Event
|
Year
|
Comment
|
Laid Down
|
2011
|
Beginning of physical construction
|
Launched
|
2013
|
|
Delivery
|
2016
|
Delivered incomplete; Phase II of construction pending
|
Fake Commissioning
|
2016
|
|
Transit to Homeport San Diego
|
2016
|
Lost power due to water leak in lube oil; had to be towed
|
San Diego Fitting Out
|
2016
|
Phase II construction and initial combat system install
|
PR Cruise
|
2019
|
Public relations cruise and transfer to Pearl Harbor for
combat systems installation
|
Combat Systems Installation and Activation
|
2019
|
Combat systems installation and testing at Pearl Harbor
|
Real Commissioning
|
2020
|
Commission granted by ComNavOps
|
So, nine years to complete the ship. Hmmm …
How are we going to replace lost ships in a war? We should be seriously examining our ship designs
and asking why it takes nine years to build a ship. But, I digress …
Let’s quickly review the ship’s status.
Weapons. The major problem with the Zumwalt is that it
has very little in the way of weapons which means it has only limited use in
combat. The ship’s main weapon, Advanced
Gun System (AGS) - the weapon the entire ship was designed around – is
non-functional due to cancellation of the only ammunition the gun could fire,
the LRLAP round. That leaves the ship with
a total weapons fit of the following:
- 80x Mk57 VLS cells
- 2x 30mm machine guns
Note the complete absence of any point defense weapons like
CIWS or RAM/SeaRAM. This is not a ship
that stands a good chance of survival in combat.
Worse, we’ve discussed that the Zumwalt’s VLS cells have
only limited capability because it doesn’t have the full Aegis combat system
software. Currently, Zumwalt does not
have Tomahawk or Standard missile launch capability although the Navy requested
funds from Congress to integrate the Tomahawk capability.(2) What does that leave? I guess the ship is a giant ESSM barge.
On the ‘plus’ side, the Zumwalt just conducted its first
live fire of its 30 mm machine guns, only four years after being commissioned!
(3)
You’ll also note that the Zumwalt has no offensive weapon
capability since the guns are non-functional and Tomahawk missiles are not
supported. So, that leaves Zumwalt as a
purely defensive ship whose self-defense system is also non-functional (see the
next section).
Ship Self-Defense
System. Due to the lack of
illuminators and the decision to delete half of the Dual Band Radar, the
Zumwalt has no functional missile guidance system. The Navy is currently trying to modify
missiles with the Joint Universal Weapons Link to accept radar guidance from
the SPY-3 but that, in turn, appears to be negatively impacting radar
performance (see, “Zumwalt Self-Defense Problems”). The upshot is that Zumwalt’s self-defense
system is non-functional.
Crew Size. Zumwalt, like the LCS, was designed for
minimal manning with a crew of around 140 on a cruiser size ship with a
displacement of 16,000 tons. By
comparison, the Burke has a crew of 320 and a displacement of 9200 tons. As the LCS has demonstrated, minimal manning
has been an abject failure in every respect.
When the lack of point defense is combined with the lack of crew for
damage control the situation is even worse.
Ballistic Missile
Defense. Information on the
Zumwalt’s BMD capability, or lack thereof, is sketchy and confusing. The Navy has, at various times, stated that
the Zumwalt is capable of firing the Standard missile family and is not capable
of operating Standard missiles. What
this appears to mean is that although the VLS cells can launch physically
launch a Standard missile, they cannot be guided because the ship lacks the
Aegis combat system which provides the missile guidance. Regardless of the physical ability of the
ship to eject a Standard missile from the VLS cells, it appears that the ship
has no BMD capability due to a lack of BMD software in its combat system.
Experimental Squadron. For the moment, the Navy plans to use the
Zumwalt as a test bed for an unmanned squadron of ships that will include the
first four LCS, DARPA’s Sea Hunter, and the Zumwalts.(1) Wow!
What a collection of misfits!
