If only there was a role these could be used for.Essentially, they hate having an orphan system with a unique support and training pipeline, its own unique weapon inventory, and no obvious upgrade path.
If only there was a role these could be used for.Essentially, they hate having an orphan system with a unique support and training pipeline, its own unique weapon inventory, and no obvious upgrade path.
Would not be surprised if the cost SPY-3, development, testing and production plus its special missiles ~$1 billion,? Zumwalt total R&D quoted as $12 billion by the GAO (would like to see a breakdown of the R&D), now will have the additional cost of the de-installation of the SPY-3 from deck house, installation and cost of the different size SPY-6(V)3s plus the necessary engineering and software integration to make it compatible with the TSCE CMS. Why are the Navy not also replacing the orphan TSCE with Aegis as well as SPY-3 if Navy "hate having unique support and training pipeline, its own unique weapon inventory, and no obvious upgrade path", so what is so special with SPY-3 that it needs replacing, pure speculation its root problems unsolvable - the Thales Nederland APAR X-band radar had no problems with the operating the semi-active ESSMs.If only there was a role these could be used for.Essentially, they hate having an orphan system with a unique support and training pipeline, its own unique weapon inventory, and no obvious upgrade path.
Would guess SPY-3 range approx 150 miles? which have seen claimed for the similar X-band APAR radar. The Navy cancelled the SPY-4 VSR in 2010 after Zumwalt breached Nunn-McCurdy cost limit they claimed SPY-3 with additional software modifications for VSR more than adequate for any Zumwalt mission. Now the Navy doing about face and changing their story by replacing SPY-3 by installing the longer range S-band SPY-6(V)3, question is why as ESSM and SM-2 do not require longer range radars as the Burkes with their long range SM-6 and SM-3 missiles, it maybe as you say the SPY-3 did not have capability to handle the additional VSR role.You need to remember what the SPY3 was design for.
That is horizon pop up defense. It a short range radar design for looking into seaclutter and to guided missiles.
That it, that all it was design to do.
The SPY4 was the long range area search radar ment to do the spotting tracking of targets. It had the need power, sensitivity, and computer processing to do that.
When they cut the SPY4 from the Zumwalts for costs they had to reprogram the short range SPY3 radar for the SPY4 long range area work.
Which puts a metric fuckton of stress on the system that was not ment to handle it. And it shows in its performance which apperantly is noticeable lower then the SPY1. The fact the SPY3 is a X band system is a large part of that reason.
Throw in the fact that all of 4 ships, 1 Fords and 3 Zumwalts, are getting it?
Eyeah can see why the navy will want to pull it. Imaging that the Ford Spy3/4 will be pulled in her next refit as well.
IMO I say keep it, and slap the SPY6 in the spot the Spy4 was to go, and revert the SPY3 back to its og job. While having the SPY3 become the new director system for the fleet since the 6 lacks that ability due to the dropping of the X band part.
Because back in 2012 when that decision was made the MISSION was to basically bumbling around off shore being a weapons platform.Would guess SPY-3 range approx 150 miles? which have seen claimed for the similar X-band APAR radar. The Navy cancelled the SPY-4 VSR in 2010 after Zumwalt breached Nunn-McCurdy cost limit they claimed SPY-3 with additional software modifications for VSR more than adequate for any Zumwalt mission. Now the Navy doing about face and changing their story by replacing SPY-3 by installing the longer range S-band SPY-6(V)3, question is why as ESSM and SM-2 do not require longer range radars as the Burkes with their long range SM-6 and SM-3 missiles, it maybe as you say the SPY-3 did not have capability to handle the additional VSR role.You need to remember what the SPY3 was design for.
That is horizon pop up defense. It a short range radar design for looking into seaclutter and to guided missiles.
That it, that all it was design to do.
The SPY4 was the long range area search radar ment to do the spotting tracking of targets. It had the need power, sensitivity, and computer processing to do that.
When they cut the SPY4 from the Zumwalts for costs they had to reprogram the short range SPY3 radar for the SPY4 long range area work.
Which puts a metric fuckton of stress on the system that was not ment to handle it. And it shows in its performance which apperantly is noticeable lower then the SPY1. The fact the SPY3 is a X band system is a large part of that reason.
Throw in the fact that all of 4 ships, 1 Fords and 3 Zumwalts, are getting it?
