It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a waste of taxpayer’s money….

.

You might well ask what it is ….

.

.

Because it’s an odd looking duck to say the least.

.

.

Heading out on its maiden voyage from Bath Iron Works recently, the new Zumwalt class of Naval Destroyer chugged down the Kennebeck River two years over due and massively over budget.

.

.

And while that’s nothing new for the department of defense, the fact that this multi billion dollar redesign was such a complete disaster the program had to be scrapped is.

.

.

I don’t begin to understand the massive technological advances this ship claimed to possess, but I do know people who’ve worked on her and they are not impressed.

.

.

I’m no expert, but a neutered destroyer doesn’t sound like a good thing.

.

.

36 thoughts on “It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a waste of taxpayer’s money….”

    1. I’m not crazy about it either. The superstructure is made from lightweight composite materials, whatever they are, so it’s not as top-heavy as it looks. That will help with the wave, but I wouldn’t want to be in there when the ordnance delivery part of the program begins.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. I just watched a video about these ships and, shall we say, confidence is low. They are really reinventing the wheel here. The centralized power system, which runs the entire ship, including the screws, is just asking for trouble, and the stealth profile, which is great for aircraft, is useless if the enemy can see you. Be sure not to pick a fight with anyone who has a satellite.
    Basically, they’re talking a good fight but, as Mike Tyson once said “Everybody’s got a plan until they get punched in the mouth. Do your best, sailors, and good luck. Go Navy.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. We are in a new phase of Naval warfare. A destroyers main job is to protect the flotilla, and as such is the first point of contact with the enemy. It also is the long range eyes of the fleet. The 155 ammo is an easy fix, but as others have noted, the power system is vulnerable. Though ugly, the shape makes the ship look more like a small fishing boat on the enemy’s RADAR. I hope that the Pentagon is smarter than it looks …

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Sounds like the military.. It is built to be decommissioned before it ever gets launched. My question is, of what use is the navy in a war of nuclear bombs, guided missiles, and fighter jets? A Third World War could be over before a ship leaves the dock.
    A senseless waste of time, material, money, and especially lives.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I can probably answer this question. Before that, a little clarity. The military doesn’t tell the department of defense what to do, it’s the other way around. The military just has to deal with it.
      The ship I served on was haze gray and underway for twenty years. The ship my father served on was in service for thirty three. You have to build them to last or they won’t survive their first fight.
      Now, the question: The Navy is of critical strategic and logistical importance. It’s the air arm of both the Navy and the Marine Corps, providing reconnaissance and strategic level strike capabilities, as well as close air support to troops on the ground. Then we have logistical support. The Navy gets things and people where they need to go. The Marines didn’t walk to Guadalcanal. In addition, the Navy provides aid and support to people in need of humanitarian assistance. Sailors are people, with real care and compassion in their hearts. The same should be said for soldiers, airmen and Marines. That thing bears remembering
      The Navy also has nuclear missile submarines, a significant strategic asset, one which discourages nuclear war.
      Nobody is going to win a nuclear war as long as there is a balance of power, so no one is in a hurry to start one. The term for that is “Mutually assured destruction”.
      It’s true that none of the major military powers are our “Enemies”, but that’s just being pedantic. There’s a right smart of ill will going around and these non-enemies have navies , so it would behoove us to have one as well.
      And that’s why we need a navy.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. In the way wars were fought before, I might agree with you. No one knows how future wars, especially global-sized wars, are going to be fought. Someone is bound to release a nuclear weapon, and at that point, MAD as it is, the world as we know it ends. I am happy for you that you think humans are somehow sane–I have seen nothing to say we are…

        Like

      2. “My question is, of what use is the navy in a war of nuclear bombs, guided missiles, and fighter jets? A Third World War could be over before a ship leaves the dock.”
        You wrote these words and I took them at face value. I considered your question and offered you a polite, reasoned response. This is what I got for my trouble.
        This is Riv’s blog and I am not engaging in any pissing contests here, no matter how you goad me. And don’t write anything on my blog either.

        Like

      3. I was not trying to goad you, I was just trying to offer an alternate view. Possibly this is the difference between the minds on an hippie, talking to an ex-military person. I see no use of war in the first place. And that is the place I am writing from. I intended no agreesion.

        Like

      4. You don’t see a use for war, fine. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Neville Chamberlain left Adolf Hitler to his own devices in the Sudetenland so there would be “Peace in our time”. Didn’t work then, won’t work now.
        General Douglas MacArthur famously said “No one prays for peace more fervently than the soldier”. Combat veterans know what peace is worth because they have paid the terrible price of it. I can’t say that and neither can you. For that we should both be thankful.

        Like

  4. What a huge waste….and not tactical, stealth or armed the way it needs to be. Well now we know why we don’t have a good affordable healthcare. Because all taxpayers money goes to building clusterfucks like this….🙄🤔

    Liked by 2 people

    1. My husband has been in aviation since the early 80’s. First in the Marines, then Raytheon, then MATCOM, then NATEC, then the NC Forestry Service, then the FAA. He also worked on the Osprey military refit with Bell Boeing when they were falling out of the sky and Marines were refusing orders to fly them. We had one crash down the road from our house, everyone was killed. Continuous improvement is fine, but the Pentagon rarely knows when to pull the plug. The fact that they did here screams major screw up.

      Like

  5. I really wasn’t being serious about continuous improvement. Management pays lip service to it but it’s like pulling teeth to actually get anything done. In the aerospace field it kinda makes sense, as the machining processes are very complex and tolerances are very close, but in other places the mid-level managers tasked with running these programs are too worried about getting spanked for getting something wrong to take a risk on getting something right. I’ll bet your husband has seen plenty of that same crap.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. He has. The Osprey was a prime example… it was a wonderful aircraft, until they decided to retrofit it for military use. Billions of dollars, and 20 years of mods and R&D later they had a plane that crashed as often as it flew. When they sent it to Iraq? The sand clogged the intakes. My husband left the program years ago so I don’t know where it stands now.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s