Shipbucket

I wasn’t trying to compare the Zumwalt with WWII destroyers, just pointing out that for 15,000 tons the Zumwalts make 30+ knots; carry 2 155mm guns and 2 57 mm guns; carry 80 missiles and 2 helicopters; and berth 140 crew members. For the same displacement a U.S. cruiser in WWII made 32 to 33 knots; carried 9 8inch or 12 to 15 6inch guns plus two dozen medium caliber AA guns; hangared 3 to 4 floatplanes; and berthed a crew of 1,255. While the Zumwalt has much more powerful electronics, the Ticonderoga class and Arleigh Burke class operate the very powerful Aegis system on half the displacement. It is not obvious why the Zumwalts are so big and if they are worth the cost.

I do not have much time now, but IIRC, friedman gives an reason which was an very logical one to me, and I will look it up later today, if I don't forget it.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

The USN uses aircraft for both ASW and mineclearing (usually helicopters).
Well, you kind of answered your own question. Zumwalt, at least as originally slated for the BMD role, didn't "merely" carry SPY-1 like DDG-51 or CG-47. SPY-3 was supposed to be some sort of uber-radar.

Since the time the USN decided that guided missiles were to be the primary means of air defense, a destroyer's most powerful weapon became its electronics fit. And yes, more powerful than 9 8-inch rifles, even.

False. An electronics fit is not more powerful than 8-inch rifles firing nuclear shells. Please try to prove me wrong. You can't do it.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Helicopter mine sweeping worries me as the main motive for it seems to be to speed up the process, cutting corners with mines needless to say isn't a good idea.
Helicopter based ASW isn't brilliant either as they are not stealthy, they mount less powerful sonar systems and are limited by endurance which makes them less than ideal for round the clock cover. This has forced the USN to use attack submarines to provide ASW cover, usually one per carrier group which leaves them stretched quite thin over a 200 mile diameter carrier group (3947Sq miles).

_________________
Working on: - Dekabrist-class submarine
- MV Isle of Arran

Now this is just opinion, yes, but honestly, my guess is that a lot of it has to do with the USN simply not really taking either threat all that seriously anymore (and honestly, current operations and projected threats aren't really proving that they need to). I think a lot of it also has to do with the thinking, "speed >>>>>>> anything else," hence our main subhunting assets being aircraft (P-8A particularly comes to mind).

The major problem with the DDG-1000 class is sheer cost. $3.5 billion is a lot to spend on a ship with a lot of immature technolgy, major stability issues, and frankly in my opinion an undefined combat role. It is also another case of the USN and the defense industry establishment putting way too many expensive eggs in one expensive basket. I can't wait to see the workup for DDG-1000 once it gets in service. This may be a great profit exercise for Raytheon but putting what amounts to $12-15 billion (opertional costs and the inevitable cost overruns) into three ships is scary. We keep building Burkes becasue they work and we don't have an alternative. That is in part due to just having a few high tech firms building everything versus competing designs from a number of shipbuilders. That may be old fashioned but it means we simply can't build warships in the numbers needed.

Naval funding is not unlimited (even adding in the grossly overrated sequesterization issue; knock off a few expensive toys and the problem is solved) and the USN is faced with planning strategically for two wars (Persian Gulf and East Asia) and not having enough ships and not having the right ships for the job. The whole littorial warfare issue (my pet peeve with the current Navy) is a case in point. The Navy is faced with multiple threats in the Persian Gulf from small combatants, submarines and SSM that on the surface look pretty primitive, but so is the Taliban. So we build expensive ships we can't afford to send in confined waters and can't afford to lose (try explaining losing the Independence to Iranian missiles or God help us a Kilo - heck try explaning losing a nuclear carrier). I am also curious about what role the DDG-1000 would have in East Asia.

Please feel free to respond.

The US in-stride system works well for statistics, 9 year-olds and politicians can boast about their countries ship's superiority. I even heard British politicians suggesting Burkes. It's a good ship, like the T-34 it'll beat any opponent in at least one way. Unfortunately it's too big a target, justifying the loss of one would be much harder than it would be for a Perry sized ship.

_________________
Working on: - Dekabrist-class submarine
- MV Isle of Arran

Seeker and Bullfrog,
The Defense Department still does not seem to have shaken its Cold War mentality. They are still planning for fighting a major superpower in two theatres. There are certainly threats in both East Asia and Southwest Asia, but as you note the systems we build to counter these threats are too big and too expensive, and that makes commanders and politicians risk adverse.

In addition to there not being meaningful competition between defense contractors, the significant growth of the defense budget over the last decade probably encouraged lax design with regards to size and cost. It seems all of our ship types are getting bigger. The carriers get bigger even though the air wings get smaller. The subs get bigger; the SSBN-X weighs as much as an Ohio and a Los Angles put together and cost twice an Ohio. The new LHAs are bigger than the Wasp Class LHDs, but there is a reason for that – the F-35B. If our ships don’t stop putting on weight they might develop type 2 diabetes; then we will have to pay to build the Islets of Langerhans class tankers to supply insulin to our over-weight ships.

Bad humor aside, we still have not uncovered what makes the Zumwalts so big. Smaller crew and super-duper radar that combines the roles of several existing radars should save weight, not double the size of the ship. No doubt there is someone in the know in the Pentagon who laughing at us right now. If only he would write in and give us a clue.

They gave up the two major theatre war simultaneously requirement 10 years ago. It's one major and one mine conflict in two different theaters now.