Eyeah can see why the navy will want to pull it. Imaging that the Ford Spy3/4 will be pulled in her next refit as well.
IMO I say keep it, and slap the SPY6 in the spot the Spy4 was to go, and revert the SPY3 back to its og job. While having the SPY3 become the new director system for the fleet since the 6 lacks that ability due to the dropping of the X band part.
PS X-band radars can be long range as demonstrated by the high power Raytheon AN/TPY-2 for THAAD, a big factor in its long range is the size of the antenna, 100 sq ft, which makes them very expensive due the very high number of the small X-band T/R modules required to populate the large antenna.
Which the shorter range, 50 miles less then the Spy1 listing of 200 miles, is an actual handicap. Especially with the like of hypersonics in the game. Since you want longer to have more warning to give the OODA loop the most time to do its thing.
Would note the Burke Flt III SPY-6(V)1 that each of the four arrrys are near 50% larger than the single TPY-2 array, each SPY-6 array consists of 37 RMAs each 2'x2', giving total of 148 sq ft. The RMA contains 24 S-band T/M modules for total of 888 whereas the one third smaller TPY-2 array contains 25,000+ X-band T/R modules and as the T/R modules are one of the primary drivers of a radar’s cost makes them expensive.
PS X-band radars can be long range as demonstrated by the high power Raytheon AN/TPY-2 for THAAD, a big factor in its long range is the size of the antenna, 100 sq ft, which makes them very expensive due the very high number of the small X-band T/R modules required to populate the large antenna.
PS the TPY2 is larger then any warship radar. So the fact that that thing has long range is kinda moot when one face is bigger then six SPY3 faces combine.
Ford will keep her SPY-3 & SPY-4 systems (her 3-sided SPY-4 will be supported using parts from the systems removed from the Zumwalts).Eyeah can see why the navy will want to pull it. Imaging that the Ford Spy3/4 will be pulled in her next refit as well.
Notice how I said till her next refit.Ford will keep her SPY-3 & SPY-4 systems (her 3-sided SPY-4 will be supported using parts from the systems removed from the Zumwalts).Eyeah can see why the navy will want to pull it. Imaging that the Ford Spy3/4 will be pulled in her next refit as well.
Starting with CVN-79 JFK(II) SPY-6(V)3 (3-sides) will be fitted instead of SPY-4, and SPY-3 will also be fitted.
Note that the Flight IIA Burkes are to have their SPY-1Ds replaced with SPY-6(V)4s (4 sides) during refits.
SPY-3 is a narrow beam width, low altitude "horizon search" radar, while SPY-4 and SPY-6 are volume search radars.
OK - Ford will undergo numerous refits* (USN use of the term) before her mid-life Complex OverHaul (the USN's official name for what the Brits call "mid-life refit"- which is how you apparently were using the term).Notice how I said till her next refit.Ford will keep her SPY-3 & SPY-4 systems (her 3-sided SPY-4 will be supported using parts from the systems removed from the Zumwalts).Eyeah can see why the navy will want to pull it. Imaging that the Ford Spy3/4 will be pulled in her next refit as well.
Starting with CVN-79 JFK(II) SPY-6(V)3 (3-sides) will be fitted instead of SPY-4, and SPY-3 will also be fitted.
Note that the Flight IIA Burkes are to have their SPY-1Ds replaced with SPY-6(V)4s (4 sides) during refits.
SPY-3 is a narrow beam width, low altitude "horizon search" radar, while SPY-4 and SPY-6 are volume search radars.
Which shouldn't be fkr another 20 odd yesrs from now.
Less than three years to go and as far as know Navy have yet to qualify the Trident variation VLS tube to launch the ~3,000 km Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile before ripping out the main guns and magazines installing them on shipThe Navy plans to perform a hypersonic missile test shot off guided-missile destroyer USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) in December 2025
Only five?There are no less than five captains involved in making sure this happens”
I'm lost as why the "underwater weapons control system" involved“We’re integrating an underwater weapons control system with [tactical support center] control in order to affect the data and message transfer to launch the missile,”
Which two systemsWe’re virtualizing both sets of control systems.
