LCS, San Antonio, Ford and Zumwalts were over-designed for mission requirement therefore the expense increases. Add in change orders, inflation and material shortages and boom multi-billion dollar warships for an outdated war fighting vision (was outdated when originally proposed) that totally departed from The Navy’s true mission of controlling the seas. A lesson learned hopefully.
As we have seen over-design (revolution) does not necessarily mean more capability but it does means an increase in dollars needed for training, the ability to use, maintain and repair . LCS is a prime example of an overly designed warship which was not given any thought on how it would integrate into The Navy and contribute to it if mission changed. Add to it faulty design and you have floating future scrap metal.
If you read what the Navy proposes for the Zumwalts they are not upgrades at all but downgrades. The hypersonics will take up more room than the conventional missile VLS therefore less will be carried. Therefore less targets capable of it hitting. The propulsion/energy generation system was quirky therefore that is being “upgraded” . Meaning fixed for a few hundred million so that it does work. Its combat systems are being upgraded/down graded so it can communicate and fight with the rest of the fleet.
Another example, the Ford came back from its first combat deployment and immediately The Navy classified its operations tempo and expense. Probably fell far short of the 30% increase in sortie rate at less expense for the billions spent to gain it. Why? Because the genius who brought the Ford did not factor in mechanical breakdowns of the ships systems, the air wing or the frailty of the pilot. To make matters worse you can’t transfer a trained sailor from the Ford to the Nimitz or a sailor from the Nimitz to the Ford it’s back to school for you.
Bottom line revolution is affordable in trainable increments while having an unwavering rock solid war fighting vision. Separate them and you have the disaster which is the USN today.
The nation and The Navy would have been better served if Zumwalt was designed as a simple gun/missile monitor. Then it would have been worth the expense to make simple upgrades for its specific mission. Today’s Zumwalt is merely a sink hole for dollars so The Navy can give it mission for the billions of dollars already invested.
I know that you do not like the Zumwalts. But they would have had e.g. a superior radar equipment compared to other USN ships if they would have been fully equipped. They would have been better anti-aircraft ships compared to Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke. It was not the fault of their design that the USN decided to cut the class to three ships and continue to built old-fashioned 1980s designs.
The Zumwalts have a propulsion suitable for future weapon systems (e.g. lasers), they have the necessary electricity generation power which the older design lack.
Their propulsion is not complicated - that is the way modern propulsion systems are built in many navies.
I one point I agree with you: the Zumwalts are based on the same obsession with big guns than the arguments for antique ships like the Iowas. There are people who are thinking that they lack armament because the lack the rounds for their 155 mm guns - as if these would have been their main armament. The main armament are in their Mk 57 VLS - and in future in addition their hypersonics.
Responses