The Navy's Biggest Disaster is Back

[@Justin_Taylor]

Play World of Warships Legends here wowsl.co/3BJf8ha Thank you World of Warships: Legends for sponsoring this video. Give more nicknames for the zumwalt down below please.

[@rocko7711]

❤

[@QuizmasterLaw]

so at least it actually was a succesful stealth ship?

[@lewis7315]

missile submarine type 00 ... 00000000000000

[@lewis7315]

missile submarine 000 ... 00000000

[@rocko7711]

⚓️

[@nekomakhea9440]

Zumwalt is the pinnacle of "we can't get rid of it because that would mean admitting we were wrong"

[@Justin_Taylor]

My parents had a similar idea

[@PbL606]

No that's Vietnam

[@Enlightener86]

@@PbL606 and we back at it again. history always repeats itself...

[@euansmith3699]

Poor Elmo Russell "Bud" Zumwalt Jr.; going down in history as the namesake for this hilariously horrible project.

[@DefaultProphet]

Nah. The only real problem with the zumwalt is they put all their eggs in one basket for very specific guns and ammo but thankfully guns are just about the least useful weapon on a ship in 2024

[@hugmynutus]

"Never take a contract with the navy, they'll bankrupt you before they figure out what they actually want." - Kelly Johnson.

[@griffinarcher2911]

Ironic given the NGAD

[@jfangm]

Ironic, considering Lockheed-Martin delivered an aircraft nobody wanted in the form of the F-35.

[@Inspadave]

@@jfangm Nobody wants the F-35? Ok.

[@mikesmnell414]

@@jfangmNobody wanted the F-35? Buddy are you Russian or something?

[@embersaffron5522]

​@@jfangmthe F35 is overpriced, and shouldn't have been made. But it is a success. Unlike this and the LCS

[@kopykat9993]

As a naval nerd, I fucking love the Zumwalt so much. Conceptually. It is an absolute and utter god-damned sin how hard they fucking fumbled it.

[@comlitbeta7532]

Plus, it looks fucking dope

[@BrunoViniciusCampestrini]

The worst thing is that they didn't have to. Had the USN replaced the cannons with VLS cells and kept the SPY-4 (possibly replacing it with an SPY-6 v1 [or even a larger version]) + SPY-3 combo it would have been a VERY competent surface combatant (and it wouldn't even cost that much more than an AB flt III)

[@MrChickennugget360]

@@BrunoViniciusCampestrini Navy should have just reclassed it as CGS (Strike Cruiser Guided missile) While it might seem silly to just change the name classing something as a cruiser implies its more capable and thus worth spending more money on.

[@B-52H]

​@@MrChickennugget360Its literally 40 percent bigger than the current main destoryers so it would have worked

[@outatime626]

I remember at first I thought the Zumwalt was a complete failure and then when I saw sandboxx news report on it, I saw that the Zumwalt, as it was originally envisioned, as was actually insanely dominant. If they had just let that stupid gun go, then they would’ve had an amazing ship, but they neutered it so heavily so that they can keep that stupid stupid gun. I propose that the Zumwalt be recommissioned and its original production volume as it was originally envisaged with the hypersonic capabilities added.

[@swordmonkey6635]

The Zumwalt was a "we build the ship and pray the tech for the railgun is ready in time" sort of thing. The downside was when the Navy cancelled the railgun... which left the Zumwalt without its party trick.

[@TheBelrick]

It takes geniuses to build advanced warcraft. It takes a genius society to create geniuses. It takes why males to create genius societies The non-why's that rule USA have drive why males out of much of society including replacing them with brow people. This is why USA can no longer deploy advanced warcraft. They have been failures all this millenia.

[@JoeGarcia-f7h]

Nah, it's more a big-boys-toy thing, underwritten with a bottomless pit of taxpayer dollars. If it's ever put into operation this billion-dollar boondoggle will be just in time to encounter $10,000 naval drones that do the same thing to it as they did to the Moskva. And since its so expensive, once the one or two that will be built have been submarined...

[@termitreter6545]

Tbh the whole Railgun thing just seems weird. Like, what was even the purpose of the gun? It had no ability to carry a payload, which is the point of artillery. You cant have a ships shore-bombardment function with a gun that just shoots sabots.

[@swordmonkey6635]

@@termitreter6545 pure kinetic energy weapon means no explosive magazine in the hull. Hypersonic speed of round minimizes travel time (and ability to evade or shoot down). Missiles are used for shore bombardment, railguns would be anti-ship.

[@swordmonkey6635]

@@JoeGarcia-f7h The Zumwalt has been in operation for a while.

[@anotherscandinavian]

Well, they got some railings now. So that's a plus.

[@Justin_Taylor]

Big if true

[@MrTangent-8]

Not true

[@hestan723]

​@@Justin_Taylor Im not a english speaker What are "railings"

[@scout_424]

@hestan723 the little things on big Heights that stopped you from falling

[@AAAAAA-tj1nq]

​@hestan723thats what the dictionary is for

[@NotWhatYouThink]

You take your video ideas from the comment section? Hmmmm ...

[@slapper360]

Rare sighting of a wild NotWhatYouThink in the comments section

[@robbieaulia6462]

​@@slapper360 it's not what you think

[@willielinks3865]

@NotWhatYouThink did he steal your idea? lol

[@navb0tactual]

It's probably Not What You Think actually

[@whoareyouyouareclearlylost323]

I mean that's where all the creativity lies 🤭

[@existentialselkath1264]

Who's 'lagging behind' who in hypersonics is entirely down to the definition. By the US definition, nobody has hypersonics. By Russias definition, the US has had them for decades.

[@HoodieProduction]

Hypersonic is literally defined as being 5 times the speed of sound (Mach 5).

[@AdamBrusselback]

​@@HoodieProductionso then you agree the US has had that capability for decades, right?