Capt. made no mention for the estimated cost to modify the ships to install the four VLS tubes to launch the hypersonic missiles (Navy planning to upgrade 20 Burke Flt IIA's with SPY-6(V)4, SEWIP Blk3 and Aegis 10 for $17 billion) so don't think it will be cheap.Navy issued HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding a $10.5 million contract to plan for the modernization period for Zumwalt and USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001)
Three missiles per VLS tubeThe service can field about 12 missiles aboard each Zumwalt-class destroyer
The Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a $1.1 billion initial contract to integrate hypersonic strike capability onto Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers//The contract, which could be worth as much as $2 billion if all options are exercised//Under this contract, prime contractor Lockheed Martin will provide launcher systems, weapon control, All Up Rounds (AURs), which are the integrated missile components, and platform integration support for this naval platform.
Anybody know why they never mention DDG 1002 in these upgrades?HII Wins Advanced Planning Contract for Zumwalt-class ships - Naval News
HII's Ingalls Shipbuilding division was awarded a $10.5 million contract for the modernization period planning of Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers, USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) and USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001).www.navalnews.com
Anybody know why they never mention DDG 1002 in these upgrades?HII Wins Advanced Planning Contract for Zumwalt-class ships - Naval News
HII's Ingalls Shipbuilding division was awarded a $10.5 million contract for the modernization period planning of Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers, USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) and USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001).www.navalnews.com
Because they should be converting a retired LHAs to carry about 100 VLS cells and 300 hypersonic missiles. Some could also carry single CTMs with 10k range.
Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?DDG-1002 is already at HII having her combat system activated, but the planning and implementation of her upgrades will be different from her sisters' given that she's not yet operational and has some differences (all steel deckhouse). It may seem strange, but from a planning and procurement point of view her unique status means she won't automatically be included in contracts for the first two.
It is possible to find contract awards which confirm she's also getting CPS, like this one:
Contract Award: General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (Bath, Maine) - $19,683,882 - Defense Daily
General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, was awarded a $19,683,882 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-19-C-2322 for procurement of long-lead time material for the Large Missile Vertical Launch System launch module fabrication on DDG-1002. Work will be...www.defensedaily.com
Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?DDG-1002 is already at HII having her combat system activated, but the planning and implementation of her upgrades will be different from her sisters' given that she's not yet operational and has some differences (all steel deckhouse). It may seem strange, but from a planning and procurement point of view her unique status means she won't automatically be included in contracts for the first two.
It is possible to find contract awards which confirm she's also getting CPS, like this one:
Contract Award: General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (Bath, Maine) - $19,683,882 - Defense Daily
General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, was awarded a $19,683,882 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-19-C-2322 for procurement of long-lead time material for the Large Missile Vertical Launch System launch module fabrication on DDG-1002. Work will be...www.defensedaily.com
WWII battleships, 8 year retired LHA I’m sure it’s possible.Because they should be converting a retired LHAs to carry about 100 VLS cells and 300 hypersonic missiles. Some could also carry single CTMs with 10k range.
Bizarre idea. The LHAs were ancient, steam-driven monstrosities. The only intact one (Pelilau) is 8 years retired and probably overdue for scrapping or target practice.
Bizarre idea. Putting all of your eggs in one ancient basket. And just because it has a flat deck does not mean you can actually put all of those missiles on her either.WWII battleships, 8 year retired LHA I’m sure it’s possible.Because they should be converting a retired LHAs to carry about 100 VLS cells and 300 hypersonic missiles. Some could also carry single CTMs with 10k range.
Bizarre idea. The LHAs were ancient, steam-driven monstrosities. The only intact one (Pelilau) is 8 years retired and probably overdue for scrapping or target practice.
My point being find something with a big flat deck to carry a lot of missiles, LHA, LPD, LHD whatever. Heck a couple CVNs as the Fords come online.
Or as Columbia deployed refurbish the youngest remaining Ohio’s.
Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?
There are so many better, cheaper, easier to maintain long term ways to do this then pulling out an 8 year decommissioned class that that served nearly 40 years straight its not funny.
I thought all that stuff was supposed to be bleeding edge?Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?
At this point, you'd badly want to redesign a lot of the ship anyway, starting from the machinery plant and probably the combat system (TSCE seems like a bit of a dead end). And of course the radar.
Why would anyone consider re-starting build of the disaster that was the Zumwalt, according to CBO figures the FLD was 65% larger than a Burke Flt III, but the payload (deadweight) was only 10% higher.I thought all that stuff was supposed to be bleeding edge?Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?
