The original design was physically bigger, with 120 VLS cells. At the time it was proposed, it was actually projected to cost about the same as an under construction Burke of the time. The folly of that was quickly realized. Within about a 5 year period, projected costs tripled. The program then underwent reorganization, from physically downsizing the ship to the current one, to reducing the proposed numbers from 32 to 24, then to "between 7 and 10." It then stayed in that range, and the exact figure depended on who was reporting it. Projected costs also more-or-less stabilized at that point. However, had "mass" production actually occurred, there never would have been more than 10, and 7 is the more likely number most widely reported. So, the Navy very clearly knew and understood by that point that--if they went ahead with it--they "would not be getting much." 7 of them would not have gone far in generating useful fleet numbers, nor kept the yards going, so the problem existed of what to build additionally to get those numbers. Ongoing developments in the Burke program showed it was affordable, sustainable, and able to be satisfactorily upgraded, at least in the near term. The NAVY then asked Congress not to fund (to cancel, in other words) the program." It was not terminated by Congress, but the Navy themselves. They realized it was not the right program. Costly, and not producing useful numbers. Nothing to do with either its technological functionality or mission. "Not mass producible" would be the simplest way to sum it up. Would have ended the story right there, but...
For a good decade and a half, there were contractors who had put some money and effort into this, and there were members of Congress and some in the Navy who did not like seeing all the potential new technologies just let go like that. Congress agreed not to fund it, and instead funded more Burke construction to resume. However, they also had the Zumwalt program put out for re-bid, which Bath won. Originally, the program was for two ships, but Bath indicated difficulty in timing transitioning back to Burke production, so a third was authorized.
Yes, producing only 3 made them individually massively more expensive, and precipitated the Nunn-McCurdy breach, which necessitated the radar reduction. It was intended as a Spruance replacement, but that numerous class would have been replaced by about seven vessels. World class, but not affordable enough to build in useful numbers.
The three we have are labeled technology demonstrators. That means they are for hands-on experience...they are "teaching tools." The Congress that had the program put up for re-bid indicated they were going ahead with it to preserve the tech, move it from paper to reality, and give everyone experience with actual equipment to learn from it. To all intents and purposes, the program was canceled, and fleet force structure was from then on reliant on more Burkes. All the fuss over making it forward deployable comes from a newer Congress worried over China, thus putting new pressure on the Navy to "make it work," with the Navy then attempting to comply. Ultimately, since they were created to give hands-on experience with new tech, installing hypersonics on them is exactly consistent with what the Navy should be doing with them. Which makes all this hand-wringing "much ado about nothing," IMHO. If making these three ships frontline material is really that critical, then we really do have problems! The propulsion system is set to be used in the upcoming DDGX, with modifications based on knowledge gained from operating the class. (And the power systems WERE tested ashore before installation aboard the Zumwalt:
https://www.gevernova.com/power-conversion/case-study/integrated-electrical-propulsion-system-for-us-navy-ddg-1000-destroyers )
And it is well understood by most that we need that power system:
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/3/3/power-hungry-navy-ships-require--new-engine-tech
And if hypersonics get worked out, there is room in the new DDGX design to add them in the form of a mid-ship module insert. The class was indeed ahead if its time. And it was truncated accordingly, and the "live" experience it is giving the Navy will help ensure that the next class works.
Not worth all the stress.
(I did read about the hypersonics--among a host of other things. What I find specifically states the existing VLS will not be touched:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/10/latest-details-on-hypersonic-missile-integration-aboard-zumwalt-class-destroyers/
"Naval News: Will the Hypersonic missiles occupy only the 155mm AGS turret spaces, or will the entire forward hull half interior be modified for the Hypersonic VLS tubes?
U.S. Navy: “Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) Hypersonic Missiles will only occupy the AGS turret spaces when implemented aboard Zumwalt-class destroyers.”"
So, I don't know what Bill's seen...)
Zumwalt was more expensive than the old Arleigh Burke design - and it got even more expensive, when the number of ships was reduced to 3. Apparently old people prefer old designs from their youth...
The US Navy has a severe problem, because it fails to continuously develop new ship types, but instead continuous to built old designs.
That is the reason why a design like a Zumwalt appears revolutionary, whereas in reality it is only similar in many aspects to designs of other navies.
The Zumwalt was designed as a replacement for the Spruance class. It would have been - if it would have got it complete radar set - a word-class anti-aircraft, anti-ship, anti-land-targets and anti-submarine design.
A simple gun/missile monitor would have been a very specialised, in most cases completely useless design.
The hypersonic missile launchers replace the 155 mm guns - they will keep the Mk 57 VLS! That means they will have 80 normal VLS cells PLUS 4 hypersonic missile launchers!
Responses