The Navy Thinks This New $7 Billion Ship Is The Answer To All Its Chinese Concerns

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-uss-zumwalt-ddg-1000-a-silver-bullet-of-stealth-2012-06


DDG 1000 Zumwalt has a peripheral vertical launch system (PVLS), which consists of 20 four-cell PVLS situated round the perimeter of the deck


DDG 1000 will have a 'tumblehome' hull form, in which the hull slopes inward from above the waterline

Looking a bit like an old Civil War Ironclad, the $7 billion DDG 1000 USS Zumwalt will focus on land attacks, relying heavily on its advanced stealth technology to slip in close to shore before unleashing its massive onboard arsenal.
A new take on the Zumwalt was published today by the Eric Talmadge at the Associated Press who points out that in addition to the ship's wide array of conventional weapons the Zumwalt will eventually carry the Navy's much anticipated "railgun".
The railgun is an electrically powered artillery weapon that launches massive projectiles at high speeds without the use of gunpowder or explosives. Instead, an electric current is run through the artillery shell, the current interacts with the magnetic fields in the rails and pounds the shell from the barrel.
The Navy successfully tested the railgun in February, but it has not yet been fielded for service.
The Zumwalt was originally estimated to cost about $3.8 billion, but so much technology crammed on board that its cost has nearly doubled, and after the first three are built, production will stop. Including the exhaustive research and development required by each vessel to total cost jumps to $7 billion apiece.
In addition the Zumwalt will be built to receive the Navy's new electromagnetic rail-gun that can fire projectiles at over five times the speed of sound. All this new technology adds up.


***oy -- boys and there toys.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-uss-zumwalt-ddg-1000-a-silver-bullet-of-stealth-2012-06#ixzz1wp4JVAAV

[Sherman A1]

1. Of Course,

they want their new little boat. Yet I doubt it would be successful in the scenario they describe. One wonders just why in the world of such standoff weapons as drones & cruise missiles that a ship of this type would be needed? I would think it far better to build more numerous current designs that can do multiple missions (like patrolling the sea lanes against piracy, humanitarian missions, etc) as opposed to what appears to be a costly design with only one thing in mind.

[Blue_Tires]

9. Northrop Grumman is just trying to see if it can scam another big payday

[MrScorpio]

15. BINGO!

Freaking military contractors with their guaranteed cost overruns and compartmentalized construction schemes are what got us into this bloated "defense" budget woes mess in the first place.

[jeff47]

14. Why do you think it's single-mission?

It's got missiles and guns. Current destroyers have....missiles and guns.

It's got a helipad. So do current destroyers.

All that's new is the stealth features. From what's been released, there's no reason it couldn't perform the same roles as current destroyers.

[sudopod]

17. Two and a half of those could fund the entire space program for a year.

Just sayin.

[jeff47]

32. Yes, but there's only 1 kind of stimulus spending Republicans in Congress will pass

And that's military spending.

So I'm not massively offended at the cost, because at least it's money being put into the economy. There are obviously better ways to spend $7B, but in the current economy it's better to spend the $7B somehow than not spend it.

[sudopod]

35. Eh...it'd question its efficacy as stimulus. ;) nt

[jeff47]

36. $7B marginally effective > $0 superbly effective. (nt)

[sudopod]

37. Is it any better than tax cuts? Serious question.

I can't seem to come up with clever enough search terms to cut through the google morass of political screeds.

I would say, though, that if we are low enough that "Military Keynesianism" is the only thing left in our arsenal, we're pretty much hosed as a nation.

[jeff47]

38. Yep - tax cuts aren't jobs

You can't spend a tax cut when you don't have a job. And a lot of folks are gonna have to weld that ship.

[sudopod]

39. Lower and Middle class tax cuts do tend to stimulate the economy, since they are immediately spent

especially during a depression. However, my understanding is that they aren't as potent as social/public works spending.

[jeff47]

40. And a job, even a MIC job, is still more effective.

Tax cuts aren't as potent because people don't believe they're remotely permanent. It's treated like a one-time windfall. It doesn't significantly change spending habits. And a bunch of one-time purchases isn't going to really get the economy going.

On the other hand, a job means you feel like you have a future.

[sudopod]

41. Unfortunately, a lot of these wunderweapons tend to be one-time purchases. nt

[jeff47]

46. Depends if the employee believes that

The people building these ships are going to have jobs for quite a while while they're built. And they're not going to assume that they'll be laid off, at least at first.

