DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

[sferrin]

The Navy’s next large surface combatant will probably look more like the futuristic Zumwalt class of guided-missile destroyers than fleet’s current workhorse class of Arleigh Burke destroyers, the program executive officer said.

https://news.usni.org/2019/06/19/navy-next-large-surface-combatant-will-look-a-lot-like-zumwalt

The other aspect of the DDG 1000 shape is the stealth advantage it gives. The main problem for the Zumwalt was cost. Fixing the way the Navy manages ship construction so it doesn't balloon up the cost will probably require cultural changes and that is never easy.

DDG 1000 was optimized for land attack and clearly that is not the mission anymore so these 3 ships will probably wind up being like the Seawolf class (highly specialized). I would favor making use of the 80MW of electrical power for railguns and DEWs while also removing the AGS and looking at whether Prompt Global Strike missiles could fit.

I would hope they'd use them more as in-service test beds of a sort. I know that sounds contradictory but what I mean is really wring them out and find out what they'd need to change for them to become the basis of the LSC.

Replace the forward AGS with a railgun the aft with something like Northrop Grumman's modular launch system (for larger missiles) while keep the Mk57 PLS. Add a couple SSL turrets above the hangar, and give it the latest Aegis system and you're pretty much there.

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

SM-2 BLK IIIAZ: The DDG 1000 Standard Missile Program of record plan is to procure SM-2 Blk IIIAZ modifications to support deployment of DDG 1000 Class Ships. This line item provides funds to procureSM-2 modification kits to support DDG 1000 Program. Funding includes modification kit installation in SM-2 Blk IIIA rounds. SM-2 Blk IIIA AEGIS missiles require hardware and software changes to becompatible with the new (non-AEGIS) DDG 1000 radar, combat system, X-band link and interrupted continuous wave illumination. The July 2013 R3B (Resources, Requirements Review Board) set the requirement at 40. The addition of 14 kits in FY21 and 25 kits in FY22 is required due to insufficient SM-2 rounds for ZUMWALT Class ships load-out to support full operational capability. SM-2 BLKIIIAZ funding includes rounds and support costs.

The FY2021 budget provides funding for an additional 14 kits and support in FY21 ($17.3M). This is required due to insufficient SM-2 rounds for ZUMWALT Class ships load-out to support fulloperational capability. SM-2 BLKIIIAZ funding includes rounds and support costs. Cost Element 2.1.1/2.1.8: FK830 Production Engineering/Support: Provides field activity and contract production support for missile modification and delivery to include production engineering, design andanalysis, quality and safety assurance, documentation, and production test support for SM-2 BLKIIIAZ and SM-2 BLKIIIC. SM-2 BLKIIIAZ funds support for unit production that initially ended in FY18 but restarted in FY21.

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/21pres/WPN_Book.pdf

so slowly...
what did they (PEO Ships) do for three years, it was not clear that only 40 missiles it is not enough?



FY17 cost 407,875 $ for 1 mod
FY21 cost 1,200,000 $ for 1 mod

 

[Moose]

Some genius that came in a couple years ago wanted to force the class to use all ESSM and SM-6, no SM-2 Block IIIA/B, as a cost-saving measure.

 

[Cordy]

@fredymac , a later USNI article, March 17, 2020 reporting the Large Surface Combatant, LSC, pushed out to 2028

Navy’s Next Major Ship Program Sees Challenges Balancing Requirements and Cost - USNI News

SAN DIEGO, Calif. – The Navy’s new requirements process that brings industry in early to refine ideas and conduct prototyping may have prevented the service from going down a costly path with its Large Surface Combatant, the head of Naval Sea Systems Command said. Acquisition leaders have touted...

news.usni.org

@sferrin "Replace the forward AGS with a railgun the aft with something like Northrop Grumman's modular launch system (for larger missiles) while keep the Mk57 PLS. Add a couple SSL turrets above the hangar, and give it the latest Aegis system and you're pretty much there. "

Any estimate how many $billions those changes would cost, just the railgun firing Its 25 lb? shell (Iowa battleships had real firepower with its 16" shells of 1,900 and 2,700 lbs). EMRG FY2020 budget $7.6 billion, to move from TRL 2/3 to TRL 6, a 4 to 8 year program and then needs to be at TRL 9 to install on ship, maybe IF development a success will be installed on the LSC for IOC of ~2035.