Stealth. Supposedly the ship’s most important
attribute, stealth, was going to allow the ship to sit close inshore and rain
death on our enemies while remaining undetected. Setting aside the fantasy level of thinking
contained therein, even the stealth has been degraded. While the first two ships were constructed
with a resin-wood composite deckhouse that supposedly had special stealth
characteristics, the third and final ship was built with a standard steel
deckhouse. What’s more, the final fitting
of the ship reveals that non-stealthy platforms, masts, sensors, and antennae
have sprouted on the ship like mushrooms and have, presumably, negatively
impacted whatever stealth the ship may have had.
 |
| Note all the non-stealthy projections, masts, platforms, antennae, etc. |
Summary
Well, there you have it.
That’s what a $25B+ program gets you – a ship with no offensive weapons,
no functional self-defense, no point defense, degraded stealth, and a crew too
small to fight the ship and execute damage control.
(1)USNI News website, “Navy Stands Up Surface Development
Squadron for DDG-1000, Unmanned Experimentation”, Megan Eckstein, 22-May-2019,
https://news.usni.org/2019/05/22/navy-stands-up-surface-development-squadron-for-ddg-1000-unmanned-experimentation
National Interest website, “Drones Are Giving The Troubled
Zumwalt Destroyer A Place In The Navy's Strategy”, David Axe, 2-May-2020,
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/drones-are-giving-troubled-zumwalt-destroyer-place-navys-strategy-149866
(3)MilitaryLeak blog, 21-May-2020,
https://militaryleak.com/2020/05/21/us-navys-uss-zumwalt-completes-first-live-fire-test/
The only rational explanation is that Navy brass are all on the ChiCom payroll.
ReplyDeleteBecause no one screws up this badly by accident.
The Zumwalts main function is to make the LCS crews feel better, "See kids there is a ship may more screwed up than ours"
ReplyDeleteThe Ford crew on the other hand, can console itself with the thought that a carrier with 4 working elevators beats a cruiser with no ammo.
Planes in the hangar are better than cobwebs in the magazine.
DeleteThere is an article in this month's USNI Proceedings proposing to put one of the Zumwalts permanently in San Diego as a test bed for future systems, and deploy the other two to Japan and the Med as flagship replacements for the LCCs. Makes more. sense than any other idea I have heard, other than possibly SINKEX.
ReplyDeleteProblem is why did the 3rd even get built. The CF was obvious after the first and the gun cancellation. The 3rd could have been suspended and just retain 2 for 'test beds'. You can say unit cost but since thay cannot do anything the point is still total wasted cost.
Delete"why did the 3rd even get built."
DeleteIt's actually not a case of why the third got built but why the first did. At that point, the Navy didn't want any. I've never seen an explicit explanation but my best understanding is that the cancellation fees would have been so exorbitant that the Navy opted to go ahead with the minimal purchase of three ships. Of course, at the time, they still believed they could get some use out of them. Sadly, not even that crumb of consolation panned out. There was also the inevitable legal battles and costs that would have followed cancellation.
So, the short answer is building the minimal quantity of three was cheaper than cancelling. Of course, this is according to the Navy so take that explanation with a giant grain of salt.
Surely the idea that a Zumwalt can function as an amphibious command ship is ridiculous.
DeleteThey aren't in any way designed for such a function.
The AGS for the second and third ships should have been warehoused as "spare parts" or "test articles", and the ships should have been delivered with ballast plates and welded down covers.
DeleteThe EXACT reason why they built the third one is simple. They named it. How are you going to cancel a ship named after a President?
DeleteOn a separate note, I am considering not reading this blog any longer. I seriously get depressed every time I read. It seems the Navy and my beloved Marine Corps are incapable of rational thought and I feel absolutely useless in the fact that I am unable to assist in changing its thought patterns.
"I feel absolutely useless in the fact that I am unable to assist in changing its thought patterns."
DeleteYou are having an impact whether you recognize it or not. First, I get LOTS of emails and communications from active duty personnel of every rank. This blog IS read by the Navy. People are being influenced. The thing is the influence and resulting actions occur in small bits that are, by themselves, difficult to recognize. However, look at the bigger picture over time. Over the last several years (the life of this blog) the Navy has acknowledged a bunch of mistakes that we've called out on this blog (minimal manning, for example). They've acknowledged that the LCS was a mistake - although we're still stuck with them - and now they've moved on to a frigate which is not what I would have done but it's an improvement on the LCS. The Marines are beginning to discuss and develop mobile anti-air and EW capabilities. I could go on and on but you get the idea. There have been some positive developments. Are they due 100% to this blog? I doubt it but I also have no doubt that some of the Navy's leaders are influenced by this blog and act accordingly to the degree they can, when they can. So, your comments DO have an impact.
Walking away from problems or bad news is exactly the wrong approach. As a society, we walked away from politics and look what that gave us. We should get more engaged, not less, and demand that our elected officials serve us, not the other way around. We need to exercise our powers as citizens, not walk away because politics have gotten so bad.
Remember, the tenure of a Marine Commandant is quite limited. In a year or two, someone else will take over and, hopefully, put the Marine Corps back on track. Every Commandant comes in with grandiose ideas but they rarely implement anything of significance because their time in office is too short. For example, Marine Corps tanks can be eliminated with the stroke of a pen and they can be brought back the same way by the next Commandant.
I love the Navy and Marines. Recognize that I write this blog not to criticize but to analyze. The fact that any rational analysis may, and often does, lead to criticism is just a result of the fact that there are a LOT of bad decisions being made in the military. I'm doing my part to change things by bringing the issues to light. You can't change things until you know what's broken and how badly.
Rickover and Boyd - to offer two examples - succeeded in the face of continual opposition and frustration because they kept hammering out their message. They didn't give up. You do the same. Keep commenting and keep hammering your message and have faith that it IS being read. Look for the small victories and the small positive changes.
If you get discouraged, ask me and I'll tell you about positive changes (recall the Marine jeep mounted EW on the amphib ship that downed an Iranian drone, just recently? mobile EW is a definite positive development!).
A minor point Zumwalt does not use the Ship Self-Defense System CMS as fitted to the CVNs and Amphibs, nor as you mentioned Aegis but an all new CMS specifically developed by Raytheon for Zumwalt, the TSCE(Total Ship Computing Environment), how much it cost of the $11+ billions spent on Zumwalt in R&D don't know as never came across a break down.
ReplyDelete"Zumwalt does not use the Ship Self-Defense System CMS as fitted to the CVNs and Amphibs,"
DeleteCorrect, however, the Navy and DOT&E use the phrase 'ship self-defense system' in their reports so I do, too. See, for example, the DOT&E 2019 Annual Report.
My misunderstanding,thanks for your correction.
DeleteThey can't bother to get some illuminators on the ship - but by god, damn the stealth, we must have sat-comms for sufficient micro-managing.
ReplyDeleteUSN spent $25 billion and you can't fire Standards and Tomahawks?!? Should that with ESSM be standard fit for every surface ship? Not saying it should be carrying them at all times but seems to me strange that a major warship seems that emasculated.
ReplyDeleteVery similar to Ford, USN just dumped every imaginable tech gizmo on board with no doubt of usefulness or necessity. Why didnt they just build a LO hull with a standard Burke AEGIS fit?
The VLS cells are, I assume, capable of launching Standards and Tomahawks - the ship just can't control them. Inexplicably, the Navy has several different combat control software systems spread among the fleet (Aegis, Ship Self-Defense System, 2 different LCS systems, and the Zumwalt ship self-defense system) instead of having a single fleet system as any reasonable person would do.
DeleteUnfortunately, the Zumwalt's version appears not to have the capability to control Standards and Tomahawks effectively. Bizarre, to say the least.
"The VLS cells are, I assume, capable of launching Standards and Tomahawks - the ship just can't control them."
DeleteThat might as well be the headline from a satire/parody announcement.
Your summary makes me wish I was a defense contractor LOL!!! Seriously though, the insanity has to stop but feel that only tragedy/war losses will change things (too late)..?
ReplyDelete@CNO notice your rapid fire, mire frequent posts and enjoy it, albeit its always more bad news...!!!
"always more bad news...!!!"
DeleteBelieve it or not, I actively look for good news but it's really hard to find much.
Oh I believe it!!! Its like being excited about the FFG(X)... until the Navy fiddled with it a bit. Now I see it as another wasted opportunity before the first keel is layed. Starting to feel like the Navy leadership's motto is "so many failures, so little time...!"
DeleteActually your description of the Zummies make it sound like its now an expensive arsenal ship. Not enough missiles, too much crew, and pretend stealth, but other than that a missle boat.
ReplyDeleteThis looks like the perfect candidate for a "radical minimal manning program." Moor it somewhere and have people visit it occasionally to record its deterioration.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking seriously, there are lots of good options for getting some use out of them. For example, we could install two double or triple 8" gun turrets plus a bunch of MLRS launchers and make it a prototype naval gun support platform. There's lots of other ideas, too. The Navy just needs to admit they are a mistake and move on to other uses for them.
DeleteThe stated goal of now making them anti-surface ships is pointless. First, they have no anti-surface capability! Second, we have plenty of anti-surface capability already. That being the case, let's make prototypes out of them for various applications and get some use out of them.
If you wanted to convert it to an ersatz BB gun platform, you'd probably need to also armor it accordingly, which is extraordinarily expensive and difficult for a ship not designed to carry significant armor.
DeleteOn top of everything else, it's incredibly ugly.
ReplyDeleteUgliness is a basic requirement for stealth, it seems.
DeleteFor ships perhaps, but certainly not for aircraft!
DeleteBeing an ESSM barge could be a good thing, if the Zumwalt were designed to work alone, since it wouldn't have to defend any other targets besides itself.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the LCS, it currently doesn't have any documented weight limits (and since it has no shells, that automatically frees up a few tons too) , so there's no reason it can't have deck mounted Harpoon and NSM's bolted fore and aft.x8 missiles fore, x16-24 aft.
In addition, if it does happen to be with NSM armed LCS, then should they stay within 10 nm of the Zumwalt, the Zumwalt can provide some air defence for them as well.
I read it has little missile guidance. In a way, since numerous articles state ship to ship action will actually be very close, not hundreds of miles apart, that may not matter.
I wish the USN wasn't fixated on 30mm/57mm/127mm guns. The Italian 40 and 76mm guns are deck mounted and could be bolted onto the Zumwalt, allowing it to provide some patrol duties (pathetic as it might be)
Andrew
"76mm guns are deck mounted and could be bolted onto the Zumwalt,"
DeleteIf you're referring to the Oto Melara 76mm, yes, it mounts to the deck (as does every gun!) but it has a substantial below deck magazine and machinery component as well as requiring ship's utilities. Depending on the version, one or two crewmen may be required to service the below deck component.
Hi CNO,
DeleteWhat I've found says that it does not have ammo below deck. This lighter version which is for above hangers is called :
Leonardo 76/62 SOVRAPONTE
Here's a diagram showing all the ammo being internal, unless I've interpreted it all incorrectly.
https://www.facebook.com/navalanalyses/photos/pcb.2331344253743730/2331343023743853/?type=3&theater
Andrew
"Leonardo 76/62 SOVRAPONTE"
DeleteThis appears to be a new weapon that I'm not familiar with. Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to look into it.
Here's a link to a photo of the 'standard' Oto 76/62 being installed and it shows the below decks magazine and machinery.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4qpH49MqiI8/XBT05IMAk5I/AAAAAAAAb70/AY9g9dhHHcs0-KsjA7QkQ5Tu5eEQ75wygCLcBGAs/s1600/000000%2BOto-Melara-76SR-gun-004.jpg
The mini-version you've identified is interesting. The obvious drawback is the limited ammo capacity although the it appears from the drawing to have a capacity of around 80 rds which isn't bad. I wonder what it uses for fire control?