[sudopod]

63. I'm still not convinced.

Making weapons as a jobs program sounds an awful lot like the broken window fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#The_parable

Bastiat's original parable of the broken window from Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (1850):

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.[1][2]

[jeff47]

66. History didn't start yesterday

What ended the Great Depression? Massive military spending called "World War II".

Also, the problem with your argument is you are talking about 6 francs that would be spent. Either to repair a window or for some other purchase. We're not talking about that here. The "6 francs" are going to be spent on a ship, or not spent at all.

[Egalitarian Thug]

43. Absurd. We'd get a hundred times more economic stimulus and save billions

if we just cut a check for $100,000 to each worker and told them to take a year off.

This is another useless toy built to fight a war from 25 years ago. There is absolutely no need for this kind of platform any longer. Combat surface ships are just big fat missile targets in a traditional war, and next to useless in the kinds of war we are most likely to face in the foreseeable future.

[jeff47]

47. Your proposal would cost about $15 trillion dollars.

There's roughly 150M workers in the US. Multiply that by $100,000, and you get $15 trillion dollars. So instead of saving billions, your proposal would actually cost quite a bit more....and cost as much as our entire GDP.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that you're explicitly excluding the unemployed, the group that needs the most help.

Combat surface ships are just big fat missile targets in a traditional war

Yes, those radar-guided missiles will be able to instantly destroy these radar-evading ships!! Oh wait....maybe there's a reason they want radar-evading ships.

Again, we desperately need stimulus spending. If the only stimulus the Republicans will vote for is military spending, then military spending it is. It's better for the economy to buy absurd military toys that will never be used than to not spend the money. Yes, there are theoretically more effective means of stimulus, but they can't get past Congress. So they are completely ineffective in reality.

[Egalitarian Thug]

48. There are 150,000,000 workers building useless toys for the military? Wow!

And again, this is a boondoggle built for a war against enemies that no longer exist and that, even if they did, spend a tiny fraction of what we do on their militaries.

And you might also want to remember that there are all kinds of missiles out there, most of which do not rely on radar to steer toward their target. The AEGIS is more than adequate to handle this kind of attack, an attack that there is no reason whatsoever to expect will be made.

[jeff47]

49. Again, your proposals CAN NOT PASS CONGRESS

You can whine all you'd like about this situation, but at the end of the day Captain Orange is not going to pass any stimulus that is more sane or more effective.

So we can either sit here complaining about the crappy economy, or we can use military spending as stimulus.

So, which would you prefer? More suffering or more ships?

[Egalitarian Thug]

51. False choice, as usual. You guys really need to rework the old playbook.

Military spending is useless as a stimulus, The wages workers get are a tiny fraction of the money sunk into these boondoggles, and the ongoing loses the toys themselves create wipe out even that anemic stimulus. Add to that the fact that military spending is an economic dead end (little to no multiplier effect) and you are left with the only sane option is to cancel this system.

The notion that this is the only stimulus possible may fit nicely into your scenario, but that doesn't make it so.

[jeff47]

58. Then what is your proposal that Bohner would pass?

So what do you propose to do that the Republicans in Congress will pass?

If your answer is "wait until there's a Democratic majority again", your plan is austerity, not stimulus.

[Dokkie]

72. if those are the only 2 options

then please please don't do it. Its like choosing between having sex with your sister or your mom, I say we leave our pants on and reject both propositions. No military stimulus, we have been doing it for the last 10 years and where has it gotten us.

Big fucking N O

[jeff47]

74. So you want the austerity to continue

Do you have any idea just how utterly devastated the 20-somethings are? Unemployment among new grads is awful. It's literally going to set them back for the rest of their lives. They will make far less in their lifetime than their parents.

You are demanding they suffer because you don't like military spending.

[Dokkie]

75. So you suggesting

we send all those unemployed graduates off to the shipyards to build war ships?

[jeff47]

76. I'm suggesting that the government spending money in any way is stimulus

Those welders putting the ship together may be over 30. But their income leads to them spending which leads to a better economy and thus more jobs for the young folk.

This is really basic Keynesian economics.

[Dokkie]

77. yea, just what we need

more trickle down BS. I don't think I want to see people go back to work just for the sake of doing something. If they are not going to engage themselves in something productive(fix bridges or other infrastructure that needs rebuilding or maintainace, then I rather see em stay home and collect unemployment.

