Analysis of Alternatives: Zumwalt-class DDGs

     In 2011 The Navy began construction of it's latest class of DDGs, the Zumwalt-class. The mission of the Zumwalt-class is shore bombardment and cruise missile attack, with a little bit of AAW thrown in as well. However, the Zumwalt-class does not have sufficient VLS (80 missile cells) space to provide effective AAW while at the same time carrying the number of Tomahawks needed. At the same time Zumwalt-class has concerns about it's seakeeping capabilities  due to it's tumblehome hull design. The Zumwalt-class will also not be built it large numbers, with a production run of only three ships. Leaving the vast majority of the Navy without any high caliber guns for shore bombardment. Here are what I believe are solid alternatives to the Zumwalts.

     1. Modify Burke-class destroyers under construction and DDGs 85-112 to mount a single Mk 71 8"/55 caliber gun on the bow. The Mk 71 was developed back in the 1970s to fill the growing gap in naval gunfire support, as there were few guns in the Navy larger than 5". The Mk 71 offers improved range over a 155mm gun firing the M795 (27km vs 22.5km) and a larger round (118kg v 46.7kg). Off the shelf is a match for any 155mm gun in U.S. inventory firing any type of ammunition (the only acceptation being the LRLAP round).
     I would argue that the Mk 71 is better than the AGS because the AGS has no anti-ship capability, and fires only one round, the LRLAP. With only a small amount of LRLAPs being purchased for only 6  operation guns (3 Zumwalts, 2 guns apiece), the cost per round will be abnormally high. To sum it up, I'd like to quote ComNavOps over at Navy Matters.

• Cost – when the Navy committed to the AGS the Mk71 development costs were already long since paid for.  The gun was essentially free and a prototype had already been successfully tested.  Advanced rounds, if desired, would have entailed additional costs just as for the AGS.
• Explosive Power – the 8” round is so much more effective than a 6”.
• Shipboard Impact – the AGS, as we’ve discussed has a major impact on ship design and ship utilities.  The Mk71 is a simple gun and easily accommodated.
• Flexibility – the Mk71 is a general purpose gun capable of engaging both ship and shore targets unlike the AGS which has no anti-ship mode.

Since it is almost impossible to cancel the Zumwalts at this point, it would be best to cancel the AGS and LRLAP, and mount Mk 71s in lieu of AGSs on the Zumwalt-class. They will provide the Zumwalt-class with a WVR anti-ship capability and an improved naval gunfire support capability at a lower cost.

     2. New class of AAW and land attack ships built around large numbers VLS cells and the AMDR.  This is basically the Arsenal ship concept, a stretched Tico hull (Long Beach size) with an increased number of VLS cells, a nuclear power plant, and an Air and Missile Defense Radar. Remove the helipad, aviation facilities, 5" guns, torpedo tubes, and ASW suite. This would make room for 8-10 more Mk 41 VLSs, yielding a magazine increase of 481-610 missiles. The sole mission of this ship would be to provide anti-air coverage for carriers, and BMD and land attack support for amphibious assaults. The Zumwalt-class has a smaller VLS capacity than the Ticos (80 vs. 122), and yet it is expected to contribute in AAW while at the same launching TLAMs in support of amphibious assaults. This leads to a compromise and a loss of capability in the area of AAW which will be pivotal in any amphibious assaults.
      I do not believe that the Zumwalt-class is the right choice for the Navy in light of cost overruns and continued delays. Each mission (naval gunfire support, land attack, and AAW) that the Zumwalt-class is meant to perform requires vastly different capabilities, with AAW and land attack requiring large numbers of VLS cells which will deny space to needed guns for naval gunfire support. It would be more effective to build a class of ships meant entirely for missile warfare (AAW and land attack), while modifying existing and future destroyers to carry the Mk 71 to provide more effective naval gunfire support.

Analysis of Alternatives: The Littoral Combat Ship

     Back in 2012 I ran a post that called for the cancellation of the Littoral Combat Ship on the grounds that none of it's required modules have become operational, and the fact that the LCS is underarmed. Here are what I belive are solid alternatives to the LCS.

1. Visby-class corvette.

     The Visby-class was developed in Sweden for ASuW and ASW. The Visby-class runs about 184 million dollars each. Specs:

Displacement:	640 tonnes
Length:	72.7 m
Beam:	10.4 m
Draught:	2.4 m
Propulsion:	CODOG 2 × 125SII Kamewa Waterjets 4 × Vericor TF50A gas turbines, total rating 16 MW 2 × MTU Friedrichshafen 16 V 2000 N90 diesel engines, total rating 2.6 MW 3 x generators of 270kW each
Speed:	35+ knots
Range:	2500nm @ 15 knots
Complement:	43
Sensors and processing systems:	Ericsson Sea_GIRAFFE AMB 3D surveillance radar Ceros 200 fire control radar system Condor CS-3701 tactical radar surveillance system GDC Hull-mounted sonar Hydroscience Technologies towed array sonar system GDC variable depth sonar
Electronic warfare & decoys:	Rheinmetall TKWA/MASS (Multi Ammunition Softkill System)
Armament:	1 × Bofors 57 mm Mk3 8 × RBS15 Mk2 AShM 4 × 400 mm torpedo launchers for Type 45 torpedoes Mines and depth charges Provision for but not fitted with 2 × 6 127 mm ALECTO anti-submarine rocket launchers (cancelled) 8 × Umkhonto SAM(cancelled)
Aviation facilities:	Helicopter pad

