• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Newly commissioned warship USS Zumwalt's guns have no ammunition.

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MJPIA

Member
Well technically they do but just for tests, after that?
Nope.
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new-warships-big-guns-have-no-bullets
Barely two weeks after the US Navy commissioned its newest and most futuristic warship, armed with two huge guns that can hit targets 80 miles away, the service is moving to cancel the projectiles for the guns, citing excessive costs that run up to $800,000 per round or more.
Click to expand...
The Long Range Land-Attack Projectile (LRLAP) is a guided precision munition that is key to the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class’s mission as a land-attack destroyer, able to hit targets with such accuracy that, in the words of manufacturer Lockheed Martin, can “defeat targets in the urban canyons of coastal cities with minimal collateral damage.”

The LRLAP is the only munition designed to be fired from the DDG 1000’s Advanced Gun System (AGS), a 155mm/62-caliber gun with an automated magazine and handling system. Each of the three Zumwalts will carry two of the guns – the largest weapons to be designed for and fitted on a warship since World War II.
Click to expand...

But the LRLAP’s unit price has jumped steadily as the numbers of Zumwalt-class destroyers were cut. From a total of 28 ships, to seven, and finally to three, the class shrank and costs did not.

“We were going to buy thousands of these rounds,” said a Navy official familiar with the program. “But quantities of ships killed the affordable round.”
Click to expand...
Everything seems to have been performing correctly. I never saw any test results that showed we had problems,” the official said. “We don’t have an issue with the gun, and no issue with that ship carrying the gun. We have an issue on the price point.

“There is no blame on any individual,” the official added. “The round was working, the way forward was logical. It’s just that the cost with a three-ship buy became a very high cost.”

Even at $800,000 a copy, the LRLAP’s price could go higher. “That’s probably low,” the Navy official said. “That’s what the acquisition community wanted to get it down to.” The official added that there was no sense the contractor was “overcharging or anything.”
Click to expand...

While LRLAP may be cancelled, the Navy intends to find another munition for the gun system.

“We are looking at multiple different rounds for that gun,” the Navy official said, adding that “three or four different rounds” have been looked at, including the Army’s Excalibur munition from Raytheon, and the Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP), a project under development by the Office of Naval Research and BAE Systems.
Click to expand...
But the likelihood is that there will be no LRLAP replacement before the Zumwalt enters operational service. While the ship was commissioned Oct. 15 in Baltimore, Maryland, another 18 months of shipyard work lies ahead in San Diego to complete installation of the ship’s combat system. After that, the Navy will run an extensive series of Combat Systems Ship Qualifications Trials (CSSQT) in 2018 to fully prove out the ship’s sensors and weapons.
Click to expand...
Current plans call for the guns to be fired during CSSQT and, the Navy official said, “the intention is to shoot the guns.” The 2015 budget provided $113 million to buy 150 LRLAP rounds and associated items, and those rounds will be used for the tests.
Click to expand...
While software changes will certainly be needed to incorporate other munitions into the AGS, adapting the handling system for a different round could be complex. The automated magazines, designed to hold 300 LRLAPs, are sized for that particular weapon and it’s unlikely another munition would have exactly the same dimensions.

Other rounds under development for the 127mm guns arming all other US destroyers and cruisers could be adapted to the AGS, but would likely need a sabot arrangement to adapt the smaller shell to the 155mm weapon.
Click to expand...
While the Navy is stressing that high costs are directly behind the decision to eliminate LRLAP, it is not clear if there are deeper issues at play. The AGS/LRLAP combination was originally developed to provide Marines with a “persistent, precision fire support” capability, able to strike targets far inland with a high degree of accuracy.

But as the Zumwalt moved from shipyard to sea and to the fleet, the Navy has notably downplayed that attribute, and while the technical achievement of the cutting-edge DDG 1000 has been widely trumpeted this year, its ability to directly support Marines ashore has not.

There was no requirement for the AGS to strike seagoing targets, and the system does not have the programming to do so. But the big guns could be adapted to target ships if necessary, the Navy official said.
Click to expand...
Just as a point of reference in 2014 the Tomahawk missile cost 1.6 million a pop according to wikipedia.

Well better hope those ships don't ever have the need to engage another ship.
 
Mohonky

Mohonky

Member
On the one hand, launching a ship with no ammunition is laughable.

On the other hand, least that saves some tax payers money.

Think if all the people that could get life saving treatment, food and homes based on outfitting just one war ship.....

One round is someone set for life if they were half way decent with money
 
D

djkimothy

Member
Aren't these ships also supposed to be fitted with rail guns or something in the future? Last I read it's still years away for it to be viable...
 
