Navy’s big guns
Defense News reports that the new Zumwalt-class destroyers are fitted with two DDG 1000’s Advanced Gun System (AGS), a 155mm/62-caliber gun with an automated magazine and handling system. The trgeting system is accurate enough to take out specific buildings with a minimum collateral damage in the same city block. However, the $800,000 per round price tag on ammunition for the system may kill the program;
But the LRLAP’s unit price has jumped steadily as the numbers of Zumwalt-class destroyers were cut. From a total of 28 ships, to seven, and finally to three, the class shrank and costs did not.
“We were going to buy thousands of these rounds,” said a Navy official familiar with the program. “But quantities of ships killed the affordable round.”
So, as with much of the cost-saving plans of this administration, it will probably result in even more costs.
Category: Navy
They would have had the money but the oBaMa regime spent it a few years ago on the Great Green Fleet, paying $27 or more per gallon for fuel.
You’re right, Cav, but we need to consider that this pricing is under the Obama administration. Under the incoming Trump Administration expect the Zumwalt Class program to include more ships, thus lowering the costs of these rounds.
With a Republican president and Congress, the days of sacrificing our fleet to social justice programs is over. If it isn’t, then we need to primary all the remaining RINO’s.
“… then we need to primary all the remaining RINO’s.”
Good recommendation ALWAYS Poe.
You say that, but you need to remember the spending under Reagan. As a Budget Manager at the time, I can tell you it wasn’t pretty. That type of penny wise, pound foolish knows no party lines. It’s in the Bureaucracy.
Is this that railgun that all the armchair-admirals won’t shut up about?
Doubt it since a railgun slug theoretically shouldn’t cost much at all. It’s nothing more than a semi-ferrous chunk of metal. Checking the article, it’s a guided shell.
No, that one is still in testing.
I would like to see those mounted on the Iowa though.
TOW,
No it is not; Railgun is a separate Navy weapon system that is under development. Railgun uses electromagnetic energy to propel its projectiles.
Please see the following for details on Railgun if interested:
‘A First Look at America’s Supergun’
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194
It wouldn’t let me read past the intro without subscribing. Last I heard, it needed a dedicated reactor, a complete rebuild of the rails after each shot, and was nowhere near the promised 200-mile effective range.
It’s a start though…. Eventually the tech will catch up with the science, and make it more reliable and affordable. No one is using vacuum tube personal computers that run on 5″ floppy discs, right?
I’ve seen video demo of the railgun. That beast will rock your socks. VERY impressive.
Saw some funny comments in one article with lots of NON-Mil types complaining about the price and that it takes away from schools and medical. Then asking why.
1) You dipshits raise holy hell every time some non combatant gets killed by accident.
2) If you want cheap then lots of people die, not just the ones you want. 16″ shells are cheap and plentiful. The people on the other end, not so much.
3) Shit load of R&D kept lots of people in jobs.
I say go with the cheap munition that makes a big hole. If people are too close to the target, we’ll, that’s their problem. Maybe they should kick out the assholes we want dead.
$800,000 per round…Really! That’s like me having a $650 .45 pistol and paying $3500 per round. Somewhere there’s a lowest bid contract company giving each other high fives every day.
It’s still cheaper than a Tomahawk @ $1.59mil for a Block IV (wikipedia)
Thought shooting my BMG was expensive. Guess not so much…
So the thing will also fire cheaper rounds as well, right? I can imagine some must-hit scenarios where having something exotic might be worth it, but they’ve got to have a lot of plinking rounds for shooting cans of fences and such. If we’re to the point where damaging the building across the street is always considered unacceptable, maybe we’re fighting wars wrong. What’s a wwii battleship cost to fire? I bet it could hit the same building just fine…and then some.
“…But the big guns could be adapted to target ships if necessary,…”
It boggles my mind that a naval gun system was not designed to engage other ships.
Also mind boggling;
“The LRLAP is the only munition designed to be fired from the DDG 1000’s Advanced Gun System (AGS)”
Untold billions of dollars spent on a ship with a gun whose intended purpose can be accomplished by current capabilities. And somehow the subject will be turned to a lack of funds for essential programs caused by those idiot politicians.
“We were going to buy thousands of these rounds,”
They are still going to need to buy thousands of rounds. 3 ships X 600 rds/ship = 1800 rounds just for a basic loadout. Then there is training and testing, and I assume they will have 2 or 3 reloads per ship on hand.
Love this part:
‘“There is no blame on any individual,” the official added. “The round was working, the way forward was logical. It’s just that the cost with a three-ship buy became a very high cost.”’
Ummmm, no. I believe the person to blame initial’s are Chuck Hagel.
How is the Zumwalt prototype running, anyway? Should we place the class in the same category with the F-35 and LCS?
One may include the LCS and the Zumwalt in the same class of bad design, but the F-35 is in better shape. Most of the bad PR comes from tech-illiterate link whores pretending to be writers.
Someone please explain the economic goo-goo behind fewer rounds being more expensive than more rounds?
I’m always hunting for bargains, so when something’s on sale, if it meets my needs I will plunk down my cash for it. I do ‘get’ the difference between production cost to the manufacturer, but not the ‘more $$ for fewer ##’ business.
Whatever, can we put the Navy back in the water? Or is this still going to be the world’s biggest joke?
Development cost (DC) is spread across the total buy. DC is a ‘sunk cost’. The smaller the total buy of the end product generating the DC, the larger the unit cost.
Suppose you produce a product that requires a machine that costs $100. If I produce only ten units the cost of each unit will include assorted variable costs plus the prorated cost of the machine; in this case $100 divided by 10 units = $10/unit.
If I produce 100 units, the prorated cost of the machine is $100 divided by 100 = $1/unit.
The actual manufacturing cost of the LRLAP (labor, material, etc.) is much less than $800,000 but the costs of all the machinery and development have to be allocated somehow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_accounting
A number of years ago there were stories about the Defense Dept. spending $600 for a hammer and even more for a toilet seat. Same idea.
I wonder if they have thought about shooting 155mm Steel or Brass ball bearings out of it? They are cheap, and Ebay dealers can send them with free shipping!
Well, then why not just go back to cannonballs and powder monkeys?
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to use coconuts with Sheetrock nails?
Think that I read that this Navy gun cannot use the Excalibur (XM982, M982 and M982A1) rounds, if so then this Navy gun program just became idiotic!