@AA/AWW-14(V) The DOT&E Dec 20, 2019 reported that Navy has encountered severe problems with the special to Zumwalt SM-2 Blk IIIAZ and ESSM's to work with its SPY-3 radar and were not operationally effective, presume why not buying more than test quantities as they don't work.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2019/navy/2019ssd_ddg1000.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115519-893

As said my view just throwing good money after bad into the Zumwalt $24 billion black hole.

 

[fredymac]

Any estimate how many $billions those changes would cost, just the railgun firing Its 25 lb? shell (Iowa battleships had real firepower with its 16" shells of 1,900 and 2,700 lbs). EMRG FY2020 budget $7.6 billion, to move from TRL 2/3 to TRL 6, a 4 to 8 year program and then needs to be at TRL 9 to install on ship, maybe IF development a success will be installed on the LSC for IOC of ~2035.

@AA/AWW-14(V) The DOT&E Dec 20, 2019 reported that Navy has encountered severe problems with the special to Zumwalt SM-2 Blk IIIAZ and ESSM's to work with its SPY-3 radar and were not operationally effective, presume why not buying more than test quantities as they don't work.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2019/navy/2019ssd_ddg1000.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115519-893

As said my view just throwing good money after bad into the Zumwalt $24 billion black hole.

Just to make things clear:
-Technology Readiness Level 1: Basic principles observed and reported
-Technology Readiness Level 2: Technology concept and/or application
-Technology Readiness Level 3: Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept formulated
-Technology Readiness Level 4: Component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment
-Technology Readiness Level 5: Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment
-Technology Readiness Level 6: System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment
-Technology Readiness Level 7: System prototype demonstration in an operational environment
-Technology Readiness Level 8: Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration
-Technology Readiness Level 9: Actual system proven through successful mission operations

If you take the railgun currently at White Sands and simply bolted it onto a ship for demonstration and test, that would rate level 7.

The railgun development budget to date is likely to be a $billion or less (to get to TRL 6 in the desert). To get to a fully operational weapon deployed on ships could definitely take $billions but would be applicable to all future ships with the required electrical capacity.

The Iowa guns as big as they were could not reach out more than 20-30 miles. The railgun at 64MJ would go 200 miles and reach into space where it could be used for antimissile intercepts. At $20-30K per shot, the railgun projectile is dirt cheap compared to everything else (other than DEW). And of course, there are no stored explosives required.

Cost killed the Zumwalts. Developing unique weapons for them is not being contemplated but incorporating weapons that can be installed on future ships would keep them useful. They would provide immediately available platforms with the requisite electrical power and size to get early experience with railguns/DEW/Prompt Global Strike.

I see no political support for junking the Zumwalts and Navy support also looks consistent (DOTE wouldn't be DOTE if they weren't saying everything is bad and doesn't work). The introduction of unmanned surface platforms has introduced uncertainty on how the fleet composition will look. Still, if you want a large, manned platform optimized to operate in high threat theaters, the Zumwalt design is still superior to anything else out there.

 

[fredymac]

PS,
Assuming railguns continue to mature and gain more power, eventually you might be able to dispense with prompt global strike missiles and just launch the glide bodies directly out of the railgun. That would significantly increase magazine depth. It would be the Navy alternative to the Army "1000 mile" cannon but without the rocket propelled shell.

 

[sferrin]

As said my view just throwing good money after bad into the Zumwalt $24 billion black hole.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion.

 

[Foo Fighter]

OK, I'm not an expert in the navy or these ships but, does it not make sense to get the most return possible? Scrapping them is a short resolution of what to do with them but does not solve the real question imho, which is, how can we turn this mess into something positive? I believe research and the basis for replacing the Tico's is the best solution

 

[Grey Havoc]

It is more than likely though that a true replacement for the Ticonderoga-class will entail nothing less than a proper nuclear powered heavy cruiser design. Precious time has, and still is, being wasted by the anti-cruiser fanatics though.

