Zumwalt was too expensive and we built just 3--and couldn't afford to make the special ammo for the super guns. The LCS, while a good idea for a ship that was multi-role in a serial way by having open space for replaceable mission modules, failed in action. The modules were late and too expensive. And the basic ships got too expensive.
So we extended our Burke multi-role destroyers by building more and planning to repair the early models; and we are truncating the LCS and trying to add more capabilities in a static fashion.
But now the Navy finds it can't afford to keep repairing and updating the early Burke destroyers if it is to afford other things it wants to do. So the search is on for a new destroyer:
This new destroyed is called the FSC (“Future Surface Combatant”) and the first of these is not expected to enter service until after 2030. No final design has been completed but much tech from the Zumwalts will be used and errors of the over-budget Zumwalts avoided. It looks like the FSC will probably be based on the last of the restart Burkes. These Flight III destroyers max out the Burke hull but new propulsion systems and redesign of what goes in the hull would do it.
Assume that the capability to generate a lot more electricity to power future weapons and defenses--like lasers, rail guns, weaponized AESA radars, and electric armor--will be one feature of the new class.
The Navy is running out of time to get its ability to design and build quality new ships given the rise of China's naval power.
But there is hope that the FSC can be built under cost if it uses the basic proven Burke hull design modified to be large enough to incorporate the new technology of the Zumwalt class.
You may recall that I wrote that Zumwalt (aka DDG-1000) would live on in another ship:
Given that the research and development costs for DDG-1000 are already spent, the decision [to build a third ship] should be made narrowly on the cost of actually building the third ship. And since the rule of thumb is 1 ship forward for every 2 back in port, if we want the capabilities that the ship carries to be more or less constantly available, we should build the third.
Regardless, the research and development costs won't be lost. By canceling the ship class, it looks fiscally responsible but it really isn't. It's just accounting, since the next ship built using the exact same technology that by the rules has to be counted against the cost of the ship the research was done for will use Zumwalt technology that is now already paid for. Voila! A cheaper warship.
The new frigate (back to the Strategypage post) sounds more like a Burke-light than a cheap frigate (although we'll still have the new but truncated and struggling LCS class for the low end of the fleet):
The navy is also considering designs for a new FFG(X) frigate, to replace the LCS ships. There are four candidates and two most likely choices are existing European designs; the Spanish F-100 and Italian FREMM. These are successful existing ships designed to be easily modified to suit a large number of different requirements. The FFG(X) will have a modified Aegis radar and 32 VLS cells. Thus it could also provide BMD (ballistic missile defense) using the Aegis BMD capabilities many Burkes already have.
Again, basing the new frigate on an existing proven hull will help with cost overrun problems. And using the Burke technology but just in smaller doses will simplify maintenance, training, and ammunition procurement.
And here we are. The technology is already paid for. Now let's see if the quality of the shipbuilding is under control.
A lot is riding on the ability to build the FSC and FFG(X) lest the Chinese leap ahead in warship technology.
