Slashdot Mirror
Long-Range Projectiles For Navy's Newest Ship Too Expensive To Shoot (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is the U.S. Navy's latest warship, commissioned just last month -- and it comes with the biggest guns the Navy has deployed since the twilight of the battleships. But it turns out the Zumwalt's guns won't be getting much of a workout any time soon, aside from acceptance testing. That's because the special projectiles they were intended to fire are so expensive that the Navy has canceled its order. As [Ars] described [Zumwalt's Advanced Gun System (AGS)] in a story two years ago: "The automated AGS can fire 10 rocket-assisted, precision-guided projectiles per minute at targets over 100 miles away. Those projectiles use GPS and inertial guidance to improve the gun's accuracy to a 50 meter (164 feet) circle of probable error -- meaning that half of its GPS-guided shells will fall within that distance from the target." The projectile responsible for that accuracy -- something far too complex to just be called a "shell" or "bullet" -- is the Long Range Land-Attack Projectile (LRLAP). Each projectile has precision guidance provided by internal global positioning and inertial sensors, and bursts of LRLAPs could in theory be fired over a minute following different ballistic trajectories that cause them to land all at the same time. Lockheed Martin won the competition to produce the LRLAPs, and the company described their capabilities thusly: "155mm LRLAP provides single strike lethality against a wide range of targets, with three times the lethality of traditional 5-inch naval ballistic rounds -- and because it is guided, fewer rounds can produce similar or more lethal effects at less cost. LRLAP has the capability to guide multiple rounds launched from the same gun to strike single or multiple targets simultaneously, maximizing lethal effects." The "less cost" part, however, turned out to be a pipe dream. With the reduction of the Zumwalt class to a total of three ships, the corresponding reduction in requirements for LRLAP production raised the production costs just as the price of the ships they would be deployed to soared. Defense News reports that the Navy is canceling production of the LRLAP because of an $800,000-per-shot price tag -- more than 10 times the original projected cost.
I propose that the ships should be financial organizations rather than military ones. For example, to fund the operations and perhaps to turn profitable even the smart missiles could pick and deliver goods to nearby customers before striking the targets.
Nailing Osama's ass in 1998 would have yielded a much bigger return than $1 million. Too bad the U.S. figured the Pakistanis were allies.
All the scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses not trained, all the people that didn't get help when they needed it, all the tax money not spent on roads, education, bridges and hospitals, everyone made a willing and needed sacrifice so that the Navy could use that money developing a weapon system that is too expensive to use because that saves money.
It makes perfect sense.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Yep. I'm more worried that they'd have been perfectly happy paying $80,000 per bullet (that was the design!)
And that only half of them would land within 50 meters of the target. That's WWI accuracy from GPS-guided bullets that cost nearly $1 million each.
Also ... that they're about to spend a crapload more money refitting some freshly-built ships that don't have any bullets for their guns when taking them out to sea and making large holes in their bottoms is probably a much more sensible thing to do. At this point in history all they really need is something capable of launching drones.
No sig today...
Maintaining existing fleets of aircraft doesn't advance your career, let you stroke your ego by putting your name on a big budget project, or guarantee you a nice cushy position at a defense contractor (on top of your flag officer pension) after you retire like the LCS, F35, etc do.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
how much of that $800K/shell is from sunk costs like R&D that has already been spent.
They expected that the shells would be reasonably cheap when produced for 60 ships, but that same startup cost now is only being spread across 3 ships because the others have been canceled.
That doesn't make the production costs of individual shells _that_ much more expensive, just the overall program costs are split across far fewer shells, so the overall program costs per shell are much higher (even if the total cost of the program is less)
This is the same stupid logic that is applied any time they reduce production of something and then want to reduce it more because if they cancel 90% of a production run, the remaining 10% that are produced still are charged with the full R&D (including testing) budget, they actually only save 5-10% of the overall program costs. But they then act surprised that the remaining 10% now 'cost' 10x as much as before.
The B-2, and F-22 also suffered from this, if they had been built to the original quantities, the 'cost' of each plane would be 1/10 the 'cost' that they are listed at now.
For these shells, what is the cost to finish production from this point, forget about the money that's already been spent on the program, canceling the program doesn't make that money re-appear. I guarantee that it doesn't cost $800K to produce each shell once they are being manufactured.
David Lang
The Navy originally projected that they would buy thousands of rounds (to outfit 28 ships). Then they cut the order because they decided to only make 3 ships.
Well, you have a large fixed development cost.
The "per missile" cost = (DevCost + RealPerMissileCost)/N
naturally, when N goes down by a factor of 10, then the "per missile" cost will go up by nearly a factor of 10.
that just tells you that you can't look at it as a "per missile" cost.
This sounds like a complete screw up from the Navy; not at all clear how much of a screw up by the contractor.
They should try to shoot peace treaties and diplomatic efforts through that gun barrel. They are a lot cheaper and the area of effect usually covers one or more countries with one single round.
Funny you mention those things - the same company is involved with those as with the expensive shells.
Looks like a trend.
Maybe we should ask them how much a bunch of Senators costs?
Nailing Osama's ass in 1998 would have yielded a much bigger return than $1 million. Too bad the U.S. figured the Pakistanis were allies.
Pakistan? We should have let India clean that cesspool out. Most people don't recall that Pakistan and India almost went to war after 9/11.
Also, after 9/11 the US should have told Pakistan that 100 Indian troops will arrive in Afghanistan each week until the US has custody of Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. That would have made the Pakistanis choose between protecting their agents and protecting their de facto control of Afghanistan. They'd have been fucked either way - a suitable result for supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Let's see how well Ukraine fared by trading their nukes for a defense pact that Russia, the US and UK will come defend it from attacks.
We're talking about conventional warfare, not MAD. You should also try to read the treaty. It's not a defence pact.
You also deem diplomacy as a failure when a true diplomatic resolution has never even been sought in that conflict.
It's a bit funny how you obviously think Russia, China et al are the only ones engaging in fixing elections and playing chess with smaller countries.
Social Security and the majority of Medicare are paid for by a tax specifically for that purpose, which congress does everything in their power to use on everything else they can.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.
...Dwight Eisenhower
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
7) A cruise missile can hit a 1 square meter target. This can only hit a 50 square meter target. That's pretty fucking useless "accuracy" for a "guided" munition that costs nearly as much as a cruise missile.
That may be by design. For instance, the chain gun on the AH-64 is called the AWS or "Area Weapon System". It is designed so that it spreads its shots over an area. There's no point in firing a cannon at foot soldiers and have a 10 round burst hit in one spot. It's far more effective to have those 10 rounds hit in a predictable pattern that the co-pilot can depend on when he aims the gun.
I think the point is that using these particular Senators as projectiles would do more to benefit American interests than using these $800,000 shells would.
I am German, not Russian, but I minored in Slavic languages and can speak Czech and Russian. I never have been in Russia, but I have visited Ukraine a few times. Oh, and I have also visited Latvia and Lithuania and wasn't impressed - even Romania seems to be more prosperous.
So, instead of trying the old and tired whataboutism - a stupid Soviet tactic designed to distract from the actual topic - and calling me a Russian troll (because, frankly, you are the one who sounds like a shill), pray tell me why the exactly same corruption has existed when their anti-Russian leaders were in power? Why is Ukraine's GDP per capita is only half of GDP per capita of Belarus and has continuously been lower since 1995 or so even though Ukraine is far more resource-rich and has started as the a lot better developed country?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
For a projectile aimed at something 100 miles away, it's going to be very difficult to tell, in real time, whether you've hit the target or not. The best you could do would be to have a drone nearby to report back. But if you can operate a drone in theatre, why not use that to fire a missile of its own?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
And if any of the senators survive, the enemy will gladly accept a trade.
"We'll give you three of our leaders and lay down arms if only you take this ****** back!"