Why The Navy Killed Zumwalt Destroyers

I can’t remember if I’ve included a LinkSwarm link on the problems of Zumwalt-class destroyers, which the navy killed after only three of the projected thirty-two ships were built. This video offers a solid overview of the issues that led to the cancellation.

Zumwalt-class destroyers turned out to be quite stable, and the stealth design worked well, but they require far more personnel to run than originally specified, and the small number of Zumwalt class actually built resulted in the radical new shore-attack munitions costs spiraling to more than $1 million for each projectile, or more than the cost of a Tomahawk cruise missile, which offers 15 times the range and 30 times the payload.

Other problems include having to retrain crew to take into account the unique shape and handling characteristics:

The combination of the Zumwalt ’s size and inability to switch quickly from ahead to astern propulsion or vice versa (because of fixed pitch propellers) creates substantially more inertia than on a smaller vessel, a characteristic magnified by the large sail area.
…The outward-sloping tumblehome design creates the illusion that the ship is farther away from the pier than it is.
…All the mooring stations are internal. (it) makes it impossible for the bridge to see progress in the mooring stations.
…A relatively low height of eye of 35 feet, along with large gun mounts on the forecastle, result in a substantial shadow zone of 469.2 feet dead ahead.

If all this is disheartening, realize that technical innovations have just as many teething problems for the Chinese navy as well (and probably much worse quality control). I would say the Russians as well, but almost all of their much-hyped “superweapons” turn out to be pure vaporware.

Tags: , , , ,

4 Responses to “Why The Navy Killed Zumwalt Destroyers”

  1. ant7 says:

    as our nation deteriorates it is relieving to see that the navy still is able to recognize issues amounting to failure and to take corrective action. hopefully the rest of our defense forces are equally capable.

    “just as many teething problems for the Chinese navy as well (and probably much worse quality control)”

    immensely worse. the confucianist communism they labor under is a smothering deadweight they can escape only by copying our technology (which they do well – but they cannot copy the culture and attitude that produced it).

  2. Bruce Hayden says:

    It seems only yesterday that they were testing out a 1/4 scale model on Lake Pend O’Reille, at a small Navy base (Acoustic Research Detachment (ARD)) by Bayview, ID. Friend lives above the bay, and often sees submarines leaving after dusk, and returning just before dawn. And then all of a sudden the Zumwalt model showed up. I only saw it once there.

  3. Fergus Boon says:

    Just saw the highest ranking admiral in the Navy demonstrate the integrity, intelligence, and honor of our military’s officer class. Let us say that duty, honor and country are concepts this gentleman never embraced and certainly has never run into. Based on this and a fleet size aging so quickly that in 15 years each ship shall be about forty years old we can all rest assured that the Navy is working furiously to develop permanency flight suits to enhance our competitive edge.

    And I thought the French fleet of 1914 was organized and run by the owners of asylum/brothels. I was wrong, the whores are now called bureaucrats within the government and the military.

  4. The Gaffer says:

    Meh. I was only a year early (1). When the responsibility for spreading the WuFlu is undeniably placed upon Xi and friends (2) they’ll be looking to mobilize the peasants with a martial side show.

    1. https://nexttobagend.blogspot.com/2020/08/and-now-for-something-little-different.html

    2. https://nexttobagend.blogspot.com/2021/06/if-youve-missed-it.html

Leave a Reply