It had such a cool concept, why did the Zumwalt end up an abject failure?

AN ARTILLERY SHELL MORE EXPENSIVE THAN A TOMAHAWK

So they tried to pull of a XB-70 Valkyrie?

The damage it took from falling down the ugly tree guaranteed its failure from the start

A fucking Jews nose

>more successful

yeah no creating another ship from ground up to its specs will cost even more

why ? the visby design is way better and can be adapted to practicly everything than a carrier

meanwhile zumzumwaltdisney will need a ground up design to be even considered decent

When you factor in devolpment costs.

When they had 26 ships planned it was no where near that much per round, but then you cut it down to 3 ships and all that money is divided among that many less units.

Nigger how do you think these government contractors get paid?

They get paid from the budget for the project. Which comes from government tax dollars which the whole nation of taxpayers pays a portion of. Yes a portion of his tax dollars go back into the pool. But he makes significantly more than that. Which he uses to BUY goods and services in his community, or online.

This isnt communism you illiterate faggot. Its capitalism.

Ah, the ole tech demonstrator save. Does Lockheed have like a template where you fill in the blanks?

This is not how it works. I work finance for a subcontractor and funds are remitted via corporate, which are cleared based on profit captures from projects that have fully closed. Closing a cost plus contract can take years after the stop work is cleared.

So you're basically paying people out of pocket in the hopes your budget from the project clears years later?

Essentially yes.

Makes sense for our gubmint.

I learned something today.

Attached: 1520706161996.jpg (800x600, 117K)

but its not???????????????

Attached: 636232159436063488-431770799_flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (1600x1600, 92K)

>why did the Zumwalt end up an abject failure?

They didn’t.

Actually it was less than $500k, and they were gun fired missiles.

It's basically a ship without mission.

lmao do you work for some bullshit contractor like B AE

There is also actually no technology which can be used for futher ships.

Not that the USN will get anything else than Burke in the next decades.

A bold statement, backed up with literally no evidence...

Navy is busy with the new frigates and new submarines.

There isn't anything in developement right now.

>Girard Ford
>Girard

Diesel. A fucking ramp.

Were the seawolf ssn's "abject failures" because they only built 2 or 3? It seems the navy has a history of building these expensive boats with all the bells and whistles and then they build some more practical i.e. virginia.

>There is also actually no technology which can be used for futher ships.
That's a ridiculous claim and requires substantiation.
Again, a ridiculous claim and requires substantiation.

idiot

Not helping your case any.

Seawolf right?

You're the moron dude, unless you work in the Navy/DoD program and procurement or R&D you cannot make such a claim.

And just because *you* don't see big ticket tech evolution does not mean it doesn't happen.

An example of this is the lessons from the Zumwalts IEP system will feed massively into future naval power and propulsion systems.

>You're the moron dude, unless you work in the Navy/DoD program and procurement or R&D you cannot make such a claim.

of course he can.

We would know about any new large surface through the 5 years budget presentation.

The same way we know that the Navy is building the Colombia-class.

Thanks for missing the point.

We're not talking about platforms, we're talking platform systems, technology and design.

And nothing is actual wrong with this post.

We still haven't seen the start of actual Burke Flight III destroyers.

defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1328736/

They actually started production this month...

definitely not because too much

The Zumwalt’s ‘mission’ is surface to surface combat.

mobile.navaltoday.com/2018/05/08/construction-starts-on-first-flight-iii-arleigh-burke-class-destroyer/

It's a super secret rail gun submarine that was built and tested as a submarine. The testing was done as a cover and it failed as a cover.
>tested at the submarine testing lake
>prototype had submarine doors
>electric just like a submarine
>cost way more than anyone thinks a ship would cost (because it's a submarine)
I bet the people testing it didn't even know they were underwater half the time it's so fancy.

Raytheon

Are these the ones with the aluminum hull?

