The United States has not decided on the weapons of the third Zumwalt-class destroyer

The last Zumwalt-class destroyer, the Lyndon B. Johnson, left the shipyard for Bath, Maine, for the Ingalls Shipyard. in Pascagoula, Mississippi, where weapons and other ship systems will be installed. Commissioning is expected in 2024. But here certain doubts arise. Since the problem with the cost of shells for guns remained unresolved, and it was decided to abandon the gun mounts, the question arises, what to replace them with? With the weapons of the third destroyer of the Zumwalt type, the United States has not really decided so far.

In relation to the "Lyndon B. Johnson", options for arming it with hypersonic anti-ship missiles located in the UVP, in place of artillery installations, were voiced. However, these missiles are not yet available, and whether they will be in the American arsenal no earlier than 2024 is unknown.

In addition, some high-energy weapons - about laser installations. Fortunately, the performance of the EU allows. However, they are not yet available either, and the appearance by 2024 also raises strong doubts.

The last ship in the series differs from its "sisterships" in that it has a steel superstructure, and not a polymer one, like the first two ships. There was information that these destroyers would be introduced into the AUG instead of the Ticonderoga-class URO cruisers being disabled, but in this case their advantage as "stealth ships" is lost, since the rest of the AUG ships are built using conventional technologies.

The estimated cost of the program, including R&D, exceeded $22 billion. Therefore, in 2017, a decision was made to cancel the development and production of some systems for the second and third ships. In particular, they abandoned the new UVP Mk. 57. in favor of the old Mk. 41.

In general, it can be recognized that, given the cost and highly questionable effectiveness, this program is one of the most failed in stories The US Navy, not only in the XXI century, but throughout their history fleet. Although, given that the pernicious trend, when the need to adopt a particular system is determined not by professionals, the military and designers (engineers), but by politicians in Washington, there is hope that this is far from the last fiasco of the US Navy.

Comments

[Dimy4]

It still looks like an iron. Not a pretty boat. My subjective opinion.

[Kairbek]

Quote: Dimy4

It still looks like an iron. Not a pretty boat. My subjective opinion.

Mine too ... But how nice it will be to sink this "golden" thing with one shot)))))

[Dimy4]

The guys from the military-industrial complex have broken their heads to come up with such a thing, to shake money from the state. Here they came up with a ship on the contrary. Next in line is an airplane, a tank, a machine gun, a generally unplowed field. Just imagine how much money you can raise!
P.S. Yes, but the ship, on the contrary, floats on the contrary.

[V means B]

At least they build them.

[prior]

This PR ship would be better named "Pearl Harbor".
A lot of noise - little sense.

[fa2998]

Quote: prior

This PR ship would be better named "Pearl Harbor".
A lot of noise - little sense.

Are you all making fun of the new US weapons? Commendable! Partiotic!
When the Americans made the F-117, we were all kidding! We don’t need this. And only then after the F-22, V-2 and F-35 they began to catch up. And they still haven’t caught up. The only Su-57 feels uncomfortable surrounded 1000 F-22 and 35. A PAK YES, in general, not a rumor.
We don’t need it for ships! EXPERIENCE, CONCEPT, TECHNOLOGIES, NEW CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ARE PRODUCED. The USA will make a successful "stealth ship" And for now we are repairing Soviet ships that are 40 years old. Then we will rush to catch up!

[aszzz888]

The United States has not decided on the weapons of the third Zumwalt-class destroyer

And what's the difference with what "armament" this pelvis will sink?

[sergo1914]

I think the coolers on the sides should be put.

[tralflot1832]

And Captain Jack Sparrow.

[aszzz888]

sergo1914 (Sergey)
Today, 10: 06
NEW
0
I think the coolers on the sides should be put.

Arm the team with boarding axes.

[voyaka uh]

They will put on it what has never been put on surface ships at all:
intermediate-range ballistic missiles with a gliding glider
as a warhead.

[Vasyan1971]

there is hope that this is not the last fiasco of the US Navy.

Yes. Something like this is already planned.
https://topwar.ru/191105-vidoizmenenie-jesminca-zumwalt-vms-ssha-predstavili-koncept-boevogo-korablja-novogo-pokolenija-s-giperzvukovymi-raketami-i-lazerami.html#comment-id-12096474
We will see ...

[Mavrikiy]

.... destroyers will be introduced into the AUG instead of the Ticonderoga-class URO cruisers that are being disabled, but in this case they are lost advantage as "stealth ships"since the rest of the AUG ships are built by conventional technology.

Naturally. It is obvious. We will leave all STEALTH on the conscience of the natives, but logic requires arming them with axes and sending them to barrage, similar to SSBNs. They are as invisible and elusive as SPs.

[rotmistr60]

this program is one of the most disastrous in the history of the US Navy

Which is recognized in the United States. As they say - comments are superfluous.

[V means B]

Oh, they threw the minuses)))) But on the other hand, missiles in Cuba, Venezuela))))

[MauZerR]

Either zamvolts, or littoral ships, what else to come up with to shake off money from taxpayers ... And this with the number of Burks that is enough to satisfy all the interests of the United States anywhere in the world where they stick their nose again. Moreover, these three "irons" are more like doves of peace: there are no promising 6-inch guns with mega-shells (but on the last ship, really - NO), Burks and Tiki can also shoot missiles, stealth for a ship is generally doubtful, always it was better to expand the ZSM, increase survivability and improve electronic warfare and air defense / missile defense. What the heck is he needed at all? A miracle of foil and plastic.