And unlike the Air Force and F-22, the Navy can't point to Robert Gates decapitating Navy leadership as an explanation
for why the Zumwalt line was truncated.

Posted previously thought reason why Zumwalts canned

"The October CBO report on cost on the new FFG, gave details Table 1 of surface combatants since 1970, shows both full load and light displacement, the difference is the deadweight available for weapons, fuel, crew stores etc. Though the Zumwalt ~16,000t ship and the Burke Flight III ~10,000t both have the same deadweight of 2,100t, reflects the massive hit Zumwalt tumblehome hull design takes to stop it capsizing requiring ~6,000t internal stabilizing tanks.

Yesterday CNO Adm Gilday talking about the future destroyer LSC/DDG Next and ‘No more monstrosities’ referring to the $26 billion Zumwalt "

You have said you don't belive the CBO Zumwalt displacement figures, full load 15,656 long tons and light 13,539 long tons, but think they are in the right ballpark

Would add the retired CNO Adm Roughead who canned Zumwalt, tried to restrict buy to two ships but Congress/Pentagon insisted on completion of partially built third ship to support BIW, the procurement/build costs of the three ships, excluding development costs, $14 billion, $4.7 billion each (GAO figures in FY2020$) do understand that includes additional higher cost of first ship in class which includes the detail design etc, but even so compared to a Burke ~$2 billion each can understand Adm Roughead decision purely on cost grounds.
 
Posted previously thought reason why Zumwalts canned

"The October CBO report on cost on the new FFG, gave details Table 1 of surface combatants since 1970, shows both full load and light displacement, the difference is the deadweight available for weapons, fuel, crew stores etc. Though the Zumwalt ~16,000t ship and the Burke Flight III ~10,000t both have the same deadweight of 2,100t, reflects the massive hit Zumwalt tumblehome hull design takes to stop it capsizing requiring ~6,000t internal stabilizing tanks.

Yesterday CNO Adm Gilday talking about the future destroyer LSC/DDG Next and ‘No more monstrosities’ referring to the $26 billion Zumwalt "

You have said you don't belive the CBO Zumwalt displacement figures, full load 15,656 long tons and light 13,539 long tons, but think they are in the right ballpark

Would add the retired CNO Adm Roughead who canned Zumwalt, tried to restrict buy to two ships but Congress/Pentagon insisted on completion of partially built third ship to support BIW, the procurement/build costs of the three ships, excluding development costs, $14 billion, $4.7 billion each (GAO figures in FY2020$) do understand that includes additional higher cost of first ship in class which includes the detail design etc, but even so compared to a Burke ~$2 billion each can understand Adm Roughead decision purely on cost grounds.



Deadweight is the designed weight provision for:

crews
stores (food)
ammo
fuel

The weight is based on what the designer has been told is needed. In other words, given the crew size and weapons load, how long do you intend to be on mission and how many times to do you expect to fire your weapons. The Zumwalts have smaller crews so that means more is proportionally going to ammo. But the overall amount is based on what the US Navy thinks they will need for mission requirements.

I can’t find anything when searching for ballast tonnage in the Zumwalt. Please specify the source for your claim of 6000 tons of ballast. It sounds like you simply assigned it based on the weight difference between Zumwalt vs Burke.
 
Posted previously thought reason why Zumwalts canned

"The October CBO report on cost on the new FFG, gave details Table 1 of surface combatants since 1970, shows both full load and light displacement, the difference is the deadweight available for weapons, fuel, crew stores etc. Though the Zumwalt ~16,000t ship and the Burke Flight III ~10,000t both have the same deadweight of 2,100t, reflects the massive hit Zumwalt tumblehome hull design takes to stop it capsizing requiring ~6,000t internal stabilizing tanks.

Yesterday CNO Adm Gilday talking about the future destroyer LSC/DDG Next and ‘No more monstrosities’ referring to the $26 billion Zumwalt "

You have said you don't belive the CBO Zumwalt displacement figures, full load 15,656 long tons and light 13,539 long tons, but think they are in the right ballpark

Would add the retired CNO Adm Roughead who canned Zumwalt, tried to restrict buy to two ships but Congress/Pentagon insisted on completion of partially built third ship to support BIW, the procurement/build costs of the three ships, excluding development costs, $14 billion, $4.7 billion each (GAO figures in FY2020$) do understand that includes additional higher cost of first ship in class which includes the detail design etc, but even so compared to a Burke ~$2 billion each can understand Adm Roughead decision purely on cost grounds.