[@fattyMcGee97]

By that definition, anyone who can put something into orbit has had them for decades now

[@tfk_001]

​@@HoodieProductionhypersonic missiles are defined as being hypersonic whilr also being able to maneuver

[@existentialselkath1264]

@@HoodieProduction the sprint missile could hit Mach 10 in 5 seconds. That was in the 1970s. The Russian definition of hypersonic missile seems to be just that. A missile that hits hypersonic speeds. That's been possible for decades. The US definition is something like sustained hypersonic speeds including terminal phase, while being able to maneuver. So when the US says it has no hypersonics, it's not because they can't match the Russian 'hypersonics', its because their definition is bonkers and nobody can match it.

[@Lunokh]

couple of things I wanted to point out in 1994 the Burke was brand new, the 21st century combatant program was about starting the long term project for the replacement early so that the advanced tech had time to develop The US is not lagging behind on Hypersonics, China and Russia just classify anything that passes mach 5 at any point a hypersonic, the US only considers it a hypersonic if it maneuverable at mach 5 and travel and impact at mach 5+, by the russian and chinese definition the Minuteman missiles are "hypersonics"

[@jakemurray2635]

@@Lunokh this is quite the cope. Hypersonic is hypersonic. And it’s bold to assume the Russians, who have unfortunately always been ahead of us in anti ship missile technology would not be at the forefront of hypersonic development and share some of that technology with China along with their own developments.

[@existentialselkath1264]

​@@jakemurray2635missiles that Russia themselves call hypersonic and we know the capabilities for, do not fit the US definition. It's really that simple.

[@TheStephaneAdam]

@@jakemurray2635 ... By your definition V2 are hypersonic. And if you believe what Russians say about their own equipment I have a bridge to sell you. On Mars.

[@AAAAAA-tj1nq]

@lunokh wrong Df17 are hypersonic glide vehicles that doesn't travel at ballistic path

[@Lunokh]

@@AAAAAA-tj1nq and the wave rider was tested in 2010

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

Ngl the Zumwalt in Dazzle-flauge kinda slaps.

[@macbuff81]

Zumwalt, the Cybertruck of boats

[@ZackSavage]

hey now. the Zumwalt actually looks cool.

[@Katvanished]

and is less likely to fall apart

[@dredgewalker]

And also doesn't rust with just even a sea breeze...or tears from the owners regretting their purchase.

[@casesully50]

You must have watched the whistling diesel video I'm guessing

[@matthewgibbs6886]

@@dredgewalker as a tax payer this over priced pos makes me cry but then again almost every taxpayer fck over piece of military gear does as well.

[@BosonCollider]

As a software engineer, the Burke and Zumwalt is the reason why sqlite exist. Sqlite is the most installed piece of software in the world, you likely have one copy of it per app on your phone where it is responsible for storing your data without data corruption bugs. Similarly, if you use chrome, firefox, or safari, it's what your web browser uses to save your bookmarks, cookies, and cache It wasn't planned and it was a one-man project from a guy who happened to work on battleship targeting systems and who was immeditately annoyed by its insane unnecessary complexity.

[@Knight_Kin]

Oh? You know the team at Picatinny?

[@gardnert1]

These will basically be surface-only ballistic missile subs.

[@GrahamCStrouse]

Cruise missile surface subs but otherwise yeah.

[@denvera1g1]

Would be guided rather than ballistic, though the term ballistic is poisoned by ICBM which often had some level of guidance, though i think that the thought there was that they were not powered after reaching space, or apogee, or wherever the motors stopped firing, while in space they may have also been un-guided with guidance only occurring during launch and reentry

[@Knight_Kin]

It's a guided missile frigate.

[@williambarnebee40]

The problem, was that Congress cut the number of ships purchased, making the Ammo unafordable without the economy of scale. Honestly, this could be awesome.

[@raptorking7479]

Well if Con is the opposite of Pro then that makes CONgress the opposite of progress.

[@drakevimes2033]

@@raptorking7479 a truly golden thought

[@JavvyF61]

the railgun was also not ready.

[@koenvangeleuken6544]

i understood the ammo was so expensive because the navy asked for extreme specs(100 km range and pin-point accuracy) without talking about money.....engineers love that. by the way all real 155 cannon have a reach of 30-40 km.

[@williambarnebee40]

@@koenvangeleuken6544 as I understand it, the OG price was supposed to like $10-15k a round. But that was with bulk orders for 30+ ships. With only 3 ships, there was no economy of scale.

[@Tricky117]

The actual design of the Zumwalt was on point in terms of stealth and stability. It's a great platform that just needed a purpose post ammunition cancelation

[@sc1338]

Yes exactly, people just shit on her because it’s trendy lol

[@termitreter6545]

Even there the Zumwalt was a bit of a failure. They never managed to fit all the 'external' gear like radars and defensive systems into the ships hull. Thats why modern Zumwalts have a ton of stuff sticking to the outside, which probably kills most of the radar-signature-advantage they had.

[@olisk-jy9rz]

Nope, lol. Stealth over water is completely pointless, because you can't be stealth over weter background: even if you magically reflected ZERO radar signature back to the source..... you're just looking like a hole in the water. A ship sized hole going 35 knots per hour. Hmmmmmmmm, what could it possibly be?

[@platiuscyndar9017]

@@olisk-jy9rz thats not how ground stealth works... or radar... or stealth in general... you blend into the background noise. That's how stealth works. All that ground clutter? That just makes it easier, 'cause now there's more noise.

[@guyyoung2355]

Do you understand why Western ASMs are subsonic and sea-skimming?

[@matthewschoen9827]

Linecrosser has a good video on the misnomer of "hypersonic." The US has had ordinance capable of achieving hypersonic speeds since the Second World War, but it doesn't fly at *sustained* hypersonic speed.

[@gamingrex2930]

Just like literally every nuclear missile. God this term has been ruined by the Russians.

[@Maddog3060]

Problem with Habitual Linecrosser is he's just a propagandist and is no more reliable than RT.

[@RCAvhstape]

*ordnance

[@وليدحسيناشتيوي]

​@@gamingrex2930 just like the term stealth is ruined by US. Case and point this fkn ship, and some how you had the audacity to start writing.

[@termitreter6545]

And that applies to every "ballistic missile", because theyre unpowered after the boost phase. I guess stuff like ICBM warheads probably hit at supersonic speeds, but they cant maneuver much.

