Derek Howe December 10, 2015 02:53 AM "Originally, 32 of the Zumwalt-class ships were ordered, but cost overruns reduced this to three."3 whole ships, WOW, that will stop an enemy dead in their tracks!Our government has to be the most brain dead bureaucratic group of "smart" people on planet Earth. This ship is revolutionary, so I expect a high price tag, but they need to keeps things within reason. It should not cost 4.4 billion dollars to build one ship!In 50 years I predict our Navy will have the most advanced ship ever conceived by mankind, full of immeasurable weaponry, full stealth in optical/thermal/radar, with a fusion reactor to power it to a top speed of 200mph! The only problem...we can only afford to build one, it'll be the only ship in are naval "fleet". esthero December 10, 2015 06:41 AM @Derek Howe Well said. I also have a problem with the number of very advanced weapon platforms these days. Sure they are force multipliers but how much better is their survivability? You can probably still saturate it's defenses with a combined air, sea and submarine attack or by attacking it with multiple submarines. In Europe the Americans are known for their high-tech weaponry but when push comes to shove, often the smaller and less capable European forces still outsmart their bigger ally. Especially at sea. If the Russians (forget the Chinese for the foreseeable future) are as smart as the average German, Dutch, British or Scandinavian forces, the US aircraft carriers and other large navy ships(like this new destroyer) would go down pretty quickly. The Americans are over-relying on technology. esthero December 10, 2015 06:48 AM Besides, what happend to swarm tactics? Swarming is the future, people. And if you don't believe me, just look at history and biology. Daishi December 10, 2015 07:24 AM @Derek Howe one redeeming quality is it is supposed to require far fewer people to operate. 158 people and 10% of the crew size of other ships similar in size is 1422 fewer sailors needed. Guessing the cost of a sailor at like $100k to pay and support that's $142 million in savings/year or 1.4 Billion in savings over 10 years and 2.8 billion over 20 years.If they were able to build future ships cheaper now that they have done all the tooling and R&D it might not be a complete waste of money. Sometimes the high upfront costs of automation are worth the return.If you think about it if it's possible to drive and shoot tanks with only 1 or 2 players in video games the same is pretty much true in real life. You could shave off a ton of weight and cost in the process. Something like a smaller MRAP with better guns. Bob December 10, 2015 12:28 PM Several good comments here. One of the biggest problems with high technology is a little critter called a bug. Logistics will be extremely difficult for a variety of super high tech weapons. Our government has a habit of building a supply of high tech weapons and then closing down the factory. Resupply will be delayed if not impossible. Iman Azol December 10, 2015 01:22 PM They only cost $4.4 billion because there are 3. Had all 32 been built, the price would have been far lower. You are correct that the government is brain dead. This is the process:Committee to design new ship. Committee to review proposals. Congressional debate to accept Navy's recommendation. Approval to develop plans. Contractors paid to do prototyping and demonstrator models. Selection of final version. Contractor awarded contract.Then, this is the important part: ALL THAT COST is assigned to the finished project. "ZOMG! The $1 bn destroyer is going to cost $1.5 Bn. Cut back from 32 to 25. ZOMG! They're now $1.6 bn each. Cut back to 15! ZOMG! The price keeps increasing the fewer we build! Just do the three on the cancellation order and write it off. $4.4 bn each. GREEDY CONTRACTORS!"BTW, for comparison, the flyaway cost of a new top of the line jumbo jet is about a half billion. So, really, these ships are not that expensive. MaximKarlRice December 10, 2015 01:23 PM More hi-tech death and destruction funded by our tax dollars.... Phillip Noe December 10, 2015 01:36 PM Another unnecessary weapon system brought to you by the industrial war machine to keep our future generations in debt. It's past time to downsize this aspect of our military. bobcat4424 December 10, 2015 01:54 PM There is a small matter called the Piper Cub Paradox. It basically says that if you pitted one F-35 (or other aircraft or ship) against the number of Piper Super Cubs that the same dollar amount would buy --- An F-35 can carry four internal AAM's and a Piper Super Cub one --- the Piper Cubs will always win. The point is that military toys get so expensive that the very expense becomes their Achilles Heel. During WWII the Japanese figured they would rule the Pacific with two battle fleets, each headed up by one of two gigantic battleships. But in fact they because so important to the Japanese that they were afraid to risk them in battle and both saw very little action. They were just too big (and expensive) to fail. LocalHero December 10, 2015 01:57 PM Plenty of money in the budget for this god-awful murder machines. May it soon find itself at the bottom of the ocean. I could care less.