US Navy cancels construction of Zumwalt-Class (DDG-1000) Destroyer

[ASWnut101]

Just got this in a Janes news brief:

US Navy terminates DDG-1000 construction at two vessels
The US Navy (USN) is further scaling back plans to build the Zumwalt-class (DDG-1000) destroyer, effectively ending the programme at two vessels. As Jane's went to press, the service was preparing to make public a plan to cancel the DDG-1000 programme after completion of the first two ships...

Does anyone else have any info on this?

[Jimbuna]

Even the home site is out of date :hmm:

http://www.ddg1000.com/

[XabbaRus]

I've seen that on a few military sites. Just as well never did like the design.

I can't see why an updated Arleigh Burke can't do the same job for less money. I know stealth is the in thing but given the likely opposition and even if the Russian navy gets it in gear you are probably going to see the enemy before they see you.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I've seen that on a few military sites. Just as well never did like the design.

I can't see why an updated Arleigh Burke can't do the same job for less money. I know stealth is the in thing but given the likely opposition and even if the Russian navy gets it in gear you are probably going to see the enemy before they see you.

An Arleigh Burke will not have the power to handle the new and incoming weapon systems. Both the rail gun and the laser will need a high energy ship to function properly. This ship is based on a star trek design where it can transfer energy to systems that need it most. The engines are seperated from the props for example, where the props turn on electric motors. Even its sonar profile is massively reduced by this alone.

The DDG-1000 just represents the move forward in technology. To say an Arliegh Burke can do the job is like saying an old WWII Destroyer can fill the job of the Arliegh Burke. Sure, outfit it with newer equipment, but is it really going to be as efficient?

-S

[Raptor1]

Well, they're still building the first 2 ships, if those come out a success there's no reason why they won't either improve the design or restart the program

[bookworm_020]

I'm not suprised that they have cut back on the number of ships. The cost per hull was too high and considering the number of ships they want to build the US navy up to, it would have made that a near impossible goal.

[Jimbuna]

Just do what Gordon Brown and co. do.....raise taxes on the promise of better defences, then don't bother.

[JALU3]

If we continue down this path . . . the only shipyards we'll have will be those that can build carriers and submarines. They seem to be the only shipyards with a constant future work schedule that will keep the industry going. Not to mention we have not made the purchases that we need to in the most recent purchase cycle. I mean I thought the military already paid the peace-dividened after the cold war, now we're just eating into capability.

I understand that the per hull cost was increasing, but I was under the understanding that was due to the development cost being spread across fewer ships. Furthermore, with the stricking of the two remaining Iowa's from the NVR, and the reduction of 2 hulls with the larger caliber naval guns, what will become of Naval Fire support during amphibious operations. We take for granted our aerial superiority and control of the littorals, there will come a day and time, we can't just park an Amphibious group of some shoreline and land troops and supplies, for whatever reason that be. Bombs are expensive, shells are far cheaper.

If you can build new DDG-51 hulls with larger calibar guns, that would be a fine solution to . . . but until they do, I see a hard time coming ashore when there is contested airspace.

[JHuschke]

Bad design..I am sure they will go for something bigger.