I'm a government contractor who has worked on this and the Monsoor and yes probably the most classified ship I've been on and I've been on almost every class of navy ships. They make you turn your phones in right when you get on board, only ship I've been on where you can'thave you phone on you. You can walk around and look at everything but the classified part is more so on the actual tech itself and what it's capable of how it works etc. It's so expensive because it has all the newest tech of any navy vessel and the new stealth plates that the ship is wrapped in makes it more invisible to radar detection
I'm actually surprised you felt you could post even this information...... you've given several things away already........ Certainly in the UK, if you'd signed the Official Secrets Act it wouldn't be advisable to go around broadcasting the fact, let alone any mention of the projects you'd worked on. Perhaps things are done differently in the US?
@@triadwarfare The CIA wants to know my location? And they pass the message on via you? Really? Ok, I'm the membership secretary of the Gobi Desert Canoe Club, based in the Orkney Isles, Scotland. I'm certain of one thing. If you were a UK based defence contractor working on classified projects, you would have signed the Official Secrets Act, and consequently be prohibited from even talking about them to anyone. And if you did, you'd be eating porridge for some time. Perhaps it's YOU the CIA might want to speak to?
Fearful taxpayer here: I'd be more worried if someone else had a Zumwalt-type ship and the US had to start printing money to catch up in technology. Having superior tech and not needing it is better than trying to catch up to it in a pinch.
@@ShawnPitman what if youre printing money to support this technology in either case, whether catching up or staying ahead... what if our one step ahead is one step ahead in the race to federal bankruptcy? (tbh i think the EU china are winning that race, but i think we should keep it that way)
Congress is never afraid of spending money. What Congress might be afraid of is the fact that these turds cost more than expected, don't deliver on what's promised, the main weapons system was canceled, plagued with problems and setbacks, resulting in them being delivered late. And because it's less capable than was promised, for the price of the three Zumwalt ships in the now-canceled class, they could have built 18 Flight II Arleigh Burkes, 10 or 11 Virginia Class submarines, another aircraft carrier, or any of a number of other proven platforms with proven technology. Congressmembers should be sweating, but Americans just keep on voting for the same people every two years.
We built a destroyer than can't even use it's main weapons. Seriously, it was built around those advanced guns and then they noticed the shells cost as much as a Tomahawk missile, so they canceled the shells. Now this giant destroyer has a main armament that has no ammo.
More to it then that, her hull design doesnt work, on her sea trial she almost capsized after doing a small turn. She was toed to port the entire project and ships were mothballed.
@@nessunday We know, did you even read my original post? The hull design was one of the few things that worked right. The thing about a ship like this is that even though it seems like a failure, it gives them a platform with all of these new ideas that they can then troubleshoot on an active ship. The next ships they build with many of these techs will work much better, because of the experiences with the Zumwalts.
@@Elthenar a friend of mine is actually designs combat ships, he's the one who told me how much of an epic failure it was about the hull design, and why the whole project was abandoned, apparently its a running joke among those in his field (i think id have to do his job to understand most of them) In anycase this ship failed epically, did they learn anything sure, will this class ever enter service, absolutely not! Will this hull design ever be used, absolutely no chance!
@Conan not sure what you mean but no goverment would commission any military equipment thats a lemon. Tho the ship might be used to test bed other techs it'll never be used for anything else and likely be quitely sent for scrapping in time.
You've got to be kidding. It was designed to carry a shore bombardment gun--no, really--which was cancelled, so its primary mission couldn't be fulfilled. It has been plagued with design flaws and delays, they've built three of them and the total program cost has been $22.5 billion. The three in commission suffer mechanical breakdowns constantly. It is arguably the single worst boondoggle in American military history. $22.5 billion for three destroyers that can't be deployed. Now that is scary.
About the same as the B58 Hustler program, that cost over $20bn in 2020 dollars, never dropped a bomb on an enemy, and over 20% of them crashed despite never confronting an enemy.
At least they have learnt lessons on how to and how not to produce an advanced stealth ship, which no other country is close to even thinking of (at that scale at least)
Doesn't worry me, I worked in a high tech engineering firm for 18 years. Every project was started with unrealistic performance, time and cost goals, the marketing department pushed that, because it won contracts. We all knew it would take twice as long, and have cost issues. The marketing department started working up excuses the day the contract was signed. The engineers were pushed to send stuff out before they had confidence in it, knowing it was easier to get forgiveness than permission to wait until a product was nearly perfect. The more you push the limits, the more flaws it has and the longer it takes. Getting it right is never as easy as it seemed up front.
@@martyhewes8589 $7.5 billion destroyers with no primary use case, that the Navy doesn't want, and that can't sail in any case are a sign of a nation degrading its military readiness in favor of making military contractors wealthy. It is not sustainable.
@@bnblasercleaning Swedens Visby-class was first and a success even though budget cuts (not cost overruns) made it loose some of its weapons as well... But yes, it is not in the same size.
I dont think they are scheduled for Decommissioning. You might be getting them mixed up with LCS 1-4 which are getting decommissioned next march, despite the fact that those four ships have barely been in commission for a decade.
That saved me some typing, thanks! Why are so many unable to say nuclear? mispronouncing howitzer is a new one on me! On a nuclear course I was on a few years ago I couldn't keep a straight face with one of the trainers, who couldn't even say submarine! Every time he said "sumbarine" I had to look away and struggle not to burst out laughing!
@@TheFilwud He must have bee a distant cousin of a guy I once knew. We were once discussing certification for something we were then involved in, and he simply could not pronounce the word certificate. No matter how many times he tried, he said cestificate......... He couldn't say badminton either. His version was banditman.
Never knew this thing existed. It looks straight out of a video game or from the future. It just looks so drastically different from your normal destroyer
I'm a NAVY Vet and have a few family friends kids active and that Zumwalt is so damn classified the guys on it cant tell ya chit, buddy said the few guys that are on it signed NDA's... there's a lot of info on YT but not the whole story...
The Zumwalt broke down three times on its way to its homeport in San Diego. The Navy had to replace the Rolls Royce engine after only 14 months that cost 150 million.
"most people don't know that the Iowa class battleships could carry nuclear weapons" >Be Me, living across from the Battleship NJ >Also me; oh yeah, they did do that.
They do.. that's why you have the ability to watch this video on RUclips. A lot of people forget that most of the tech we have now' came from military use.
Im with you but a strong military is unfortunately a requirement to survive as a state in this world. The problem is how it is used. I personally would like to see tax loopholes closed and reining in some of the multi billionaires before we begin contemplating cutting military funding.
A battleship is useless in modern days. The big guns of the past just dont have anything going for them compared to 100-200 missiles. Plus, why make a slow battleship, when you can just mass build destroyers with triple the range and speed?
Anatomical X you didn’t understand him... a modernized Iowa class battleship would be able to Cruze at 27-33 knots, it would carry 9 16 inch guns, carry lots of missiles even more then any ships, 5 inch guns, 4x 20mm cwis, sea ram, sea sparrow,. The old Iowa in the 1980/1990 had a better anti air then most Carriers.
Joseph Neubauer why bother with 16 inch guns? Just give it 9 30 inch guns or rail guns. The schwerer gustav already proved that size can be extremely effective. Make its larger or double the size of the Yamato and give it 2 nuclear engines. It’d be a city destroyer 🤤. Also with the size advantage over the Yamato you’d have tons of deck space for missiles and aa.
i think they're more like: why is this video completely misrepresenting the facts about a destroyer class that is known to be a failure and an embarrassment as though it's some kind of super-ship?