A

antonz

Member
djkimothy said:
Aren't these ships also supposed to be fitted with rail guns or something in the future? Last I read it's still years away for it to be viable...
Click to expand...

Zumwalt and future designs are built around Railgun capability. They have had recent advances that have made it a lot more feasible as far as barrel life which was a huge issue. Odds are its still a few years out though.

The Navy has a serious problem and it is letting Lobbyists and Politicians design ships. It has led to complete shit as far as capability. Need to go back to the War Department days with proper ship design etc. Its exacerbated by the fact much of the Navy is ancient and needing to be replaced with nothing ready to replace them.
 
O

outunderthestars

Banned
ddg1000-02.jpg


Since nobody likes to put images in ops anymore. :)
 
H

Hero_of_the_Day

Member
So, just those couple of big guns don't have ammo. I was gonna say, not actually having ammo doesn't seem like something you'd want the world to know if you were on that thing.
 
I

Imperfected

Member
In the military, "it's nobody's fault" is a fancy way of saying, "the person whose fault it is this time is worth way more than I am".
 
A

antonz

Member
Hypron said:
This kinda explains why the us military budget is that high. Everything is ridiculously expensive.
Click to expand...

The LRLAP is basically Lockheed Martins attempt to kill the Railgun before it can be used. They want to push an alternative that was supposed to be relatively affordable versus the railgun that is limited to new designed ships due to power requirements. Rail gun would wipe out an entire weapon department as it doesn't need fancy shells with rocket boosters etc
 
C

Cobra84

Member
Hypron said:
This kinda explains why the us military budget is that high. Everything is ridiculously expensive.
Click to expand...

More like this is what happens when you cut orders by 90%. You don't have anywhere to spread one time costs like R&D and manufacturing setup. Same thing happened to the B-2 and F-22.

It doesn't help that the military loves to try to turn everything in to an all situation multipurpose weapon, usually late in to development. They can't just a have an air to air fighter, they have to spend billions shoehorning bombs on the F-22.
 
Tal Shiar Agent

Tal Shiar Agent

Member
antonz said:
The LRLAP is basically Lockheed Martins attempt to kill the Railgun before it can be used. They want to push an alternative that was supposed to be relatively affordable versus the railgun that is limited to new designed ships due to power requirements. Rail gun would wipe out an entire weapon department as it doesn't need fancy shells with rocket boosters etc
Click to expand...
Yeah. Railguns and LaWS are going to make all other ordinance outdated.
 
A

antonz

Member
The Zumwalt Class itself is basically a 20 year in the making fuck up.

When the Navy was looking at a future ship design they had 2 Programs. The DDX Program and the Arsenal Ship program. The Arsenal Ship program was a new age Battleship with over 500 Cruise Missile launch tubes.

The Battleship program was scrapped due to the plan to only make 3-4 ships. They decided the Destroyer program would be better since they would order several dozen Zumwalts. As time passed it was finally realized the Zumwalts. were a big mistake to the point of cancelling all but 3 of the 30+ planned ships.

In the end the Arsenal Battleships would have been a better investment as they were also viewed as a means to reduce Aircraft carriers as they could be the heart of attack groups with the endless supply of missiles it could fire.
 
M

Mobius 1

Member
antonz said:
The Zumwalt Class itself is basically a 20 year in the making fuck up.

When the Navy was looking at a future ship design they had 2 Programs. The DDX Program and the Arsenal Ship program. The Arsenal Ship program was a new age Battleship with over 500 Cruise Missile launch tubes.

The Battleship program was scrapped due to the plan to only make 3-4 ships. They decided the Destroyer program would be better since they would order several dozen Zumwalts. As time passed it was finally realized the Zumwalts. were a big mistake to the point of cancelling all but 3 of the 30+ planned ships.

In the end the Arsenal Battleships would have been a better investment as they were also viewed as a means to reduce Aircraft carriers as they could be the heart of attack groups with the endless supply of missiles it could fire.
Click to expand...

They should redesign it to allow for F-35s to land on it, to complete the fuckup in a proper way.
 
V

Valkerionseven

Member
Why tell everyone your fancy new gun has no bullets lol. Let them assume this thing would wreck um. Oh well, I'm sure 1M bullets won't be off the table for long. Especially if there are several possible variations on ammo it could use. Guess several million dollar test fires are a bit nuts (though when has that stopped us before)
 
H

HariKari

Member
An oversized destroyer that has no advanced ammunition to shoot inland targets, and can't shoot other ships. I'd like to see the case study that the navy did that said "Yeah, we totally need that."
 