Deadweight is the designed weight provision for:

crews
stores (food)
ammo
fuel

The weight is based on what the designer has been told is needed. In other words, given the crew size and weapons load, how long do you intend to be on mission and how many times to do you expect to fire your weapons. The Zumwalts have smaller crews so that means more is proportionally going to ammo. But the overall amount is based on what the US Navy thinks they will need for mission requirements.

I can’t find anything when searching for ballast tonnage in the Zumwalt. Please specify the source for your claim of 6000 tons of ballast. It sounds like you simply assigned it based on the weight difference between Zumwalt vs Burke.


Correct, taking the CBO figures for displacement in long tons, both full and light, Zumwalt 15,656t and 13,539t and Burke Flight III 9,714t and 7,597t, the difference the is the deadweight as you say available for crews, fuel, stores, weapons - missiles and ammo etc.

The deadweight for both ships is the same at 2,117t yet the Zumwalt lightweight is 5,942t heavier than the Burke.

So question is why and only reason think of is the Burke uses a standard hull where the bow and ship sides flare out which naturally increases ship volume and buoyancy and forces the ship up when in heavy seas especially when the water comes over the decks, whereas its the opposite tumbledown hull Zumwalt, so Zumwalt needs other means, one such way is with internal tanks.

First to point out I'm not a naval architect, but would appreciate your thoughts for why the Zumwalt is 6,000t heavier ship than Burke and only delivers same deadweight/payload and that additional tonnage no doubt contributing its cost more than double that of a Burke.

Would note CBO base their cost estimates on new classes of USN surface combatants on the ships lightweight, so would presume CBO figures near enough correct.
 
Correct, taking the CBO figures for displacement in long tons, both full and light, Zumwalt 15,656t and 13,539t and Burke Flight III 9,714t and 7,597t, the difference the is the deadweight as you say available for crews, fuel, stores, weapons - missiles and ammo etc.

The deadweight for both ships is the same at 2,117t yet the Zumwalt lightweight is 5,942t heavier than the Burke.

So question is why and only reason think of is the Burke uses a standard hull where the bow and ship sides flare out which naturally increases ship volume and buoyancy and forces the ship up when in heavy seas especially when the water comes over the decks, whereas its the opposite tumbledown hull Zumwalt, so Zumwalt needs other means, one such way is with internal tanks.

First to point out I'm not a naval architect, but would appreciate your thoughts for why the Zumwalt is 6,000t heavier ship than Burke and only delivers same deadweight/payload and that additional tonnage no doubt contributing its cost more than double that of a Burke.

Would note CBO base their cost estimates on new classes of USN surface combatants on the ships lightweight, so would presume CBO figures near enough correct.


Again. Deadweight is by design and not due to leftover buoyancy. The ship is bigger and the structure itself means more weight. The flight deck is bigger. The internal mission bay has no counterpart in the Burke. The command and control center is much bigger. The 80MW of power generating equipment is significantly more powerful. The AGS guns and loading systems probably weigh a lot. There is spare space allotted for future use. There a lot of things that immediately come to mind instead of ballast. One other thing. Given the hostile attitude towards the Zumwalts evident in so much "reporting", a killer accusation of 6000 tons bigger and nothing but ballast would have been all over the place before any metal was cut.
 
My understanding is that the ballast (such as there is) is used to maintain a target waterline position for RCS purposes. Adding more system weight would allow this ballast to be reduced without affecting the draft/air draft.
 
The Spruances were criticised when they first entered service in the 70s for being too large, too expensive and underarmed. Ironically their derivatives, the Bunker Hill cruisers were so stuffed with kit that they have topweight and seakeeping issues.
The Zumwalt designers (bit like the UK T45 and CVF) clearly decided to give themselves plenty of space.
No new class of warship, especially a radical design like the Zumwalt, comes without issues. The LHA and Spruances had them in spades in the 70s, but it was the Cold War and the Soviet Navy in the North Atlantic was the traditional "enemy fleet in being".
Only with the expansion of China's Navy has it become possible to create a similar atmosphere for equipping the USN.
 
