Yeah, I read how I worded that after I posted, and realized it wasn't totally right.

To be really accurate, DDG-1000 was to have been the lead of a class of 32 ships. Then, a class of 27 ships. Then, a class of between 7 and 10 ships somewhere. THEN, DDG-1000 was canceled.

Then, DDG-1000 was revived, and put out for rebid by the Navy, with the blessing of Congress, as a technology demonstrator. One ship (which immediately breached Nunn-McCurdy, but that was already expected/anticipated, and accepted by "everyone involved.")

Then, the winning yard (Bath) told its tale of woe to Congress about how it would suffer labor issues transitioning back to Burke production, needing first one more, then two more ships to smoothly make the transition, and preserve the labor force. It was a legitimate tale. Ships are built in stages, and yards have folks who specialize in each stage. As the "finishing team" is completing, the "starting team" is beginning the next ship. The work then needs to be scheduled at intervals that keep them all steadily employed. However, one Zumwalt interrupts that. In the time it would take for Bath to tool Burke production back up, the Zumwalt starting team would have been laid off, leaving the yard only with the finishing team. The extra ships were needed to keep a steady interval until the yard could get set back up for Burkes. It was either give the yard these extra ships, or potentially lose the Bath yard. So, we got three.

When I wrote what I wrote about "always" being a demonstrator, my mind was on those last three, the previous program having been canceled and all. Those three which we now have "were always" demonstrators. That was their revived/re-bid purpose. Various persuasive members of Congress and the Navy were interested in preserving the developmental work that had gone into them, and having working examples for the Navy to get their hands on.

Appreciate the correction.