Nah, the two aircraft carrier groups are a hell of a lot scarier lol. The Zumwalt is a good ship to ship fighter-if they could get the railguns to work that is-but a Carrier Group could flatten Beijing before they even knew what happened. And we've got at least two in strike distance at all times
Wasnt about the weaponry, this ship is the first ship the states has designed itself (she buys all designs from britain) despite being warned the hull design would never work, they proceded to build her.....on her first sea trial she almost capsized just outside the harbour after performing a minor turn, the states could no longer ignore the sever design flaw...she was toed back into port the entire project ships and all were mothballed and the entire thing declared a spectacular failer
honestly i'd love to see what a modern designed BB would look like and what weapons and armor they'd be equiped with. highly expensive and impractical but would be absolutely be awesome to at least design/model one.
Who would be afraid of a ship w/ no ammo for it’s guns, no torpedo tubes and a smaller missile capacity? DDG 1000 class Has less capacity in a ship that is bigger than a DDG 51.
@@johnfourquet2396 The status and full capability of the ship both positive and negative, is not something you would know, given how classified it is, and this is probably how it will remain for some time. Talking it down works to its advantage.
"unveils"? they've been around for 4 years now. i doubt anyone's afraid of them tbh, lots of militaries have stealth ships of roughly analogous sophistication and power (particularly russia & the uk) and the special ammunition for their advanced gun systems was cancelled, rendering the turrets useless. after being deemed unfit for ship-to-ship combat they were repurposed as dedicated land attack craft and the order (initially 32) was cancelled after just 3, which were built on an exorbitant budget. there are also issues with the hull shape becoming unstable in rough waters among other things. after this the us navy went back to building the more traditional arleigh-burke class destroyers, and it's thought that the zumwalts will be decommissioned significantly earlier than intended due to their numerous shortcomings. nothing scary about that is there
If a modern-day destroyer is capable of taking putting up a fight with a "last-generation" battleship, then a modern-day battleship outfitted with the latest equipment just by common sense alone would be an absolute brute.
The Zumwalt has BEEN unveiled, but also reviled as the ammo for its AGS gun is too expensive and the ship was wrought with problems during its shakedown cruise. Most of the problems actually came from its power system.
Your forgetting the hull design didnt work, she almost capsized as soon as she got out of port, it showed the ship couldnt do even simple manuvers without being comprimised, firing her weapons would likely have had the same result. The entire project was abandoned and ships mothballed, with the intention of scrapping
I helped build the last one and I can honestly say that it would win in a fight with any destroyer or even battle ship. The biggest thing is its almost invisible. From what I've been told they had to put special paint on it during sea trials so fishermen wouldn't run into it. one of the best parts about the VLS (Vertical Launch System) is it can shoot multiple missiles at different trajectories to hit its target at he same time. So even if you don't do enough with one shot, before your enemy even knows you exist you've hit them with multiple shots from a staggering distance. And lastly it takes very few people to run the ship. almost everything is done with advanced technology that really streamlines the whole thing. It actually makes it super annoying to get around the ship, because unlike the previous destroyer that was easy to get around this ship has you going up and over and down and over to get to some points on the ship. This is because a lot of the things done by people before are automated so it doesn't need to be accessed as much. Definitely makes building the thing a pain in the ass. There are plenty of other things that im not aloud to know about that make it even better, but those things alone make it untouchable. Although all that said if General Dynamics doesn't get their heads out of their asses and give the union a fair contract soon your going to see some very poorly made ships. #LS6ONSTRIKE
This ship was developed primarily for attacking targets on the ground and it will only engage other ships in direct combat if it has no other options. If it's deployed as part of a carrier strike group it'll be very well protected in most cases and it'll give the CSG a greater amount of striking power against ground targets. This ship by itself has enough firepower to completely level small cities and move on to another. The small radar cross section is so that it can move into firing position and unless it's arsenal on unsuspecting ground targets.
@Andy Lester Just repurpose it as a static weapons battery and have it hang out and look cool in important harbors. When they take those railguns out of the testing phase, slap 'em on the Zumwalts and save face by saying that was the plan all along. No one will believe it, but hey, kickass railguns.
Battleships are a dead class of ship. The relic ones still in service are ONLY useful for A) Shore bombardment prior to landing troops, OR B) Defensive ships for critical ports/regions. Sure, if you suddenly put the Zumwalt in distance of a Battleship's cannons with advanced scouting equipment able to confirm the position of the Zumwalt, then a Battleships needs only hit this destroyer one time to sink it. But that is not how ship battles work. In a normal condition where pure luck doesn't dictate the battle, a Zumwalt would be able to annihilate any Battleship that has ever existed. But the Zumwalt's purpose isn't that, anway. Zumwalts were designed in a world that knows battleships are dead. Aircraft carries utterly crush battleships before they can ever fire a shot. So ultimately the Zumwalt would out-range and out-target a Battleship and sink it. Barring favorable conditions to do that, it would disengage and seek carrier support. There is not really any other outcome on the modern battlefield.
I wouldn't be too sure about that Ron. With both Chinese and Russian navies displaying a near willingness to ram, the potential need for a ship which is able to take a battering - both from physical contact plus enemy fire - but still remain in the conflict zone may become relevant. Any future ships with such potential qualities need not necessarily be 800 foot long easy target behemoths, but I'm sure you get what I'm driving at.
@@Brian-om2hh The problem is that battleships are too heavy and too slow. That is why battleships became irrelevant by the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. There is a reason not a single US battleship saw action outside of shore bombardment. Additionally, no Japanese battleships were capable of keeping up with other ships to engage US naval forces. The Battleships were constantly hit by US aircraft from aircraft carriers, but they were far too slow to get into firing range. For a Battleship to be relevant, the enemy MUST NOT have aircraft carriers. So for 3rd world or developing countries fighting other 3rd world or developing countries, then yes, battleships might be useful. But all the armor in the world for a battleship does not stop bunker busting torpedo bombs from aircraft. They are too slow, and thus too vulnerable. Maybe, also, if they figured out how to equip Battleships with the most advanced engine in the world, and a new armor type that is lighter - all while countries like the US don't have or know of that technology, then maybe also then they will be relevant. There's a reason they rose to prominence in the earlier 1900's and through WW2. They were invincible to anything but other battleships. But then Aircraft Carriers happened. And the rest was history.
I still don't know why we don't build an almost entirely submarine force (eventually with a UAV "hanger" in it. They are the most stealthy and have a reasonable cost to build.
Silly to compare a destroyer to a battleship in a face-off though. What kind of doctrine uses destroyers to engage battleships? You admitted earlier that destroyers typically do escort missions and primarily engage air or submarine targets.
According to Wikipedia, it's now 12 billion $ for only 3 ships. That's 4 billion per ship. Much too expensive for a destroyer and the roles it need to fulfill. The traditional escort mission of destroyers is not ideal for them. You can't use these for escort missions on anything less expensive than an aircraft carrier, but those are not stealthy so there is no major advantage. Sending them out alone to hunt could be an option but without backup and at 4 billion a peace that's a risk no commander willingly takes. A modern sub might sink it. The only vessels that can escort these golden ships, are the same golden ships. These things are too expensive to risk using them. The normal destroyer needs to be expendable, these are not.
Destroyers are designed to be expendable, but they also have a surprising knack of taking on ships three times larger with four times the firepower. You wouldn't dare try to do such a thing with this ship.
My grandmother use to work at Bath Iron works in Bath, Maine she would do the design work for the piping for different destroyers that have been built there and the zumwalt was acctuly the last ship she worked on I remember seeing it after it was built in the harbor
Yes it’s such a good ship the USA navy only wants three of them. I hear that’s three to many as the rail gun they were to have doesn’t work so it’s dead loss. It’s stealth ability is limited as multi band radar systems and more airborne systems arrive into major and middle powers military lineups. Still a lot of questions on their stability in rough seas. To date only faced 5 metre waves which is a normal wave pattern and no where near double this size to be found in a North Atlantic storm.
Ken Triat The F35 has evolved and I’m sure these destroyers will also . As for the 5 meter wave I’m certain the US were relying on you not to tell the Chinese and Russians ! are well its out there now . WEVE LOST .
they reduced the order to 3 because the ships became WAY more expensive than originaly planned and tbh .. 4bil+ sounds kinda riddiculous but hey .. who am i to tell the military where to spend their hundreds of bilions ..
@@LKN117 Stick a railgun on it so they can test how the gun reacts to saltwater after the ship capsizes because the waves built to six feet unexpectedly.
My son told me the other day that he wanted to join the Navy when he grew up. I asked why and he said “I wanna be surrounded by seaman, swallows, and sperm whales!” .......I haven’t looked at him the same since.
This makes me think: why not build modern battleships or modernize the old ones instead of spending billions on a ship that can be disabled in a single hit
Mostly because regardless of how much armor you put on it, it still won't be that survivable. Modern weaponry is extremely powerful. The accuracy and range is also much higher. And even if you can take a beating, you'll still get blown apart from a saturation attack, which will be much much cheaper than your ship. Also if you were to get a truly high survivability ship. A single weapon with a nuclear warhead will guarantee destruction in a single hit. And it would likely not even take a nuclear weapon to instagib a modernized battleship. A single very large hypervelocity anti-ship missile, aimed at a vital area, would still sink a battleship made for the modern era. Also if you think small stealth ships are expensive. Battleships are even more expensive. A single modern battleship would have to be more expensive than the current Ford class carriers. Meanwhile it would also have limited range, be an easy to spot target, and likely still get easily taken out.
@@josephburchanowski4636 i disagree, a Battleship would be over the top but a Heavy cruiser with morden AA would be a far better choice. And when you want stealthy ship build a submarine.(Nuclear weapons don´t grow on trees, nobody would waste a dozens nuclear missiles to hit 1 ship.) 2. Morden Aircraft carriers are much more expensiv then a Battleship or Cruiser.(with automation u could easily reduce the crew to only to a few hundreds maybe even less, not possible with a Aircraft carrier.)
Most modern weapons, other than specialized weapons such as bunker buster bombs, are not designed to defeat extremely well armored targets. Mostly because heavy armor has all but been abandoned in the previous era due to the nuclear threat. But I would agree that an up armored heavy cruiser with long range ballistic weapons would be better than a traditional battleship, just don't make each round cost more than a missile because what's the point then?
A few reasons, but first and foremost is cost. (More at the very bottom, if you want to get right to it.)* While battleships were remarkably effective as recently as the Gulf War (Desert Storm/Desert Shield), the operational price was astronomical. That more or less rules out modernizing old battleships - but leaves open the question of building new ones. More on that. A battleship also represents an enormous cost in one massive target, not unlike an aircraft carrier. If you could take down an aircraft carrier with a nuclear cruise missile, or even barrage of missiles, you have struck a decisive blow - which is why carriers are defended by an entire battle group. They have little purpose outside of supporting the carrier, even intercepting missile strikes if necessary. A battleship would have that same limitation (being a hugely expensive eggs-in-one-basket target), and would consequently almost demand a similar level of battle group support. It turns out that having smaller ships that are more easily individually disabled is much more cost effective; you can send a destroyer or a frigate out alone, and modern ships can be wildly effective due to the next reason: missiles. Missiles have largely (but not completely) replaced the role of guns in naval warship. You can see the ubiquity of missiles in the designators used by the US Navy: FFG (currently replaced by LCS and being superseded by FFG(X)), CG, DDG. The US Navy doesn't really use any blue water surface warships that don't rely on missile batteries for offense, and those missile batteries can be devastating; an Arleigh Burke can carry over 90 missiles, a Ticonderoga over 100. That's an enormous amount of firepower, without requiring the large hull (and tempting target) of a battleship. (One can easily argue that carriers themselves are the new battleships, replacing them as naval flagships and the centerpiece of any fleet. That's more a point about aircraft replacing guns, but it's essentially the same play with different actors. Point: between missiles and aircraft (carrying missiles themselves), traditional surface warship guns have been pushed to the brink of obsolescence.) So, it comes down to cost-benefit. The cost of a battleship, either modernized or brand new design, would be untenable, especially for a ship that wouldn't be capable of delivering more useful firepower than a destroyer or cruiser. A battleship wouldn't necessarily be more well-defended than a modern destroyer, against modern (or future) missiles, not without supporting it with a battle group similar to that of a carrier; yet, losing a battleship would represent a greater single-point loss of armament, and an incredibly greater loss of money (and the time and resources which went into building the ship), than losing a much smaller (and cheaper) destroyer or frigate. It's a shame, too, because battleships are freakin' cool! :) *(For a cost comparison, the closest modern ship in service to a battleship would probably be the Kirov class Russian cruiser. Only two are in service, and their operational costs are enormous. The US Navy retired all of their nuclear powered cruisers due to operational costs. There is not even a plan in place to replace the conventional powered cruiser class when it reaches the end of operational life. Battleships, whether nuclear powered or conventional, would be at least as expensive.)
It looks capsized... and it's large.... and it needs so much more work. It's also basically a robot... good luck with that in the future when robots try to take over humanity...
I feel like the Zumwalt would screw the Wisconsin up with the ability to attack without being in line of sight and fire upon enemies while literally hiding behind large land masses. While it cant take hits, it can hit the Wisconsin multiple times before the Wisconsin even knows its there. I think in this situation the Wisconsin was given a bit to much credit. While its still very versatile and is in no way outdated. The Z class could easily dump all its fire power onto the Wisconsin and leave the battle sight before the Wisconsin even found them or obtained a good firing position. The Z might not sink it, but if you land direct hits on those guns since the Zs artillery can have its course changed mid air, you have now disabled the Wisconsin's chance to fight back before they can even position the turrets. I may be wrong with this assumption though, I have no where near the knowledge of the ships as the beautiful men and woman who work aboard those destroyers do. But I do disagree slightly with this video, because I think the Z would screw up the Wisconsin and get out of dodge before the Wisconsin could either A.) find them or B.) move to a position to retaliate.
i love how this video, and this comment, discuss hypothetical ship-to-ship engagements involving the zumwalt class when they were relegated to land attacks only hahaha
Do u really believe the navy wouldn’t update the Wisconsin if it was still in service. Like fr if it was fully updated it would destroy the zumwalt...plus it only takes one hit to sink the zumwalt I pretty sure the Wisconsin can take those hit than release it’s barrage. Plus the zumwalt probably likely have a system failure in the middle of battle lol.
