't know they are on a Zumwalts
Plot twist: there are actually 74 Zumwalts, its just that they only told you there were 32, of which 29 of were cancelled ;)
dear god, its scp 55 again
They are part of the legendary Mothball fleet.
Stealth warship in a nutshell:
Radar operator: “Sir, there appears to be a fishing boat approaching.”
Officer: Ok, what’s the deal?
Radar operator: “Uh…It’s traveling at 30 knots.”
Radar operator: "Sir it also is using an X-band radar."
Ya, kinda my thought as well. If its being used as a picket ship along the coasts it might be able to take advantage of that stealth but in almost any other situation its going to be pretty obvious its not a fishing boat. Besides, if all the US destroyers got replaced with them and someone went to war with the US... well it just means they're going to be paying attention to every "fishing boat" they spot. Its not like stealth fighters where they're essentially invisible in most situations. It just looks like a different kind of boat which is only helpful when they aren't the standard.
"Also sir the fishing boat appears to be launching missiles at us."
Navies of the world have been building stealth ships with a surface radar contact smaller than fishing boats for over a hundred years. They're called submarines.
I would be mildly concerned if a submerged submarine has a radar signature of *any* kind
Imagine being a Somali pirate with a monthly income of 20$ seeing a giant triangle shooting shells that are three times more expensive than a Ferrari
This cracked me up. Lol.
I always wondered that. The war in the Middle East where coalition forces would fire million $ ordinance at some guy in sandals with a rusty AK.
Would it kill him: Sure.
Is it effective: Yes.
Did we win: No.
Is it worth: Definitely not.
@@mikkel066h But the cost per unit dropped significantly as many more units were produced that would share the development cost.
At least in theory, in practice I suppose the unit price was set based on the first batch, that including R&D costs, giving a huge profit to the weapon maker.
they will try to cach the shell
who would win; a ship firing shells and rockets that can be guided precisely on target far inland or one speedy boy in a harbor?
I think this actually worked out for the best. Now they have 3 ships to test out a plethora of new technologies and concepts, rather than a 32 ship potential liability. Also the stealth concept was not needed at all for a mass production model, but might be useful in certain situations, and 3 ships with this design should allow for increased flexibility in that regard. I would guess after a decade of testing the current design, a much more practical mass produced model will be proposed that combines the features that worked the best from the Zumwalt class, with proven design concepts from older classes of destroyers.
I was thinking this. Perhaps they take on a specialty role. Reconnaissance, especially through a storm where it's radar signature would be indistinguishable from sea spray.
My turds work better than this joke. Float better too and are very stealth.
basically: less capability than what it was meant to replace, cost half a carrier, guns shells that are too expensive to shoot. and the realisation that submarines cost less, more stealthy and holds just as much or more missiles.
Unfortunately. Should just rip the guns off and turn it into a big missile cruiser and install the Aegis system. Might have been a worthy replacement to the Ticonderoga class if that had been done, but known how this stuff works, it probably would have cost tens of billions.
and actually has ammunition lmao
Built in New England... a place run by the mafia and their minions (crooked politicians and union goons). New England is the place where EVERY project ends up being half as effective, and ten times as expensive as what was promised.
Lots of pockets got lined with federal dollars throughout this silly escapade. I'm surprised they actually built any ships at all. Usually, they'd have just taken the money and run.
They just decided to fire missiles out of the guns and pretend it was something new.
Yeah, those guided gun shells were experimented with years before the Zumwalt was a concept. They were very effective as a munition but too expensive, since it cost close to what more capable (actual) missiles cost.
That never changed apparently, but the engineers always dwell on the best possible outcomes on paper-then reality raises its ugly heads again. Note the last one was made simply to keep a shipyard busy- which pretty much sums of the entirely of this massively expensive failed experiment.
Ah yes, the Cybership.
F-117 would be the Cyberplane
@@marvelgoh5648 youd be wrong the b2 stealth bomber would take that spot if painted accordingly
@@chaosincarnate3724 no no no, hear me out. B-2 still got curves. F-117 on the other hand have sharper edges. In fact, F-117 is designed to not have curves.
Still more successful than Cyberpunk
Manned by Cybermen!
Tumblehome hulls have been tried before, the problem isn’t when they’re sitting pretty in a storm, it’s after the enemy have put some holes in them they become far more unstable far more quickly than ships with a standard hull shape, take a look at the battle of Tsushima for a good example.
The issue is that now a days almost every ship is a glass cannon so tbh idk how much of a difference that’d make
@@names1842 oh that’s very true, however tumblehome hulls are far quicker in rolling over when hit compared to traditional hull forms.
@@names1842 They are tougher than you think..witness Stark and Princeton and Cole. Cole's damage in particular would be hard for a Zumwalt to survive.
@@shawn97006 Overall though, I’d much rather trade that stability for stealth as in a open seas battle that would serve you better. Now if you were let’s say in the Persian gulf I’d definitely leave the Burke’s to deal with that in case of lower level attacks on it, and it’s not like the zumwalt was made for close quarters combat combat anyway as stealth at close range would be significantly reduced
@@names1842 Here's the thing. You don't need a tumblehome for stealth. You can make do with a traditional hull.
When I was at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado for my naval surface fires class, they said we didn’t have a ship on station to do a live fire, even though I saw a zumwalt docked at bay. I asked why we couldn’t just use a zumwalt instead and my instructor pretty much explained what this video did.
As a now retired Master Chief Petty Officer told me in 2013...."The Zumwalts are under armored, under armed, slow, under manned, and over priced.."....Sooooo
So like every US military program that has one purpose to feed the military industrial complex. Eisenhower was trying to warn us about it.....
Sounds like a winner
@@TitusFFM calm your tinfoil. Didn't you see that the program got cancelled?
Sounds underwhelming
Getting cancelled for going overbudget in the military is like not getting served alcohol in a casino.
Yeah but over 50 times the price per round is high even by military standards.
@@garywheeler7039 look at the f-35....
Yeah and the person in your profile picture is the one who made it this bad
Yea I didn’t even know it was possible
@@idklolz5418 but those things they forced to their "friends" to buy
“What killed the Zumwalt class destroyer was attempting to incorporate too many new technologies at once” **60 seconds earlier** “there are talks of installing a rail gun onto the ship”
also, another thing that hurt it was the fact that it was way late. Being late also makes the cost go way up. I think it would have been better to do evaluation change, not revolution. I would still like to see a new battleship, but a 21-century design.
@@neubauerjoseph yup, the only chances we could bring back mighty battleship is through railgun
Even the rail gun prototype is better than the joke gun currently on Zumwalt. I'd actually understand the Zumwalt main gun if it could fire conventional ammunition just fine, but could also be used for those scam smart projectiles if necessary. So, the ships could carry a good load of cheap, traditional ammo and a few of the smart ones, on the off chance they would be better than a good old missile in some specific situation.
@@Zichoe railgun is completely dangerous and it could affect the stealth itself
But why not install a railgun AND make the ship capable of transforming into a giant robot?
A company I worked for had proposals out for the SC-21 program in its inception, and I followed it a bit for years afterwards. The video's author almost got to the root cause of the failure; it wasn't that it had too many new technologies, that isn't unusual. It's that it had way too many missions planned for it, a story that has been the bane of US weapon platform development for decades.
A stealth ship is a fantastic weapon for intercepting smugglers or spying on enemy fleets - it may have a slight value for getting into range of a coastline for its land bombardment. Obviously, it wasn't really going to be used for coastal defense with that weapon payload.
It had to be useful to deploy special forces in rubber rafts - good for a stealth ship, but they already have good delivery systems that don't require a very distinctive surface ship at all. It wasted hullspace was full of crap to facilitate this mission.
It had to have space for a helicopter. Maybe two.
It had to still serve the normal destroyer roles of fleet defense.
They still wanted it to serve in shallower water, despite its ballooning weight. That at least sounds like pushed them into a fantastic hull design.
It had to take on the inexplicable role of shore bombardment - not just the invasion support role that hasn't been very relevant for 70 years, but 100 mile inland. A destroyer just isn't going to carry the ammo for a sustained inland bombardment, and of course we have much better weapon systems for that mission. Two guns was never going to be an effective volume of fire.
They did want it railgun capable, but all of the other things they wanted the ship to do meant it was never going to have the space required to store the energy required to fire a railgun projectile 100 miles repeatedly. So they went with a more standard gun, but now its limited ammo space was full of chemical propellants, not explosive warheads.
this happens over and over again in the US military. Every time someone proposes a new weapon system, every single subgroup in the military want a piece of it and they start loading up the weapon platform with more and more mission requirements that serve the needs of that subgroup. The F-22 only escaped oblivion by the clever move of calling it "modular", so the mission could be easily changed by changing the equipment in the plane. However, this has always been done!
There is no doubt at all the US military has the highest tech capability, but the politics surrounding new platforms and every single pentagon leader wanting to put their own use for the new toy, as well as politicians wanting to make sure their bases have a use for the platform, as well as different companies wanting to have some of their equipment on it, turns most weapon platforms into expensive boondoggles where the original mission for the platform gets buried.
This is a parody: www.duffelblog.com/p/dod-announces-new-inverted-multi-purpose-ballistic-tomahawk-bayonet-imbtb
Interesting...sounds similar to what happened with the Commanche Helicopter
You know what, makes sense.
Defence contracts are a living hell to write.
In the 70s I wrote them for Lockheed. Phone book thick line by line. You had to show where every dollar went. What every person working on the project would make. What every spare part would cost and locking in that price for decades.
And when it's a billion dollars. Wow, I worked for Howard Hughes. He was the DEFENCE industry.
Defence?
@@manlius ATTACK
No one screws the government and the tax payers like Lockheed and Martin.
Pretty sure people in the DoD barely even reads it.
Interesting... I wonder what the "defense contract" would look and content contains for the "Zum Walt Disney".
I helped build the first 2 of these. They are truly impressive. The real reason we went over budget is because we took the contract over from another shipyard. Hurricane Katrina damaged thier yard. So it was a new design never been done before, made by another shipyard and we had to make sense of all the plans they made. So it took 4 years longer to finish the first one lol.
Do you work at BIW? I've lived here in Maine my whole life, loved seeing different navy ships in the docks growing up. The Zumwalts were monstrous compared to what I was used to seeing
Don't blame the shipyard, its because the money was invested on the wrong things rather than weaponry innovations. The budget was soo tight they bought missiles from a 3rd party who actually made the retarded weapon system for the Zum-Walt-Disney which costs the navy at $500k/missile. Stealth is practically useless for a navy destroyer, you're not trying to hide your ass off, you're trying to destroy shit. Zum-Walt-Disney can never say peak-ka-boo out of no where and attack another modern destroyer.
@The Paragon Effect I remember traveling up to Boothbay back in 2012 and seeing this monster being built in the bay below the bridge from the backseat of my grandmas van. It was really jawdropping, especially as a 14 year old kid.
I helped build LZ 129 Hindenburg...
@@Nitrus5 I love seeing that every time we drive over the bridge - I always point it out to everyone in the car, no one is as impressed as I am.
A math note: $5.9 billion is not 81% over budget compared to $1.44 billion. It is 310% over budget.
Yeah my brain was wondering how finance people calculate %'s
Maybe that 81% includes inflation and other factors?
Or a Politian would say it value for money and 68.3% under budget (of the figure we set last week not at the start).
@@alexrossouw7702 % is used so they can hide the spending, % calculations is very easy to make figures up how you like and hide money for say for other black ops projects like the Politians new swimming pool.
mate accountants don't use real-world mathematics. thats why it takes them seven years to learn how to do basic addition and subtraction. :)
What killed her and her class is how often she broke down... Leaking hull, broken screw shaft (or drive shaft... I can't remember it's proper designation.) A ton of things went wrong with it's design alone.