 

[uk 75]

Looking at this as an outsider, assuming the AGS has no chance of being a servicable weapon in the ground support role, the USN has 2 to 3 test platforms for new weapons systems. Given that we are on the verge of various new technology systems, the Zumwalts would be like the Type 82 Bristol in the RN.
Turning to a replacement for the Spruance AEGIS mod destroyers (aka CG47) the USN needs to revisit first principles:
Most powerful propulsion: Nuc or Electric or?
Role is Command and Area Air Defence how much else essential/desirable
ASW?
Surface to Surface?
gunnery?
Close in Weapons System?
You are soon looking at something like a modern version of the Strike Cruiser or a 21c Long Beach.
Based on past procurement of this sort of ship. Batch 1 2 to 4ships. Batch 2 further 4
Which quickly brings in the bean counters:
Wouldnt an updated Arleigh Burke DX family be easier to afford?
My brain hurts! I'd better stick to the RN

 

[TomS]

Thinking about LSC, first principles starts with sensors -- how big an aperture radar do they need? Then how large is their most demanding interceptor (the successor to SM-3 Block IIB) and how many of them do you need?

After that, you size your power plant. I think it's important to stop thinking of this as propulsion as the shp going out the propellors is almost secondary to the electrical load for the sensors and/or weapon systems.

As to secondary weapons or sensors, I think it's important NOT to try to field all-new systems on LSC. The urge to put every new possibility into one hull is what broke the DD(X) program. They need to stabilize most of the non-core systems on LSC with proven technology. Which is why starting with DDG-1000 as a baseline is probably a good idea. The hull and mechanical systems appear to be finally sorted out (mostly, anyway). The hull form works and can be stretched back to its original design size. If you need a gun, start with a Mk45; maybe clean up the turret enclosure for better RCS. For point defense, ESSM Block II. Other new stuff like laser point defense or railguns only go on after they are well tested elsewhere. The PEO needs some iron discipline on this front -- nothing new goes into the design that isn't essential to the ship's core mission. Which IMO excludes nuke power. Any surface combatant nuke plant would be a totally new design. Much easier to just add another turbine or two if the power needs are really that huge.

That's how the Ticonderoga effort succeeded -- the only new thing in the whole ship was AEGIS. Everything else was either Spruance or Virginia class hardware. Even VLS didn't flow in until hull 5. That let the program focus one getting AEGIS right and not worry about anything else.

 

[Cordy]

Any estimate how many $billions those changes would cost, just the railgun firing Its 25 lb? shell (Iowa battleships had real firepower with its 16" shells of 1,900 and 2,700 lbs). EMRG FY2020 budget $7.6 billion, to move from TRL 2/3 to TRL 6, a 4 to 8 year program and then needs to be at TRL 9 to install on ship, maybe IF development a success will be installed on the LSC for IOC of ~2035.

@AA/AWW-14(V) The DOT&E Dec 20, 2019 reported that Navy has encountered severe problems with the special to Zumwalt SM-2 Blk IIIAZ and ESSM's to work with its SPY-3 radar and were not operationally effective, presume why not buying more than test quantities as they don't work.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2019/navy/2019ssd_ddg1000.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115519-893

As said my view just throwing good money after bad into the Zumwalt $24 billion black hole.

Just to make things clear:
-Technology Readiness Level 1: Basic principles observed and reported
-Technology Readiness Level 2: Technology concept and/or application
-Technology Readiness Level 3: Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept formulated
-Technology Readiness Level 4: Component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment
-Technology Readiness Level 5: Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment
-Technology Readiness Level 6: System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment
-Technology Readiness Level 7: System prototype demonstration in an operational environment
-Technology Readiness Level 8: Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration
-Technology Readiness Level 9: Actual system proven through successful mission operations

If you take the railgun currently at White Sands and simply bolted it onto a ship for demonstration and test, that would rate level 7.

The railgun development budget to date is likely to be a $billion or less (to get to TRL 6 in the desert). To get to a fully operational weapon deployed on ships could definitely take $billions but would be applicable to all future ships with the required electrical capacity.

The Iowa guns as big as they were could not reach out more than 20-30 miles. The railgun at 64MJ would go 200 miles and reach into space where it could be used for antimissile intercepts. At $20-30K per shot, the railgun projectile is dirt cheap compared to everything else (other than DEW). And of course, there are no stored explosives required.

Cost killed the Zumwalts. Developing unique weapons for them is not being contemplated but incorporating weapons that can be installed on future ships would keep them useful. They would provide immediately available platforms with the requisite electrical power and size to get early experience with railguns/DEW/Prompt Global Strike.

I see no political support for junking the Zumwalts and Navy support also looks consistent (DOTE wouldn't be DOTE if they weren't saying everything is bad and doesn't work). The introduction of unmanned surface platforms has introduced uncertainty on how the fleet composition will look. Still, if you want a large, manned platform optimized to operate in high threat theaters, the Zumwalt design is still superior to anything else out there.

@fredymac "If you take the railgun currently at White Sands and simply bolted it onto a ship for demonstration and test, that would rate level 7"

That's contrary to what USN saying in their Justification Book for $7.6 billion EMRG per the RDT&E Navy March 2019, PE 0602792N Innovative Naval Prototypes (Navy definition of INP, do not develop hardware for service use, TRL 2/3 to TRL 6, typically take 4 to 8 years).

The Iowa battleship with heavy armor allows them to take damage while firing from close range, modern ships, Zumwalt, much more fragile as only limited armor and why need stand off shore ~50 miles and needed the long range 100 mile AGS. A 200 mile railgun with 25 lb solid shot shell for land bombardment will cause minimal damage to target, compared a Iowa 2,700 lb shell, and will need pinpoint accuracy, in hot war there will be no GPS signals to guide the shell as either jammed or taken out by anti-satellites. USAF with the Red Flag exercise jam all GPS signals to make exercise realistic. Does the USN need a land bombardment capability as can't see them supporting a Marine landing attack on China or Russia, if they do would suggest using Arsenal ship with ~500 VLS cells that USN looked at in the 90's with a variant of the Army PrSM.

Agree there is no political support for SINKEX the Zumwalts, but as said near useless, just 80 VLS cells, no AGS for Zumwalt's primary mission of naval gun fire support for Marine landings and at moment after years of trials no AAM defense so unable to be risked if subject to hint of air attack, so why you think Zumwalt superior to anything out there is beyond me. Lastly is the expense of $24 billion for three sub-optimal ships, Modly, Acting Sec of the Navy keeps pushing home his message the USN has to get back to 80's when the 600 fleet ships averaged cost per ship was $1 billion (escalated), whereas today its $2 billion and fleet is only 295.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I thought the Zumwalts had an altered primary mission now, mainly anit ship. It is my understanding that the littoral mission had been dropped a while ago.

 

[TomS]

I thought the Zumwalts had an altered primary mission now, mainly anit ship. It is my understanding that the littoral mission had been dropped a while ago.

Well, the littoral mission has been dropped because the ships have no NSFS weapons except Tomahawk.

But they don't really have any anti-ship weapons, either, except SM-6 in its secondary anti-ship role and Tomahawk Maritime Strike Missile whenever it reaches the fleet (IOC 2023, supposedly). Surface-ship LRLASM remains unfunded AFAIK, and all the rest (OASuW Inc 2, or whatever they're calling it this month) is still a decade out, optimistically. And there's no reason for optimism...

 

[Arjen]

No littoral mission. No anti ship mission? What ARE the Zumwalts for?

 

[TomS]

No littoral mission. No anti ship mission? What ARE the Zumwalts for?

When they figure that out, I'm sure the Navy will let everyone know.

Right now, their best role is probably ASW. They're crazy quiet (no, not just because they're mostly pierside...) and have an interesting dual-frequency sonar outfit.

 

[Foo Fighter]

A VERY big bathtub..........

 

[Grey Havoc]

no, not just because they're mostly pierside...

 

[Moose]

ASW, VLS truck, surface spec ops support, technology demonstration, CTF/presence missions, some Command ship roles, there are things they can do now even if you discount the ASuW role as unfinished and downplay SPY-3/TSCE's ability to do AA in their current state.

 

[fredymac]

That's contrary to what USN saying in their Justification Book for $7.6 billion EMRG per the RDT&E Navy March 2019, PE 0602792N Innovative Naval Prototypes (Navy definition of INP, do not develop hardware for service use, TRL 2/3 to TRL 6, typically take 4 to 8 years).

The Iowa battleship with heavy armor allows them to take damage while firing from close range, modern ships, Zumwalt, much more fragile as only limited armor and why need stand off shore ~50 miles and needed the long range 100 mile AGS. A 200 mile railgun with 25 lb solid shot shell for land bombardment will cause minimal damage to target, compared a Iowa 2,700 lb shell, and will need pinpoint accuracy, in hot war there will be no GPS signals to guide the shell as either jammed or taken out by anti-satellites. USAF with the Red Flag exercise jam all GPS signals to make exercise realistic. Does the USN need a land bombardment capability as can't see them supporting a Marine landing attack on China or Russia, if they do would suggest using Arsenal ship with ~500 VLS cells that USN looked at in the 90's with a variant of the Army PrSM.