A

Atenhaus

Member
antonz said:
The Zumwalt Class itself is basically a 20 year in the making fuck up.

When the Navy was looking at a future ship design they had 2 Programs. The DDX Program and the Arsenal Ship program. The Arsenal Ship program was a new age Battleship with over 500 Cruise Missile launch tubes.

The Battleship program was scrapped due to the plan to only make 3-4 ships. They decided the Destroyer program would be better since they would order several dozen Zumwalts. As time passed it was finally realized the Zumwalts. were a big mistake to the point of cancelling all but 3 of the 30+ planned ships.

In the end the Arsenal Battleships would have been a better investment as they were also viewed as a means to reduce Aircraft carriers as they could be the heart of attack groups with the endless supply of missiles it could fire.
Click to expand...

The Arsenal Ships were meant to be remotely controlled from Aegis destroyers. Besides, we have the older Ohio-class subs that were converted to SSGNs and can hold upwards of 150 Tomahawks.

I honestly don't know why you'd think they were a good idea to begin with.`
 
A

antonz

Member
HariKari said:
An oversized destroyer that has no advanced ammunition to shoot inland targets, and can't shoot other ships. I'd like to see the case study that the navy did that said "Yeah, we totally need that."
Click to expand...

Navy has had idiots in charge of future ship procurement for awhile. The Littoral Combat ship is another example of fail. Ship is so bad it cannot even handle the full shock testing the navy typically puts all ships through and by their own admittance would not survive in a hostile engagement.

Atenhaus said:
The Arsenal Ships were meant to be remotely controlled from Aegis destroyers. Besides, we have the older Ohio-class subs that were converted to SSGNs and can hold upwards of 150 Tomahawks.

I honestly don't know why you'd think they were a good idea to begin with.`
Click to expand...

The Ohio conversions were done to address the lack of the arsenal ship. The Arsenal ship was basically able to be a carrier replacement. It can release all the firepower of a Carrier without the Massive manpower needs or the risk.
 
W

Woorloog

Banned
antonz said:
The LRLAP is basically Lockheed Martins attempt to kill the Railgun before it can be used. They want to push an alternative that was supposed to be relatively affordable versus the railgun that is limited to new designed ships due to power requirements. Rail gun would wipe out an entire weapon department as it doesn't need fancy shells with rocket boosters etc
Click to expand...

Lasers and rail-/coilguns will be the future of big guns (whether they will replace small arms or tank guns is another matter, due to power requirements). Trying to kill them short term is just that, short term. Would be more sensible to develop them, as there will be demand for them, eventually.

Once sufficient power is available, it is cheap, especially in the long term. The Laser Weapon System in testing, it costs something like a dollar to fire it once. As electricity goes, that's kinda lot but compared to traditional ammunition of anything bigger than small arms, it is cheap.
 
I

Imperfected

Member
Spiral Insanity said:
Is the manufacturing process that complicated/lengthy?
Click to expand...

It's mainly a matter of enormous amounts of R&D and manufacturing invested into something that has an extremely small pool of actual buyers. (Artificially small, even, if you're trying to avoid arming your enemies.)

You just aren't going to be putting that many missiles out onto the market compared to the amount of literal rocket science (and more complicated disciplines) that went into making them. They could almost certainly get cheaper with true mass production (and the sort of competitive, iterative refinement that comes with it), but that will never happen.
 
T

ThoseDeafMutes

Member
Spiral Insanity said:
Are these just designed to siphon money from taxpayers? 800k per round? What were they thinking?
Click to expand...

The 800k per round is far higher than anticipated, and this is largely due to economies of scale. There were originally supposed to be 32 ships of the Zumwalt class, now there will only be 3. As a result, the amount of ammunition that would be required is 1/10 what it would otherwise have been, and so the per-unit cost of each shell skyrocketed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Does Sony have a long-term software strategy? | Opinion Gamesindustry.biz
2 3 4
164
11K
ArtHands replied
Cyberpunk 2077: Patch 2.0 Patch Notes
News Hype 2 3 4 5 6
250
22K
Sgt.Asher replied
Bloomberg: Behind ‘Suicide Squad,’ the Year’s Biggest Video-Game Flop
2 3
142
8K
StueyDuck replied
Ken Kutaragi is the Greatest 'emperor' Of All Time and remains SIE's only true visionary
Opinion 2 3 4
155
13K
Moses85 replied
Xbox 'All Access' is coming to Verizon, $0 upfront.
2 3
122
8K
Eddie-Griffin replied
Top Bottom