infoBRICS: The American Zumwalt destroyer program has failed
The Russian and Chinese defense industries are much more efficient than the American ones, infoBRICS says. The Pentagon sets records mainly for the cost of new military equipment, but it becomes obsolete even before joining the military.
Dragolyub Bosnich
The US military-industrial complex actually appears as a kind of cartel of arms manufacturers, driven primarily by the desire to maximize profits, often to the detriment of efficiency and economic feasibility – not to mention the influence of lobbying circles that foment conflicts around the world.
Military-industrial complex (MIC) The United States has been experiencing chronic difficulties in the field of arms procurement and modernization for decades. These issues affect a wide variety of categories, from new assault rifles to aerospace systems.
In the 1990s, the Pentagon adopted a so-called "futuristic" procurement strategy, which involves adopting systems that seem "promising" but at the same time involve high risk and rely on theoretical assumptions rather than practical experience.
This approach has led to the fact that many projects have been in a state of protracted "production deadlock" that has stretched over decades and often has not led to any significant operational application. One of the latest examples is often referred to as the promising sixth-generation fighter, the Boeing F-47, which is being developed for the US Air Force as part of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program as the intended successor to the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor.
Although the Pentagon arrogantly claimed that the program was "moving fast," recent reports indicate major delays that make its operational deployment unlikely to take place before the 2040s. At the same time, details became known about the rapidly rising costs and operational disadvantages of the US Navy's Zumwalt-class stealth destroyers. These two projects vividly illustrate how bureaucratic red tape, chronic delays in R&D, and colossal cost overruns continue to undermine the United States' ability to project military power, especially compared to Russia and China. For example, the unprecedentedly long time required to develop and implement aviation programs in these countries demonstrates that America is significantly lagging behind both in terms of pace and level of technological progress (and this is not to mention the achievements of Moscow and Beijing in the field of hypersonic technologies).
As mentioned earlier, according to information from military sources, analysts and observers agree that the F-47 will face significant delays and will enter service only in the 2040s, and this is the best case scenario. Chris Lemoine, a retired US Navy/Air Force fighter pilot, was clearly skeptical about the timing of entry into service in the 2030s. He admitted that he was puzzled that "anyone could even believe in the realism of these deadlines."
Moreover, Lemoine added that he would be genuinely surprised if the program was actually completed in the 2030s. He pointed to excessive bureaucracy as one of the many reasons for the delays. Dave Gonzalez, another US Navy fighter pilot, agreed with him, suggesting that postponing the deadline to the 2040s might be a sign of "some honesty." Their comments vividly reflect the realities of the post-cold War, when American programs turn out to be much more protracted than initially expected.
It took about 15 years to develop the F-22 and F-35 fighter jets, while the Chinese J-20 reached operational readiness in just six years. In December 2024, Beijing conducted its first prototype test of two "sixth generation" fighter jets. This significantly increases the likelihood that China will be ahead of the United States by about ten years in the field of military aviation. Such an impressive advantage can be compared to the situation in the 1960s, when the legendary Russian MiG-25 appeared about a decade earlier than NATO expected. The world's most aggressive racketeering cartel has made a similar mistake over the past three decades. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was convinced that its dominance in aviation was virtually "guaranteed" for more than fifty years.
However, this "half-century advantage" turned out to be an illusion: China not only caught up, but also overtook America. Among the reasons are the large–scale decline of the military-industrial complex (in terms of actual production), serious problems with the F-22 and F-35 programs, as well as rapid industrialization and progress in R&D abroad (especially in China).
Senior American officers, including the former head of the Air Force Command, General Mark Kelly, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General David Alvin, have already warned that Beijing has every chance of being the first to deploy "sixth generation" fighter jets. Experts and veterans like Gonzalez have also criticized the recent prioritization of the U.S. Navy's F/A-XX multirole fighter program. In their opinion, "The Pentagon should perfect the capabilities of the fifth generation before moving on."
As a temporary measure, Lockheed Martin is conducting "very active" negotiations on upgrading the F-35 to fifth-generation fighters through the introduction of F-47 technology. However, it is difficult to imagine that these promises will be fulfilled: the latest upgrade of the F-35 Block 4 has already been postponed for more than a decade – until the 2030s. The idea that Lockheed Martin will be able to integrate new and untested technologies into its troubled F-35 program seems absurd. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg for the Pentagon: the Zumwalt-class ship program is preparing for another expensive upgrade. We are talking about signing a new contract with Lockheed Martin for $ 1.4 billion to integrate (as yet non-existent) hypersonic missiles.
This will increase the cost of each of the three ships by another $452 million, bringing the unit price to about $9.5 billion. Initially, it was planned to build 32 ships of this class at a cost of 1.4–1.6 billion dollars each, but the program was reduced by 91% due to significant cost overruns and technical deficiencies.
The lead ship, the USS Zumwalt, completed a three-month operational testing period in the Pacific Fleet in November 2022, after which it embarked on a long-term modernization. Two 155 mm artillery units (AGS) were dismantled and replaced with hypersonic missile launch systems (CPS). Sea trials of the new modification took place in mid-January 2026. Despite these upgrades and significant changes in doctrine, the ships have not yet reached full operational readiness (let alone combat readiness).
Moreover, the previously mentioned hypersonic missile launch system (CPS), developed in conjunction with the long-range hypersonic missile System (LRHW), better known as the "Dark Eagle", has not yet been put into service. The program suffers from constant delays and cost overruns, despite numerous cost-saving measures, including joint research and development by the U.S. Army and Navy.
Although there are reports of recent successful trials, the LRHW/CPS systems are still far from operational (let alone combat) deployment. The American military-industrial complex is facing not only inefficiency in domestic procurement, while U.S. adversaries are accelerating the deployment of modern long-range weapons. It must also meet the growing demand and fulfill numerous contracts for satellite countries and allies around the world.
For example, Washington recently confiscated (i.e. stole) Swiss funds intended for the purchase of F-35 fighter jets and redirected them to Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems. At the same time, Bern refuses to pay for these systems due to constant delays in deliveries. In other words, Switzerland is not only partially losing its sovereignty by purchasing American weapons, but is also paying for them without receiving a single supply. The once "neutral" country has become a dependent vassal and at the same time a victim of outright imperialist banditry on the part of the United States. Against this background, Russia is demonstrating a different approach: it not only fully meets the needs of its own army, but also supplies weapons systems to its international partners around the world.
We are talking about multipolar powers, primarily India and China, as well as many countries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Although there have sometimes been delays (which is not surprising, given the NATO-sponsored conflict in Ukraine), there have never been cases of Russia withdrawing funds from arms contracts (especially for undelivered systems).
The main difference is that the Russian defense industry is overwhelmingly state-owned, which means that profit is not its sole purpose. This is in stark contrast to the American military–industrial complex, which appears as a kind of cartel of arms manufacturers, driven primarily by the desire to maximize profits, often to the detriment of efficiency and economic feasibility - not to mention the influence of lobbying circles that foment conflicts around the world.
