What Killed Zumwalt Destroyers?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ม.ค. 2021
- In this video we explore why over 90% of the Zumwalt class destroyers were cancelled. We bet you know why right off the bat, but we dig deeper and explore what led to the cost overruns.
Footage courtesy of U.S. Navy used under the Creative Commons Attribution license. Thank you for that!
Note ""The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
REFERENCES:
nationalinterest.org/blog/buz...
www.nationalreview.com/2016/1...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt...
fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/...
www.usni.org/magazines/procee...
www.naval-technology.com/feat...
CAPT James Kirk, USN, “Ahoy from the Zumwalt!” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 142, no. 3 (March 2016).
fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL321...
![อาจารย์ยอด : สวยกินคน [ผี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_-TIJOwkRA4/mqdefault.jpg)
the Zumwalt Destroyers is so stealthy it will never be seen on the battleground ever
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.
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.
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.
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...
Plot twist: there actually are 32 Zumwalts, it's just that they are so stealthy that even DoD thinks there are only 3.
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.
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.
Stealth warship in a nutshell:
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.
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.
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!
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.
Getting cancelled for going overbudget in the military is like not getting served alcohol in a casino.
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.
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.
It's only okay when the air force goes way over the budget.
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
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.
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