The Navy does it again

The Navy has been getting a reputation lately for being murder on new programs, and screwing up both acquisitions and designs. So here we go again.

The USS Zumwalt was commissioned during Fleet Week in Baltimore recently. The Navy selected the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) for the Advanced Gun System as the main armament for the ships. It's the only projectile that can be used with the gun. LRLAP is a 155mm, precision guided munition capable of ranges up to 80 miles. Each Zumwalt will carry two AGS units.

However, the Navy currently has no ammunition for the guns, and appears to be in the process of canceling the LRLAP program. There is no money for ammunition purchases in either the 2016 or 2017 budget, and it's expected to be canceled formally in 2018.

The system and the gun both have a good reputation, but the rounds currently stand at $800,000 a round, which is probably low considering numbers won't go very high with only three ships.

www.defensenews.com...

Wow ... 80 miles @ $800K?? You'd think they'd have a jet for that, with a bigger bomb, already.

Wonder what the R&D cost us.

a reply to: Snarl

Roughly $484M for the gun system, in excess of $120M for LRLAP as of 2007.

I read an article earlier about this.Very disappointed the brass didn't consider the huge cost of the projectiles.

That's a crap-load of money. Thanks for keeping us updated!

They better get on getting the rail guns on line ASAP that would make the most sense for the role of the big Z.

well lets be fair, things can be expensive in the beginning. It gets cheaper with time, ore trials, and better efficiency. I say we keep it going and give it the chance it deserves.

The problem I have with spending so much for new systems like this is that technology advances so quickly that things like this become obsolete before they have even paid for themselves.

a reply to: Tardacus

The problem I have with spending so much for new systems like this is that technology advances so quickly that things like this become obsolete before they have even paid for themselves.

This is a weapon for war. How do they ever pay for themselves?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Costs drop fastest with numbers. With only three ships being built, costs are probably higher per round than the $800,000 given.

a reply to: seasonal

well, using it at least once to kill people before they #can it and replace it with something better, would be a good start in paying for itself, or if it was at least a deterent to war it would be paying for itself,but with no ammo it`s just a big expensive high tech paperweight,that`s just sitting there waiting to be replaced by something even more high tech.

I though tthe big Z was to have a rail gun for a main gun. WTH?

a reply to: yuppa

Hard to have a rail gun when it's not ready, and the ship is already sailing.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: yuppa

Hard to have a rail gun when it's not ready, and the ship is already sailing.

True. well i guess they can adapt it to carry the classic battleship cannon. just one of the big gun barrels would do.

The reason I like the idea of keeping it around is the range with speed. A cruise missile can take like up to ten minutes or more to cover 80 miles no??? A rail gun is like firing artillery at that range, it gets there in under a minute don't it????

It would tear right through fortified positions for discrete ground personnel to continue moving even if the skies are unsafe for their spooky gunships, blackhawks, little birds and so on in mere seconds. Or if plans don't go according and suddenly excessive armor is confronting them. BAM! No need to wait through the night for the skies to be ready to receive air support. Slam those walls or armor to all hell in mere minutes with real time targeting with the rail gun.

I think it could come in handy with North Korea in another decade when we finally start deploying atlas type bots in the field. Maybe even some Persian gulf coastal ops.

Maybe we will need it in the Philippines a decade after Duterte coerces the right legislative body to switch away from US too Chinese relationship.

When I think of this rail gun, I think of operations our guys wont be afforded the luxury of air support with the proliferation of Russian AA systems to rival nations. This rail gun makes that a mute point. I think we should triple the budget and maybe scale back four or five bases in Europe and maybe reduce the volume of tanker aircraft to accommodate that. No need to furlough or force out employed DOD peeps though. Lets just direct them to the border to assist ICE and border control.

Wonder if that $800k/round was just purchase cost or whether it included R&D. No surprise they couldn't afford the $60Million+ or so per ship just to outfit the gun magazine mind it still seems like small change on a $3Billion+ system.

Guess they're just going to revert to the standard 5" in a new mount. Wonder how much that conversion is going to cost.

a reply to: Donkey09

Costs include R&D costs. That's one reason they drop the more you buy. The costs are spread over the total buy and they recoup their R&D.

a reply to: yuppa

You can't just adapt something that way. Gun turrets are actually shockingly precise, high tech, and very fiddly pieces of equipment. That's how we get the performance we do out of such SMALL guns.

I'm also far from convinced about the whole railgun thing...

Coil guns and hybrid coil guns should be where we're putting our money IMO.

the one forlorn hope is that maybe we can license certain south African 155mm gun and ammunition tech and develop a drop in solution.

Letting the Israelis kill Dr Bull is sure something I'm sure people are regretting now!!