[@linesteppr]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="58">0:58</a> WTF?! West Point named their team “The Black Knights” who “are usually portrayed as villainous figures who use this anonymity for misdeeds” per Wikipedia?? Also, their logo isn’t a knight’s mantle but a Hoplite’s helmet??? Are they not drug testing over there anymore??

[@zackkassner3374]

But look cool

[@dancingferret6654]

A black knight would be more aptly described as a knight who was not pledged to a lord. Notably, a knight who refused to swear loyalty to a particular lord but instead to the realm itself would still be considered a black knight by many at the time, and would be viewed with great suspicion. Kinda like how Army officers don't swear loyalty even to the office of the President, but only to the Constitution and the country itself.

[@Octarinewolf]

@@dancingferret6654 Not so. A Black Knight was one that wasn't sworn and so had no means of support other than being a mercenary. Knights sworn to a country are sworn direct to the monarch rather than to an abstract state in the period in exchange for a manor or gear and maintenance. The term comes from the practice of painting armour black to minimise maintenance requirements involved in keeping it from rusting.

[@kai_plays_khomus]

In regards to the helmet - maybe it's supposed to be a 14th/15th century italian _barbute_ indeed worn by late medival knights, a very similar style of helmet taking a lot of inspiration from the greek hoplites' corinthian helmet? If that's the case than they might have had a "period apropriate" model helmet to base the logo on. Guess they would be difficult to tell apart with a stylized logo - in light of the ancient greek variant being the more famous by far it might appear anachronistic at first glance, I totally get it. If my hypothesis is even correct to begin with. 😅

[@DarthVader-oi4ow]

I still think how ironic is the name. The pinnacle of cost ineffective ship carries the name of an admiral, that argued for cost effective navy with his High-low doctrine.

[@Yora21]

Well, the ship is proving his point.

[@GusCraft460]

As soon as someone said “stealth destroyer” the Zumwalt should have been cancelled. We already had stealth destroyers. They’re called submarines, and they’re better at both stealth and destroying than the Zumwalt ever could be.

[@hestan723]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="180">3:00</a> For what Zumwalt was supposed to fix, it was the cost issue of fighting asymetric opponent with weapons made for bigger foe, just like the LCS It was supposed to be an "arsenal ship" capable of supporting a landing assault. So even if the Zumwalt did work as intended, it would have ended up playing a role that is no longer a priority with the comeback of high intensity conflicts and naval battle against peer opponent like China

[@criticalevent]

Blows my mind that this white elephant outlived the LCS fleet.

[@hestan723]

​​@@criticaleventLCS is making a comeback too. Apparently they are going to fit minehunter role to replace the old avenger class

[@criticalevent]

@hestan723 Are they just going to put a bungee cord on the wheel and run them into mine fields? lol

[@bigbigmurphy]

​@hestan723The fact is, they aren't even good rough to do their basic mission, as none of them were deployed to the Persian Gulf🤣🤣

[@hestan723]

​@@bigbigmurphy The point is they have no basic mission They were supposed to do coastal missions with module you can change a at will to fit a specific role But that system didn't work well and the program ended up with two class of ship with big maintenance issues So yeah, not gonna deploy soon

[@InternetzSpaceshipz]

Another issue is that tumblehome hulls are extremely vulnerable to flooding, if this thing does get a hole in the waterline, the chances of it sinking are much higher than an arleigh burke.

[@jumi9342]

It's stealth so water won't find its way inside.

[@ornerylurker8296]

The entire reason it floats in the first place is because the water doesn’t even know it’s there

[@michaeldonnelly6747]

The Zumalt's were also needed to replace the Iowa BBs in the shore bombardment/amphibious assault roll. So that didn't work out, either. Hence, the Marine Corp is now planning on using HIMARS on the deck of Amphibious Assault ships. Adapt and overcome, rinse, wash and repeat.

[@Doctors_TARDIS]

Even if everything had gone to plan, they were never gonna measure up to the Iowas Big Guns in that role. Though, to be fair, what could?

[@michaeldonnelly6747]

@ the planned Montana class BBs

[@The_Man42]

Can we just take a moment to appreciate that fact that “dark eagle launcher” is the coolest name ever

[@videre8884]

Launching eagles, even if they are dark, is stupid..... All over the world, governments have an unusual fixation on eagles. Eagles are on so many flags, names, etc. that it must be a fetish that governments have. The name is crap. Somewhere a government employee was sitting and had to somehow integrate the word eagle into this system. So he thought dark eagle launcher was the only thing he could think of to use the word eagle in some way.

[@techpriest2854]

@@videre8884 probably a holdover from The USA trying to ape the roman system of government which ended... poorly

[@undefinedhuman7404]

it sounds cool only if you were a prepubescent chinese kid, lol

[@mikeymcdee4868]

I remember when this DLC dropped I thought it was so cool! Glad to see devs are giving it some love with the new patch.

[@JeffBilkins]

But did the contractors made a ton of money?

[@undertow2142]

Yes….OH YES

[@Maddog3060]

So much!

[@Yora21]

@@Maddog3060 Mission Accomplished!

[@Lew114]

Silly question.

[@GrahamCStrouse]

Oh, yes…

[@michaelblair5566]

We had hypersonic missiles in the 1970's. The Phalanx missle was Mach 5.

[@danielmartin9057]

Phalanx is a close range missile interceptor with a minimal payload. These hypersonics could level a city

[@user-sp9ue1ws7c]

we’ve had problems with stability at hypersonic speeds I believe

[@My_initials_are_O.G.cuz_I_am]

​@@danielmartin9057 So can anything when you strap a nuke to it. Going Mach-5+ for some part of the travel time is not special, hasn't been for decades, now, even on nuclear platforms.