It's not a failure.
Let me explain.
Firstly, you can't view naval vessels in the same light as other, smaller, armaments. What i mean is this; small arms, aircraft, tanks and everything in between will be prototyped extensively. Ships aren't ever prototyped. Because building a ship is ridiculously expensive and time consuming. But that's what the zumwalt is. It's a working prototype. America is the only country in the world that can afford to do that. In that regard it's a great success. It's a future proof platform that we can experiment with and upgrade as time goes forward. Our designers and engineers will learn a tremendous amount from the zumwalt and it will provide them a platform from which they can really push the boundaries.
It will influence future ship designs tremendously.

Looks like a gay toy.

>seawolf

Attached: seawolf.jpg (1250x590, 109K)

There's nothing inherently new or groundbreaking about the Zumwalt. Stealth, tumblehome hull, inverted bow, IEP, etc. have all been done before. Not in the package of a cruiser, but still, it's not new.

It lacks severely where it matters the most to future ship capabilities. That is; sensor capabilities and the integration of new weapon systems. Now the Zumwalt could still be a nice testbed for new weapon systems, but was it really necessary to spend all those billions on 3 ships just as a testbed for e.g. a railgun? The chinks just put it on some old raggedy ass landing ship to do that. Other than being a very expensive potential testbed, the Zumwalt has very limited capabilities compared to legacy ships.

>It will influence future ship designs tremendously.
So far it has failed to do that. FFG(X) will either be a foreign design or a rehashed crappy LCS. And with the restart of the production of Burkes, the mainstay of the surface fleet will still be an old 80s destroyer design.

Lets face it, US shipbuilding strategy is atrocious and inefficient and could learn a thing or two from how the chinks are building up their surface fleet

No, that's the Independence class LCS-2

Attached: lcs-corrosionjpg-f8c0e8e8e13c41d2.jpg (1946x1192, 508K)

>US shipbuilding is atrocious.
But is there anyway to remedy it?

>Trying to make a naval bombardment ship out of an expensive cruiser was just a shitty concept to start with.
>No truly transformational tech like new reactors, HELIOS, EMR guns, or anything else.
>No real clear mission in the fleet-- do we just send this thing in without escort? Since the rest of the ships we have are so much less stealthy? Good way to get sunk.
>Applying aircraft stealth techniques to a ship even and completely ignoring the fact that a ship's oscillatory motion when doing anything other than sailing directly into the waves will negate most of the angling.

TLDR The SWOs wanted something to feel relevant again, but started with a shitty concept, then executed it poorly. Pretty basic 1110 behavior.

Part of the 'High Low Mix' philosophy that was big in the latter Cold War. You have a high end war machine that is your main casualty generator, and also serves to reduce the technological risk on the next generation of 'low' tier warmachines. Basically exactly what happened with the Seawolf, Carter, and Connecticut.

In the Navy in the late aughts, this was considered as some part of CNO Roughhead's 'retirement package'. He pushed a lot of these so-called transformational systems that turned out to be giant piles of shit, like the DDG-1000 and LCS. Not great for morale to see obvious corruption like that going on while the dog-eaters were turning out 50 Type-22s a year.

What was the rationale behind the "distributed VLS" approach? Wouldn't the ship be more vulnerable with high explosive scattered around the hull than in a single armored compartment that can cook of in a compartmentalized fashion?

I always expect the early iterations of a new technology or concept to be shitty and plagued with problems.

You niggers are retarded as fuck.

You're the only one who gets it. Seawolf ended up demonstrating a bunch of newer tech that went into Virginias.

>It lacks severely where it matters the most to future ship capabilities. That is; sensor capabilities and the integration of new weapon systems
I disagree entirely on both marks. It has WAY more room to expand than the Arleigh Burke does. The VLS cells are larger, to enable future munitions to be potentially larger if needed. There is more for future sensors. Importantly for both, there is power generation to spare, both for sensors and future weapons systems. No, they're not just testbeds for railguns, they really were supposed to be the new mainline destroyers of the fleet, and would have been successful had they been funded. Much cheaper per unit, too.

Direct fire surface combatants are obsolete, no matter how much railgun fags wish otherwise.

>he says, about a guided missile cruiser wearing a destroyer's nameplate

But it's not a direct fire surface combatant. The guns are intended for indirect fires.