He [Rear Adm. Paul Schlise] said the service has previously executed initial design work on integrating CPS into a DDG-1000 and is now moving to the next phase to detail the design and mature a plan that can be executed to outfit the destroyer with the planned new weapon.

"I think we're looking at getting that done in the next one to two years," Schlise said. "And then, if we do have a decision [to proceed with pairing the hypersonic weapon with the destroyer] and the resources to back it up we will look at the best timeline to backfit it on the DDG-1000 class, coincident with its major yard overhaul periods that are on its schedule."

"So, the timeline is not definite yet, but we're going to move out on the congressional direction and, frankly, there's -- both within the Navy and within OSD -- a lot of excitement over this, so we're going to move pretty quickly on exploring the art of the possible for the engineering or design work that it would take to incorporate that system into DDG-1000."

Originally designed to provide naval surface fire to Marines during forcible entry operations, the Navy in 2017 shifted its thinking about how to use the DDG-1000, focusing on strike missions.

Arming a DDG-1000 with a hypersonic missile would give the destroyer a powerful new punch.

"Certainly it's going to be able to extend the range substantially and put a larger set of targets at risk," said Schlise. "The CPS round is still very much a developmental round but you know the different types of potential warheads and target sets that we can add to it is an open book still -- and I think it's probably going to be capable both in the maritime and in the land-attack role. So, we're pretty excited about it."

The two-star admiral said the statutory mandate to press ahead with plans for pairing CPS with the DDG-1000 will influence thinking about the design of the planned follow-on to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

"We are working on the large surface combatant top-level requirements right now; they were just recently approved," said Schlise. "And we think a version of a larger-diameter launcher that can handle a round like CPS will absolutely be part of that platform. And so, what we learn from the DDG-1000 integration will be applied going forward, as we think about that future Large Surface Combatant."

 
So they're leaning toward a large-diameter VLS that can accommodate CPS, which previous information has as a 34.5" weapon, for LSC. But they're also talking as if LSC's gonna have to wait for the DDG-1000 refit before it gets going.
 
So they're leaning toward a large-diameter VLS that can accommodate CPS, which previous information has as a 34.5" weapon, for LSC. But they're also talking as if LSC's gonna have to wait for the DDG-1000 refit before it gets going.
they need put CPS in SSN not DDG
 
So they're leaning toward a large-diameter VLS that can accommodate CPS, which previous information has as a 34.5" weapon, for LSC. But they're also talking as if LSC's gonna have to wait for the DDG-1000 refit before it gets going.
they need put CPS in SSN not DDG
They are, the Mission Module Virginia and the SSGN Ohios are still a thing the last I heard.

Also the Navy does want a new DDG cause the Burkes are tapped out. The Zumwalt fits the bill perfectly in all ways but policitial the most important one.

Slapping the CPS on them will make them seem useful to congress and get more of them built and all that...
 
The range of CPS is such that it seems wasteful to include it in an escort ship that should focus on defense. Presumably LSC will focus on air and missile defense; CPS just dilutes its magazine.
 
The range of CPS is such that it seems wasteful to include it in an escort ship that should focus on defense. Presumably LSC will focus on air and missile defense; CPS just dilutes its magazine.

Has the Navy clearly defined the DDG(X)'s exact role as part of the LSC fleet? I know many of us view it is through the lens of a cruiser replacement but is the navy thinking just in those terms or does it fit into the broader fleet differently? Certainly rehosting the then in service AEGIS baseline (10) and the same 14" AMDR isn't consistent with them seeking some additional AMD capability from the vessel at least in terms of targeting. Also, I'd assume that any large (r) diameter cell would also benefit future air and ballistic missile defense needs and allow the Navy to not have the Mk41 constraint slapped on its future interceptors as well. I expect it to be capable of accommodating various missile types at the very least.

I think they want a hull that can accommodate a mix of more weapons, larger weapons, and larger sensors and more room and power for directed energy etc. Exact mix of these capabilities onboard will evolve with the ship. I like it but the Navy needs to have something in its next budget that begins to show that they are serious enough to put some cash down to begin the work instead of just talking about it.
 
It seems to me the main driver of LSC vs more Burke III or a Burke IV is the need for larger radar arrays and more power. That sugguests to me that air defense, and in particular anti missile defense, is envisioned as a primary role, whether the USN has explicitly stated so or not. The CPS is a huge weapon not just in terms of diameter but also length such that fitting it will require custom cells with more deck penetration. I think employing a wider launch cell for future anti-missile systems is a good idea, but I think a CPS sized cell is *too* large and unnecessary for ship whose role is defensive.