Your wrong it's guns didn't work and will never work it's a floating power plant that they can't use imagine having that much power with no way to use it that made the ship useless not enough room for any other type of guns so made it useless
@@charlestorruella8591 Oh really? Add it to the pile. Zumwalt was a mess. But I remember hearing more about how she spent most of her time in a repair dock. She was refitted with different weapons a couple times because her "standard" load out didn't work. She failed for a lot of reasons. But what I remember hearing was that her hull was faulty.
Only thing stealthier than a Zumwalt is where our taxpayer money actually went.
We... know where it went.
@@duskyracer8800 TO DRUGS!
@@maybach5787 Taxpayer money goes to stopping drugs. OUR money goes to drugs.
@@duskyracer8800 you sir, have never heard of the CIA, now have you?
@@duskyracer8800 Boooooots
Having built several Burke class destroyers, I have to say that they are not "older" types. They are constantly upgrading the electronics suite and the weapons capabilities.
And they still look badass
Still the Burke is old even the flight 3. The Burke is able to compete against udaloy 2 ships, but barely. No matter how many refits Burke gets, US still need a more advanced and updated ship, like zumwalt . Even the Russians know they need to update and upgrade new ship projects.
They are old
Daniel Mak if the zumwalt program went as planned, we would’ve had the most overpowered ship type in the seas, way beyond the capabilities of China or Russia. But since it’s been completely fucked, the Chinese have caught up with the Burke’s. I Remmeber hearing about the 2000’s concept of 4 different ship types to replace the fleet, but here we are 21 years later and nothing.
@@NarasimhaDiyasena TBH, I really wish to Zumwatt class to be relaunched, a refitted one, with more advanced technology then the prototype. But then US is out of funds in reality. US cannot afford a "better" destroyer, wondering how are they going to maintain the carrier fleets.
Ben Rich, who managed Lockheed’s “Skunk Works" during the F-117 Stealth Fighter program, explained the problem with stealth ships:
In heavy seas, radar can see the waves. So you look for places on the radar screen where there are suddenly no waves, and that’s probably a stealth ship.
Skunk Works discovered this problem when they built a proof-of-concept ship, the Sea Shadow. It was essentially a stealth fighter shaped ship, but easier to build because it didn’t have to fly.
That was how swedens air defence system found your f-117s triangulating radar system that found it interesting to find a moving blind system.
Seems like the answer would be to simulate wave signatures then
@@theterminaldave This is how it actually works. That quote sounds like it came from someone that doesn't actually understand how shipboard radar works.
All radar has to deal with clutter. It does this by being set so that clutter just doesn't show up. In the case of stealth aircraft, they're designed to have the signature of objects the radar is normally set to ignore, just so the screens aren't filled with returns from every bird and bug in the region. If the gain was turned up, stealth aircraft would be detected, but so would a lot of other things.
In the case of ships, the waves send back returns. I've seen this watching the screen on the console that sees the data from SPY before it gets filtered for the other consoles. There were sometimes huge swaths of the screen that would light up from the returns coming off the waves (the other consoles would have marks indicating the strongest returns, but not nearly as big). So for a ship to be stealthy, it just needs to give back a return similar to the waves around it. There is no "blank space" where there are no waves. Especially in heavy seas, where the waves can be as big as the ship. And even if the ship could create a "blank space", that would only be for the ship itself. There would still be waves around it. It would simply look like empty ocean on the screen. In light seas, with no waves to give clutter, it would be about as easy to detect as any other.
The idea of a stealth ship (which should really be labeled as a "low profile" ship) is sound. The problem is executing it in a way that creates a functional warship. So far all attempts have failed miserably. The Zumwalt might have worked, if they had chosen one area to focus advancement on, and used tested technology for the rest.
@@grappo77 The F-117 worked by redirecting radar returns somewhere other than the originating radar. Multiple radar sites all watching the same piece of sky would pick up each other's returns off an F-117, and if they were networked together, they could combine those redirected returns into a target location. The F-117 really only worked because at the time radars in the regions they were used weren't networked.
@@bradgaines5091 Really interesting, thanks for the reply
As a software engineer, I remember quite a few projects where people (myself included) tried to use too many cutting-edge technologies. Some of these projects failed after cost overruns, just like that destroyer. I guess that's a common thing in the entire field of engineering.
@Ralph Freeman I think this misses a bit of context in that war has changed a rather lot over the ages. Whereas a truck built in 1950 can still do an okay job at being a truck, assuming it has been well taken care of and maintained, a warship built in 1950 is likely completely unfit to purpose. And that unfitness is a result of how much the technology to perform its job has changed in the last seven decades. And even car designers do a clean sheet redesigns ever few years when a model reaches the limits of its old chassis.
Can you imagine reading these orders: “Skipper, you are to sail this new ship into this storm off Alaska. Give us a call if . . . eeeeeee when you get out the other side.” Yeah, sure, on my way.
It uh, it doesn’t happen that way lol
"Due to technology that was yet to be developed..."
Translation: They where much more expensive than calculated.
Isn't highest bidder also expensive?
It’s stealthy. It carries a lot of missiles.
Anyone can see it with a Mark One Eyeball. Submarines are stealthier and also carry lots of missiles.
Of course I’m not biased at all, despite being an ex submariner...
In all honesty, Submarines definitely seem to be greater in the stealth department, especially considering that two of them ran into each other out on the seas without detecting each other. Not to mention that they also can carry quite a payload, like the Russian Typhoon for example.
My biggest problem with the Zumwalt class is that, last I heard, they cut catholic protection to save money.
