<img src="http://www.armybase.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/depiction-of-the-navye28099s-new-zumwalt-class-destroyer-300x193.jpg"> An enormous, expensive and technology-laden warship that some Navy leaders once tried to kill because of its cost is now viewed as an important part of the Obama administration's Asia-Pacific strategy, with advanced capabilities that the Navy's top officer says represent the Navy's future. The stealthy, guided-missile Zumwalt that's taking shape at Bath Iron Works is the biggest destroyer ever built for the U.S. Navy. The low-to-the-water warship will feature a wave-piercing hull, composite deckhouse, electric drive propulsion, advanced sonar, missiles, and powerful guns that fire rocket-propelled warheads as far as 100 miles. It's also longer and heavier than existing destroyers -- but will have half the crew because of automated systems. "With its stealth, incredibly capable sonar system, strike capability and lower manning requirements -- this is our future," concluded Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, who gave the warship his endorsement on a visit last week to Bath Iron Works, where the ships are being built. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...warship-being-built-in-maine/?test=latestnews
It costs what, billions? And will last about 15 minutes in a real war against the Chinese. The Navy brass has learned nothing since Pearl Harbor. They like to have big ships to play with and justify their existence. We can bully small countries perfectly well with the stuff we have. No need to spend a fortune on stuff that will just be target practice against a real adversary.
Wow, this is even crazier than I thought. From the article cited in the OP. *********************** The General Accounting Office expressed concerns that the Navy was trying to incorporate too much new technology. Some Navy officials pointed out that it's less capable than existing destroyers when it comes to missile defense, and a defense analyst warned that it would be vulnerable while operating close to shore for fire support. Even its "tumblehome" hull was criticized as potentially unstable in certain situations. The 600-foot-long ships are so big that the General Dynamics-owned shipyard spent $40 million to construct a 106-foot-tall building to assemble the giant hull segments. And then there's the cost, roughly $3.8 billion apiece, according to the Navy's latest proposed budget. Including research and development, the cost grows to $7 billion apiece, said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington. Because of cost, the originally envisioned 32 ships dipped to 24 and then seven. Eventually, program was truncated to just three. The first, the Zumwalt, will be christened next year and delivered to the Navy in 2014. But Greenert told reporters that the ship fits perfectly into the new emphasis on bolstering the U.S. military presence in the Pacific in response to Asia's growing economic importance and China's rise as a military power. Greenert didn't go into detail on how the new ship could be used. But the Defense Department has expressed concerns that China is modernizing its Navy with a near-term goal of stopping or delaying U.S. intervention in a conflict involving Taiwan. China considers the self-governing island a renegade province. Defense officials also see a potential flashpoint in the South China Sea, where China's territorial claims overlap with those of other countries including Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia. The Zumwalt's new technology will allow the warship to deter and defeat aggression and to maintain operations in areas where an enemy seeks to deny access, both on the open ocean and in operations closer to shore, the Navy says. Jay Korman, industry analyst with The Avascent Group, said the warship uses so much new technology that it's viewed by the Navy as a "silver bullet" answer to threats. The only problem is the cost. "They were looking to introduce so many new technologies at once, and the cost ballooned," he said. "I don't think people have changed their minds that it's a capable ship. It's just too expensive." ************************ So who is going to send an freakin' $7 bill ship into a dangerous situation? They wanted 32 of them but the cost overrruns were so severe they are getting...three. Nice planning. And look at what the big thinkers in the Navy are planning on using them for. Basically, taking on china over Taiwan or some dispute in which china got aggressive with other asian nations over the South China Sea. Would any president in his right mind send the Navy into that kind of situation? Would we really go to war over Taiwan? No one actually believes that. They also talked about using it to soften up the beaches prior to a marine amphibious assault. When was the last time they did that, 1950? I hate to sound anti-defense, but we are never going to get a handle on the budget doing this kind of crap. How can we ask people to give up benefits they really need when we are pissing away money like this?
AAA, you were not born yesterday. The government is a conduit that does not contain a bladder. Therefore, the money is not so much pissed away as it is transferred with a lot of leakage in the process. Don't just look at the gaudy ship, look at all the lovely mansions in Virginia and around DC. Were it not for government contracts, there would just be ugly fields in their place.
LOL We can't fight tomorrows wars with WWII equipment. The same with our fighters. I'd rather spend the money on defense than sending the GSA and God knows who else to Hawaii and Las Vegas.
Pretty much spot on I think. It seems clear that any future serious war will be fought with long-range missiles and drones taking off from bases on one side of the world, to strike targets on the other. Soldiers and ships will be used to chase Afghan goat-herders around the Hindu Kush. But then, this is more or less exactly what people have been saying since the 1930s. In practice the wars have always turned out messier, and more 'conventional' than what avant garde thinkers envisioned, with the possible exception of Iraq I.
The GSA's budget is 675 Million a year,The defense budget is 700 Billion a year yet you think The GSA is the bigger problem ? You concerned about the GSA sending people Hawaii and Las Vegas ? Imagine how much travailing the militarily industrial complex execs do with the 700 billion a year we give them
When Clinton left office the defense budget was 300 billion a year,when Bush left office it was 700 billion a year While Obama is cutting defense spending.... http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/romney-calls-for-more-defense-spending/ Romney Calls for More Defense Spending MT. PLEASANT, S.C. â Standing among retired airplanes on the U.S.S. Yorktown, a decommissioned World War II aircraft carrier, Mitt Romney told a small group of veterans on Thursday that given the global threats to Americaâs interests, the nationâs defense spending should be increased instead of cut. Acknowledging that waste and excess spending exist within the Defense Department, Mr. Romney still called for increasing the Pentagonâs budget. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...romney-im-not-going-to-cut-the-defense-budget Romney: I won't cut defense budget Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said Monday he wouldn't cut the defense budget if he's elected president. Romney said he would be open to redirecting spending within the Pentagon's budget to ensure that it's more efficiently allocated and to eliminate waste, but he wouldn't cut the overall budget. "I'm not going to cut the defense budget," Romney said in a question-and-answer session on his Facebook page.