[@jameson1239]

The Nike Sprint could hit Mach 5 in 10 seconds the minuteman is hypersonic in its terminal phase the X-15 could hit Mach 6.7

[@Salamandra40k]

"Hypersonic missile" doesnt just mean a missile that reaches hypersonic speeds somewhere along its journey, or else the V2 from wwii would be the first hypersonic missile. No, a hypersonic missile now means a hypersonic CRUISE missile, because thats all the rage these days. Yeah, we couldve made mach 6 missiles with rockets back in the day, but they wouldnt have the range or maneuverability that a hypersonic cruise missile has

[@brockvegas9571]

TIL being literally a half of a century ahead is " lagging behind"

[@bushmonster4354]

Even if we use the Russian definition of hypersonic, the only time we've ever really been behind was WWII Germany

[@lucienferrier6494]

​@bushmonster4354 not really, the us had a technological advance with its nuclear bomb, the b29, the radar and the boat that it had

[@jakemurray2635]

@@bushmonster4354 throughout the Cold War, the USSR had better anti ship missiles than us. An SS-N-19 and a Harpoon are absolutely not equals.

[@bushmonster4354]

@lucienferrier6494 this is in reference specifically to the "US is lagging behind in hypersonics" part

[@tfk_001]

​​@@lucienferrier6494the B29 was (unfortunately) not hypersonic

[@Anonihmus2567]

its almost like they forgot about the Major Caliber Lightweight Gun (MCLWG) program and how that turned out(an 8in autoloader not beating a 5in gun in overall shore bombardment performance), big guns are cool but until we end up with a nominal exotic system for exceeding the performance of guided missiles (rail,gauss, exotic high yield payloads) then big guns are just for field artillery and shooting small craft in close quarters

[@davidbocquelet-dbodesign]

One reason behind the Zumwalt's arty was the planned retirement of the Iowa class... The congress wanted to retain big guns around.

[@ArizonaAstraLLC]

​@@davidbocquelet-dbodesignexactly, finally somebody gets it right. Congress has a disconnect with actual war fighting, and hangs on to old doctrinal things that don't have relevance anymore when the people that do it for a living say that it's not needed

[@Sig509]

@@ArizonaAstraLLC politics. It was also most likely used to convince more people to support the program, as "missles expensive, shells cheap" kind of logic

[@stevenwilson5556]

Imagine how incompetent you have to be to make standard sized guns more expensive to fire than missiles. And no one got fired, no one got punished.. this shows how utterly broken the DOD procurement system is and how badly it needs to be completely fucking overhauled. Start with *accountability* if you fuck up this hard you get shit canned, you lose your pension, you get courtmartialed, and whatever company does this shit gets cancelled as a contractor forever, including anyone who has them as CEOs or top officers. Black list everyone and everything involved.

[@tarnishedknight730]

stevenwilson5556, Ever see the movie "Pentagon Wars"?

[@aleksjenner677]

How would members of congress keep receiving backhanders if they blacklisted their defence industry friends?

[@euansmith3699]

I guess that everyone involved in these clusterfucks expects to have retired before the whole project goes tits-up.

[@maninredhelm]

I'm not well-informed on naval strategy, but I would think that the job of a stealth vessel which fires cruise missiles would be better handled by a submarine.

[@DefaultProphet]

Ngl looks pretty sick in dazzle camo

[@crapphone7744]

I think it's worth noting that the tumble home type Hall was also used by interwar French battleships. They were approximately as successful as the Zumwalt.

[@wilemelliott]

this is where someone should have asked "Wouldn't it have been cheaper to swap THE GUNS with standard 155mm or even good old fashioned 127mm naval rifles?" Okay, MAYBE pull the forward turret and replace it with the hypersonics, but keep ONE naval rifle. The Arleigh Burkes seem to do just fine with ONE 127mm naval rifle...

[@wilemelliott]

And yes I know that limits shore bombardment capability... that ship has sailed with the battleships

[@djinn666]

They could've borrowed a 155mm howitzer and a couple of grunts from the army, put them in a stealth enclosure and gotten more use out of that space.

[@GrahamCStrouse]

These ships won’t have even be able to operate close to shore these days either their limited protection but if you do want guns that you can use for anti-shipping 155 mm (preferably compatible with army ammo) or 203 mm is the way to go.

[@eureka5635]

Destroyers should have at least a single gun so they can deal with patrol craft. They're called Destroyers because they were originally Torpedo boat destroyers, they may as well be called a cruiser without one.

[@Covfefe_Jelly]

With the size of DDGs nowadays they might as well be cruisers or battlecruisers but naval terminology has always been scuffed so eh

[@jfangm]

@@Covfefe_Jelly They cannot be battlecruisers, as battlecruisers have a main battery on par with battleships.

[@PrintScreen.]

@@jfangm that's the pre-missile age definition (that not everyone agreed on) Kirov-class are the closest thing to battlecruisers right now

[@jfangm]

@@PrintScreen. There is no missile age definition, and there IS agreement. A battlecruiser is a warship possessing a main battery of comparable caliber to a battleship but possessing less armor. This is why early battlecruisers were called "dreadnought armored cruisers." And the Kirov is not a battlecruiser by any definition. It is simply a large guided missile cruiser.

[@GrahamCStrouse]

What they need is enough dakka to protect themselves from cheap threats that don’t warrant the use of a $5 million dollar missile.

[@Sachiel235]

Two birds stoned at once? Ok Ricky

[@haz9947]

Amazing video on what a half beauty of a ship, half technological nightmare the Zumwalt is, but at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="520">8:40</a> you put up a picture of an NSM (Naval Strike Missile), rather than an SM-6

[@afatcatfromsweden]

I still have no idea what they were thinking with this procurement strategy

[@theayeguy5226]

Besides all that, can someone tell me why the Navy consistently unde-guns its ships. As originally designed, the Zumos had 57mm guns as secondary armament- but they substituted two 30mm peashooters instead. On the new frigate class, they took an existing Italuan design that had a 76mm main gun as standard, and replaced it with a 57mm gun. The autistic nerd within me turbo-rages at this stupidity

[@anthonyjavierrodriguezmaga7683]

I guess it’s all about money: electromagnetic catapults (AKA Railgun) just cost electricity and metal balls, anti-drone melting lasers cost cents per shot. But I’m just guessing.