Agree there is no political support for SINKEX the Zumwalts, but as said near useless, just 80 VLS cells, no AGS for Zumwalt's primary mission of naval gun fire support for Marine landings and at moment after years of trials no AAM defense so unable to be risked if subject to hint of air attack, so why you think Zumwalt superior to anything out there is beyond me. Lastly is the expense of $24 billion for three sub-optimal ships, Modly, Acting Sec of the Navy keeps pushing home his message the USN has to get back to 80's when the 600 fleet ships averaged cost per ship was $1 billion (escalated), whereas today its $2 billion and fleet is only 295.

The definition of TRL makes it explicitly clear where things currently stand. Unless you cite a document where the Navy says TRL doesn't apply to them and railguns must be considered to be no better than TRL 2/3 you will need to show it. Where are you getting your $7.6Billion number? I can't find it. Railgun budgets usually show double digit $Millions for any given year and I would guess total R&D dollars to date to be a $Billion or less. Show me this reference you keep citing so I can read it myself and see if they are saying what you think they are saying.

70,000 tons of steel didn't keep the Yamato afloat. Active defense is the only way to survive against precision weapons and armor piercing munitions. No warship anywhere will take a 2000lb armor piercing bomb and not either sink or break off for major repairs. You need to stop the bomb from hitting you.

Hypersonic munitions will kill any high value point structure it hits. Large area effects will need old fashioned explosives but today that comes in the form of cruise missiles rather than giant naval cannons. GPS can be locally degraded (although so far nobody seems to have stopped US GPS munitions in actual combat). Supplemental inertial systems that take over when needed are already in use.

The Zumwalts are a full stealth platform with high electrical power and large size needed to host future weapon systems. No other platform compares to it in these features. The Navy has already indicated they are looking at using them form DEW/railgun applications. The 3 Seawolf class submarines have made themselves useful after the program was cancelled. I see a similar potential for the Zumwalts.

 

[Arjen]

ASW, VLS truck, surface spec ops support, technology demonstration, CTF/presence missions, some Command ship roles, there are things they can do now even if you discount the ASuW role as unfinished and downplay SPY-3/TSCE's ability to do AA in their current state.

Well, that's why I asked. Thanks! Useful, but expensive for those roles.

 

[Cordy]

I thought the Zumwalts had an altered primary mission now, mainly anit ship. It is my understanding that the littoral mission had been dropped a while ago.

My view already partially covered by above posts, the Zumwalt destroyers were designed and built to replace the Iowa battleships for land bombardment to support the Marines. The impression was the Navy was not too enthusiastic on taking on this mission, reducing Zumwalt buy from 32 to 3 ships, even tried to cancel 3rd ship but overruled by Pentagon. Navy cancelled the LM LRLAP, the GPS long range land attack projectile rocket when costs escalated to $800+thou per round and it could not reach specified range. The LRLAP ammo for Zumwalts is the only munition able to be fired from its two huge AGS 155 mm guns and fit the automated magazines and handling system.

Navy was left with three $8 billion white elephants and following year Dec 2017 came up with a new mission for Zumwalt, an"offensive surface strike platform" using its 80 VLS cells for the Maritime Strike Tomahawk V with its new seeker to engage moving target at sea, has been mention of using SM-6 in anti-ship role, question whether Zumwalts SPY-3 radar has ability to use SM-6 in AAM role. The Ticos and Burkes can carry out the Zumwalt "offensive surface strike platform" role as well as using their Aegis for AAM and BMD, so in effect its a made up role to justify the continued existence for the 3 Zumwalts with their oddball radar, sonar, CMS etc.

 

[sferrin]

I thought the Zumwalts had an altered primary mission now, mainly anit ship. It is my understanding that the littoral mission had been dropped a while ago.

My view already partially covered by above posts, the Zumwalt destroyers were designed and built to replace the Iowa battleships for land bombardment to support the Marines.

They weren't designed and built to replace the Iowas. Those were long-gone by the time Zumwalt came along.

 

[Cordy]

@fredymac
Attached Navy document and checkout my info

 

[Grey Havoc]

They were intended to among other things fill the NSFS role previously carried out by the Iowas. Unfortunately, the Transformationalists had a rather skewed idea of what that role would entail and require...

 

[Cordy]

I thought the Zumwalts had an altered primary mission now, mainly anit ship. It is my understanding that the littoral mission had been dropped a while ago.