Oh, great...a floating F-35. All the R&D and money in the world and we get a bunch of boondoggles because a defense contractor or twelve bribed the right Senator. Frustrating as all hell.
@J S it doesnt even have ammo lmao they had to use the ammo (for its super special gun) that they have been using on every other ship for decades because the cartridge they wanted cost 500k a piece.
@J S DD(X) was awesome, Zumwalt is a joke. Can't do area air defense because radar capability was slashed due to cost over runs. Stealth profile is compromised on the first 2 ships and completely abandoned on the last Zumwalt to save money. Guns failed performance targets and the shells were too expensive so there is no ammo. End result, Zumwalt is semi-stealth at best while having less offensive and defensive capability than a standard Flight IIA Arleigh Burke which has much better air defense, more VLS cells for missiles and a working gun. Head-to-head Arleigh Burke probably wins, definitely more useful ship to have in the fleet. Even the Arleigh Burke is getting old, other countries are building bigger destroyers with more modern radar than Aegis, stealth features to reduce radar profile, more VLS cells and more modern missiles. Badly due for update in the Flight III Arleigh Burke considering the supposed replacement (Zumwalt) was such a failiure. And don't get me started on the mini-Zumwalts (aka the Littoral Combat Ship disaster), at least the Zumwalt is a functional destroyer instead of the world's most expensive and least capable frigate.
I'm a government contractor who has worked on this and the Monsoor and yes probably the most classified ship I've been on and I've been on almost every class of navy ships. They make you turn your phones in right when you get on board, only ship I've been on where you can'thave you phone on you. You can walk around and look at everything but the classified part is more so on the actual tech itself and what it's capable of how it works etc. It's so expensive because it has all the newest tech of any navy vessel and the new stealth plates that the ship is wrapped in makes it more invisible to radar detection
Yeah. The ship's got everything....except ammo...
I'm actually surprised you felt you could post even this information...... you've given several things away already........ Certainly in the UK, if you'd signed the Official Secrets Act it wouldn't be advisable to go around broadcasting the fact, let alone any mention of the projects you'd worked on. Perhaps things are done differently in the US?
The CIA wants to know your location
@@triadwarfare The CIA wants to know my location? And they pass the message on via you? Really? Ok, I'm the membership secretary of the Gobi Desert Canoe Club, based in the Orkney Isles, Scotland. I'm certain of one thing. If you were a UK based defence contractor working on classified projects, you would have signed the Official Secrets Act, and consequently be prohibited from even talking about them to anyone. And if you did, you'd be eating porridge for some time. Perhaps it's YOU the CIA might want to speak to?
its expensive,,, because they wanted to make several and made on only three... the weapons cost to fire alone is dumb...
Taxpayers are even more afraid of it.
Fearful taxpayer here: I'd be more worried if someone else had a Zumwalt-type ship and the US had to start printing money to catch up in technology.
Having superior tech and not needing it is better than trying to catch up to it in a pinch.
@@ShawnPitman Couldn't agree more!
Really? when was the last time you felt the burn on a specific tax item?
@@ShawnPitman what if youre printing money to support this technology in either case, whether catching up or staying ahead... what if our one step ahead is one step ahead in the race to federal bankruptcy? (tbh i think the EU china are winning that race, but i think we should keep it that way)
Conventional warfare is the past.
I like a gun that fires a shell, then throws the casing at them too.. (Or at least tries).
fires 65% more bullet, per bullet
Yea it’s like *BOOM!* and then *ploop* out slides a pos
It doesn’t have ammo for its guns lol
Cram cannon?
Ruuaz America: builds all guns. Also America: doesn’t think about making enough ammo.
Nuclear shells, most American ship ammunition ive ever heard of.
Hell the iowa's fired those back in the 80's
It's depleted uranium, it just has more penetration power and that's it, it's not nuclear
so what youre telling me is that, the US navy is so superior the only way a fair fight can happen is if the other ship is also american... hot
YES, The usa is the strongest country
by an insane margin
belly bottom of the world realy....
JakePlays you say that but then why need us Brits to give resources to build it for ammo parts or stealth tech?
@@anonymoushunter9808 eh, yall owe us for all that defense spending we do for you
Saw one of these in the San Diego harbor. When it was cruising by, I lost phone service. As soon as it was gone, signal returned.
Ok?
That’s actually sick
They have those in schools 💀
So it's basically a floating Walmart with less ammunition...
@@christopherh4653 * H.E.B
The title should be, *The U.S. built a Destroyer that Congress is afraid of* because of its budget 😂
Congress afraid of spending money for asserting military dominance across the world? Impossible
@@albanybestdrumline trump would do that democrats make a virus to get him out of office
@@sykospoo1156 yeah sure
Not a single NO vote from congress yet and they've been throwing money at this project since 1992.
Congress is never afraid of spending money. What Congress might be afraid of is the fact that these turds cost more than expected, don't deliver on what's promised, the main weapons system was canceled, plagued with problems and setbacks, resulting in them being delivered late. And because it's less capable than was promised, for the price of the three Zumwalt ships in the now-canceled class, they could have built 18 Flight II Arleigh Burkes, 10 or 11 Virginia Class submarines, another aircraft carrier, or any of a number of other proven platforms with proven technology. Congressmembers should be sweating, but Americans just keep on voting for the same people every two years.
We built a destroyer than can't even use it's main weapons. Seriously, it was built around those advanced guns and then they noticed the shells cost as much as a Tomahawk missile, so they canceled the shells. Now this giant destroyer has a main armament that has no ammo.
More to it then that, her hull design doesnt work, on her sea trial she almost capsized after doing a small turn.
She was toed to port the entire project and ships were mothballed.
@Conan doesnt change the fact the project was abandoned.
@@nessunday We know, did you even read my original post?
The hull design was one of the few things that worked right.
The thing about a ship like this is that even though it seems like a failure, it gives them a platform with all of these new ideas that they can then troubleshoot on an active ship. The next ships they build with many of these techs will work much better, because of the experiences with the Zumwalts.
@@Elthenar a friend of mine is actually designs combat ships, he's the one who told me how much of an epic failure it was about the hull design, and why the whole project was abandoned, apparently its a running joke among those in his field (i think id have to do his job to understand most of them)
In anycase this ship failed epically, did they learn anything sure, will this class ever enter service, absolutely not!
Will this hull design ever be used, absolutely no chance!
@Conan not sure what you mean but no goverment would commission any military equipment thats a lemon.
Tho the ship might be used to test bed other techs it'll never be used for anything else and likely be quitely sent for scrapping in time.
You've got to be kidding. It was designed to carry a shore bombardment gun--no, really--which was cancelled, so its primary mission couldn't be fulfilled. It has been plagued with design flaws and delays, they've built three of them and the total program cost has been $22.5 billion. The three in commission suffer mechanical breakdowns constantly. It is arguably the single worst boondoggle in American military history. $22.5 billion for three destroyers that can't be deployed. Now that is scary.
About the same as the B58 Hustler program, that cost over $20bn in 2020 dollars, never dropped a bomb on an enemy, and over 20% of them crashed despite never confronting an enemy.