Hi CNO,
DeleteThanks for the pic. I've seen diagrams of the "proper" 76mm gun , but your pic is much better to see.
This Italian page talks about the Sovraponte more:
https://svppbellum.blogspot.com/2018/11/leonardo-76-62-sovraponte.html
It needs translation from Italian.
Here's a quote:
"maintains the same performance as the 76/62 standard, but with a weight of 30% lower which guarantees a wider spectrum of installation possibilities such as, for example, above a ship's hangar (see PPP case). "
Andrew
USS Wisconsin:
ReplyDeleteOrdered June 12, 1940
Laid down January 25, 1941
Launched December 7, 1943
Commissioned April 16, 1944
That was a BATTLESHIP!
Thanks for reminding us - a dose of history is good tonic to our current malaise.
DeleteWe can and must do better.
GAB
We must start firing people for procurement failures. The dreaded and oft-cited 'loss of confidence' should apply not just to ship's captains but also to those in charge of these procurement fiascos.
DeleteThe navy needs to get serious. They are unserious people right now.
DeleteReally depends what you qualify as a success-failure for a USN Admiral:
DeleteReady to go to war? Complete failure.
Shovel money to shipyards? Cushy safe job and retire with nice us govt pension? Join a defense contractor board? Complete success!
" That’s what a $25B+ program gets you..."
ReplyDeleteWell, the U.S. Army spent about that much on the FCS and GCV programs with zero vehicles to show so at least the USN beat the USA, but that is not saying much.
GAB
Waiting for the Drachinifel commentary about this ship on YouTube.
ReplyDeleteSince they cannot defend themselves, paint them white and put the red crosses on them. make them hospital ships. convert the magazines for the guns into hospital rooms.
ReplyDeleteI think this would be the best basis for the purely AAW or ASW ship in your fleet planning. The ship obviously needs to be much smaller but keeping its stealth "qualities" and remove the unneeded systems for the rail gun, keeping it cheap enough for mass production. If it wanted to work as an ASW, the weapons should only consists of sonar and torpedoes (i don't know if its optimized for ASW but its stealth qualities should help its at least avoid being center of enemy missiles). If it wanted to work as AAW, the armament will consists of 4 VLS cells (we all know that only 4 of them will be used in an engagement) and 2 CIWS systems in the front to provide interchanging defensive firepower. Another idea that i am cooking in my mind is a scout ship for carrier strike group. The ship could form the outer defensive perimeter of the strike group, relying on its stealth to collect information and provide early warning for the strike group. its armament is nothing but the best detection radar we could have (like mini AWACS) because we wanted to minimize detection (in the passage over the Pacific). In high-risk areas, i suggest we could form mini scout groups consists of 1 scout ship, 1 Aleigh-Burke class destroyer and 1 ASW ship and 1 AAW ship as i mentioned above. This should serves as a big enough target with its capabilities for any enemy to ignore if they wanted to for the carrier strike group. Hopefully, with the radar on the scout, the carriers could provide the right airborne forces to find the attackers, keeping the carrier alive for another day. Obviously there might be other areas i haven't consider but i would love to hear your input on this.
ReplyDeleteP/S:Your articles are the best thing i have found during this quarantine, keep it up. It's hard to find critical information about the military as a young kid, so i really appreciate this.
Welcome to the blog!
DeleteYour idea for a scout ship / scout group is fascinating. The drawback to radar, of course, is that while provides detection capability for you it also broadcasts your location to the enemy from much farther away than your radar can detect. In combat, active radar will be rarely used. That said, a scout ship could be fitted with some pretty impressive and capable passive sensors (IR, EO, signals intercept, etc.) and would still make a potentially very good scout ship.
The Navy has some vague intent along this line by using small/med size unmanned vessels with active radar in the escort group. Unfortunately, the way they seem to want to implement it will broadcast the group's location without providing any useful early warning.