My view already partially covered by above posts, the Zumwalt destroyers were designed and built to replace the Iowa battleships for land bombardment to support the Marines.

They weren't designed and built to replace the Iowas. Those were long-gone by the time Zumwalt came along.

Wikipedia
Zumwalts primary role of naval gunfire support. It was intended to take the place of battleships in meeting a congressional mandate for naval fire support, Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 421)

 

[TomS]

I thought the Zumwalts had an altered primary mission now, mainly anit ship. It is my understanding that the littoral mission had been dropped a while ago.

My view already partially covered by above posts, the Zumwalt destroyers were designed and built to replace the Iowa battleships for land bombardment to support the Marines.

They weren't designed and built to replace the Iowas. Those were long-gone by the time Zumwalt came along.

Well, yes and no. The Navy requirement to replace the NSFS capability of the Iowas dates back to the mid-1990s, when it became clear that the Iowas would have to go away (way too expensive to maintain for their limited warfighting utility). DD-21/DD(X) in general and AGS in specific was designed to fulfill a USMC requirement for naval surface fires that the battleships could never have answered anyway -- a combination of range inland to support Ship-to-Objective Maneuver doctrine plus required standoff to defeat coastal defenses. The Iowas' guns wouldn't reach that far inland (barring a development program that would make LRLAP look cheap), and the ships could not just sail right up to the beach either. The threat was multi-dimensional, including both high-performance antiship missiles that an Iowa could not just "shrug off" and undersea weapons like mines that an Iowa could definitely not ignore. Not to mention that driving a battleship right onto the coast would kind of telegraph the location of an operation to an degree that a couple of stealthy destroyers much further out would not.

It's also worth noting that DD-21 really started as a general-purpose destroyer and only morphed into a littoral NSFS platform when that looked like the only game in town -- no one thought "war at sea" was going to be a thing after about 1993 and "anti-anti-access" became the buzzword of the day. Positioning the DD-21 effort as a direct Spruance/Kidd replacement looked like a bad bet in 1994, but probably would have been a better idea in the end.

 

[Foo Fighter]

So, SNAFU?

 

[TomS]

Wikipedia
Zumwalts primary role of naval gunfire support. It was intended to take the place of battleships in meeting a congressional mandate for naval fire support, Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 421)

Let's just say Wiki doesn't tell the whole story. How we got from the SC-21 COEA to DD-21/DD-X/DDG-1000 and LCS is a story you could write a book about, with a whole chapter on the process that turned VGAS into AGS, plus another on the fiasco of the Navy's efforts on fire support missiles (LASM, NTACMS, ALAM, etc.). Also, an appendix on Arsenal Ship and how that skewed the Navy's perspectives on ship manning and operational concepts for a decade or more.

Edit: And now I'm outlining that book in my head. Damnit. I'm not going to be retired for a long while yet and I don't have time for this and a day job...

 

[fredymac]

@fredymac
Attached Navy document and checkout my infoView attachment 630522

No mention of $7.6Billion cost to date for R&D. On the other hand, in searching around I have seen mention of total R&D expenditures to date of around 1$Billion or less which would be as expected given the amounts expended in any one year. Also, the wording says "INP investments are tpyically......" It goes on to describe "typical" INP program goals. The railgun is clearly TRL 6 just based on the definitions and INP does nothing to override that.

---------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Found your $7.6Billion. It is the bottom line of the chart. That number is $7.6Million for FY2020. Not billion.
---------------------------------------------------

The original Zumwalt mission and weapons have been rendered obsolete by events. The question now is whether the platform can be adapted for other missions and as I have said, if you want a large, manned platform optimized for a high threat environment, these would be a good place to experiment.

Whatever the next LSC will be, it will not be a heavily armored WWII style battleship and large naval guns will not be making a comeback. Missiles are now the main battery for maximum damage effect (unless you happen to be an aircraft carrier). Railguns can earn a spot for both defensive and offensive effects on point targets.

 

[TomS]

Missiles are now the main battery for maximum damage effect (unless you happen to be an aircraft carrier).

And honestly, what is an aircraft carrier except a platform for launching multi-stage missiles with separating warheads and reusable (usually manned) air-breathing boosters?

 

[fredymac]

Missiles are now the main battery for maximum damage effect (unless you happen to be an aircraft carrier).

And honestly, what is an aircraft carrier except a platform for launching multi-stage missiles with separating warheads and reusable (usually manned) air-breathing boosters?

