It just needs to be bristling with guns
They shouldn't have bothered with AGS at all and put that money into railgun development.
>a coneugly
>>64190081aren't these supposed to be kinda crappy, all things considered?
>>64190102No, people just make fun of it for being expensive (it's like 5x the price of the Burke when it started production but only like 1.3x the price of the restarted Burkes, and that's comparing an order of 3 Zumwalts to an order of 30 Burkes) and for not being able to shoot the gun (which isn't true, the gun and the ammo work, and the Navy bought and received and order of 200 shells, which isn't a whole lot considering each ship was planned to carry 1200 shells, but it's more than none).You might be thinking of the LCS, which is a much smaller ship from about the same time that had an even more troubled development cycle. They ended up adopting two separate models of LCS at the same time, and one had teething issues (Independence) and the other (Freedom) was an absolute shitshow that never accomplished anything but ruin the reputation of the program and soak up money that should have been spent on resolving Independence's issues.
>>64190081It just needs to be stealthy, fast, and put out tomahawk missiles.
>>64190081Should have used 203mm gun with guided sabots
>>64190081Imagine triple rows of porthole guns.
>>64190081I just don't get why they refused to call them cruisers. Was is it a retarded congress issue? They're significantly larger than the Burkes and even the Ticonderogas
>>64190100 shut your whore mouth
>>64190102>congress mandates the navy to build a new ship with surface bombardment guns>Navy builds a stealthy arsenal ship with guns strapped at the front>Navy makes the guns be a completely new caliber not used anywhere else, gives them ridiculous performance requirements >Then turns around to the Congress and says "oh golly gee, it appears that each shell will cost more than a Lamborghini, whatever will we do now?" >Congress gives up on the gun>Navy immediately rips out the guns and replaces them with massive cutting edge missile tubes that were being developed in parallel to the ZumwaltI wonder what happened here
>>64190081>ram bowWe are so back!
>>64192267Task failed successfully.
>>64192267>Only got 3FUCK! I honestly think these are cooler than the F-22 that got shilled non stop when I was a kid.
>>64192500Yet today nothing still comes close to the Raptor
>>64190081I think it's severely underrated and people are losing the forest for the tree that is its hull allowing it to get under most other ships' radars and smack them before they even know they're engaged. They're like modern U-boats.
>>64190081Looks like it belongs to the KKK.
>>64192267>gives them ridiculous performance requirementsAnd that requirement was "fulfill congress' stupid mandate without eating a billion shore-launched AShMs"
>>64192267>immediately12 years. It took 12 years.
>>64190123People (Russians and Chinese are barely) used to shit on the F-35 and stealth too until they have their own knockoffs. Suddenly "Gen 5" and stealth is always good and real. Wait for the Chinks to make their own knockoffs Xumwangs and suddenly the narrative will change.
>>64192267Initial plan was for 32 and eventually got cut down to 3 along with getting slapped with more things it didn't need driving up costs (spreading R&D costs + build costs through inital 32 plan vs 3 that are being built and extra shit the class didn't need is truly one of the largest blunders of naval construction + procurement this century) and went through End of history thinking and the GWOT. Shoulda been the Burke Replacement but here we are. Total Systemic Procurement Failure.
>>64192267>a completely new caliber not used anywhere else>155mmanon...
>>64190563Because cruiser is a role and not a size. Zumwalt does the things a destroyer needs to do, thus it's a destroyer.
>>64194344But it was armed with guns specifically for shore bombardment, so couldn't make an argument it was designed as a battleship? Its primary role doesn't have any overlap with the Burkes, so the argument that it's a destroyer by role doesn't make much sense. Tonnage seems like a far more reasonable way to define it.
>>64194378>Its primary role doesn't have any overlap with the BurkesIt does, though. Shore bombardment was never a primary role, it was tacked on to make Congress happy.>Tonnage seems like a far more reasonable way to define it.Does that make Flight III Burkes cruisers since they're heavier than Ticos?
>>64194341>The LRLAP was designed for use in the AGS and is not compatible with any other weapon.Same caliber =/= being compatible.
>>64194419>a completely new caliber>new calibersame caliber != new caliber.
>>64194480And he wasn't actually wrong, 155 is a new caliber in the Navy, the normal 6" is incompatible, the 155 of the Army isn't compatible either (the specifications are completely different). In theory you could use normal 155 shells of land artillery but not vice versa, only the AGS can use that ammunition.
>>64195256So it's not actually a new caliber, it's the most common artillery caliber in the world. And its ammo that was never intended to be used in land based artillery can't be used in land-based artillery. They looked into using Excalibur with the AGS, but the verdict was that it would be less capable than LRLAP without being meaningfully cheaper. LRLAP's supposed cost is greatly inflated because it was only procured in a single LRIP batch and never made it to mass production. There was never any problem with AGS or LRLAP apart from the fact that Zumwalt was cancelled far too early for no logical reason.
>>64196166>it's not actually a new caliberIt's for the USN... and for the Army is like comparing the Blackout with the Parabellum.> LRLAP's supposed cost is greatly inflated because it was only procured in a single LRIP batch and never made it to mass production.I'm sure we already had this discussion, multiple times...Their estimations were blatantly "optimistic", $35k for a projectile 2 times heavier than a Excalibur and with far higher muzzle velocity is wishful thinking. The Exalibur had more realistic requirements and it's still expensive, +110k, more than twice the cost (inflation adjusted) and only 25% cheaper than a M31 (larger warhead than the LRLAP).
>>64196256>Comparing 155mm to 155mm is like comparing 7.6mm to 9mmOkay, bro.>The Exalibur had more realistic requirements and it's still expensive, +110k,The Navy actually bought 200 rounds of LRLAP and the unit cost was $200k. The Excalibur shells would have needed to be modified to work with the AGS, and the result would have been something more expensive than the $110k that the normal shells cost without being as capable as the LRLAP shells. It didn't make any more sense then just buying more LRLAP, which already didn't make sense because the only class of ship that could use it was canceled.
>>64196367> and the unit cost was $200kPost the budget sheet...The USN spent a total of $160M (2025 dollars) in LRLAP acquisitions before cancelling the program. And that ignores R&D cost.1/2
>>64196367Post a different 155 compatible with the LRLAP...The point of that anon, compatibility, is valid, the LRLAP can only be fired by one gun. If you think 1 number is enough to describe a gun then this is a waste of time.>105 but differentCaliber =/= compatibility. And in the case of the Navy they were forced to adopt a new ammo caliber that isn't even compatible with the standard 155.>Even though the 155 mm (6.1 in) caliber is the standard for both the US Army and NATO land artillery systems, the AGS is not designed to use the same standard munitions as other 155 mm (6.1 in) artillery. This means that each type of munition must be designed and manufactured specifically for the AGS.The "LAND" term combined with the 155 was a retarded PR stunt.
>>64196465Not that guy, but LRLAP was supposed to be cheaper. The unit cost gets distorted by multiple factors.Here are snippets from several years of budget documents. FY14 shows that a small but continuous production line was planned. It's hard to say what they thought the unit cost was at the time. They may have planned on making at least 80 rounds per year based on them building enough munition containers in FY14 to support that production.The FY16 and FY17 budgets give delivery dates, quantities, and unit costs. As the LRLAP program was cancelled, it obviously caused contract disruptions, delivery delays, and downstream cost increases. Most of the funding for production was compressed into FY15, and the unit costs exploded to $360k in FY16 and $480k in FY17. This is typical slash and whine. The original production quantities were supposed to be in the thousands to tens of thousands of rounds. They built 150. And if you think tacking R&D onto unit costs is sensible, go have fun adding those costs to missiles. Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin are eating billions of dollars annually during LRIP, and it would triple their unit costs.
>>64197046>The unit cost gets distorted by multiple factors.That's why I use the less ambitious Excalibur as reference instead of that.>half the mass>more than twice the cost than the initial "estimation" for a "mass produced" LRLAP And it didn't explode, just the opposite, the fixed cost ($50M) of that production line means that a smaller order will be more expensive per unit, the program collapsed. But even at a production rate of 1000 annual the cost would be +220k (without the other thing), that is $300k in 2025 dollars. Now check the considerably larger M31...Meanwhile they were talking about "$35k per round"...PS. the munition container and propelling charge seems to be the usual fixed price (+33%) way to discount the problematic unit price of the round itself, that means the $300k 2025 is more like $400k
>>64196465>The USN spent a total of $160M (2025 dollars) in LRLAP acquisitions before cancelling the programWhy are you pretending that that means anything? We don't have a firm number on how many were actually built and the first ones were essentially handmade. This is the same retardation that causes people to come to the conclusion that the Zumwalts cost "$9 billion each.">Post a different 155 compatible with the LRLAP...>The point of that anon, compatibility, is valid, the LRLAP can only be fired by one gun.No shit, LRLAP is fucking 8 feet long, of course it won't fit in an M777 or something. But you didn't call it out for being incompatible with land based artillery, you claimed it was a "completely new caliber," when in fact it's the most common artillery caliber in the entire world.
>>64197203>you claimed it was a "completely new caliber,Tell me, how many guns can use the LRLAP?> ," when in fact it's the most common artillery caliber in the entire world.As I said "If you think 1 number is enough to describe a gun then this is a waste of time."PS. "And he wasn't actually wrong, 155 is a new caliber in the Navy, ""he" not "I", but that doesn't matters because the point is the fact that the LRLAP and AGS are a mutually dependent and failed pair.
>>64197239Tell me, what do you think a "caliber" is?
>>64197251>he didn't reply "Tell me, how many guns can use the LRLAP?"Truly a waste of time.
>>64197334Six, plus any prototypes. Now, what do you think a caliber is?
>>64197362So, just one type. Curious.
>>64197383Yup. Now, what's a caliber?
>>64197157Inflation makes the numbers hard to compare, which is one of the factors. Excalibur now costs $360k. Other PGMs are close to that cost. LRLAP isn't an outlier.
>>64194344Class designations are just fluff. Our current ship-of-the-line, the Arleigh Burke, is called a destroyer but it displaces as much as a WW2 heavy cruiser, and does basically every role you can imagine, including things that would previously have been the province of the cruiser.
>>64197529I'm trying to keep all the figures inflation adjusted (2025 dollars)In general it seems the marginal cost is 75-60% of the total price, and the fixed cost of the production line 40-25%, for years with not small orders.About your pic>854 / [731.046]is a typo??And why are they planning to produce so few in 2024 and 2025?
>>64197746The Army was gung-ho on Excalibur at first, then they actually sent a few to Ukraine and quickly realized that a purely GPS-guided PGM isn't actually useful against anyone but dirt farmers. They're still buying small numbers of them to be used against dirt farmers, though.
>>64197529>>64197746What's the current cost of a Tomahawk?
>>64198899The budget docs don't specify tomahawk quantities for FY24 and FY25. In the reconciliation bill passed this year to supply more funding towards FY26, there were 57 tomahawks added at a cost of $194 million. That equates to $3.4 million per missile.
>>64192267Do we even have any missiles that can fit inside the bigger tube?
>>64199172Pretty sure there's inserts to let them fit normal sized missiles. But no, the hypersonic missiles aren't going to be ready for a few more years.
>>64192267>"immediately">"replaces">"cutting edge"That's a polite way of describing something that hasn't even happened yet.It's one of the worst procurement failures in US history and has probably compromised the entire navy (and the entire US strategic situation) due to how astronomically expensive and shit it is and you've still glazed it.
>>64190081Return to tradition
>>64199920La navire tryptiphobia...
>>64199920based
>>64199920Imagine being hit with a modern, computer guided, self loading broadside from this bad boy
>>64199255>Astronomically expensive>30% more than a Burke despite a comically small orderStop believing everything you read in the tabloids.
>>64200151The crew complement is half the size of an Arleigh Burke with 1.5x the displacement. Zumwalts require less maintenance at all points underway and they're still the only ship armed with MK57 (the one that won't instantly sink the ship if it gets hit).You can tell the Navy never forgave Congress for fucking up Zumwalt because acquisitions has been trolling and wasting billions out of sheer spite.
>>64190091We could have had 64 megawatt railgun by now.