[@alexfish477]

I think it shows what threats the Navy expects to see at gun range. Small drone ships maybe?

[@theayeguy5226]

@alexfish477 the bigger the caliber, the longer the standoff range you can engage ANY threat

[@MrTangent-8]

Cause you wouldn't expect to be firing a main gun at another ship today will ya, combat today is beyond visual range, so might as well opt for a smaller gun that can act as a more efficient anti drone weapon, or in the case of those new Italian guns, actually as a fucking CWIS

[@MrTangent-8]

@theayeguy5226 and the slower you reload, even with modern day naval auto-loading systems, also the more expensive the round is to fire

[@DeepPastry-m7d]

The Zumwalt has(had) two 155mm cannons... That could not fire any of the 155mm rounds available to all of NATO... They didn't just provide their own proprietary ammo, they "succeeded" in making cannons that could only use said proprietary ammo. They snatched defeat from the Jaws of Victory. If the guns could fire normal 155mm rounds, the Navy could be convinced to fire those while slowly building stocks of the Uber expensive proprietary ammo. Instead, no ammo other than theirs meant the guns never worked and got pulled.

[@deidryt9944]

To be fair, Congress had wanted something that could be called a replacement for the Iowa-class's shore bombardment capabilities. A 5-inch gun that had been used since WWII wouldn't have really satisfied this, and so the Navy felt pressured to come up with something new. Could argue if Congress was correct to insist on the shore bombardment capability or not, but just remember the 90s were an era when militaries were a bit aimless beyond "we need something for the future". Now, they are suddenly re-pivoting to new missions... and it could be argued the Marines refocusing on maritime and amphibious missions shows there's still a need for weight of fire in shore bombardments / shorter ranges.

[@ianmaw66]

Just one note of criticism: BAE Systems should be pronounced with the B, A and E pronounced as separate words. Excellent video by the way.

[@td6460]

but that's not slightly comical

[@Fauxstus]

Weren't these things supposed to carry railguns too?

[@ryelor123]

Yeah, whatever happened to railguns? Haven't heard much lately. Either the military gave up on them or they figured them out and are secretly producing them.

[@originalSPECTER]

@@ryelor123Obama iced them and they’ve been stuck in development limbo for about a decade now. “Too expensive” to research the materials needed to make them fully workable. Total bullshit, to be honest. If they had actually focused on them we’d be deploying them by now. Instead, they bought rocket assisted projectiles as a cheaper solution. Those are great, but abandoning a fundamental game changing technology like rail guns is incredibly shortsighted.

[@imperfectlump6070]

The rails inside degraded too fast. They got too few shots before needing replacement.

[@henryfleischer404]

@@ryelor123The barrel life was too short to be practical.

[@ironmonkey1512]

It's supposed to waste taxpayer money.

[@jimfrazier8104]

The only reason the shells cost so much is that they spent hundreds of millions in R & D and only bought 300 rounds. Now that the round is developed, they could buy 10 times that amount for the same money, but with only three ships built why bother? The shells were state of the art though, almost like ATACMs missiles you could fire six rounds a minute and have them impact simultaneously 100 miles away with guided missile accuracy. The hypersonics are going to be massively more expensive, but sinking the Liaoyang or Fujian from 2000 miles away doesn't come cheap.

[@tvgerbil1984]

It would force the Chinese to develop their own hypersonic missile interceptors.

[@criticalevent]

Since it was essentially a guided missile that fires out of a gun barrel. The idea that would were going to be firing them a dozen at a time is pretty ridiculous.

[@Esoterrible]

To clarify two things: 1: The rounds were more expensive BECAUSE the program was scrapped, they were also GPS guided shells and would have offered more flexibility than the thousand pound payload of a tomahawk. 2. Adding hypersonics being a way to cover up the travesty of the Zumwalt production is somewhat unfair, it does add serious capability to the pacific theater. Yeah there won’t be many of the, but it’s a hypersonic. You need it for specific high value and time sensitive targets. Having that on a stealthy naval platform is just what the doctor ordered in a potential pacific conflict.

[@djinn666]

The same kind of guidance that's proving to be 6% accurate against a real opponent?

[@GrahamCStrouse]

They were still far too expensive.

[@user-sx4yu3nw4j]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="352">5:52</a> “BAE” Systems… I see what you did there 😂

[@zackatwood2867]

I’ve got a stealth ship for ya… put one underneath the water, a SUBMARINE

[@evilsam4]

Cost and manufacturing. U can't fuck up anything while building subs. Then there's the very limited pool of people u can pull from. U don't want the average joe in a tin can for months. Btw the russian half ass their subs so bad that they r so noisy that the whole europe can hear and track them.

[@chevy4x466]

Yup, can build a sub for about the same money. Additionally, it saves us the embarrassment of having to serve on that ugly ship.

[@Sig509]

now that's just crazy talk. What's next, put a nuclear reactor on it so it could operate submerged for as long as the crew has stuff to eat?

[@magnem1043]

subs are easy picking for underwater drones now, it used to be a secret little space under there , not now

[@kalinmir]

Why do we keep calling these things destroyers? This thing has a displacement of a pre-dreadnought battleship...

[@MrOtistetrax]

You’re saying we should call it a dreadnought?

[@kalinmir]

@MrOtistetrax no

[@MrOtistetrax]

@@kalinmir didn’t think so.

[@TomahawkAssassin12]

Razzle dazzle wasnt for stealth really, it was so it was harder for submarines to determine the aspect of the vessel and therefore harder to get a firing solution

[@Dellvmnyam]

Remember to drink water and hug your mother ^_^

[@shaider1982]

Casual Geograhic👍🏻

[@scout_424]

I think UCP would only work on Navy ships, unlike the Navy blue weird camouflage they had UCP is gray and makes you blend into the ship and stand out in the water …

[@ogre7699]

I do think that the hull design probably could still work for future ships. From the sounds of it, it's not a bad idea, although it would potentially limit the surface area you can mount guns and shit on top of. It looks ugly as hell (although I do like the front with the blade like bow personally), but it seems like it's pretty useful for a ship you'd want to be a bit sneakier. Hopefully they don't throw that one idea out because the rest of the ship just didn't go as well as they had hoped.