And where the "booster" can change course, attack multiple targets over a wide area, or just come home if called off. Also, the booster is reusable and can wreak havoc on enemy boosters that get in the way.

 

[sferrin]

Missiles are now the main battery for maximum damage effect (unless you happen to be an aircraft carrier).

And honestly, what is an aircraft carrier except a platform for launching multi-stage missiles with separating warheads and reusable (usually manned) air-breathing boosters?

Well there are also AWACS, ASW, EA/ECM. . . .

 

[TomS]

Missiles are now the main battery for maximum damage effect (unless you happen to be an aircraft carrier).

And honestly, what is an aircraft carrier except a platform for launching multi-stage missiles with separating warheads and reusable (usually manned) air-breathing boosters?

Well there are also AWACS, ASW, EA/ECM. . . .

ASW done right is just a separating torpedo warhead... And as for EA/ECM, MALD-J would like a word... Seriously, I think AEW, transport and refueling are about the only aircraft roles without missile counterparts.

Obviously, somewhat kidding, but carriers and missiles aren't entirely unalike in concept. They're both about delivering effects beyond line-of-sight and classical gun range.

 

[sferrin]

ASW done right is just a separating torpedo warhead...

ASROC hardly compares to an S-3 Viking.

And as for EA/ECM, MALD-J would like a word...

MALD-J makes a poor Growler. (Not to mention it still needs an aircraft to get anywhere.)

Seriously, I think AEW, transport and refueling are about the only aircraft roles without missile counterparts.

Airspace control alone would earn the carrier it's place.

 

[Cordy]

@fredymac Thx for correction on railgun cost.

Quotes from CRS R44175 April 2, 2020, Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Gun-Launched Guided Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress - gives the impression that at moment railgun not a priority for the Navy and future problematical.

The Navy is continuing development work on ERGM, but it is unclear when production-model ERGMs will be installed on Navy ships. The Navy’s FY2021 budget submission requests $9.5 million in FY2021 for continued development of ERGM, but does not appear to program any additional development funding for ERGM in FY2022-FY2025.

Following tests with early Navy-built EMRG prototypes, the Navy funded the development of two industry-built EMRG prototype demonstrators, one by BAE Systems and the other by General Atomics (see Figure 12 and Figure 13). The two industry-built prototypes are designed to fire projectiles at energy levels of 20 to 32 megajoules, which is enough to propel a projectile 50 to 100 nautical miles. (Such ranges might refer to using the EMRG for NSFS missions. Intercepts of missiles and UAVs might take place at much shorter ranges.) The Navy began evaluating the two industry-built prototypes in 2012.

 

[sferrin]

@fredymac Thx for correction on railgun cost.

Quotes from CRS R44175 April 2, 2020, Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Gun-Launched Guided Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress - gives the impression that at moment railgun not a priority for the Navy and future problematical.

The Navy is continuing development work on ERGM, but it is unclear when production-model ERGMs will be installed on Navy ships. The Navy’s FY2021 budget submission requests $9.5 million in FY2021 for continued development of ERGM, but does not appear to program any additional development funding for ERGM in FY2022-FY2025.

Following tests with early Navy-built EMRG prototypes, the Navy funded the development of two industry-built EMRG prototype demonstrators, one by BAE Systems and the other by General Atomics (see Figure 12 and Figure 13). The two industry-built prototypes are designed to fire projectiles at energy levels of 20 to 32 megajoules, which is enough to propel a projectile 50 to 100 nautical miles. (Such ranges might refer to using the EMRG for NSFS missions. Intercepts of missiles and UAVs might take place at much shorter ranges.) The Navy began evaluating the two industry-built prototypes in 2012.

Classic USN. Spend a lot of money developing something ground-breaking then do nothing with it. (See Fasthawk, RATTLRS, VLS LRASM, etc. etc. etc.)

 

[stealthflanker]

and of course the LRLAP...

 

[fredymac]

Throw in the FEL too. Got it working and had technical momentum but then just let it die. I suspect it has more to do with personal agendas among the DOD GS staff working in the various research branches than with actual technical merit and military utility.

 

[bobbymike]

Report on Navy Laser, Railgun and Gun-Launched Guided Projectiles - USNI News

The following is the April 2, 2020, Congressional Research Service report, Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Gun-Launched Guided Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress. Three new ship-based weapons being developed by the Navy—solid state lasers (SSLs), the electromagnetic railgun (EMRG), and the...

news.usni.org