Sometimes common sense beats the hell out of basic Keynesian economics

[jeff47]

78. This is the opposite of trickle-down.

Trickle down says throw money at the wealthy, and they'll spend it.

Keynesian economics says give poor people jobs and they'll spend money. No jobs, no spending, no economy.

I don't think I want to see people go back to work just for the sake of doing something.

So FDR was an idiot then? Perhaps you should consider the fact that it worked.

then I rather see em stay home and collect unemployment.

Not an option when you can't find your first job. You have to get laid off to get unemployment. You weren't laid off when you graduated. But I'm sure the 50% unemployment rate for new graduates just means they're lazy, right? I'm sure only 1-in-6 has a full-time job so that they can spend more time playing video games.

[Dokkie]

81. Only in the world of jeff47

is the govt awarding $7b to MIC to hire a few welders for a few years not trickle down. FDR started work programs that cleaned the streets, fix roads, bridges etc. He did not award some massive sum of money to a company to build something we do not need.

[jeff47]

82. History. You should read some.

FDR's works programs helped, but did not end the Great Depression.

What did? World War II and the massive MIC spending that went along with it.

ETA: I would also like to reiterate that there are better things to spend money on to create stimulus, but those are not going to pass Congress. Since they can't pass, that makes them worse options.

History. You should read some. You should also consider actually reading about economics instead of stupidly assuming all spending is supply-side.

[Dokkie]

83. I have read some of the historical accounts of WW II

and the great depression and to tell you the truth, I don't believe it all. I think the fact that we destroyed, raised, burned to ashed most of industrial Europe had a greater role in our economic recovery, just think of the boom this country would be experiencing if military spending actually stimulated the economy?

But maybe if we could nuke China, India and generally most of SE Asia and Germany then maybe we can replicate the economic stimulated we saw after WWII but I am guessing even you would oppose that

[jeff47]

86. You are talking about the 1950s

I'm talking about 1943. The recovery was done before we bombed the crap out of Europe.

just think of the boom this country would be experiencing if military spending actually stimulated the economy?

The loss in GDP is so large we'd actually have to double military spending for military-only stimulus to solve the problem.

The idea is we are in desperate need of stimulus. Any stimulus. This program won't solve the problem, but it helps. Yes, there are more efficient stimulus programs, but the Oompa-loompa in charge of the House won't pass any of them. Which means they are utterly ineffective.

When your house is on fire, you don't care if the water to fight the fire is insufficiently pure.

[unhappycamper]

84. 20-somethings do not need a $7 billion dollar destroyer. n/t

[jeff47]

85. 20-somethings need government economic stimulus, whatever the form it takes. (nt)

[Sherman A1]

27. Simple

The new, shiny DD's will not turn up on humanitarian relief missions or tracking down pirates or alike. Those will be relegated to older ships in the fleet as these will be deemed to important or too valuable an asset to assign to mundane things of that nature. They could most certainly do so, but they will be used to attempt to intimidate the Chinese or other potential foes with their nifty stealth and rail gun capabilities, hence they are single mission ships.

[jeff47]

33. Except the navy probably wants more built in the long run

They'll need to show Congress they actually use 'em to get the next pair built.

[Sherman A1]

44. The Navy wants them or the builder?

Even some in the DOD understand that the budgets are going to shrink & to put all your eggs in one DD basket is absurd. Yes, they all want spiffy new toys but even they understand they will not get everything of which they dream.

[jeff47]

45. And pushing for these useful DDs lets them sacrifice something

If the DDs are used a lot, and the Navy "forgoes" getting more that they really, really want, that can help in the budget fight. "OK, we'll pass on these DDs we really, really want, but we demand you don't cut our new SSNs for doing so."

Or they'll use the building of the first two to figure out how to build 'em cheaper.

[Scootaloo]

2. That's a hell of a price to provide a frame for a deep-sea reef

Or are we thinking about just parking it in a harbor and making it a tour location?

$7bn. for a single ship.

seven billion dollars for one fucking boat.

And they want to hack CHIP to death on the senate floor.

[HereSince1628]

3. At least the Navy is still living the dream!

Considering how the 99% has less and less to defend, I think the funding stream for that hull needs to be re-thunk. Those merry capitalists who have something to defend ought to be the ones who pay for its services.

[nolabels]

8. Even a wet one at that!

Now we know why all those useless large pyramids were built, the bastards were running out of ways to waste other peoples money

[onehandle]

4. If the last Republican administration hadn't have been such appeasers and apologists...

...when it came to China, we would be in much better shape in many ways.