If you connect two different metals, like what the hull is made of, and what the main engines are made of, and put them in an environment that carries a charge, like salt water? You get galvanic corrosion. Normally, they bolt bars of zinc onto the hull. The zinc corrodes away so the hull doesn’t. But not on the Zunwalts.
I wouldn’t serve on one.
Yeah but doesn't radar reach beyond line of sight? And you'd be hit before you see it.
Or night time. Shitty weather
To be fair, the zumwalt is more like a land attack platform(which it can't even do now) lol. It was more so made to replace the iowas(yeah the battleship). But yeah, idk what they expected when they put a bunch of new and less developed technologies into a single ship.
Probably the best, most concise summary of the Zumwalt Class failure. Well done!
Now, has the U.S. military-industrial complex learned anything from this? 🤔 Probably not what we'd _want_ them to learn from their costly mistakes. 😒
The stealth and exterior shape were NOT the cause of over budget, it was the administrative flip flopping and over-design on what to put INSIDE the ship...
Exactly. And the constant reviews of how many ships to order, the economy of scale plays a part. When you make a project that relies on another few projects for it's success, and you delay or cut back the others it will impact them all and drive up costs.
Exactly
At least the polygon budget was kept record low.
Polygon lmao
Porygon
It was basically a proof of concept though, their only mistake was to assume they would get more of them.
the only mistake was that they got ripped off.. snd kept being milked till the cow ran dry.. and got nothing in return for it.
Well no, the Navy ordered 32 of them. That's hardly a 'proof of concept'.
My dad and uncle both worked on different parts of the 3 ships construction. It was fascinating to hear about all the work put into them. They definitely cost a lot but they are no doubt very impressive to see in person! Great video!
Is there super top secret stuff I won't ever know about it yes or no
"Only three were built" that seems like enough for what the ship can do
@The Sad Mug The missiles onboard Kirov cruisers have the capability to detect any ship or boat even so small as a fishing boat ( war experts have said this) so how can you Kirov doesn't have better aim.
The Kirov cruiser is equipped with a medium range missile defense system and a short range missile defense system and two close in defense systems.
This proves all you points against my comment is wrong.
@@theeternal1766 I was not being biased all I did was make a comment of what I think and some thing just being Russian doesn't make bad nor being American make it better.
@The Sad Mug KIROV REPORTINK!11
3 of the zunwalts couldn't survive a small fleet hoenslty just our gunned even if there technically advanced.
@@dnanayakkara6449 When the missiles can't hit anything I think it's useless.
"Stealth" on a destroyer is not primarily about avoiding detection. Current air and naval warfare is conducted with missiles which use radar to guide themselves to their targets. The advantage of stealth here is reducing the range at which enemy missiles can lock on.
You do know most land and ship attack missles have video cameras along with other sensors to help target?
You don't think a tomahawk can kill zumwalt?
once its close enough the stealth advantages are mostly gone.
@@puellamservumaddominum6180 Radar on the missile are smaller and weaker, so you have to fire by using main ship systems from as far distance as possible. Camera on the rocket would be used in very the last moment ONLY if it reach the target really close and not jammed.
What is your point Mr. Navy Clown guy? At that same range which the enemy modern destroyer ship can not practically detect the Zum Walt Disney, the Zum Walt Disney can not also practically sense or see the enemy modern destroyer or do any jack shit damage to it. The Zum Walt Disney doesn't have any better radar system as to the enemies, the Zum Walt Disney is just a floating boat made by Gucci hired by US Navy. Enemy modern destroyer ships ain't stupid, no mama raise no navy fool.
@@ShopperPlug Zum Walt Disney hahahahahahahaha
The good thing is that US now has a platform for a future destroyer eliminating the cost to develop a hole new future destroyer
I don't know, maybe they will seem it obsolete fo some reason.
@@usarkarzts4207 this is likely just to test the water (no pun intended) for some new, secret type of ship
I mean i wouldnt be surprised if the next ship has a fucking railgun on it
Navy; "Nah, let's keep building Burke til the 2040s!"
that's the only long-term benefit of the zumwalt, the navy will no longer have to start from scratch when making a new ship (please make it a cruiser, almost a third of the operational fleet are destroyers)
Worked on the 1000, was very interesting. It always had issues when it was tested on rough sea's and needed extensive work when it ported.
8:13 "What killed the Zumwalt-class destroyer was attempting to incorporate too many systems and technologies all at once." That reminds me of how Admiral Rickover had to fight the navy to keep experimental technology off of the USS _Enterprise._ He reasoned that the nuclear propulsion also was enough experimental technology, and that any more would pointlessly increase the chance of failure.
And even there, they built one. Same with the Long Beach, Nautilus, Albacore... all single ship classes designed to test something new.
Now look at the USS Ford (AKA Norfolk bldg #78).
The second you fire the weapon the stealth is gone thing doesn't make sense to me. Isn't First Strike opportunity a MAJOR advantage? You'd want to get somewhere without being seen and then fire first and go away best you can.
In 99% of scenarios, a single shot is never sufficient.
If you REALLY want stealth - use a SUBMARINE!
@@felicytatomaszewska It's not like it would only shoot one shot, those AGS are supposed to be capable of firing every six seconds along side it's missile load out. It's not like it doesn't have a good Alpha strike
Well sometimes you might not see all the targets so if you give away your position since all a ship you can’t see has to do to figure out where you are is contact the ship that got hit with a missile
So it could work but it also has a 50/50 chance of fucking up
And you don’t take 50/50 chances in the military usually
@@natehill8069 submarines get detected by sonar though what would happen if they made a triangle a submarine
So Zumwalt stealth is like 97% effective against radar? The US Navy already has a bunch of stealth ships that are 100% effective against radar. They are called submarines.
they're called boats not ships
Zumwalt is a piece of garbage. Almost nothing works, be its engine, gun or radar etc. The next gen destroyer design DDG(X) will have to copy the Chinese type-055
P GR, Not all guided shells are that expensive, M982 Excalibur shell price was down to $68,000 by 2016. Laser aiming was added in 2015, and by 2018, 1400 rounds had been fired in combat in Afghanistan in the Army's M777 Howitzer. Search for M777 Howitzer. - Upgrade created by the Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) project to extend range from 30 to 70 km (19 to 43 mi)
Zumwalt (towers over war vessels): “hello fellow fisher boats”
The main gun can fire 6 rounds in 2 seconds.