With a range measured in thousands of miles, it seems to me that CPS could easily be based on auxiliary ships or a version of the LUSV, where they could be supported by a large cheap hull that didn't have competition for other weapons in its magazines and didn't need to host other large installations like helos, ABM radars, etc. A CPS ship never needs to be inside the first island chain. If there is a truly high priority, very inland target that requires being in theater, have the SSGNs do it.
 
To the best of my knowledge, the Navy has not really explicitly stated that the first iteration of the LSC will house a radar that is larger than the biggest SPY-6 currently funded. I think the initial versions will just re-host the variant that will be on the Flight IIIs.
 
The range of CPS is such that it seems wasteful to include it in an escort ship that should focus on defense. Presumably LSC will focus on air and missile defense; CPS just dilutes its magazine.

Has the Navy clearly defined the DDG(X)'s exact role as part of the LSC fleet?
No, which is part of the reason Congress is giving them a hard time over funding their early design work on it.
 
You all forgetting that the Subs have two "soft" issues that surface ships dont have.

One is Visibility. A sub by its nation can not be seen, and should not be know where its at. It can not do a show the Flag job. Sure it the bigger threat, but to most national leaders, it seems less of one. Very much out of sight out of mind type of deal. A sub doesn't trigger the predator response like a Surface Ship Does.

Basically its one thing to know that a Sub with CPS is there, but you get another entire reaction to SEEING a DDG with CPS off you shores. Which is often enough to keep the situation from getting worse. This has been proven multiple times over the years. Thats before you get into the Public showing of doing something at home.

Also known as Gunboat Diplomacy.

Second is Flexibility, More hulls with CPS tubes means that you have more options to do things. The USN is planing to have only 10 BV Virginias at the moment. Meaning at most 6 be out at sea at any given time. And while these missiles allow them to cover massive ranges, there is something to be said about having a several such platforms to cover a more complete range.

Also just thought of a third reason.

These tubes probably be like the VPTs on the Virginias, meaning that you can design different canisters to hold different missiles. Basically think of it like an over size MK41 VLS tube, You can put two standards or four ESSMs, or a Tomahawk in on tube. Now make that bigger. These tubes could hold 3 CPS, 12 Tomahawks or 24 plus SM2/6s per tube depending on the mission load out needs. Or an utter fuck ton of ESSMs. So say 8 tubes? Well that easly 6 CPS(2) 24 tomahawks(2) and 96 Standards(4). Looking like the USN Kirov my friends.

That is a Fleixibility the Navy will love have just on its lonesome without the before mention.
 
CPS? As for the rest of it it sounds. . .unlikely. A better solution would be a comb of Mk41s and this:

Capture (1).PNG
 
I think any surface warship works for gunboat diplomacy, regardless of specific weapons fit. I agree with the idea of needing more tubes than just subs for CPS, but I don't think they should interfere with the primary mission of an escort. It was one thing to have arsenal ships or strike cruisers when BGM-109 was the weapon with the absolute longest range and many shorter ranged weapons were contemplated; CPS is effectively an IRBM that barely needs to be in the same theater of operations as its targets. If you want more tubes on more hulls, put them on something intrinsically cheap in the first place.

As to launch tube size and flexibility: I'm not against wider cells, but CPS is going to involve penetrating an entire additional deck compared to Mk41/56. You are going to have to sell me on the other non-CPS weapons that can make use of that much weight/volume being used up for magazine before I subscribe to your newsletter.
 
These tubes probably be like the VPTs on the Virginias, meaning that you can design different canisters to hold different missiles. Basically think of it like an over size MK41 VLS tube, You can put two standards or four ESSMs, or a Tomahawk in on tube. Now make that bigger. These tubes could hold 3 CPS, 12 Tomahawks or 24 plus SM2/6s per tube depending on the mission load out needs. Or an utter fuck ton of ESSMs. So say 8 tubes? Well that easly 6 CPS(2) 24 tomahawks(2) and 96 Standards(4). Looking like the USN Kirov my friends.