[@forcedtoregister100]

My god when he pronounced BAE Systems I laughed so hard I had to pause the video.

[@danielmcguire3590]

Salt bae systems 😂. Good video though

[@witcheddoctor2720]

When I was stationed in Pearl, we'd always look for the 1000 ships and we'd all unanimously make fun of it

[@dat_spartan_gamer7322]

A stealth ship is called a submarine.

[@sebastianbass2219]

USN hasn’t always been interested in investing in hypersonics purely for the fact that subsonics were reaching their target faster. Hypersonic missiles have an exaggerated trajectory where they leave the atmosphere and strike from above whereas subsonic weapons are usually more direct.

[@roberthdavisii]

The small cannon on board don't cost that much per shot. The electromagnetic cannon (railgun) emplacements were "promised" by the eggheads to the Navy brass before the technology had been sorted out. Upon full research of the railgun cannon, everyone realized that the barrels burnt out too quickly. The plan had been to emplace railguns on the full 32-ship fleet, thus the development cost for the guns AND ammo were tied to the ships' build funding. When the ship build was cut from 32 to 3, the overall cost of the railgun components spiked in per-unit costs correlated to the reduction in ship production. That is why the railgun bullets now cost approximately $800k each. They shouldn't have built the ships without waiting until the railgun tech was ready for fielding, whereupon everyone would've realized that the railgun wasn't a viable weapon system.

[@A.R.77]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="167">2:47</a> ~ For a minute I though your shorts were being clipped in by your tattoos.

[@quadno]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="276">4:36</a> massive?

[@chris_art_fb]

Lowwwww taperrrrr fade

[@chris_art_fb]

Lowwwww taperrrrr fade

[@MrStevos]

WOW, Now That is Important ! "Because ships take so long to build & technology moves so fast, you have to design the ships with mere prototypes & then hope the technology won't be obsolete when the ship is finished" !

[@keggie2174]

wasn't the railgun project proposed replacement for the guns of the zumwalt?

[@kellscorner1130]

Rail gun project is on hold until they can figure out how to make it shoot without destroying itself. Also battery capacity and efficiency is still a massive problem. Do expect to see them in service any time soon now that drones are becoming the new hotness.

[@evilsam4]

@@kellscorner1130 The battery aka power isn't a problem on THIS ship. The other ship will need the batteries. On efficiency I guess so I have no personnel heard anything. But I do agree about the barrel life. It's shit compare to current

[@hedgehog3180]

The Zumwalt existed primarily to ignite everyone's hope for the mythical railgun battleship.

[@tudomerda]

Trying to make a ship stealthy is like trying to hide a pink elephant on a open plain.

[@magnem1043]

if you think the human eye is the main concern when stealthing you are wrong. Stealth is mainly designed to not be easily picked up on radar of the enemy. Maybe the object will be pinged on 1000 metres instead of 3000 metres. This makes a difference when the enemy missiles are zeroed in from 2000 metres. Basically what US doctrine revovles around, you come in hard and get out fast, F35 etc.

[@timbradwell3205]

The reason it sucks is because congress kept scaling the size of their procurement caused the cost for advanced gun ammo cost to gallon from 10k a round to 800k because of small size of allotment needed for only 6 guns in class

[@-Hesco]

the UCP digital camo was designed for breaking up silhouette in night vision devices. it also just so happens the man who made the decision to switch to it also had stock in the company who designed it and got a MASSIVE payday basically from insider trading

[@mysticdavestarotmachinesho5093]

LMAO Getting two birds stoned at once. I'm going to use that one along with of my favorite "get all my ducks in one sock." Good one thanks for the laugh.

[@dad_jokes_4ever226]

You should do a video on the Littoral Combat Ship

[@norm4966]

So you want your gun round to be less expensive then missile? The navy: No

[@LegendaryPatMan]

It's rare that I mention someone has made a gross error, but for the Zumwalt, it is mentioned nearly all the time. The entire story is filled with comments made 20 years ago that are untrue today, but worst of all is the discussion of the guns. It's important to ask why the requirement for the 155 gun exists when the USN has two extremely capable gun in the 5" Mk 45. Long story short, Congress didn't want to retire the Iowa class ships, passed a tiny amendment to the 1996 NDAA and made it so that the next ship had to be a "naval gunfire support" ship. It didn't matter that there are better ways to do this mission even in 96 like Close Air Support or missiles, it was law and it was going to happen. So why does the Zumwalt in the state it's in? Because Congress dictated that it had to be, after the US had just spent decades creating a revolution in military affairs, by building weapons systems to enable doctrine rather than having a thing because that other guy has a thing. It's not how procurement works, it's not how design specs work, it's not how anything works... Yes they were expensive but that is the price of dominating the seas and if you don't believe me on that, go run around the Pentagon and ask naval officers about a book called Ghost Fleet and how valuable it is to pay this price, to have the best and have it made in America, by Americans, for how America wants to fight

[@mankihonda983]

That's a long way to say you drank the Kool-Aid and want more of it, preferably in piss flavor.

[@erbol0011]

Bullshit Aegis class does everything but better, while Zumvalt was created for a reason of future warfare which didn't happen. Additional without fancy railguns , or normal rockets Zumvalt has no firepower for its role

[@Horible4]