To put that in Team Fortress terms: "It costs 32 million dollars to fire this gun for twelve seconds"
*WHO TOUCHED MY GUN!?*
Some people think they can outsmart guided missile with stealth, ecm, counter measures, and CWIS. Maybe, *sniff* maybe. I have yet to meet one that can outsmart shell!
@@Gankhisprawn T O R P E D O
@@Fred_the_1996 WAAA WAAA *Missile and guns being fired* HAHAHA!
@@PriceTheCourier CRY SOME MORE!
The only reason it's so expensive is because the executives need to line Thier pockets. Boeing and Lockheed famously won't get out of bed for a contract under a billion dollars
no its not build like normal ships from metal but a composite which makes it stealthy and expensive
@@renegranit240 parts of it are literally made out of balsa wood or bamboo
Think General Dynamics the big dog in this one, they own Bath Iron Works in Maine, and I'm pretty sure all three of these were built there.
@@MistaTofMaine im am not 100% sure because im to lazy to google. But i think its partly metal and then other stuff, it has to because else what os the purpose in building them if u have a u-boot which is supposed to be stealthy show up on any radar the they dont need the u- part.
I had metalurgy or how tf its called in english but i didnt do well xD i think the shop in main should be able to suply metal for submarines. It not that hard to make different metals just add the right amount of minerals at the right heat
I love how new ships should last for decades, while 70 years age it was like: this ship served faithfully for one week, new ship it is.
Bottom line: Some people made a huge chunk of change out of this project!
IMO they should be reclassified as cruisers. Their VLS can carry lots of TLAM, SM series, ESSM and future missiles of the USN. Operating in an integrated or networked combat system they do not need to use their own sensors as the targeting data etc can be fed to the ships.
I would also consider the ship as the basis for the Ticonderoga class replacements. As unlike the Burkes, this design has two important features that the Burkes now do not have: lots of surplus energy generation and empty space (designed in a modular fashion as well) for future sensors and weapons.
In regards to the gun, I thought they were going to be replaced with or use 127mm or 155mm guns/ammunition depending upon the replacement option chosen.
It was unfortunate that the USN decided to try giant technology leaps, like the LCS and Fords, that drove up the R&D costs and with the reduction in the numbers of units ordered made each ship more expensive to absorb the R&D.
😂
No, they should be reclassified as reefs.
they have less VLS than existing cruiser and are totally inferior to the chinese type 055 in term of VLS capacity while costing 3 times as much... but that is not the reason it is cancel, the primarily reason is it is impossible to install a cruiser level aegis system like those on type 055 and the latest dual band aegis system for future USN ship without cutting up the hull and losing the stealth, thus making such a modernisation pointless... it was simply cheaper to build new ship for the next gen aegis system then trying to fill it in an oddly shaped vessel that has to have all the sensor designed to fill it rather then the other way around of designing a ship to fit the sensor...
and honestly if you just want a stealth missile boat... there is something call a missile submarine that is both stealthier and cheaper! really the only reason to build a surface platform is to provide area control, without the latest radar, you can't really do that. stealth and detector just don't mix.
@@stvdagger8074 Expensive Reefs
@@lagrangewei As a rule all US ships carry less weapons than chinese / russian designs. US ships require global deployment range, while the chinese operate mainly near their own coast. When the chinese start patrolling the gulf of Mexico, you'll see less weapons on those ships. More space for fuel and food.
Packing tons of weapons into a ship also makes maintenance difficult as there is little space to get in there and work.
So whenever the costs of each individual ship goes up congress cuts the number of ships it's buying, and every time congress cuts the number of ships it's buying the cost of each individual ship increases due to economy of scale?
Catch 22 system!
If only we had the same cost-elimination scheme on congressmen!
@@hieug.rection1920 XD
Now you understand big government efficiency
I think it'd be foolish to think congress was axing numbers acquired without knowing thats how it worked. The projected cost overruns included the total acquisition. Adjusted acquisitions would then be based on the reduced economy of scale as well. The future of the project would then be based on them hitting the cost marks but if you constantly go out of control on costs no economy of scale can save you when you have 6 of 12 key technologies not mature enough to be affordable even in a 32 ship class.
Remember, this entire acquisition system was when not managed by congress prone to huge overruns even if they let them buy as many as they wanted. Military planners have a tendency to shop like orange county housewives who buy into all the marketing.
I am not from the USA, so don't take this as a criticism, my friends. But I am sure that money would be enough to provide so many academic sponsorships, that those future students would render all those systems obsolete in no time.
"sir, we are being invaded by a fleet of over priced fishing boats that are heading for critical defense locations, what shall we do?"
"send them a hail and ask if they need directions to the markets"
A man of culture, I see.
This has the same energy as Bismarck's 1864 joke: "If Lord Palmerston sends the British army to Germany, I shall have the police arrest them."
If you call them cruisers they are suddenly under budget! YAY!
Lmao
I think you might have the answer sir.
Ah, it runs on Linux. They probably tried to install a wireless printer and then ran away screaming. Hence canceled.
Nah the issues with the Linux system were when HAL tried to launch every single missile during a simulation early in the development process. Capt Kirk was not happy that day...
LOL you made my day
Installing a wireless printer in Linux:
Step 1: sudo apt-get install cups
You are done.
Maybe you need a driver depending on the age of the printer and therefore another package.
@@talentpt I read that as ”Bluescreen on every boat."