That is a Fleixibility the Navy will love have just on its lonesome without the before mention.
I've have that thought as well. Much like how Long Beach and the Chicago Classes were slated to receive Polaris tubes, a modern ship could have the extra large VPTs for CPS, extra Tomahawks, or even a super-sized SM-3.
 
As to launch tube size and flexibility: I'm not against wider cells, but CPS is going to involve penetrating an entire additional deck compared to Mk41/56. You are going to have to sell me on the other non-CPS weapons that can make use of that much weight/volume being used up for magazine before I subscribe to your newsletter.
Well for one is a super size SM3 or the return of the KEI program for ABM defense. Those where to be roughly the same size of the CPS, hell if they would have went through the CPS would probably be design to fit in the KEI tubes.

One of the key design requirements for the LSC I have seen band about is the the ablity to do that better then current ships with bigger radars so why not enable it to shot it down better as well.

Since the system is longer as well you have the ability to stack more boosters on current missiles for more range and speed cheaply. Which is always a plus.
 
High marks (again) for big Z in heavy seas
Sorry boss looks like it was just the reharsing of last years article and nothing actually now. Just a hammering in that the HULL IS FUCKING SEAWORTHY YOU FUCKS type a deal.

Would prefered it being a new test just to hammer it in harder.

The lead part of the article is about late 2020 sea trials up to Sea State 6. That's new data. The rest of the article rehashes the 2019 interview comments, but it looks like there really was a new test up front.
 
High marks (again) for big Z in heavy seas
Sorry boss looks like it was just the reharsing of last years article and nothing actually now. Just a hammering in that the HULL IS FUCKING SEAWORTHY YOU FUCKS type a deal.

Would prefered it being a new test just to hammer it in harder.

The lead part of the article is about late 2020 sea trials up to Sea State 6. That's new data. The rest of the article rehashes the 2019 interview comments, but it looks like there really was a new test up front.
According to CBO Table 1 of other Navy surface combatants since 1970 given in Cost of the Navy's new frigate (Constellation) Oct 2020 report, Zumwalt is 6,000t - 60% larger ship than AB Flt III, but only has same 2,100t deadweight/payload for weapons, fuel, stores, crew etc.

Why is Zumwalt 6,000 tons larger, can only assume mainly needed for built-in tanks to ensure stability of its non-standard tumblehome hull in rough seas?
 
We have had this discussion before in this very thread, and I think you are misunderstanding what deadweight covers. Fixed armament and combat systems are certainly not included. It's also a very weird number, that you almost never cited for warships. I'd want to see the actual SWBS breakdowns before I'd comment on how much ballast there is, but 6,000 tons is very implausible.
 
Development of a more flexible Vertical Launch System able to house different sized tubes and allow for weapons growth should have been started years ago. It also applies to point defence missiles.
 
SO I fail a read check... Anyways
High marks (again) for big Z in heavy seas
Sorry boss looks like it was just the reharsing of last years article and nothing actually now. Just a hammering in that the HULL IS FUCKING SEAWORTHY YOU FUCKS type a deal.

Would prefered it being a new test just to hammer it in harder.

The lead part of the article is about late 2020 sea trials up to Sea State 6. That's new data. The rest of the article rehashes the 2019 interview comments, but it looks like there really was a new test up front.
According to CBO Table 1 of other Navy surface combatants since 1970 given in Cost of the Navy's new frigate (Constellation) Oct 2020 report, Zumwalt is 6,000t - 60% larger ship than AB Flt III, but only has same 2,100t deadweight/payload for weapons, fuel, stores, crew etc.

Why is Zumwalt 6,000 tons larger, can only assume mainly needed for built-in tanks to ensure stability of its non-standard tumblehome hull in rough seas?
Have you consider the fact that the 6000 tons is so that the navy has room to play with the weights in the future?

Remember the Burkes been around for 30 years, with the Ticos being around longer. Both of those classes are max out weight wise. Hell the Spruance was called the same, being 4000 tons or so more then its prior class, the Charles F. Adams-class destroyer, and about 2000 tons less then the Burkes. It well in line with the grow from one class to the next.


Also they are apperantly thinking on adding the SPY-6 to the Zumwalts. My Question is will they keep the SPY3 or tear it out for the X Band version of the SPY6 I occisionally read about, will like links to any acticles as well since my google has been hestitate to find me a good arcticle on what the fuck is going on with that...
 