At least they have learnt lessons on how to and how not to produce an advanced stealth ship, which no other country is close to even thinking of (at that scale at least)
Doesn't worry me, I worked in a high tech engineering firm for 18 years. Every project was started with unrealistic performance, time and cost goals, the marketing department pushed that, because it won contracts. We all knew it would take twice as long, and have cost issues. The marketing department started working up excuses the day the contract was signed. The engineers were pushed to send stuff out before they had confidence in it, knowing it was easier to get forgiveness than permission to wait until a product was nearly perfect. The more you push the limits, the more flaws it has and the longer it takes. Getting it right is never as easy as it seemed up front.
@@martyhewes8589 $7.5 billion destroyers with no primary use case, that the Navy doesn't want, and that can't sail in any case are a sign of a nation degrading its military readiness in favor of making military contractors wealthy. It is not sustainable.
@@bnblasercleaning Swedens Visby-class was first and a success even though budget cuts (not cost overruns) made it loose some of its weapons as well... But yes, it is not in the same size.
God I love America's military strength.
I’m sure the north Vietnamese agree.
Charlie Kav well considering that we killed over 2 million of those fuckers no I’m sure they hate America’s military strength
@@coleroberts3409 America is good at killing civilians. Always has been. At the moment, America is killing its own civilians. 'Murica #1
It’s just America
if you'd actually read about the zumwalts' design and operational history you'd appreciate how ironic and hilarious your comment is
7:21 when you spot a Command & Conquer Generals promo art work used in a "documentary" :D
YAAAAS BRO, same with the music I feel like it would fit perfectly
Lmao, good eye. Made me take this video much more seriously. Not for that pile of ship they're shilling, but for other C&C material.
Are you refering to the nuclear artillery? Because thats an actual image from a real life nuclear test.
What a great game. Too bad it will never be updated and re-released because the characters are so politically incorrect.
"Behold, the bringer of light. We will be generous!"
Nah mate, that's called a cybertruckship
So scared that the ship is scheduled to be decommissioned decades early due to technical failures
or because it's too expensive to maintain or repair
And we have a suitable replacement
I dont think they are scheduled for Decommissioning. You might be getting them mixed up with LCS 1-4 which are getting decommissioned next march, despite the fact that those four ships have barely been in commission for a decade.
Honestly, the Zumwalt seems more like a small cruiser than a massive destroyer.
and yet it's significantly larger than any destroyer currently in service
Don't say NUCULAR weapons. It's pronounced nu-CLEAR.
It mystifies me how so many people who are MUCH better speakers than me can't say "nuclear" or "tenet".
Hell, it seems like everybody else says it that way.
That saved me some typing, thanks! Why are so many unable to say nuclear? mispronouncing howitzer is a new one on me! On a nuclear course I was on a few years ago I couldn't keep a straight face with one of the trainers, who couldn't even say submarine! Every time he said "sumbarine" I had to look away and struggle not to burst out laughing!
@@TheFilwud He must have bee a distant cousin of a guy I once knew. We were once discussing certification for something we were then involved in, and he simply could not pronounce the word certificate. No matter how many times he tried, he said cestificate......... He couldn't say badminton either. His version was banditman.
I about lost it on the "Gate-ling" gun.... :D
Lasers and hypersonic missiles will be fitting for these ships .
hi D W...
'
what about CIWS machine gun
Never knew this thing existed. It looks straight out of a video game or from the future. It just looks so drastically different from your normal destroyer
I'm a NAVY Vet and have a few family friends kids active and that Zumwalt is so damn classified the guys on it cant tell ya chit, buddy said the few guys that are on it signed NDA's... there's a lot of info on YT but not the whole story...
The Zumwalt broke down three times on its way to its homeport in San Diego. The Navy had to replace the Rolls Royce engine after only 14 months that cost 150 million.
There’s a few experts in the chats obviously one of their magical talents 😂
When you have money you can whatever you want to.
It is so dam classified that its super-secret deck guns have no ammo to shoot.
21 year Navy Vet here too. When it comes time to pull the trigger the opposition doesn't want to be anywhere around these babies though...
"most people don't know that the Iowa class battleships could carry nuclear weapons"
>Be Me, living across from the Battleship NJ
>Also me; oh yeah, they did do that.
Any ship capable of firing a Tomahawk was potentially capable of firing a nuclear weapon.
I would absolutely love and do anything to live across from an iowa-class battleship
Imagine if humanity invested as much time in literally anything else...
This comment hit hard
They do.. that's why you have the ability to watch this video on RUclips. A lot of people forget that most of the tech we have now' came from military use.
Im with you but a strong military is unfortunately a requirement to survive as a state in this world. The problem is how it is used. I personally would like to see tax loopholes closed and reining in some of the multi billionaires before we begin contemplating cutting military funding.
Can't wait until she's added to Azur Lane
lol i want to see how the will Balance this.
Yooo a fellow shikki
ayyyyyyyy
We gotta get Nimitz Enty first.
bro we dont even have iowa yet
As a us Navy Semen I’ve never been more proud to be apart of the Us Military after seeing this video
Just imagine a modern battleship. I seriously hope we make one in the coming years. It's destructive power would be unprecedented.
A battleship is useless in modern days. The big guns of the past just dont have anything going for them compared to 100-200 missiles. Plus, why make a slow battleship, when you can just mass build destroyers with triple the range and speed?
Anatomical X you didn’t understand him... a modernized Iowa class battleship would be able to Cruze at 27-33 knots, it would carry 9 16 inch guns, carry lots of missiles even more then any ships, 5 inch guns, 4x 20mm cwis, sea ram, sea sparrow,. The old Iowa in the 1980/1990 had a better anti air then most Carriers.
Joseph Neubauer why bother with 16 inch guns? Just give it 9 30 inch guns or rail guns. The schwerer gustav already proved that size can be extremely effective. Make its larger or double the size of the Yamato and give it 2 nuclear engines. It’d be a city destroyer 🤤. Also with the size advantage over the Yamato you’d have tons of deck space for missiles and aa.
Burke Productions the Iowa is one of the most successful warships
All you need is hypersonic missiles. Russia figured this out. Now the USA need to too.
Those destroyers are just the ones from cars in the beginning when the spycar ruins that oil rig
Europeans be like: ha whats he talking about??? Feet, inches ,miles, pounds??? Then somwhere in the middle they hear milimeters :-))
Not just Europeans, anyone outside of America pretty much!
@@CC-yl1fb The US is one of three countries that still use imperial measurements. The two others being Myanmar and Liberia.
i think they're more like: why is this video completely misrepresenting the facts about a destroyer class that is known to be a failure and an embarrassment as though it's some kind of super-ship?
They should park this bad boy up in the south china sea..
Nah, the two aircraft carrier groups are a hell of a lot scarier lol. The Zumwalt is a good ship to ship fighter-if they could get the railguns to work that is-but a Carrier Group could flatten Beijing before they even knew what happened. And we've got at least two in strike distance at all times
@@spencerhydes374 That's true lol
@@spencerhydes374 china definitely has EWR and would dispatch fighters to intercept any incursion
@@spencerhydes374 this shit is scary... the fact that US have China in strike zone. Boss move!
@@spencerhydes374 lol not scary for China. They actually want US to build up in SC sea so they have their enemy all within striking range.
annnnnd then the Navy Cancelled production of this and only 3 have and will ever be made. Soooooo must not of been that great.
No its good, they just cant afford to arm it. When i was in i was able to pick orders to this ship. Its a very kush order detail. Very small crew.
Wasnt about the weaponry, this ship is the first ship the states has designed itself (she buys all designs from britain) despite being warned the hull design would never work, they proceded to build her.....on her first sea trial she almost capsized just outside the harbour after performing a minor turn, the states could no longer ignore the sever design flaw...she was toed back into port the entire project ships and all were mothballed and the entire thing declared a spectacular failer
@@Dys05 read my other comment
nessunday Overton “toed” lol
Mike Dysthe hi, I highly doubt you've ever weighed anchor son, flipping burgers on the other hand....
honestly i'd love to see what a modern designed BB would look like and what weapons and armor they'd be equiped with.
highly expensive and impractical but would be absolutely be awesome to at least design/model one.
Lots of interesting weapon, defense, and sensor systems. Too bad they put them on the Ford Pinto of destroyers.
Who would be afraid of a ship w/ no ammo for it’s guns, no torpedo tubes and a smaller missile capacity? DDG 1000 class Has less capacity in a ship that is bigger than a DDG 51.
Correct, it's a useless ship because it's weapon systems don't work. To be functional it would need to be downgraded
Or the government just hasn’t told anyone what is really going on, on that ship!
Angus Loughor-Clarke yes, the problems w/ this ship have not been fully disclosed.
@@johnfourquet2396 The status and full capability of the ship both positive and negative, is not something you would know, given how classified it is, and this is probably how it will remain for some time. Talking it down works to its advantage.
"unveils"? they've been around for 4 years now. i doubt anyone's afraid of them tbh, lots of militaries have stealth ships of roughly analogous sophistication and power (particularly russia & the uk) and the special ammunition for their advanced gun systems was cancelled, rendering the turrets useless. after being deemed unfit for ship-to-ship combat they were repurposed as dedicated land attack craft and the order (initially 32) was cancelled after just 3, which were built on an exorbitant budget. there are also issues with the hull shape becoming unstable in rough waters among other things. after this the us navy went back to building the more traditional arleigh-burke class destroyers, and it's thought that the zumwalts will be decommissioned significantly earlier than intended due to their numerous shortcomings. nothing scary about that is there
Ye I could swear I did a presentation on ships and this was a slide stating "failed due to costs and sinking when turning"
You're letting the truth get in the way.
OH, you didn't just say "Nuke U Lar", did you? Gimme a break. Even British people know better than that.
"Hoe-witzer" guns too.
Gate-ling Guns
lol classic youtuber mistake, makes "factual" video but can't even pronounce simple words correctly ahahahahahha
Adversree
Wouldn't an American call it a nucear ass missile?
They turn the Halo CE warthog into a destroyer
But the difference is one is invincible and the other is paperthin
I thought the Zumwalt was discontinued due to it's high cost...
Yep. First 24, then 7, then you know what...3 is good. 3 is lots. No no...take your time with that 3rd one.
Not to mention the guns can't fire because of the ludicrous cost of the ammo
cost, and lack of usefulness against near pear threats like China. They can build two Arleigh Burke class for less than one Zumwalt class
If a modern-day destroyer is capable of taking putting up a fight with a "last-generation" battleship, then a modern-day battleship outfitted with the latest equipment just by common sense alone would be an absolute brute.
The Zumwalt has BEEN unveiled, but also reviled as the ammo for its AGS gun is too expensive and the ship was wrought with problems during its shakedown cruise. Most of the problems actually came from its power system.
Your forgetting the hull design didnt work, she almost capsized as soon as she got out of port, it showed the ship couldnt do even simple manuvers without being comprimised, firing her weapons would likely have had the same result.
The entire project was abandoned and ships mothballed, with the intention of scrapping
Tomahawks are not anti ship missiles, it might be possible to hit a ship, but that doesn't mean they would do it.
I helped build the last one and I can honestly say that it would win in a fight with any destroyer or even battle ship. The biggest thing is its almost invisible. From what I've been told they had to put special paint on it during sea trials so fishermen wouldn't run into it. one of the best parts about the VLS (Vertical Launch System) is it can shoot multiple missiles at different trajectories to hit its target at he same time. So even if you don't do enough with one shot, before your enemy even knows you exist you've hit them with multiple shots from a staggering distance. And lastly it takes very few people to run the ship. almost everything is done with advanced technology that really streamlines the whole thing. It actually makes it super annoying to get around the ship, because unlike the previous destroyer that was easy to get around this ship has you going up and over and down and over to get to some points on the ship. This is because a lot of the things done by people before are automated so it doesn't need to be accessed as much. Definitely makes building the thing a pain in the ass. There are plenty of other things that im not aloud to know about that make it even better, but those things alone make it untouchable. Although all that said if General Dynamics doesn't get their heads out of their asses and give the union a fair contract soon your going to see some very poorly made ships. #LS6ONSTRIKE
Compared to an attack submarine it is very visible.
This ship was developed primarily for attacking targets on the ground and it will only engage other ships in direct combat if it has no other options. If it's deployed as part of a carrier strike group it'll be very well protected in most cases and it'll give the CSG a greater amount of striking power against ground targets.
This ship by itself has enough firepower to completely level small cities and move on to another. The small radar cross section is so that it can move into firing position and unless it's arsenal on unsuspecting ground targets.
15% of US population: we are unemployed plz help
US government: here's your ship, lets make war!
To be fair these ships were developed before the recent clusterfuck
Afraid of? Wasn’t it taking on water and stuck at harbour?
@Andy Lester Just repurpose it as a static weapons battery and have it hang out and look cool in important harbors. When they take those railguns out of the testing phase, slap 'em on the Zumwalts and save face by saying that was the plan all along. No one will believe it, but hey, kickass railguns.
@@CharlesUrban cant even do that they stopped producing ammunition for the main guns masssive cock up
I'm 99% sure that they used the original song for Plantera. If you care about Terraria, Plantera is based on a band. I'm not lying.
U.S.A has the best war ships in the world by far.....
What warship would that be?
Captain Nemo wants his ship back.
Not gonna lie, it looks like a sinking ship 😂
Is the tug boat sold separately?
I'd imagine her sailors are afraid of her too. She has a hard time with the basic boat task of keeping the sea on the outside.
Battleships are a dead class of ship. The relic ones still in service are ONLY useful for A) Shore bombardment prior to landing troops, OR B) Defensive ships for critical ports/regions.
Sure, if you suddenly put the Zumwalt in distance of a Battleship's cannons with advanced scouting equipment able to confirm the position of the Zumwalt, then a Battleships needs only hit this destroyer one time to sink it.
But that is not how ship battles work. In a normal condition where pure luck doesn't dictate the battle, a Zumwalt would be able to annihilate any Battleship that has ever existed. But the Zumwalt's purpose isn't that, anway. Zumwalts were designed in a world that knows battleships are dead. Aircraft carries utterly crush battleships before they can ever fire a shot. So ultimately the Zumwalt would out-range and out-target a Battleship and sink it. Barring favorable conditions to do that, it would disengage and seek carrier support. There is not really any other outcome on the modern battlefield.
A Zumwalt ain't going to do much until they buy it some ammo! Nice big white stealth elephants!