That "ships traveling in a fleet" reminded me of something very funny Johnny Carson said in a monologue about the stealth bombers when they were made public. I parapharase, "They say it has the radar cross section of a sparrow. Don't you think the Soviets will be suspicious of a formation of sparrows flying 500 miles per hour at 30.000 feet headed their way?" He also suggested, "If they can't see them anyway, why don't we just TELL them we have them."
Has a system in place to flag and cancel projects that have gone over budget.
F-35: Luckily I have an immunity card.
Lol ikr
To be fair, the flyaway cost of an F-35A is $77.9MM. By comparison, the new F-15's that the US just contracted for will run $99.9MM a copy (combat capable) and are not stealthy. The case studies, including this one represent the loss of economies of scale. Lawmakers want low cost/unit but cut back production which results in the exact opposite. See B-2, F-22 among others.
@@arrow-flight Yeah, because they didnt cancel the project or hamstring it. Things are cheaper when you build more of them, economy of scale and all.
@@Orinslayer And also because there was a workforce too big to cancel it.
@@hueyrosayaga Which means from now on, all defense contractors will make their projects "too big to fail".
I find it funny how they are destroyers class ships but the only things they are destroying is the military’s budget
Not the military's budget, more the budgets of the suckers who have to pay for all the overpriced junk that's supposed to stop the Chinese from coming ashore (forget about the millions of cheap-labour migrants being shipped in by GOP-donors to make life/existence that bit harder and more insecure for the ever-gullible taxpaying little people).
@@None-zc5vg GOP donors? More like Democrat donors. Big Tech.
@@joebuckaroo82 Dems and GOP are both pro immigration, legal and illegal. Despite the fact that voters have been opposed to immigration in every poll for 75+ years. They'll just keep bring in more people until the demographics make the polls say what they want.
Never forget that Reagan did amnesty ...with the false promise of shutting down all future illegal immigration after.
the only thing that makes them more destructive than actual fishing boats is they can probably ram a bit harder
@@joebuckaroo82 GOP loves the military like you would not believe
16000 tons, that’s a bleeding heavy cruiser
no its definitely a destroyer. it said so on the design plans. :)
yes i'm being sarcastic mate. you are quite right its clearly a cruiser and 4.5 billion is not a bad price for what it is.
@@tommyfred6180 Classification is arbitrary, and only loosely based on historic precedent. USA tends to overclass it's ships compared to similar ships in other navys.
Most other countrys would call Burkes large frigates and Tichs large destroyers.
@@p51mustang24 I dont think so.......many destoriers from other countries are even smaller than brukes. Back to the WW2 era, there were 2000tons destroyers, and over 10000tons is definally cruisers.
yea, its the same in germany. our frigates could be destroyers, but frigate sounds...nicer
Yeah that ship has sailed...
How quickly this project should have ended:
"Sir, we need to build a stealth capable destroyer"
"We already did that it's called a submarine"
Basically, they really should've decided if it is going to be gun platform or a stealth platform
That’s a really nice drone shot of that battleship at 0:59. You’re welcome
Did they steal your footage?
I hate it when that happens.
@@terenceflynn5125 Yup! Gotta love it right
You don't mention the distributed propulsion and power systems. Also, VLS mounted not in a big patch but around the entire destroyer. This gives an immensely more survival capability in case of a direct hit on the missiles
Not really cuz of the Tumblehome design. Once an enemy finds you and causes damage, you're going to be sunk. That design is great if you're not taking any damage.
There's two ways of looking at the BLS system being distributed around the ship. Especially your wrapping the ship in your magazine. Any it could be fatal. Not to mention you don't have enough people surviving keep the ship afloat assuming you even have power.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer The cells are built like the blow-out panels on modern MBTs. Any explosion is vented outward, away from the ship, and a single hit can't detonate the entire magazine like it would with a conventional VLS system.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Their design is assuming they are intact. Damaged cells may not be quite so predictable. I know of M1's where the blast doors performed but other damage allowed the explosion to vent inward.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer The M1's blast doors are also internal. With the Zumwalts, the only two access points for the VLS cells are an external impact, and the cell doors themselves. The cells are also fully enclosed, so the blast has nowhere to go but up and out, and unlike the M1, if the armor on the interior side of the cell is breached, a small explosive jet isn't going to kill the entire crew or detonate an entire magazine.
“It’s problem was it tried to incorporate too many new technologies”
Man, I wonder what over budget aircraft this reminds me of...
Sounds like F 35 for me. Same thing is now happening to F 35. I dont think F 35 production will last longer much
@@UnknownUser-ni9iz yeah lmao, I'd take the new sukhois any day
How many Pentagon Wars happened these days?
TBH, this is a familiar story among the 'big three' defense contractors. And that's largely due to the fact that the government has a long history of accepting over-budget weapons systems without penalty.
@@Fred_the_1996 lol russia can't even produce cockpit glass correctly. I highly doubt it can do half the shit it claims.
We ran across one of these while fishing off San Diego. It wasnt showing up on our radar, pretty cool to witness in person
I read an article in a military magazine that they are having recurring failures of their newly designed drive transmissions. Main shaft bearings would burn out, shafts would break, & so on. One Stealth Destroyer departed from Norfolk recently and made it less than 10 miles offshore before breaking down & having to be towed back to the yard. The failures have been so frequent that General Dynamics agreed to cover the cost of the repairs.
so effectively, tiger syndrome. a machine that's so overengineered that the most basic parts hardly work because all the money and effort went into semi-functional technical gizmos that may or may not be an improvement.
Are you sure you’re not confusing this ship with the littoral combat ship? That ship has a problem with its multi engine combiner gears breaking. Maybe both types of ships uses similar systems? If so our the Navy is in trouble
Heh, Drachinfel talked about tumblehome designs in his episode on French pre-dreadnoughts. They're actually more stable than regular designs... until they start flooding on one side. Then they like to tip over pretty easily.
With ammunition costing so much, wouldn't it be cheaper to bribe the enemy than to shoot at them?
Would have far better to out cruise missiles on board; more bang for the buck!
🤣🤣🤣
A buddy at Raytheon used to tell me about the amazing Zumwalt… and I always thought it seemed ideal if we ever invaded Mogadishu again. It seemed tailor made for such a mission.
We have a bloated military and it’s been that way forever. In graduate school I learned about SWOT, and an annual swot analysis might do wonders.
When the government gives you an estimate then triple it and you’ll be a lot closer to the real cost even though you’re probably still too low.
Back in the 80's and 90's when I was in the USN, we often referred to the Pi Rule - take the proposed cost of a government contract, multiply it by the basic value of Pi - 3.14 - and you'd have close to the final cost.
@@mitchelloates9406 I like that one. I’m stealing it...😬
You blame it only on the government - but maybe this is not just about them. Contractors manipulate these things constantly. I've seen it happen...
@@peck3034 that’s generally harder than you think - without help from someone on the inside. Also, it often costs more to do business with government agencies with the paperwork that’s often involved.
But my main point was that when governments try to sell some service to the public, they lowball the estimate to make it an easier sale to the tax payers. The estimate is already low and then it tends to naturally climb as things progress and missed items are discovered or actual site conditions are realized.
The reports of $400 hammers generally aren’t true. What happens is the contractor develops a total bid price and then given a form to fill out where they have to fit the price into the "cost buckets" listed on the form. The forms never have all the buckets necessary to list all the costs so all that extra money just gets thrown into the buckets listed. So the price for a hammer looks expensive but the number has money in it that covers overhead and supervision and miscellaneous costs and even contingency fees so read out over the whole sheet. Does that make sense.
There are times when things cost a lot more than you think, but that’s usually when they have to be specially made on a very limited run. There you have to tool up, make a small run and then tool back to normal production.
Whenever that thing fights, it's a cost effective win for the enemy.
Over reach: Expectations that futuristic technology would be available before launch. instead of getting the NCC-1701, they got the Minnow. Oh, one more thing: excessive greed by the contractors without sufficient oversight by congress.
Lol, I have a skippers cap from the admiral of the zumwalt, I also remember when they got stuck because someone did a dumb and didn’t account for depth and width of the channel
This is like when a computer scientist spends years studying a problem because it is extremely hard and requires all kinds of advanced mathmatical tools, but then when publishing the paper he/she realizes the problem itself is of little interest to practitioners.
Or probably the money was used for some other hidden project and Zumwalt was just a “scapegoat”.
There’s a word called they
Damn.
engineers "wow it'll be soo high tech -the thing requires tons of platinum rare earth minerals carbon fiber $$
Yeah, so you're "littoral," meaning your objective is to sneak into someone's harbor un-noticed. So perhaps you evade coastal radar, but everyone living within half a mile of the pier has called the police, so what's the point?
It would be very interesting to have these integrated with a laser defense system. Since laser weapons are pretty much impossible to detect where the shot came from, having a stealth ship firing it seems like a good idea. Basically would transform this into an anti-missile/drone platform.
The Zumwalt class is a great example of why/how the DOD procurement system is broken.
What is needed is an all new, and more realistic approach. Which is a fancy way of saying renegotiation. The contract/concept involving this hull design needs to be streamlined. Certain excessively expensive items, will have to be replaced by less expensive alternatives.
The "battleship gun" focus was just plain goofy. Longer ranged guns can be built. So can rocket assisted guided munitions. But not at the cost,contractors demanded. Clearly the program structure was written for the advantage of contractors. This precedent needs to be excluded from future projects.
We have a great hull design. So? It's time to talk about using the money/research already spent? To build something based on the Zumwalt class hull. Using weapons and other systems. The whole of which is both affordable and effective.
Even if extra expensive stealth paint and similar expensive features aren't included. Using the same basic design, allows for later and less expensive upgrades in the future.
All of these ships are made of aluminum. One of the countermeasures is that they use is passing an electric charge through the hull. When you pass electricity through aluminum in salt water, you greatly increase its rate of corrosion. The ship builders told this to the Pentagon BEFORE they were built.. several times. The Zumwalts are literally falling apart. This is why they are being killed off.
Not to mention when the USS Belknap's super structure burned down to the weather deck after a collision with CV 67. The USN swore off aluminum construction in their future vessels.
My father used to work for Bath Iron Works, mostly on cargo and support ships, but he also did some minor secondary design work on the Zumwalts; he liked talking about all the weird little quirks and design details, and especially the strange choices that had to be made to meet the demands for it, specifically the close defense weapons, which he said had to be redesigned several times to get them to work correctly, and he was always skeptical of the stealth, mostly because it would be pretty hard to not see, since it’s way taller and rides a lot higher in the water than you’d think
There’s a Burke class destroyer parked right on the other side of BIW and the zumwalt looks so big and futuristic in comparison. Definitely a cool looking vessel.
yeah being stealth around fishing boats is useful, cause you know, fishermen cant see that huge ass Lego boat floating infront of them
Sssshhhh you're not supposed to tell them it's Lego, it's a state secret.
That’s the thing about TH-cam, if you ever need to know US State Secrets, you’ll always find an Evangelical Conservative Patriot has posted it here! They are just Soooooo proud of their nation , they just can’t contain any secret, they’ve got to boast about it and tell EVERYONE about EVERYTHING !
LOL
missed the whole point of it....if this thing sneaks into lets say Chinese waters with 2 or 3 fishing boats around it the coastal radar or patrol ships wont be able to tell which is which .....they wont know it's there till they see it with their own eyes ...and then it'll be too late to do anything
Its more than likely a proof of concept. Stealth is BIG especially in aviation so why not make a stealth ship. War doctrine would likely evolve from there.
Typical DoD contractor scheme: Over promise, under deliver, and overcharge.
We should have SpaceX guys design our shit sometime.