Last edited:
SO I fail a read check... Anyways
High marks (again) for big Z in heavy seas
Sorry boss looks like it was just the reharsing of last years article and nothing actually now. Just a hammering in that the HULL IS FUCKING SEAWORTHY YOU FUCKS type a deal.

Would prefered it being a new test just to hammer it in harder.

The lead part of the article is about late 2020 sea trials up to Sea State 6. That's new data. The rest of the article rehashes the 2019 interview comments, but it looks like there really was a new test up front.
According to CBO Table 1 of other Navy surface combatants since 1970 given in Cost of the Navy's new frigate (Constellation) Oct 2020 report, Zumwalt is 6,000t - 60% larger ship than AB Flt III, but only has same 2,100t deadweight/payload for weapons, fuel, stores, crew etc.

Why is Zumwalt 6,000 tons larger, can only assume mainly needed for built-in tanks to ensure stability of its non-standard tumblehome hull in rough seas?
Have you consider the fact that the 6000 tons is so that the navy has room to play with the weights in the future?

Remember the Burkes been around for 30 years, with the Ticos being around longer. Both of those classes are max out weight wise. Hell the Spruance was called the same, being 4000 tons or so more then its prior class, the Charles F. Adams-class destroyer, and about 2000 tons less then the Burkes. It well in line with the grow from one class to the next.


Also they are apperantly thinking on adding the SPY-6 to the Zumwalts. My Question is will they keep the SPY3 or tear it out for the X Band version of the SPY6 I occisionally read about, will like links to any acticles as well since my google has been hestitate to find me a good arcticle on what the fuck is going on with that...
Zumwalts additional ~6,000t lightweight displacement vs the AB Flt III (Zumwalt 13,500t vs AB Flt III 7,600t), but both with same deadweight/payload. A ships lightweight is the actual completed build weight of the ship with no weapons (missiles, 155 mm LRLAP projectiles, helo etc), fuel, crew and stores, so no the Navy has very limited room to play with to add future weapon systems (all Navy destroyers (not frigates) and new flights have 10% design weight growth built in for SLA, service life allowance, all ships inevitably put on weight over 25-35 year life span, if too much top weight lead ballast added). Navy could rip out the non-operational AGS 155mm guns and magazines, but as ship designed around the AGS think you might be talking $billion+ including new weapon system.

The X-band SPY-6 never funded, cancelled. Navy had plans in 2017 for a new generation <$30 million X-band radar to replace the old gen SPQ-9B and SPY-3, understand progress limited to a few study contracts. If Navy does replace the Zumwalts X-band SPY-3 with the S-band SPY-6 expect it will be small variant due to top weight concerns, Navy cut costs on third Zumwalt, the Lyndon B Johnson and replaced the light balsa core composite 1,000 ton deckhouse with cheaper/heavier steel version, able to do so as Navy had earlier cancelled installation of the larger heavier S-band SPY-4 in deck house cutting top weight, again to cut costs.
We have had this discussion before in this very thread, and I think you are misunderstanding what deadweight covers. Fixed armament and combat systems are certainly not included. It's also a very weird number, that you almost never cited for warships. I'd want to see the actual SWBS breakdowns before I'd comment on how much ballast there is, but 6,000 tons is very implausible.

Correct but thought fair to raise subject again as the Defense News article yesterday was a rehash of how Zumwalt tumblehome hull sails through rough seas testing. Deadweight, perhaps should have made it clearer as you have have weapons does not include the weapon systems themselves, its the 'ammunition' missiles etc. As you would like to see the SWBS breakdown but think highly unlikely, so what do you think is the driver for the ~6,000t increase in lightweight displacement if not stability tanks for Zumwalts tumblehome hull, eg the Integrated Power System, IPS?
 
As you would like to see the SWBS breakdown but think highly unlikely, so what do you think is the driver for the ~6,000t increase in lightweight displacement if not stability tanks for Zumwalts tumblehome hull, eg the Integrated Power System, IPS

Yes, IPS. Electric motors are heavy. Also, quieting. The Zumwalts are reported to be exceptionally quiet, like to SSN levels. Armor/protection between the VLS cells and the main hull. A protected citadel in the hull for the crew. Expanded crew accomodations. The big boat deck under the flight deck. The big flight deck itself. And yes, some variable ballast, especially for signature management.
 
