The Navy’s Zumwalt problem

OPINION:

Some problems in life are so big they defy summary, maybe even resolution. Still, they are important. On the list go societal differences about religion, politics, and now the U.S. Navy’s Zumwalt-class destroyer. Where does one begin? These stealthy destroyers were supposed to be brilliance incarnate, America’s answer to radar detection, aging destroyers, able to take out land-based missiles from great distance, validating the new (actually old) “tumblehome” hull design, and eventually sporting electromagnetic “rail guns.”

Ironically, their design was said to be better for navigating tight spaces, their stealthy design revolutionizing “denial and deception,” their unprecedented energy generation, firepower and eventual lasers and rail guns opening a new era in naval warfare. The goal was 32 sleek destroyers. That got narrowed to 24, then three, by congressional mandate. Cost per copy: $7.5 billion, twice a Virginia-class submarine. Number launched: one. Capability: questionable.

So, when the phone rings and American taxpayers ask how their money is being spent on Navy assets — when they ask whether their hard-earned dollars are being husbanded, thoughtfully allocated, carefully applied to ships and weapons that work, to make them safer — what do we tell them?

Well, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, put aside religion and politics. Let us focus on the Zumwalt. Here is an example of stewardship. Please follow us, not too closely. We worked hard on the design, and actually, even as the first ship sails, we continue to redesign her. True, we are not sure why the ship just got stuck in the Panama Canal, lost all power, and had to be towed home. True, this was our second mishap. But stand by — we will fix this.

True, we are not quite sure if she rolls over on high seas, especially since some naval architects doubt her stability. Said one: The Zumwalt “will capsize in a following sea at the wrong speed if a wave at an appropriate wavelength hits it at an appropriate angle.” But stand by — we are watching that.

True, stealth had to be abbreviated, to “save money.” According to the U.S. Naval Institute, “The original design of the ship would have had a much smaller Radar Cross-Section (RCS), but cost considerations prompted the Navy to make trades to save money.” Stand by — working that.

How is she on shore bombardment, that main mission? Darn good, in theory. True, she needs a flotilla of high visibility pickets, a small battle group to get her into position. Their stealth? Well, we are working on that, too.

Look over here — big savings on crew. We need only 142 crew for the Zumwalt, not the full complement of 300. And the crew manages 80 missile tubes and two giant guns that can hit the shore 80 miles away. Plus, we might add lasers, rail guns, helicopters and drones.

How does she defend against ballistic missiles? Is she equal to Arleigh Burke-class destroyers? Darn good question. “One thing the ship won’t be able to do is defend against ballistic missile attacks — which is one of the reasons the Navy ditched the design in favor of the older Burke-class design ” says one report. Why? “While the ship’s AN/SPY-3 radar is capable, it does not operate in the proper frequency band for that mission.” Darn. We’re working on that, too. Besides, who is deploying ballistic missiles with any frequency, other than China?

Let’s drop the capability pros and cons and go back on costs. We are naming the third Zumwalt the USS Lyndon B. Johnson. Now tell me: Doesn’t that cut us slack? What could we get for $7.5 billion? Let’s see: 10 round trips to the moon (which cost $750 million each), nine Airbus 380s (at roughly $800 million per copy), seven-and-a-half World Series-winning baseball teams (the Chicago Cubs are valued at $1 billion), 35 F-35 fighters, seven countries the size of the Solomon Islands (based on gross domestic product), or a tax break of $50 for every American taxpayer.

You want to discuss naval procurement reform? Why? You want to know how we look after your investment? You want to talk about protecting America and our allies? How we are planning the future? Navy leadership? You have questions? You want your money back?

Look, this stuff is really complicated, like religion and politics. You may not have noticed — these things are controversial. We will get to procurement reform, return on investment, work out designs, capabilities, operations, how to get through the Panama Canal. This is a Zumwalt — we’ll fix it. Hello? Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer said something about Trump-Pence and accountability, and just hung up. Darn.

• Robert Charles, a former U.S. Navy intelligence officer, was assistant secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration.