Goodbye Zumwalt's guns:
The [Navy] has been struggling to find a use for the ship’s advanced gun system — the largest of its type fielded by the service since World War II — and now is considering stripping them off the platform entirely, said Capt. Kevin Smith, the DDG-1000 program manager at Program Executive Officer Ships. ...
The Navy got in its present pickle with the 155mm/.62-caliber gun with automated magazine and handling system because the service cut the buy from 28 ships, to seven, and finally to three.
The AGS was developed specifically for the Zumwalt class, as was the LRLAP round it was intended to shoot. There was no backup plan, so when the buy went from 28 to three, the costs remained static, driving the price of the rounds through the roof.
The plan is to put in ship-killing systems, because a year ago the Zumwalt had its mission officially changed from shore bombardment to anti-ship missions.
The land attack mission was always nonsense.
But given that the Navy is seeking Army and Marine Corps help against ships by trying to get them to put land-based artillery systems into the kill net in the western Pacific, why can't the Navy do it?
And if the Navy can establish shore batteries to fight ships, why not use a long-range Navy gun and round already designed rather than get the Army and Marines to adapt fires systems designed for land warfare work against ships?
The original assumption was that the Navy would buy 28 Zumwalts, meaning 56 guns. If that number of guns made the LRLAP rounds affordable, with 6 guns on 3 ship, the Navy just needs 50 more guns--call it 12 4-gun batteries and some extras for training back in the United States.