>designed for land strike
>the ammo for the guns were canceled
>it's a fancy arleigh burke now
after the cold war,usa oculd start reaserching means to make their armed forces cheaper,not researching sci-fi shit to fight the aliens that might come here after 1000 years.
their hardware are already overkill to world standards,they want to go beyond because contractors are smarter than your senators.

Peripheral VLS are designed to blow outwards if struck or if a missile blows up while in a cell. This design would potentially cause less damage to the ship when compared to traditional VLS (though those are up-armored for the same reason).

There is no reason to retrofit the zumwalts with new tech. Building one off systems (or three) and tearing apart existing ships is absurdly expensive. It may get a few bells and whistles at a mid-life overhaul, but dont expect entirely new systems.

>Where do you think the money to waste on this project came from fool?
The Social Security Administration, vis a vis treasury bonds.

>There is no reason to retrofit the zumwalts with new tech. Building one off systems (or three) and tearing apart existing ships is absurdly expensive. It may get a few bells and whistles at a mid-life overhaul, but dont expect entirely new systems.
Which is not a failing of the design, as you claimed several times. It has the ability to be upgraded much more ably than the Arleigh Burke, as the Burke is just about tapped out at this point. There is literally no more room on that ship to allow for much further upgrades. Contrast that with a Zumwalt, which is much easier to upgrade and has much more room to do so, and has the power generation to be able to power those future upgrades.

Just so you know, I'm not the same guy.

If the Zumwalt had more flights, it would be possible to add more size and weight to the hull. However, no one wants to fund upgrades to a class of ships that has no future. It's better spent cranking out flight III burkes to increase the fleet size and designing the next cruiser to replace the ticos.

The money would also go back to the workers if you paid a thousand hobos to piss giant S into the sand. It's what was produced that is in question

I'm going to disagree with some specifics of what you said because you didn't say them correctly, but yes, as it panned out, it's more economical to produce some more Burkes and designing the next DDG and CG classes for the future.

You're confusing what "Flights" are. They're just a pattern of ship. So no, having more flights of Zumwalts wouldn't fix the problem, you just need more Zumwalts to have been produced overall. If you had, say, a dozen Zumwalts all of the Flight I design, it would be more economical to upgrade them than just upgrading three Flight Is. Or worse, having to upgrade 3 Flight Is and 3 Flight IIs.

And actually, yes, they get upgrades, because they're still very capable combatant ships. They're just not going to get as much money poured into the program comparatively.

That's not out of the norm. Government sets the requirement, industry players make a bid, government accepts and contracts--contractor fulfills the contract and government pays for services rendered.

Apple makes a gorillion iPhones with their cash and hopes sales meet projections. You don't give your money up front and hope apple completes the phone for you at a later time. Same thing, not crazy at all.

>Ford level super carriers

Leave and never come back.

I'm not confusing terms. A flight II Zumwalt would be designed and built with systems like more powerful radars, lasers, and railguns to fill out the hull and use the excess power generation. That proposition would only be economically feasible with a long, well-funded program that was already producing flight I zumwalts and could transition cheaply from the baseline design. A flight I retrofit would amount to bolting on an all-in-one laser system, similar to phalanx or SeaRAM. Removing AGS and replacing it with a railgun is absurdly expensive. It's better just to build a new ship.

>don't understand how to stop steel rusting

wat

Why do modern ships have such shitty and apparent tiling?

Attached: 614353094.jpg (1024x690, 336K)

Looks absolutely fucking disgusting.

Attached: 500849762.jpg (1024x683, 275K)

The issue is the steel-aluminum interface

Better ships.

Attached: 2 055 ready for launch.png (2000x1000, 3.46M)

What was the point of scrapping all the advanced electric motors it was supposed to have among other things? They could have used it as a platform to test superconducting power grids and railguns, now it can't do anything much.

it was less money issues and more tech difficulties in perfecting the AGS

The round was so expensive per unit because they reduced Zumwalt procurement from ~50 to 2? 3? and then cancelled production of the round altogether after r&d expenses had already been sunk.