What has ComNavOps harped on repeatedly? - that the concept of operations (CONOPS) must come before production or even conceptual design. Without a CONOPS, how can you possible know what you want the proposed asset to do? And if you don’t know what you want it to do, how can you design and build it?
Check this out from the DOT&E 2016 Annual Report on the DDG-1000 Zumwalt program.
“The roles and missions of DDG 1000 are under review. The Navy expects to complete a study to determine the concept of operations for DDG 1000 by 2QFY17.”
The Zumwalt is already built and now the Navy hopes to have a CONOPS sometime later this year???? Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The Navy is incapable of learning lessons.
What is the CONOPS study going to show? It’s going to show that there is no mission for the Zumwalt. The entire concept of a “long range”, guided, ship launched, relatively small rocket is flawed. The Navy has already found that they can’t afford the only munition the Zumwalt can shoot, the LRLAP!
They’re about to find that a short range, small, replacement munition is of even less use.
They’re about to find that the very idea of risking a $4B ship in close to shore (and with the much shorter range replacement munition, the ship will have to beach itself to get any useful range!) is insane.
They’re about to find that giving a $4B ship a sonar, towed array, and V-ASROC so that it can play tag with diesel submarines is an insane risk.
They’re about to find that giving a $4B ship a minimal AAW capability and then asking it stand close in to an enemy’s shore is an insane risk.
Had the Navy studied the CONOPS before designing the ship, they would have seen all this and could have saved $24B of construction and R&D.