@@erbol0011 Other ships also do not have railguns or rockets. The idea that modern warships "needs a gun" to be powerful is a hilariously outdated concept. Another error made in this video is the idea that the United States is "lagging behind" China and Russia in the hypersonics department. It's pretty much a dead giveaway when a person that says this that they have no idea what they're talking about and are parroting talking points they saw on reddit. Pretty much stopped watching after that. For those of you who don't know, not only is this statement hilariously false (United States played with this idea in the 50s and 60s before giving up on it after questioning its effectiveness, and rightly so) but it also ignores a ton of context: START II existed for a long time (If you don't know what that is, don't try to talk about modern warfare). The START II treaty prohibited the development and production of hypersonics, as well as other things such as limiting the number of warheads Russia or America could have deployed. Sometime in the late 2000s, Russia decided they were above this and started developing hypersonics anyways. After sanctions had failed to stop their efforts, during the Trump administration the United States backed out of the treaty after it was due to be renewed. Russia was deploying more warheads than it was allowed anyways under the treaty and began production of hypersonic missiles. So no, the United States isn't lagging behind because Russia was just better at it, they broke the treaty. As for China, they were not a part of the treaty so they could do whatever they wanted. The fact that the United States has hypersonic missiles ready for production in half the time it took China and Russia to make theirs tells you how much superior the MIC is to these countries. It's just the "cool" thing these days for redditors like Justin to claim the MIC exists just to make Generals rich cause "capitalism bad lol", but the reality is for every one cost overrun failed project you can point out, there's two dozen other projects that ran on schedule and under budgets. It's not even the first time in the last 40 years people have been doing this, as projects like the F-15, the F-14, the F-22, the F-117, the A-10, The Bradley IFV, the HIMARS, the Patriot, basically any missile, the M1 Abrams were criticized with the same amount of scrutiny at the time of their introduction into the armed forces. All projects that had rocky starts to their lives, all projects you would struggle to find anyone claiming are terrible weapons. Pro-tip: The department of defense knows WAY more than Justin Taylor ever will, and doesn't work in the defense industry for a reason.

[@GrahamCStrouse]

First of all there is no 5”/45. There’s a 5”/38, a 5”/54 & a 5”/62. The latter two weapons are still decent but they’re becoming obsolete. The 5”/38 was an amazing dual-purpose gun during WW2 & continued to be useful through the ‘50s & ‘60s. It is NOT adequate for naval fire support, however. Dual-purpose guns are basically obsolete at this point, at least the way we knew them. You’re not going to be knocking down jets or missiles with a 5” gun. If you want a main gun for anti-surface or naval bombardment you probably need to go back up to at least 155 mm or preferably 203 mm. If you need a weapon that can deal with small ships, drones & low-end aerial threats something in the 40-76 mm range is a better option. You’ll also want to have a lot of them.

[@submarinoflotador4532]

@@Horible4Dear god, when the Russians say hypersonic missiles they refer to cruise missiles not ICBMs. I’m sorry to break your little world, but the US having the biggest military budget doesn’t mean they instantly get the best technology on all fields.

[@shaider1982]

One issue is that this supposed to replace the Iowas in the gun support role hence the expensive rounds. The issue now is the USN is moving away from forced landings (ww2 operations like DDay, Pacific island hopping). Perun has a video on this and LCS.

[@torengallagher8368]

really cool that a third of every paycheck iv ever gotten went to buying a panel of glass for this thing or a missle they fired once i mean id rather it go to addressing homelessness or updating our urban planning but you know this hunk of shits pretty cool i guess

[@Yora21]

Because you are not the owner of a shipyard with friends in the government.

[@Highly-grounded]

Reject taxation embrace tax evasion

[@cursoryraptor1578]

Topic suggestions: - Why was the US so far behind China (PL-15) and Europe (Meteor) in long range air-to-air missile development for so long? - Why doesn't the US have an equivalently dirt cheap long range loitering munition like the Shaheed-136 to at least deplete air defence assets on the cheap? - Why is calling in artillery still so old fashioned when it wouldn't be too hard to engineer a device that's a mixture of a GPS, a compass ball, and a laser range finder to get and transmit target positions at the push of a button?

[@Eh-Mungu-Nguvu-Yetu-q8p]

So this guy is just task and purpose but funnier and more casual. Unlike Chris Cappy you have a great mustache. Is it weird you sound like him?

[@morecopemorerope4372]

He used to appear in a couple task and purpose episodes

[@goglinasgolosinas64]

I mean he quite literally is task and purpose, in the channel bio it says he is or was a writer for both task and purpose and Not What you Think. XD

[@brandonbuckles826]

"Getting two birds stoned at once." 😆 I'm stealing that

[@Ruzie_0]

@<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="105">1:45</a> I did that once. Had to buy a new chair.

[@zenniththefolf4888]

It looks like what happens when a game reduces the detail of a model when you move far away, but that is as detailed as it gets. Probably has less than 100 triangles.

[@OR56]

Fun fact, all 3 Zumwalt's were built at Bath Iron Works in Maine. I live about 20 minutes away, my dad's father worked there for decades, and my mom's father helped build the giant crane. I always thought the Zumwalt looked ugly, but I do still have the commemorative coin they handed out when the first one was completed.

[@scottcoley1906]

See this is why you take older tech that's still serviceable and make copies and copies of the rounds in the Navy's own facilities and watch those contractor pricetags drop like flies at a nighttime barbeque bug zapper.

[@Dcook85]

Arleigh Burke: "Okay buddy, I'm retiring, time for you to take over" Zumwalt: *autistic multi-billion dollar screeching* Arleigh Burke: *sigh* "Never mind , just go sit in the corner and don't talk to anyone."

[@raywhitehead730]

A proper perspective. There were destroyers built after the Zimwalt, that have had many cruises around the world , doing necessary military duties. The Zim had a lengthy construction to sea trials time.

[@JL_____]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="78">1:18</a> "Hypersonics being an area US lags behind". All you need to hear to know this guy doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. Embarassing...

[@Justin_Taylor]

Well now how is that supposed to make me feel

[@JL_____]

@Justin_Taylor nah man, it's just such a noob mistake to fall for Russian/Chinese propaganda. The hypersonic hype by Russia and the likes is pretty well understood by most laymen like myself who barely keep up with military news. I think you're probably well educated on certain things, but by getting something this obvious wrong, it makes me doubt your credibility more than I normally would. I respect you replying to the comment rather than ignoring or deleting it. Anyways, ofc, don't let me rain on your parade😅

[@Knight_Kin]

The Zumwalts became a good platform for experimentation. Solid ship, but the whole legacy surrounding the gun (specifically the ammo) certainly put a damper on the entire platform. Why? Role Change. The Navy decided it wanted a different capability. It's not actually a million dollars per round, that's only averaged out cost for the initial build out of the ammunition type on it's first batch of rounds. Should they ever had developed it, clearly it would have dropped (to about 1K per round). That never happened of course and the reason for that was the already mentioned mission type change. The Navy decided that capability wasn't worth building out ammo for the gun AFTER the ships were already well under their way in construction. Converting them to being big missile boats will make them useful. I don't see why it wouldn't. Remember: This ship was NOT A DESTROYER replacement, it was a BATTLESHIP replacement, something the Navy then decided they didn't want (a Battleship) and instead, turned it into a Missile Boat. Yet another channel that can't simply report on the ship, gotta add all that fluff but also give us no information. It's really not a mystery, kind of ordinary actually. This is nothing new to the US Navy. People love their gossip.