@@TheAero1221 you're aware they're also massively subsidized by the US right?
@@samarkand1585 Yeah. And they get results. We need more of that.
@@TheAero1221 They just don't get results quite as cheaply as they say
@@samarkand1585 Imo that isn't a huge concern. We already pay through the nose to contracting companies that *don't* get results.
An excellent presentation, thank you. NAVY Veteran MAY 67- MAY 73
The worst thing about so much money being spent on making the Zumwalts stealthy was that they almost immediately started undermining it by planting additional antennas and domes all over what was supposed to be a fully integrated topside.
Zumwalt: cancelled due to high expense and development problems
F-35: pathetic
The interesting part here is that the bridge (with all command staff and control systems) are still on top of the ship. With this level of automation and AR that bridge could also be put in a fortified area in the centre or rear centre of the ship. With HD cameras combined with AR and zoom functions without the distraction of windows (which by themselves are vulnerable parts) it makes no sense to put that bridge on top.
Zumwalt is a piece of garbage. Almost nothing works, be its engine, gun or radar etc. The next gen destroyer design DDG(X) will have to copy the Chinese type-055
Actually the real reason why the Zumwalt ships got canceled is the over whelming amount of xray welding on over whelming high strength steel that needed labor intensive preheat set-up time. So each of the three ships was built three times due to over whelming xray weld failures, and in most times it was weld failures that was the size of a spec of dust!!!!!! And then also the ship structure was installed off location half the time by as much as 6" down to 1" or less and that required lots of labor intensive re-work from multiple trades. But at the end the day least the US Navy got a very well built ship that is 2nd to none........
I'm not a Navy expert, but don't live feed drones and satellite imagery kind of negate a stealth advantage? If you keep constant tabs on all of your adversary's ships then stealth capes seem somewhat redundant
I live pretty close to where these were built, they were incredible to watch, but always way behind schedule.
The folks that get rich off this 'shell game' of military contracting, development, over-budgeting, procurement, and then cancellation should be hanged.
Too easy, and not entertaining enough - to raise money for a mature Zumwalt II design, we should do a series of PPV's, where all those that get rich off the 'shell game' get shot, courts-martialed, AND sent to the Russian Front! (Those designing and building the Zumwalt II will take note of what happened, which was done, as Napoleon would say, '...pour encouragement des autres...'
Yes
Yeah politicians bribed is not an issue.
What do you think of all the blackmail they caught a whole bunch on Epstein island. Mossad can out them whenever unless they give money to Israel and defense companies owned by this chosen people.
+1
It happens all over the world, normal people getting robbed and billionaries getting even richer
The Zumwalt illustrates the old addage that "A camel is a horse that was designed by a committee."
They were killed by the only things capable of killing them: Zumwalt Destroyer Destroyers
Pow! Haha!
I remember reading an article when the first Zumwalt was launched. I was very excited for this ship.
"its good to be stealth among fishing boats etc" its also where fisher see you and probably report you to the port
In the area around Bath (where they were built) the locals asked them to install radar reflectors. It seems a 16,000 ship may look like a 15 ton fishing boat, but if you assume it can turnor stop like one you just might get run down after dark, in fog etc. The stealth really works and makes most homing weapons useless.
Had a buddy working on these up in Maine at Bath Iron Works. God rest his soul. He loved it.
Is it just me or this ship always looks mildly annoyed at something but don’t want to say something about it or make a fuss?
The tactics were revised to giving each enemy fighter the money worth equal to one LRLAP shell.
Then, the fabricators worst nightmare became true: there were no more enemies to fight.
It looks like some sort of boat version of Cyberpunk 2077's development process.
@Mark Hepworth About as well as Cyberpunk 2077, actually...
@Mark Hepworth The Zumwalt has marginal combat utility. It has fewer VLA cells than either a Tico or a Burke, a limited sensor suite & the only guns it carries are a pair of kludged on 30 mm bushmasters. Good for shooting up speed boats, basically. Zumwalt can’t operate alone, especially in green/brown water because it has no organic defenses that would be of any use against ASMs or submarines & whatever stealth capabilities it may retain become useless if it’s operating as part of a task force. It does generate a lot of power with it’s IEP system but doesn’t have anything to use it on. Bet you could run some kick-ass gaming PCs with all that juice, though...
@Mark Hepworth How on earth is a Destroyer designed for shore bombardment that cannot afford its ammo an example of the Zumwalt working? Thats as dumb as releasing Cyberpunk on a console that cannot run it like the PS4.
Results are similar too
My brother was on the Michael Mansoor. We were there for the commissioning ceremony and got a VIP tour. Those ships are amazing.
The complete opposite of the creation and deployment of the P8A Poseidon. That bird was created on an existing 737 frame and each new technology was individually rolled out over almost a decade. One of the best run and produced Navy programs.
So what does that mean?
@@shawnbognot1633 that they should've done the same with Zumwalt
Countries all around the world: We have to spend tax payers' money wisely
USA: HAHA, military budget goes BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
The fucking military industrial complex, Eisenhower tried to warn everybody...
Other countries spend their money on healthcare and free education because we pretty defend them with our military.
@@offtopic.writer8281 this
Countries all around the world when they are in trouble: usa plz help
That's about maximum fail as far as the sense of the comment counts... My country has far more hilarious and idiotic ways to spend the taxes and our taxes are high... I would be glad if it would have been invested in military.
Long story short.
The ammo for the guns is so expensive, its cheaper to use missiles
Yup. I checked on Wikipedia a while back and apparently the production for the guns ammo was halted because the ammo was too expensive. The guns can only use that ammo by the way so the Zumwalt class’s guns don’t even have ammo.
Also. (Source is Wikipedia) it cost the US navy anywhere from $800k to $1,000,000 for a single round of ammo for the main guns.
My high school government teacher was Admiral Elmo Zumwalt's brother. He was a great teacher and an amazing person.