Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

“The Navy still hasn’t said what it’s going to do about the fact that it can’t afford the ammo for the boats’ fancy guns”

Y’know, I bet you could find plenty of folks over in Ole Blighty who still think theirs is the most powerful, militarily awe-inspiring country on Earth, too.

The USS Lyndon Johnson, the third and final Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer, floated out of its dry dock over the weekend. Meanwhile, the second of the class, USS Michael Monsoor, arrived at its future home port of San Diego, California.

While the launching of the Johnson completes the construction of the controversial destroyers, the program—which was cut by more than 90 percent, and still lacks ammunition for the six advanced gun systems—remains deeply troubled.

The USS Johnson is the third and final destroyer of the Zumwalt class that includes sister ships USS Zumwalt and USS Monsoor. Once upon a time, the Zumwalts were planned to be a mighty class of destroyers meant to replace the firepower of the Navy’s four Iowa-class battleships. The retirement of the four Iowas left a gaping hole in the U.S. Navy’s ability to provide fire support for the Marine Corps during amphibious landings. To make up for the shortfall, and to support land wars in the post-9/11 era, the Navy had planned to build 32 Zumwalt class destroyers.

Instead of 32 ships, the U.S. got three. Rising production costs, combined with the huge cost of those land wars and an economic recession, truncated the number of Zumwalts from 32 to seven, and finally to just three. According to the Congressional Research Service (PDF) the three destroyers will wind up costing taxpayers a grand total of $13 billion. That’s enough to buy seven Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers at current prices. And unlike the Zumwalts, the Burkes are a proven design with a full suite of working sensors and weapons.

One major, lingering, embarrassing problem with the Zumwalts: The Navy has no plans to buy ammunition for the main guns. Each destroyer was built with two 155-millimeter Advanced Gun System weapons, which lower into the ship’s stealthy profile when not in use. The AGS was meant to be armed with the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP), a GPS-guided shell with an effective range of 60 miles.

In 2001, at the very beginning of the Zumwalt program, Lockheed Martin estimated each LRLAP round would cost about $50,000—expensive, but fair considering each was practically guaranteed to hit its target. But cutting the number of ships built from 32 to 3, along with the rising development costs, dramatically increased the cost of each round to up to $800,000 each. That was too expensive even for the U.S. Navy, and the service announced it would not buy the LRLAP.

You can see where this leaves the Navy with a dilemma. The service now has three destroyers with no ammunition for their long-range guns, which was the entire point of building them to begin with. The Navy is reportedly planning to reconfigure the destroyers as hunter-killers, meant to seek out and attack enemy ships and land targets with precision-guided missiles. In such a case, the Zumwalts would rely on the 80 vertical-launch missile silos per ship to provide offensive firepower.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Marines are still awaiting the fire-support replacement for the Iowa-class battleships, 26 years after the last battleship was retired. Now that the Zumwalt program has become a billion-dollar misfire, the Marines are unlikely to ever get a dedicated naval gunfire platform again.

On the bright side, though, if we’re smart they’re not likely to be storming any beaches again either, so they won’t be needing one. America, at this stage of its journey down Great Britain’s road to once-great-power status, has no business contemplating any war that can’t be fought exclusively from an armchair in a dark, quiet room underneath the Midwest plains, by drone pilots. We no longer have either the national will or the gear for much else.

Which, given that we have a far more important battle with the Left imminently confronting us here at home, the new circumstantial restrictions on US overseas adventurism might not be an entirely bad thing, actually. Attempting to export democracy to places across the globe that don’t want any part of it never has worked out too well for us, any more than acting as the World’s Policeman has. Of course, it would be far more desirable to have any pullback from the “foreign entanglements”* Washington warned of occur as a result of a carefully-deliberated, honestly-debated decision rather than forced upon us by military-industrial incompetence and corruption. But whatevs, I guess.

*NOTE: Washington did NOT use those exact words in his farewell address, and his position on how foreign affairs should be conducted was a bit more, umm, nuanced than is broadly assumed. In my opinion, he’d likely have been in favor of making war if necessary to protect the nation under specific, well-defined conditions—even pre-emptively—but opposed to the kind of pointless, open-ended, half-a-war adventurism we’re bogged down in all over the world now.

Share

10 thoughts on ““The Navy still hasn’t said what it’s going to do about the fact that it can’t afford the ammo for the boats’ fancy guns”

  1. Zumwalt was a fruitcake and a disaster of a CNO, and the three white elephants that bear his name are a fitting memorial to one of the worst CNOs since…ever.

    The Navy doesn’t really want shore bombardment or amphibious shipping, in the same way the Air Farce doesn’t want CAS ground support.

    In fact, looking at their budget priorities and acquisitions, their performance at sea, and their personnel policies for 20 years at least, it’s arguable that the Navy doesn’t really much want to Navy.

    1. Yep, you’re right. Two of ’em, in fact. Thanks, I’ve done that quite a few times with that particular bit of code. It’s actually because of the way I originally set up the “footnote” custom tag in the third-party editor I use, which I believe I have now finally put right. FINALLY.

  2. I hope you understand that those drone pilots in the “quiet room underneath the Midwest plains” will be using said drones against the gun-hugging, Bible-thumping veterans who believe in the Constitution as soon as the Deep State succeeds in removing President Trump.

    1. Not such a problem. Drones can be hacked and re-purposed to do unexpected things at home. They can also be tracked to their home base. That is the problem w/ drones as w/ any electronic device – it cares not who is giving the instructions.

  3. Not sure the ship to shore bombardment does much good anyway when the enemy knows its coming. Look at the pounding places like Iwo Jima took and still the enemy was there in force and capable.

    Nonetheless, when you are the one going over the side its good to think that your .gov is at least trying to see you get home in one piece.

    1. Re bombardments: wasn’t one of the effective tactics during the first Gulf War bombarding not for a few hours, or many hours, but for days and days and days so that the enemy never knew when the land attack would come, they were so disoriented?

      1. Yes. However the enemy was found to be much less capable than expected. How do I know this? Our OIC told us estimates were we’d take 50% causalities and we were support elements. Thank God we took none.
        The first Gulf War bombardment was everything but the kitchen sink. I’m speaking specifically ship to shore. Had that war been against another major power the path to victory would have been very different.

  4. I recall debating with my brothers over the retention of of the iowas. their arguments were quite good on the costs of material and manpower. my only argument involved a video of numerous Iraqi troops waving a white flag at the gunfire spotting drone’s camera as said drone was proceeding with post fire mission damage assessment. My basic argument was what other present weapon system could claim the same results after being utilized. I won the debate.

Comments are closed.

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix