• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy to Retrofit 3 New San Diego-Based Warships to Launch Hypersonic Missiles

As far as I know the Zumwalt was a victim of being over ambitious.
Yes, you can build a futuristic super ship that can rule the seas but the more fancy it gets the more expensive it is and the Zumwalt spared no expense.
 
Because now they have six guns that can't even fire that we spent billions of dollars on.

Having a ship where resupplying it with ammunition would bankrupt most militaries doesn't seem all that sensible.
 
Did they give reasons?
The development costs were going to be spread over a far larger purchase. The class was cut to three ship, the ammo required was dropped so the unit cost went up drastically.

From $300 000 to about $900 000 for each shell.

The gun system was not compatible with other 155 mm shells as well, so the main guns have been useless for the last few years
 
The development costs were going to be spread over a far larger purchase. The class was cut to three ship, the ammo required was dropped so the unit cost went up drastically.

From $300 000 to about $900 000 for each shell.

The gun system was not compatible with other 155 mm shells as well, so the main guns have been useless for the last few years
So like I said the costs of the ammunition didn't escalate due to Lockheed Martins actions.

And I'm pretty sure that the U.S. Navy doesn't mount any 155 mm. guns besides the two on each of the Zumwalts.

Though to be additionally honest, about the only reason for the new guns on the Zumwalts was that the U.S. Navy was extremely tired of hearing people (including members of Congress) go on and on about how great the Iowa class battleships were for naval fire support.
 
You're the one claiming to be a professional in the industry. Not me.

You seem to be having a little trouble following your own conversation.
 
Really rather this had not been mentioned in public. Part of what makes a weapons system so awesome is the element of surprise. No one needed to know that we had our own hypersonic missiles.

The DoD obviously wanted this info out there.
 
The DoD obviously wanted this info out there.

Well at the very least they obviously were no longer very concerned if it was.
Remember it wasn't too long ago that we were hearing "Putin has hypersonic missiles and we're helpless against them"...never mind that WE started fooling around
with these types of missiles before the Russkies, we just decided that there wasn't enough bang for the buck.
But obviously we just mothballed the project, and I suppose it wasn't a monumental effort to just pull them back out of mothballs.

The thing is, it's still best not to telegraph anything to an adversary.
In fact, it's the worst thing one can do.
 
What's the practical value of adding these missiles to a class of ship we built 3 of, then cancelled? Any idea as to the cost? I imagine that cost does not include the development cost of these guns that are now being dismantled... that I imagine the government paid for as well.

It's depressing how in business these bad decisions get people fired; in government, I imagine everyone involved received healthy promotions.

The ships would be pretty much useless otherwise, and they are expensive ships. The stealth nature of them make them ideal missile carriers ( surface at least).
 
Back
Top Bottom