I wouldn't be too sure about that Ron. With both Chinese and Russian navies displaying a near willingness to ram, the potential need for a ship which is able to take a battering - both from physical contact plus enemy fire - but still remain in the conflict zone may become relevant. Any future ships with such potential qualities need not necessarily be 800 foot long easy target behemoths, but I'm sure you get what I'm driving at.
@@Brian-om2hh The problem is that battleships are too heavy and too slow. That is why battleships became irrelevant by the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. There is a reason not a single US battleship saw action outside of shore bombardment. Additionally, no Japanese battleships were capable of keeping up with other ships to engage US naval forces. The Battleships were constantly hit by US aircraft from aircraft carriers, but they were far too slow to get into firing range. For a Battleship to be relevant, the enemy MUST NOT have aircraft carriers. So for 3rd world or developing countries fighting other 3rd world or developing countries, then yes, battleships might be useful.
But all the armor in the world for a battleship does not stop bunker busting torpedo bombs from aircraft. They are too slow, and thus too vulnerable. Maybe, also, if they figured out how to equip Battleships with the most advanced engine in the world, and a new armor type that is lighter - all while countries like the US don't have or know of that technology, then maybe also then they will be relevant.
There's a reason they rose to prominence in the earlier 1900's and through WW2. They were invincible to anything but other battleships. But then Aircraft Carriers happened. And the rest was history.
I still don't know why we don't build an almost entirely submarine force (eventually with a UAV "hanger" in it. They are the most stealthy and have a reasonable cost to build.
Damn, i didnt realize i should be worried about this too
Our enemies don't need warships, they're doing fine winning with IED's triggered by 20 year old Nokias.
Those are not our enemies.
Those are children playing.
Battleships are beautiful
Now this is the right video
NOO-CLEE-URR...how hard is that word?!
Silly to compare a destroyer to a battleship in a face-off though. What kind of doctrine uses destroyers to engage battleships? You admitted earlier that destroyers typically do escort missions and primarily engage air or submarine targets.
I drove through Mobile, Alabama the other day and saw two of the three Zumwalt class destroyers at the port there
Go USA Go Navy
According to Wikipedia, it's now 12 billion $ for only 3 ships. That's 4 billion per ship. Much too expensive for a destroyer and the roles it need to fulfill.
The traditional escort mission of destroyers is not ideal for them. You can't use these for escort missions on anything less expensive than an aircraft carrier, but those are not stealthy so there is no major advantage.
Sending them out alone to hunt could be an option but without backup and at 4 billion a peace that's a risk no commander willingly takes. A modern sub might sink it. The only vessels that can escort these golden ships, are the same golden ships.
These things are too expensive to risk using them. The normal destroyer needs to be expendable, these are not.
Destroyers are designed to be expendable, but they also have a surprising knack of taking on ships three times larger with four times the firepower. You wouldn't dare try to do such a thing with this ship.
I live right next to a place than manufactures warships so I get to see these behemoths every now and then
Why does it look like the ship's sprites are still loading
that's just your radar not reading it right.
I like Destroyers with working Armaments... Currently no one fears the few overpriced Zumwalts.
haha exactly man. this guy conveniently ignores the fact that zumwalts are an embarrassment
The Wisconsin would obliterate the Zumwalt before it could even think about getting in range.
I love how americans claim stuff that no one has ever said only them "the world is afraid of"
this video is a joke, just like the zumwalt class
"Americans" didn't say that. Most Americans don't know much about a Zumwalt except perhaps a passing familiarity with it's picture.
My grandmother use to work at Bath Iron works in Bath, Maine she would do the design work for the piping for different destroyers that have been built there and the zumwalt was acctuly the last ship she worked on I remember seeing it after it was built in the harbor
I don’t care what you say, you can’t tell me that doesn’t look cool
For $22B it does look cool
Sure but, the older ships look cooler
Nooblox NXM 4Billion not 22
coolest ship ever built.
I think it's funny that there are English people that can't say "nuclear" too.
Yeah, everyone runs screaming in terror at the sight of it's unmatched fugliness.
Yes it’s such a good ship the USA navy only wants three of them. I hear that’s three to many as the rail gun they were to have doesn’t work so it’s dead loss. It’s stealth ability is limited as multi band radar systems and more airborne systems arrive into major and middle powers military lineups.
Still a lot of questions on their stability in rough seas. To date only faced 5 metre waves which is a normal wave pattern and no where near double this size to be found in a North Atlantic storm.
Ken Triat The F35 has evolved and I’m sure these destroyers will also . As for the 5 meter wave I’m certain the US were relying on you not to tell the Chinese and Russians ! are well its out there now . WEVE LOST .
Don't forget it's armor can be pierced by rifle rounds. Stealth is only handy in the middle ocean
@@frankjenkins6627 Yeah I'm sure now after 100s of years of Naval operation, the US is making vessels that aren't seaworthy. Seems legit lol.
they reduced the order to 3 because the ships became WAY more expensive than originaly planned and tbh .. 4bil+ sounds kinda riddiculous but hey .. who am i to tell the military where to spend their hundreds of bilions ..
Navy's terrified of its 4.5B price tag too, in fact, they planned to make 32 but only ended making 3.
In fact that ship cost 22 billion dollars just for 1
This bad boy was built less than an hour away from my hometown :), I could work there if I wanted to but the union is on strike right now
They are gotta make a lot of different vehicles too such as stealth battle tank , stealth aircraft carrier , stealth battleship & stealth submarine
Got them cars 2 vibes
zumwalt,
ang ganda ganda po.
ang galing nyo, mayaman pa po kayo.
kaya lahat naga gawa ng zusa.
"Larger than a cruiser, built for stealth" MURICA!
Ready to be liberated :DDDDD Its funny how the world is most afraid of america because they are the Crazy kid in the class
*Sooo Gorgeous!* 😍
*But cozy*
For anyone who plays from the depths. This is what you call missile spam.
Gotta love the footage of the Aussie Navy in the beginning...for whatever reason 😂🤷♂️
They built the broadside of a barn. Now no one can miss
So they're keeping it? I heard they meant to axe them after the ammo problem.
mostly a test platform for the time being. Probably a good test bed for experimental weaponry.
@@LKN117 Stick a railgun on it so they can test how the gun reacts to saltwater after the ship capsizes because the waves built to six feet unexpectedly.
My son told me the other day that he wanted to join the Navy when he grew up. I asked why and he said “I wanna be surrounded by seaman, swallows, and sperm whales!” .......I haven’t looked at him the same since.
This makes me think: why not build modern battleships or modernize the old ones instead of spending billions on a ship that can be disabled in a single hit
Mostly because regardless of how much armor you put on it, it still won't be that survivable. Modern weaponry is extremely powerful. The accuracy and range is also much higher. And even if you can take a beating, you'll still get blown apart from a saturation attack, which will be much much cheaper than your ship.
Also if you were to get a truly high survivability ship. A single weapon with a nuclear warhead will guarantee destruction in a single hit. And it would likely not even take a nuclear weapon to instagib a modernized battleship. A single very large hypervelocity anti-ship missile, aimed at a vital area, would still sink a battleship made for the modern era.
Also if you think small stealth ships are expensive. Battleships are even more expensive. A single modern battleship would have to be more expensive than the current Ford class carriers. Meanwhile it would also have limited range, be an easy to spot target, and likely still get easily taken out.
@@josephburchanowski4636 i disagree, a Battleship would be over the top but a Heavy cruiser with morden AA would be a far better choice. And when you want stealthy ship build a submarine.(Nuclear weapons don´t grow on trees, nobody would waste a dozens nuclear missiles to hit 1 ship.)
2. Morden Aircraft carriers are much more expensiv then a Battleship or Cruiser.(with automation u could easily reduce the crew to only to a few hundreds maybe even less, not possible with a Aircraft carrier.)
Most modern weapons, other than specialized weapons such as bunker buster bombs, are not designed to defeat extremely well armored targets. Mostly because heavy armor has all but been abandoned in the previous era due to the nuclear threat. But I would agree that an up armored heavy cruiser with long range ballistic weapons would be better than a traditional battleship, just don't make each round cost more than a missile because what's the point then?
A few reasons, but first and foremost is cost. (More at the very bottom, if you want to get right to it.)*
While battleships were remarkably effective as recently as the Gulf War (Desert Storm/Desert Shield), the operational price was astronomical. That more or less rules out modernizing old battleships - but leaves open the question of building new ones. More on that.
A battleship also represents an enormous cost in one massive target, not unlike an aircraft carrier. If you could take down an aircraft carrier with a nuclear cruise missile, or even barrage of missiles, you have struck a decisive blow - which is why carriers are defended by an entire battle group. They have little purpose outside of supporting the carrier, even intercepting missile strikes if necessary.
A battleship would have that same limitation (being a hugely expensive eggs-in-one-basket target), and would consequently almost demand a similar level of battle group support. It turns out that having smaller ships that are more easily individually disabled is much more cost effective; you can send a destroyer or a frigate out alone, and modern ships can be wildly effective due to the next reason: missiles.
Missiles have largely (but not completely) replaced the role of guns in naval warship. You can see the ubiquity of missiles in the designators used by the US Navy: FFG (currently replaced by LCS and being superseded by FFG(X)), CG, DDG. The US Navy doesn't really use any blue water surface warships that don't rely on missile batteries for offense, and those missile batteries can be devastating; an Arleigh Burke can carry over 90 missiles, a Ticonderoga over 100. That's an enormous amount of firepower, without requiring the large hull (and tempting target) of a battleship.
(One can easily argue that carriers themselves are the new battleships, replacing them as naval flagships and the centerpiece of any fleet. That's more a point about aircraft replacing guns, but it's essentially the same play with different actors. Point: between missiles and aircraft (carrying missiles themselves), traditional surface warship guns have been pushed to the brink of obsolescence.)
So, it comes down to cost-benefit. The cost of a battleship, either modernized or brand new design, would be untenable, especially for a ship that wouldn't be capable of delivering more useful firepower than a destroyer or cruiser. A battleship wouldn't necessarily be more well-defended than a modern destroyer, against modern (or future) missiles, not without supporting it with a battle group similar to that of a carrier; yet, losing a battleship would represent a greater single-point loss of armament, and an incredibly greater loss of money (and the time and resources which went into building the ship), than losing a much smaller (and cheaper) destroyer or frigate.
It's a shame, too, because battleships are freakin' cool! :)
*(For a cost comparison, the closest modern ship in service to a battleship would probably be the Kirov class Russian cruiser. Only two are in service, and their operational costs are enormous. The US Navy retired all of their nuclear powered cruisers due to operational costs. There is not even a plan in place to replace the conventional powered cruiser class when it reaches the end of operational life. Battleships, whether nuclear powered or conventional, would be at least as expensive.)
my brother just built one of these in Maine super super cool ships
I think it is fun how it sort of resembles the Merrimac
I always imagine what it would be like if these things existed during WW1 and 2
Just wait a year or so..
Torpedos are some of the weirdest things in the world to me.
it looks like a really big version of the merrimack
You're right. Maybe a mashup of Merrimack and Monitor.
Zumwalt looks like that tesla car.... but on water...
Gatling Gun - Ga-ta-lin Gun 🔫
the US is finaly keeping up with stealth thecnology just took them 20 years
It looks capsized... and it's large.... and it needs so much more work. It's also basically a robot... good luck with that in the future when robots try to take over humanity...
also the second it fires.... it's cover is blown. also... EYES EXSIST! you can see this thing clear as day
Just spray water at robots lmao
one quote
Solid Snake: “ hmmm, Metal gearrrrr“
i literally hear david's voice lmao
I think the Zumwalt is too under-equipped for a destroyer
the overuse of special effects and editing is absolutely jarring
The cost like most high expense military projects are due to the low number that were produced
Modern day USS Merrimack Ironclad
I feel like the Zumwalt would screw the Wisconsin up with the ability to attack without being in line of sight and fire upon enemies while literally hiding behind large land masses. While it cant take hits, it can hit the Wisconsin multiple times before the Wisconsin even knows its there. I think in this situation the Wisconsin was given a bit to much credit. While its still very versatile and is in no way outdated. The Z class could easily dump all its fire power onto the Wisconsin and leave the battle sight before the Wisconsin even found them or obtained a good firing position. The Z might not sink it, but if you land direct hits on those guns since the Zs artillery can have its course changed mid air, you have now disabled the Wisconsin's chance to fight back before they can even position the turrets. I may be wrong with this assumption though, I have no where near the knowledge of the ships as the beautiful men and woman who work aboard those destroyers do. But I do disagree slightly with this video, because I think the Z would screw up the Wisconsin and get out of dodge before the Wisconsin could either A.) find them or B.) move to a position to retaliate.
i love how this video, and this comment, discuss hypothetical ship-to-ship engagements involving the zumwalt class when they were relegated to land attacks only hahaha
Do u really believe the navy wouldn’t update the Wisconsin if it was still in service. Like fr if it was fully updated it would destroy the zumwalt...plus it only takes one hit to sink the zumwalt I pretty sure the Wisconsin can take those hit than release it’s barrage. Plus the zumwalt probably likely have a system failure in the middle of battle lol.
*Star Wars wants your whole stock*
paper tiger full of issues.
Oh, great...a floating F-35. All the R&D and money in the world and we get a bunch of boondoggles because a defense contractor or twelve bribed the right Senator. Frustrating as all hell.
@J S it doesnt even have ammo lmao they had to use the ammo (for its super special gun) that they have been using on every other ship for decades because the cartridge they wanted cost 500k a piece.
@J S DD(X) was awesome, Zumwalt is a joke. Can't do area air defense because radar capability was slashed due to cost over runs. Stealth profile is compromised on the first 2 ships and completely abandoned on the last Zumwalt to save money. Guns failed performance targets and the shells were too expensive so there is no ammo.
End result, Zumwalt is semi-stealth at best while having less offensive and defensive capability than a standard Flight IIA Arleigh Burke which has much better air defense, more VLS cells for missiles and a working gun. Head-to-head Arleigh Burke probably wins, definitely more useful ship to have in the fleet.
Even the Arleigh Burke is getting old, other countries are building bigger destroyers with more modern radar than Aegis, stealth features to reduce radar profile, more VLS cells and more modern missiles. Badly due for update in the Flight III Arleigh Burke considering the supposed replacement (Zumwalt) was such a failiure.
And don't get me started on the mini-Zumwalts (aka the Littoral Combat Ship disaster), at least the Zumwalt is a functional destroyer instead of the world's most expensive and least capable frigate.