[Franker65]

5. 7 billion?

The Chinese Navy cannot compare with the current US Navy right now and this is unnecessary. For 7 billion, you could get 3 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, maybe the money could be spent better.

[Sherman A1]

28. Precisely

These things are budget busters.

[Skinner]

50. Welcome to DU, Franker65.

I agree money could be better spent.

[jp11]

6. It MUST transform right?

And while it may be the most advanced destroyer in the history of naval warfare Talmadge points to one Chinese admiral who says all it will take to send the Zumwalt to the bottom of the South China Sea will be a handful of fishing boats packed with explosives.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-uss-zumwalt-ddg-1000-a-silver-bullet-of-stealth-2012-06#ixzz1wpUu6oWs

Our DOD is just stupid, to 'answer' the threat of China possibly intervening or blocking our mighty war fleets from getting where we need to go, ie a blockade we bring you three 7 billion dollar destroyers. Unable to launch our stealth planes, drones, missiles, subs, etc we need the most advanced and expensive destroyer to 'save' us.

Article clears up WTF this has to do with China better than the original.

http://ap.stripes.com/dynamic/stories/A/AS_US_STEALTH_DESTROYER?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-04-02-53-30

[HereSince1628]

12. It has missles of some kind...this from down in the article...

The DDG-1000 and other stealth destroyers of the Zumwalt class feature a wave-piercing hull that leaves almost no wake, electric drive propulsion and advanced sonar and missiles.

[xchrom]

19. Don't forget the rail gun. They're paying good money

For that feature.

[HereSince1628]

21. Story says it won't have a rail gun until later. I expect MUCH later.

Standing-off your target by 1200 miles is so much more likely.

IMO it's mostly a dream for make-work projects.

[xchrom]

22. Yeah - I know it says later. But know they want

That rail gun.

It works and have to justify having developed it.

[Kaleva]

24. Wake homing torpedos are bad ass.

Can't hear them coming in because of the masking of the wake and noise of the propellers.

IMO though, the Navy would have been better off spending that money on more Burkes and on development the Flight III Burke.

[jp11]

26. Yes it said that I meant how our existing fleet/technology somehow become completely

useless in the situation where China creates a blockade of some sort where this magic ship is somehow the only answer for us to respond with force. All our planes that like fly over stuff with their stealth technology somehow would not be able to get over or around the naval blockade by a Chinese fleet, nor would any missiles launched from submarines or other ships be able to penetrate the magical shield of a Chinese fleet in our way.

YET this 7 billion dollar showboat would be able to slip by the blockade and only the weapons on it, that are so special they can't be put on any existing ships/planes, would be of any use.

I'd rather they wasted the 12 billion on the technologies and didn't build any of these things 'saving' us 9 billion to brag about how we made 3 of the most expensive ships that are still vulnerable to a boat load of explosives being sent into the side of it. Of course I'd be even happier if we didn't blow the 12 billion at all but America f%^@ Yeah!.

[bupkus]

7. Oh what the hell

Why don't we just get it over with and let the military build themselves one of these:

[HughBeaumont]

52. Don't give them any ideas or encouragement.

Dollars to Donuts a Death Star IS next.

[Odin2005]

10. M-I Complex Bullshit

The only sensible part of the whole thing is the rail gun.

[think]

11. Kick

[Rex]

13. And the MIC hums along, enjoying the fall of Rome.

One dollar at a time.

[Egalitarian Thug]

16. Dear Dept. of the Navy, I'm awfully sorry about your penis, but please stop making us pay

for your feelings of inadequacy.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. A weapon of mass destruction to the US government's budget.

Oh, sorry, austerity doesn't apply when it's a Pentagon whirlygig. Austerity is only for the school lunch program.

Nice computer graphics, though! I hope the brass got popcorn and sodas along with the briefing.

[HooptieWagon]

20. OK... it IS a cool looking ship....

But isnt ship-based shore artillery an obsolete war tactic? Especially for that price. The stealth capability and shallow draft are usefull. And reduced manpower to run the ship seems to be a money saver... also I would assume the new ship is more economical on fuel.

[rug]

23. It didn't help the Confederacy.

[Initech]

25. The ironic thing is that most of the computer hardware in this ship will be made in China.

[NutmegYankee]

29. Most likely no. DOD contracts require US made equipment.

That is part of why our weapons cost so much. But it does keep Americans employed.

[Egalitarian Thug]

61. Is that still true? I've read otherwise but would like to believe they were wrong. n/t

[unhappycamper]

67. Require US parts?

Not so much anymore: http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/01/u-s-companies-not-china-pose-the-real-counterfeit-parts-p/

[LeftyMom]

30. But wait, there's more! We'll build it with money we borrowed from China,

that China made selling us all the shit we don't make for ourselves anymore.

USA! USA!

[Strelnikov_]

42. America . . . Fuck Ya!

[morningfog]

31. Good to see the Navy is still clinging to last century problem solving.

[HughBeaumont]

54. +1000

Kicking and screaming we'll be dragged . . .

[Harmony Blue]

34. This is epic fail

As someone else pointed out the Rail Gun actually shows promise, but everything else about this project is a big money trap.

[HughBeaumont]

53. WoOOOOOOSH! Health Care. WoooOOOOOOOSH! Education.

WooooOOOOOOOSH! Housing.
WooooOOOOOOOSH! Social Safety Net.
WooooOOOOOOOSH! National Debt Paydown.
WooooOOOOOOOSH! Infrastructure.
WooooOOOOOOOSH! Roads.
WooooOOOOOOOSH! Schools.
WooooOOOOOOOSH! Libraries.

[font size="5"]Why do these population-murdering fuckers ALWAYS get whatever the HELL they WANT??? WHY?? What the HELL good is this doing us?? GOD I'm sick of this shit.[/font]

This is costing us SO much goddamned money every single YEAR, and not just in terms of direct spending either. Collateral damage, troop hospitalization, long term physical and mental care of the troops, MIC pork, etc.

There's always money to slaughter people, but helping people isn't allowed because there's NO PROFIT IN IT. Defies Logic. Really.

[AngryAmish]

55. Does a railgun have recoil?

Fire a gun and it kick back at you - the recoil. My high school physics says for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Anyway, railgun accelerates the "bullet" electrically. Does this cause a recoil?

[Egalitarian Thug]

60. The laws of physics are laws, so yes. And since the mass is accelerated to a greater velocity,

assuming the shells are about the same mass, it would have proportionately greater recoil.

[Harmony Blue]

69. Very little recoil actually

which is what makes it so powerful.

[AngryAmish]

70. I figure the opposite reaction would be a bending of the magnetic field as the projectile goes by

But, then again, if the navy was depending upon me to come up with a railgun they would be waiting a long time.

[bhikkhu]

56. I wonder if that will wind up like the Kaiser's navy

...in which so much of the wealth and prestige of the country was invested, they basically didn't dare leave port.

When it comes down to it, ships aren't that hard to sink, and offensive weaponry and tracking systems are developing much faster than this kind of thing can keep up with. By the time it hits the water it'd just be a liability against any technologically competent foe.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Well, seeing as how we can't win wars on land...

Maybe we could use this new Wonder Weapon to subdue mighty Grenada...again.

[xchrom]

59. Damn those Grenadians!!!

[hughee99]

62. What about the concern that we'll have to borrow money from them to pay for it? n/t

[rppper]

64. My biased opinion here....

Instead of this obscenely expensive target, we could build 3 Virginia ass subs instead for the money spent on each zumwalt DD....you have a boat you can't see with cruise missile ability, the ability to put special Forces anywhere and the ability to disrupt sea traffic and commerce....we have already converted a couple of the trident boats for this same purpose. The higher up navy brass have always hated subs, but their mark on national security can't be argued....as a cold war submariner I rode two special ops boats like this. They are much more suited for this kind of work.

[unhappycamper]

68. Virginia-class subs cost somewhere between $5 ~ $7 billion to build.

Not much savings there....

About the only thing the Navy is building that costs more than a DDG-1000 is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford_%28CVN-78%29

unhappycamper estimates this bad boy will cost around $40 billion dollars delivered (sans people and aircraft).

[Harmony Blue]

71. That is true

but it is clear that Virginia class subs offer more versatility for that high price point.

[deaniac21]

65. Looks like the CSS Virginia

[link:|

[SammyWinstonJack]

73. $7 Billion? See, this is why we can't have nice things...like Medicare for Everyone.

Your tax dollars hard at work.

[taught_me_patience]

79. Cruise missiles will render this thing useless pretty quick

At $1MM a pop, i'm sure less than 100 would do the trick.

[LibertyLover]

80. Hmm - Civil War ironclad

I hope it doesn't sink while under tow. *

* Slightly obscure Civil War naval history reference.