Congratulations are in order for the U.S. Navy. They are proving once again that their long range ship building planning is irrelevant and unaffordable and more of a danger to taxpayers than an enemy fleet.
The con-artists had to call the
Zumwalt dumbassery a "destroyer" to get the idea past Congress, even if the Zumwalt is closer in size to the Graf Spee.
Cost each? Around $6.6B. Do these people even know what a billion dollars look like? Do they understand combat effectiveness vs. the money spent?
Somehow, battleship admirals came back from the 1980's to haunt us; got promoted way beyond their ability, and hung the taxpayer with this albatross that takes funds away from useful defense communities.
And I wonder which U.S. submarine will get the first periscope-photo of this pig to display in the wardroom?
I wonder which under $1B submarine, hypersonic missile or mine will disable or sink this kind of too-many-eggs-in-one-basket stupidity?
Why? Because the Navy can't even keep a safe air umbrella over the ships it has starting oh, late this decade if not sooner. The Navy is well on its way to an obsolete carrier air wing.
But even if we could protect the Zumwalt, it has no value to any sane naval strategy.
How about another photo just as damning? That of a Zumwalt in the background while one of its boats goes to inspect a ship in pirate waters? A task better done by affordable frigates of which the Navy refuses to acknowledge.
Like some other weapons, the Zumwalt is too expensive to own and operate (what a waste of crew) for non-anti-access threats, and is too vulnerable for anti-access scenarios for the amount of resources shovelled into it. Ships are lost in wars. This one is way too expensive to put in harms way.
For every Zumwalt, we could probably have 7-9 no-frills Frigates.
Like other areas of the DOD, I hold Navy ship planning in contempt. They are wasting our money for little return in combat value.