Modify the Visby-class to carry a RIM-116 in lieu of Umkhonto SAMs, Mk48s or Mk50s in lieu of Type 45 torpedoes (along with 324mm or 533mm torpedo tubes as needed). Exchange the RBS15 for two quad Harpoon launchers, and the Bofors 57mm gun for an OTO Melera 76mm gun. Exchange the electronics and propulsion for U.S. equipment where possible and affordable. Then we have a lightweight, fast ship built specifically for combat in the littorals at a lower cost than the LCS.

2. Saar 5 corvette

The Saar 5-class corvette was designed by the Israeli Navy, as the latest in the Saar series which traces it roots back to Germany's WWII E-Boats. The mission of the Saar 5-class is ASuW, with a touch of AAW.  The price of a Saar 5 corvette is 260 million dollars. Specs:

Class & type:	Corvette
Displacement:	1,227 tonnes (full load) 1,075 tonnes (standard)
Length:	85.64 m (280.97 ft)
Beam:	11.88 m (38.98 ft)
Draft:	3.17 m (10.40 ft)
Propulsion:	Combined Diesel or Gas 2 MTU V12 1163 TB82 diesel engines General Electric LM2500 gas turbine
Speed:	20 knots (37 km/h) (diesel engines) 33 knots (61 km/h) (gas turbine)
Range:	3,500 nautical miles (6,500 km)
Complement:	64 officers and crewmen 10 aircrew
Sensors and processing systems:	Elta EL/M-2218S air search radar Elta EL/M-2221 fire-control radar EDO Type 796 sonar Rafael towed sonar array
Electronic warfare & decoys:	Argon ST AN/SLQ-25 Nixie decoy Elbit chaff rocket launchers Rafael RF corner reflector Elisra NS-9003A/9005 RWR
Armament:	8 RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles 64 Barak 1 surface-to-air missiles Phalanx CIWS 6 Mark 32 torpedo tubes (Mark 46 torpedoes)
Armor:	Steel and aluminum
Aircraft carried:	Eurocopter Panther, unmanned helicopter[1]
Aviation facilities:	Helipad and helicopter hangar

      Global Security lists the ship as being armed with a Phalanx 20mm CIWS (as shown in the picture above). Changes to the design would be to replace Israeli electronics with American where possible and affordable, and possibly the addition of a 76mm gun. 

3. New build Perry-class frigates

     The Perry-class is a strudy design that can take a beating and keeping on moving (see the USS Samuel B. Roberts). Designed to escort amphibs and merchant convoys in a WWIII scenario they had an emphasis on AAW, but still highly capable in the area of ASuW. The last Perry-class frigate, the USS Ingraham, cost about 785 million dollars when adjusted for inflation (cost comes from the 1983-84 issue of Jane's Fighting Ships). Specs for the Ingraham:

Displacement:	4,100 tons (4,165 t) full load
Length:	453 ft (138.1 m), overall
Beam:	45 ft (13.7 m)
Draft:	27 ft (6.7 m)
Propulsion:	2 × General Electric LM2500-30 gas turbines generating 41,000 shp (31 MW) through a single shaft andcontrollable-pitch propeller
Speed:	29+ knots (54+ km/h)
Range:	5,000 nm (9,300 km) at 18 knots (33 km/h)
Complement:	15 officers and 190 enlisted, plus SH-60 LAMPS detachment of roughly six officer pilots and 15 enlisted men
Armament:	1 × OTO Melara Mk 75 76 mm/62 caliber naval gun 2 × Mk 32 triple-tube (324 mm) launchers for Mark 46 torpedoes 1 × Vulcan Phalanx CIWS 4 × .50-cal (12.7 mm) machine guns.
Aircraft carried:	2 × SH-60 LAMPS III helicopters

      The only change to the design would be to add a Mk 41 VLS in lieu of the Mk 13 launcher that was deleted from later Perrys.
      Each of the ships discussed above could be built under license in U.S. shipyards, in fact only the Visby-class has not been built in a U.S. shipyard. In the mid-90s the Israelis had Ingalls buld the Saar 5-class. Each of these classes, barring the Perrys, are cheaper than the LCS which costs 680.7 million dollars. Each of these classes has a greater combat capability than the LCS, and greater survivability in combat. Each of these classes is better than the LCS and offers a solid alternative.