Last edited:
Could the Zumwalts be given a Kirov similar armament?
 
As you would like to see the SWBS breakdown but think highly unlikely, so what do you think is the driver for the ~6,000t increase in lightweight displacement if not stability tanks for Zumwalts tumblehome hull, eg the Integrated Power System, IPS

Yes, IPS. Electric motors are heavy. Also, quieting. The Zumwalts are reported to be exceptionally quiet, like to SSN levels. Armor/protection between the VLS cells and the main hull. A protected citadel on the hull for the crew. Expanded crew accomodations. The big boat deck under the flight deck. The big flight deck itself. And yes, some variable ballast, especially for signature management.
For how quieting...

Recently heard a story from some sailers recently, here you salt block bugger off. Literally head this in a bar Tom Bloody Clancy style...

So the Zumwalt did a short exercise with one of the subs, a short ad hoc thing to train the sub and do some testing on the Zumwalts sonar and sound proofing. Apperantly very short order and every ad-hoc type of thing.

So the exercise starts, and nothing happens.

Some time past and the sub decides to surface to periscope depth for comms, thinking that something must have broke on Zumwalt and no one told them. It happens on occasion so no surprise.

Periscope pops up to a sweep and the Captain starts screaming to dive cause holy fuck the Zumwalt is right there and they are about to be ran the fuck over. Meanwhile the Zumwalt went active to try and miss the sub.

Take away was that 1) the Zumwalts sonars need tweaking and 2) she quiet enough to ghost a submarine.

Rather or not that happen is up to you lot but from the other things I have heard about this class on the things that work, my four cents is this.

Fix the guns, combat system and make more of them. Number of them? YES.
 
As you would like to see the SWBS breakdown but think highly unlikely, so what do you think is the driver for the ~6,000t increase in lightweight displacement if not stability tanks for Zumwalts tumblehome hull, eg the Integrated Power System, IPS

Yes, IPS. Electric motors are heavy. Also, quieting. The Zumwalts are reported to be exceptionally quiet, like to SSN levels. Armor/protection between the VLS cells and the main hull. A protected citadel on the hull for the crew. Expanded crew accomodations. The big boat deck under the flight deck. The big flight deck itself. And yes, some variable ballast, especially for signature management.
For how quieting...

Recently heard a story from some sailers recently, here you salt block bugger off. Literally head this in a bar Tom Bloody Clancy style...

So the Zumwalt did a short exercise with one of the subs, a short ad hoc thing to train the sub and do some testing on the Zumwalts sonar and sound proofing. Apperantly very short order and every ad-hoc type of thing.

So the exercise starts, and nothing happens.

Some time past and the sub decides to surface to periscope depth for comms, thinking that something must have broke on Zumwalt and no one told them. It happens on occasion so no surprise.

Periscope pops up to a sweep and the Captain starts screaming to dive cause holy fuck the Zumwalt is right there and they are about to be ran the fuck over. Meanwhile the Zumwalt went active to try and miss the sub.

Take away was that 1) the Zumwalts sonars need tweaking and 2) she quiet enough to ghost a submarine.

Rather or not that happen is up to you lot but from the other things I have heard about this class on the things that work, my four cents is this.

Fix the guns, combat system and make more of them. Number of them? YES.
The Navy's continuing refusal to actually DO something with what is by all accounts a good design simply because it's too big(?) is getting ridiculous. They NEED a large surface combatant, and they've got the perfect base for one of them sitting right fucking there.
 
The Ticos were a last minute solution to get Aegis into service in the 1980s and did the job.
The Zumwalt has the space to ship sizeable numbers of large VLS for Air, Surface and Sub surface roles.. Now all you need is a new VLS and suitable radars.
 
