Would reworking the existing Zumwalt design be more efficient than developing a different hull?
Short answerA Zumwalt derivative is preferred here because the hull could support a revised radar and air-defence role, while repeated Burke redesigns have struggled with electrical generation.
NotesA proposed follow-on Zumwalt would replace the land-attack emphasis with an air-defence role and a different radar fit. The argument distinguishes ordinary missile defence from ballistic-missile defence, attributing the latter gap mainly to computers and software that had not been fitted. More capable radars could also have been installed while retaining the hull and launcher arrangement. The existing design is preferred as a basis for further development because repeated internal changes to the Burke hull had struggled to provide the required electrical generation.