This is coolbert:
That DDG-1000 "Zumwalt" class destroyer, cost of $7 billion apiece cannot be said to be under-armed.
Will carry a mix of weaponry that does give it a formidable capability.
Designed and as envisioned to be used primarily [?] in littoral [green] waters, close to shore, bombardment of targets far inland the goal.
DDG-1000 equipped with a mix of guns, rockets, and missiles task tailored in the case of the latter.
* 57 mm guns. Two of them.
* 155 guns. Two of them, the AGS [Advanced Gun System].
* ASROC [anti-submarine rockets].
* Sea Sparrow missile. The enhanced version effective against enemy aircraft and anti-ship missile attack.
* Tactical Harpoon.
Those missiles a mix of which is task tailored for the mission, giving a capability against enemy submarines, aircraft, and anti-ship cruise missiles including the supersonic variety.
Helicopters are also organic to the DDG-1000 class, a chopper able to have a combat capability on demand? This is not clear.
That Advanced Gun System [155 mm] two of them, able to hit targets inland up to extraordinary ranges with great accuracy and lethality. Can fire a mix of conventional and precision-guided rounds but is not able to fire any of the currently available 155 mm artillery ammo as might be found in the arsenals of the army or marines.
It is significant that the U.S. Marines as of 2003 has restored the status of ANGLICO units both active duty and reserve? Those AGS crucial at long range highly reliant on the ANGLICO for target selection, terminal guidance of precision and enhanced munitions, etc.
I guess that the argument with the "Zumwalt" class destroyer is that for the cost so few of them [three] are scheduled to be built? As I have said, given ordinary deployments and re-fittings that will mean that any given moment only ONE of these vessels will be at sea anywhere in the world.