[@adamreynolds3863]

oh now its "video partner" not sponsor ok

[@zackkassner3374]

Just don’t watch it. It’s not like he’s promoting a crypto scam. It’s just a probably bad game.

[@spacemanx9595]

​@@zackkassner3374It's literally Ruzzian made and full of spyware

[@DeeEight]

The Zumwalt's were supposed to solve the lack of naval gunfire support for amphibious landings which given the number of potential beligerents with coastlines or islands is still a needed thing, essentially filling the role that the battleships and heavy cruisers used to do. To accomplish that they developed an advanced gun system in a caliber that while identical in diameter to the army's standard artillery caliber, wasn't at all the same gun or breech or ammunition (and thus eliminating any chance at commonality and reductions in unit cost by mass production for both land and naval artillery). The original program was to be 32 ships but then as R&D costs mounted and delays crept in, Congress and the Navy did their usual stupidity of cutting the # ordered, which effects the # of guns built and the shells needed to be procured, which in turn drives the unit price up further until eventually the final 3 ships are enormously expensive each and the shells now are approaching the cost of guided missiles for a smaller payload. And because they chose to ONLY develop the guided land-attack projectiles for the guns ahead of time, once they cancelled its production there was no ammunition at all available to be used. Had they simply used the Army 155mm howitzer shell as the starting point for development, then they could have tapped into the supply chain for all their conventional and guided shells. And Leonardo thru its 155mm Vulcano ammunition system DOES offer a precision guided long range shell that equalled the performance of the shells being developed for these ships.

[@soggycracker5934]

"generally lagged behind" is a weird way of saying, 'we developed it seventy years ago but didn't even need it'.

[@N7-WAR-HOUND]

We had hypersonic prototypes in the 90s but Intermediate range Ballistic Missile treaty actually meant something for us so we didn’t deploy the technology,

[@Dovoline3]

I feel like the Zumwalt is another example of the 90's "end of history" malaise. The only surface warship you should ever be designing for "asymmetrical warfare" is a carrier, because planes are a LOT better at adapting to that kind of stuff than a warship that's going to be in service for 20~30~40 years. If you REALLY need a light ship, grab some corvettes. Frankly though the ships aren't really the Navy's problem, it's the lack of trust in the armed services leading to nobody wanting to be in the Navy, which in turn means we can't field as many ships as we want of the size that we want without giving the sailors hell shifts, which hurts morale and leads to force attrition by way of at best psychological problems and at worst accidents.

[@jfangm]

The Zumwalt-class is a perfect example of putting the carriage before the horse in a one-horse town and the horse dying before you can buy it. The special rounds for the gun never materialized and the guns are not standard U.S.N. 5-inchers so they cannot fire standard 5-inch shells. That is why her guns are so expensive to fire.

[@chrisp.5272]

I love it, aluminum is pretty cool, and it looks like something out of StarWars. In general though military spending, costs to manufacture equipment/weapons domestically isn’t cost effective at all.

[@psibug565]

According to a video I watched the Zumwalt isn’t quite as big a disaster as has been made out. They realised that a lot of the tech developed for it could be fitted more easily to an up dated Arleigh Burke which could be built for less. As a development platform the Zumwalt has done OK. Unfortunately some of the big features it had gave very little advantage as the weapon systems developed to take advantage of them were canned when found to be impractical. However the Navy still have quite a few new toys and abilities from the program, or so I hear.

[@notlogical4016]

The US never fell behind in hypersonic, we just classify them differently. Every ballistic missile goes hypersonic at some point during its flight path, but being able to maneuver while maintaining hypersonic speed (to my understanding) is what we use to classify a missile as hypersonic. Russia and China don’t have hypersonics either.

[@TheJukkis]

love this style of presenting and videos in general, subbed

[@awlox_mmxx5714]

I remember going to Maine with my family for summer vacation years ago and seeing these being built in Bath. 13 year old me thought they looked so cool , kinda sad how disappointing the ship turned out.

[@donchaput8278]

I'd say this is finally the correct application for a stealth ship. Now it's just too bad there are only 3 of them. A set of 6 or 12 would be better for maintenance and rotations.

[@DaRealRoachDoggJr]

Know what’s worse, is if my information is correct, the Zumwalt class ddg doesn’t even have a smoke deck topside.

[@wolfpaw-yz9fk]

This reminds me of planes. People said guns would no longer be used on planes. We then saw how missiles are WAY easier to kill and soft kill. Requiring many planes to then equip gunpods to counter it. I feel like we'll see some form of gun return to these ships or they'll be protected by "gunboats"

[@clydedopheide1033]

Polygon of power, classic...

[@TheNavalAviator]

Half the PR disaster could be alleviated by classifying the Zumwalt as what it is, a cruiser.

[@Satire-Gaming]

We learned a lot and developed tons of new tech because of these experimental ships. That new info and tech will go into much better future ships. Was not a total loss.

[@thomaszinser8714]

In fairness, the murderous tumblehome wasn't so much intended to replace the Arleigh Burkes so much as serve a different role. Where the Burke is general purpose, with a strong focus on serving as an escort ship to carriers, the Zumwalt was pretty much entirely optimized as a shore bombardment design. Because apparently gunfire support is crucial nowadays (also because it gives a good reason to finally retire the fuckin Iowas)

[@austinray7925]

Man those F18 pilots have to be shaking in their boots with this one