As you would like to see the SWBS breakdown but think highly unlikely, so what do you think is the driver for the ~6,000t increase in lightweight displacement if not stability tanks for Zumwalts tumblehome hull, eg the Integrated Power System, IPS

Yes, IPS. Electric motors are heavy. Also, quieting. The Zumwalts are reported to be exceptionally quiet, like to SSN levels. Armor/protection between the VLS cells and the main hull. A protected citadel in the hull for the crew. Expanded crew accomodations. The big boat deck under the flight deck. The big flight deck itself. And yes, some variable ballast, especially for signature management.
IPS weight, don't know actual Zumwalt figures, the generators for the MT30 ~75t x 2 plus its electric motors ~110t x 2 plus 12 drives and misc say ~100t, total say additional 500t less savings compared to Burkes, no MGRs ~100t x 2 and one less GTG 40t, looking at approx additional 250t+ propulsion system weight compared to a Burke Flt III, so don't think its the driver for the Zumwalts near 6,000t increase in weight even if my IPS rom figures understated. Crew accomadation weight would expect to be wash, Zumwalt much higher standard than Burke but Zumwalt crew numbers half Burkes. The much larger flight deck driven by installing the 80 Mk57 cells on the periphey of the flight deck, so would require more weight and armor than required for Burkes compact layout of its MK41 VLS cells so again don't think big numbers in the thousands of tons

Zumwalts will be quiet (no noisy MGRs) but its hull mounted sonars SQS-60 & 61, medium and high frequency, were optimized for operation close in coastal waters, littoral seas, for when Zumwalt firing its non-opersational AGS 155m guns (the Burke SQS-53 is a low frequency long range sonar for operation in blue wate).
 
The hull, plant, and electrical system of the zoomies seems sound and by most accounts it is a very quiet design. It seems the basic hull would be fairly ideal for a large combatant. It wouldn’t be hard to drop the guns, add VLS, scale a version of SPY-6 to a follow on and change the sonars to something more blue water capable. The donor suite from FFGX could be substituted, possibly with the existing hull sonar the FFGX lacks.
 
Naval News update on the three Zumwalts, March 10, a few comments selected. (GAO quotes procurement cost of $14 billion, $4.7 billion each in FY2020 $).

As shared by the U.S. Navy during the Surface Navy Association’s 2021 virtual symposium, held mid-January, and more recently to other defense media. RADM Paul Schlise, NAVSEA, Director, Surface Warfare (N96) at SNA 2021 Virtual Symposium “Make no mistake about it, these three ships will be mainstays of a powerful maritime presence in the Western Pacific.”
At moment the unique AGS 155mm guns non-operational due lack of any ammunition and only 80 VLS cell vs $2 billion Burke's 96.
Naval News inquired Naval Sea Systems Command’s (NAVSEA) Office of Corporate Communication about the possibility of using new rounds for the 155mm Armored Gun Systems. Alan Baribeau of NAVSEA replied via email in February 2021: “[The] Navy continues to consider all options to include development of a round compatible with AGS or repurposing the available space should the gun be removed in a future availability.”

Rear Admiral Schlise did mention that the U.S. Navy does not plan to use the DDG 1000’s tumblehome hull as the basis for the future DDG(X) destroyer replacement, citing that a totally new hull and power plant system is required for the DDG(X) to power future systems that haven’t yet matured.
Navy not saying why its not the basis for the DDG(X) even though Zumwalt has the integrated electric power system which Navy wants for the DDG (X) for its DEW, lasers etc, as have posted previously think reason is its the additional ~ 60% displacement/very expensive costs incurred with Zumwalt's non-standard/unique tumblehome hull.

NAVSEA replied to the question on if the Zumwalts will receive new SPY radars and sensors: “The Navy is exploring several alternatives to sustain air and surface search capability aboard the Zumwalt-class ships but no decision has been made at this time.”
Navy has never explained why Zumwalts new Raytheon X-band SPY-3 radars are unfit for purpose (also fitted on Ford).

“A full ship quarter-scale Underwater Explosion (UNDEX) whipping test series was conducted in 2005 to validate the design approach and ruggedness of the hull structural design. The tests demonstrated the design capability of the tumblehome hull against design and threat level scenarios,”
Navy has refused to subject Zumwalt FSST, full ship shock trials, understand FSST is a mandatory test for new surface ships and suburmarine classes unless given explicit authority to exempt by Congress, which Navy did not receive.

NAVSEA’s Mr. Tom Rivers, Executive Director, PEO Ships for Amphibious, Auxillary, and Sealift said that the DDG 1002, USS Lyndon B. Johnson, is 97% complete and that the other two Zumwalts are undergoing testing as of mid-January 2021.
January 21, Navy spokesman said the final delivery of the Zumwalt-class destroyer Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) has been delayed two years, did they get it wrong and its the DDG-1002 Lyndon B Johnson ?

 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom