US weapons procurement

[FBKampfer]

Not to be a debbie downer, but what the actual hell happened to our procurement system?

Just reading about the Zumwalt's $800K ammunition. The ship itself is so Golly-geen expensive that we can only afford to build three, now we can't afford their ammunition. It's a 155mm gun system, the exact same caliber as our standard M777 howitzer and Paladin artillery systems. If the exact rounds are different.... MAKE A VARIANT. IT'S CHEAPER.

Beyond that, the damn thing was only supposed to have a range of 70 miles. We've spent billions on a ship we can't afford with guns we can't afford to shoot, when there's not a single solitary nation that we would even theoretically want to use direct shore bombardment against in the event of a landing. An air strike is more cost effective per pound of ordnance put on target (and more effective if the target is even remotely hardened)  and an F/A-18E can also provide air cover as well.

And the army is starting to throw a fit about its tank forces when the Abrams costs almost 9million a pop, and any reasonable estimates for a replacement are in the 10-12Million range and not slated for even conceptual development anytime before 2030. And an MBT is about as simple as it gets as far as mission requirements. We've already figured out what we want. Survivability, lethality, and mobility, in that order. Hell, just develop a new gun for it, and license the Israeli TAPS, keep the DU armor, and you've got about 9000 platforms for upgrade either in service or in storage. And give it a new engine. That turbine was a Golly-geen horrible decision, especially since we decided to slap an engine governor on it anyway, it tops out at 42mph regardless of what the engine can do. And it guzzles gas the way my bum of an uncle pours down PBR. All three requirements checked off, all without designing a whole new tank, which would doubtlessly be just about identical in capabilities to the old Abrams chassis and hull.

This and all the concerns are our military has are about its capabilities to fight a sustained high intensity war. Specifically its ability to replace combat and operational losses that inevitably will be incurred regardless of equipment quality, especially when fighting near-peer enemies.

And don't even start on the air force, our our carrier arm.


So much waste on these systems, that are always delivered late and over-budget, when there's legitimate question over whether they're needed.
Rant over.

[pembquist]

Happened?

[Zimme83]

Add the L/55 gun to the abrams plus some add on armour and it should do the job for a few decades more

[oboe]

I always think of this clip:

[Devil 505]

I always think of this clip:

Brilliant!

[EskimoJoe]

I always think of this clip:

I swear that's how it really works 

[Gman]

The problem with DDG1000/Zumwalt's ammo is that the guns aren't just regular 155 - ie you can NOT put regular 155 army arty rounds in them.  The current rounds are 88 inches long, and the auto loading and storage system is set up for just these rounds.  These rounds do have different variants, some rocket assisted, some not, but they are all specialized rounds which have no compatibility with land based 155 tubes ammo.

Each of the 3 DDG1000s can hold 600 rounds ready to go (300 per turret), and an extra 150 rounds in storage.  At current prices, to fill up each ship just ONCE with gun ammo, the cost is higher than buying 2 full squadrons of Super Hornets (24 aircraft) for the Navy. 

Also, the Zumwalt has been super neutered.  No SPY1/Aegis system, just a dinky mid ranged air defense radar and only ESSM SAM missiles.  No Standard missiles, no SeaRam, and NO Ciws system of any kind.  Dumb.  Also, only 80 VLS tubes, less than a Burke destroyer.  They've also compromised on the stealth with so many design issues that it's ridiculous.  It does have some good new features, it's a tough ship, and using VLS tubes as "armor" as well was a smart idea the way they did it, but the ship is very under armed, and has too few long range sensors as well.  Now, the only ace on the table, the guns, are neutered too, and even if they DO build some cheaper ammo, that'll mean that the big advantage, being able to bombard land or sea based targets from a distance so far that it's hard for them to hit back, is gone, as regular ammo = being as close as normal ships are when using guns vs land based targets.  Thus, putting the DDG1000s right back into harms way as they are visible with optical tracking at those ranges, and stealth won't mean crap there.

What they should do now IMO is if they can't solve the ammo/price issue, is on the next 2 ships remove those guns, put a single advanced regular gun 5" class or whatever, and use all that extra space to stuff in 100 or more VLS tubes, giving the ship nearly 200 VLS weapon tubes.  Also put a SeaRam in some sort of stealth mount or a retracting mount there too.

I hear the OP on the state of the air combat forces, posted before about this too, right now over 1/2 of the USMC fighters aren't able to fly much less fight.  Situation is intolerable right now, hopefully things will improve starting Jan 2017.

[pembquist]

I'm curious if there is a simplified breakdown of artillery vs missile vs bombs/missile from aircraft in terms of dollars per damage and how this ship would fit in that matrix.

[Vulcan]

I swear that's how it really works 

^ agreed. I had to write up a security evaluation for a government agency once for a product... lets call it widgets.

So I wrote what turned out to be a fairly scathing evaluation (but truthful), govt agency 'A' accepted. Turns out agency 'B' had already brought the product, and the person that ran agency B also ran agency A. So I spent the next 2 weeks changing the wording and re-submitting (rinse repeat several times) so that the report for agency A didn't make the manager and team at agency B look like a bunch of fools.

[FBKampfer]

See Rule #14

[pembquist]

Well, we can always by from China!

[GScholz]

No thanks. I'll take a Bradley over anything the Chinese cobble together. This is a systemic problem inherent to every bureaucracy. Egos, petty inter-bureau feuds and power mongering. Everyone wants to put their mark on a prestigious project so they stand out to their superiors. It's not their money that gets wasted, and typically not their sons and daughters who have to go to war. And bureaucrats don't answer to the public.

[Vudu15]

See Rule #14

[FLOOB]

Hey if it keeps the North Koreans from landing on our shores..

If you think the story of the Bradley is funny you should look into the m247 anti aircraft vehicle fiasco.

The Army got caught using self destructing target drones at demonstrations because the thing failed to even hit stationary ground targets and it was so wildly inaccurate it almost killed spectators, firing 40mm bofors into the stands.

[Squire]

The defense companies just want contracts worth $$$ and they do not care that the systems are insanely expensive and complex. This high-end-ulta-high-tech-super everything procurement is going to end ugly.

There is no career path in the services either for a nay-sayer...you move the project along...or kiss your career goodbye.

...nuclear attack boats (submarines) make more sense than a above water stealth frigate for heaven's sakes.

The whole thing has gotten nuts.