The Zumwalt, not being built for the scouting role, is bigger than you'd like. Something along the line of the Swedish Visby would be closer to the ideal scout ship. Still, we're stuck with the Zumwalts and this could be a way to get some use out of them.
I'm going to have give your scout idea some more thought! Thanks! I urge you to take advantage of the archives and peruse the older posts. There's a wealth of information in them. You've given us an excellent comment. I look forward to more!
Just for info the updated 29 May CRS report on Navy Lasers, Railguns and GLGP (HPV).
ReplyDeleteIn effect states the railgun is in kaput, Navy budgeting just $9.5 million in FY21 to tie loose ends up and then zeros all future funding.
PS CRS not any new info on the HVP and quotes the very old joke lasers are years in the future and always will be. Appendix listing potential advantages and limitations of lasers, there are more limitations then advantages :)
I understand the need to cut off comments and even block ones only designed to offend, but you cleared house. Was there no way to save what conversation there was? I approach editorial removal of comments by anyone with a ton of concern since Workboat removed an entirely innocuous post. Even more in the past few days as I am finally seeing what others are talking about with what Google and Facebook make easy or hard to find. I've actually had to use Bing.
ReplyDeleteThe GAO June 2020 Defense Aquisition Annual Assessment published, Zumwalt -reveals increase by another billion to $26+billion as at 09/2019.
ReplyDeleteI was underthe impression the Zumwalts were ewll equipped for ASW, with two major sonars and two Lamps III and two RPV.
ReplyDeleteAs for those of you who suggest equipping them with WWII weaponry, it be far cheaper to get the air scouts to drop they stonewalling and put the LRLAP into product at it's best economical rate.
VAdm. Barry McCullough stated in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that the DDG1000 was more effective in littoral ASW but less effective than DDG51 in open ocean due to having a lower power sonar.
DeleteZumwalt has a single mount sonar system with dual band arrays.
The ship lacks any anti-sub weapons other than helos and, possibly, ASROC.
I've been unable to ascertain whether Zumwalt is equipped with machinery rafting, Prairie/Masker, and similar acoustic suppression technologies.
The larger question is who in their right mind would risk a $9B ship playing tag with submarines?
I hope mentioning this on two posts is not excessive, but the cannon problem has already been solved and a far superior system has been available for years:
ReplyDelete"During the 2005 Calendar Year (CY) Utron’s Ship Integration team investigated a wide variety of shipboard alternatives to determine the feasibility of putting the Combustion Light Gas Gun (CLGG) System onboard a future Navy Land Attack Combatant Ship. The US Navy’s next generation Destroyer DD(X) was used as a
baseline for the CLGG shipboard studies."
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a462130.pdf
Dr. Alexander Clarke has some pretty good videos on YouTube which suggest a possible role for the Zumwalt. Yes, they have been a disappointment. However, we could still salvage a little of its value as a forward patrol ship doing harbor visits, presence patrols, and general naval diplomacy.
ReplyDeleteWhile the readers of this blog know the Zumwalt is a dud, most people around the world don't. And the ship does look "next level" modern. It would be an impressive ship to have local bigwigs tour and have dinner in the Captain's Mess. Presently, we are very bad at this kind of human intelligence and relationship building. The Zumwalt could help us get better. The time of the unipolar world is now ending. World power politics is back. It's time to start making friends and assuring allies.
Meanwhile, as you have said many times, the actual battle fleet can be close to home; training, maintaining, and practicing for war.
A 2025 headline for the ZUmwalt.
ReplyDeleteThe neutered but agile ZoomWalt class destroyers are showing signs success. With weapons removed and combat ineffective they are used as 40+ knot Admiral barges while fishing the high seas.
Anyhow on a more serious note has anything happened with this ships in the past year that garners any change in their current status?
Might be time for a Zumwalt update. The hulls are floating but do they have a use yet?
ReplyDelete