At this point, you'd badly want to redesign a lot of the ship anyway, starting from the machinery plant and probably the combat system (TSCE seems like a bit of a dead end). And of course the radar.
Computer technology moves fast, and the Dual Band Radar has been a let-down even in its pared-down "SPY-3 Only" fit to the Zs. while DDG(X) is often described as having the "same" integrated drive system as DDG-1000, at the very least updating the electric motors to present-day state of the art would both require development and pay off in terms of performance over the life of the ships.I thought all that stuff was supposed to be bleeding edge?Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?
At this point, you'd badly want to redesign a lot of the ship anyway, starting from the machinery plant and probably the combat system (TSCE seems like a bit of a dead end). And of course the radar.
Missing the forest…….Bizarre idea. Putting all of your eggs in one ancient basket. And just because it has a flat deck does not mean you can actually put all of those missiles on her either.WWII battleships, 8 year retired LHA I’m sure it’s possible.Because they should be converting a retired LHAs to carry about 100 VLS cells and 300 hypersonic missiles. Some could also carry single CTMs with 10k range.
Bizarre idea. The LHAs were ancient, steam-driven monstrosities. The only intact one (Pelilau) is 8 years retired and probably overdue for scrapping or target practice.
My point being find something with a big flat deck to carry a lot of missiles, LHA, LPD, LHD whatever. Heck a couple CVNs as the Fords come online.
Or as Columbia deployed refurbish the youngest remaining Ohio’s.
Like, discounting the VLS and simply focussing on the missiles... You're proposing adding 2250 metric TONNES high up in the ship. After digging up several of it's decks to make the damn things fit anyhow.
And you want to do this to an old ship that the Navy probably doesn't have spare parts for any more, nor the specialists to run her.
And then you've spend hundreds of millions (or in the case of multiple ships billions) to have one missile barge. Money better spend on that large surface combatant that the navy wants... You know, the one that will be able to carry CPS right from the start.
I guess you don't want the USN to have nice things.
Because despite that the Zumwalts growth margins are far higher then anything out there without designing something new.Why would anyone consider re-starting build of the disaster that was the Zumwalt, according to CBO figures the FLD was 65% larger than a Burke Flt III, but the payload (deadweight) was only 10% higher.I thought all that stuff was supposed to be bleeding edge?Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?
At this point, you'd badly want to redesign a lot of the ship anyway, starting from the machinery plant and probably the combat system (TSCE seems like a bit of a dead end). And of course the radar.
"Deadweight, or deadmass, is the difference between the load displacement up to the minimum permitted freeboard and the lightweight or light displacement. Lightweight is the weight of the hull and machinery, so the deadweight includes the weapons, fuel, water, crew and effects"
Why would anyone consider re-starting build of the disaster that was the Zumwalt, according to CBO figures the FLD was 65% larger than a Burke Flt III, but the payload (deadweight) was only 10% higher.
"Deadweight, or deadmass, is the difference between the load displacement up to the minimum permitted freeboard and the lightweight or light displacement. Lightweight is the weight of the hull and machinery, so the deadweight includes the weapons, fuel, water, crew and effects"
Take your point that the weight of combat systems and sensors e.g. AGS of the Zumwalt maybe heavier than Burkes though the Buke has the heavier SPY-6, we don't know the figures for the weight of systems fitted to both ships to compare. but a ship with a 65% larger displacement, which if fitted with same systems would show a larger increase in deadweight than its increase of 65% of its FLD due the natural decrease in weight of its H,M&E as a proportion of total weight in a larger ship, doubt very much any reasonable estimate of increased weight of Zumwalts combat systems would account for such a large discrepancy. Suspicion falls on the Zumwalt oddball tumblehome hull design and the necessary systems in making it seaworthy in the name of LO compared to a standard hull and its IPS.Why would anyone consider re-starting build of the disaster that was the Zumwalt, according to CBO figures the FLD was 65% larger than a Burke Flt III, but the payload (deadweight) was only 10% higher.
"Deadweight, or deadmass, is the difference between the load displacement up to the minimum permitted freeboard and the lightweight or light displacement. Lightweight is the weight of the hull and machinery, so the deadweight includes the weapons, fuel, water, crew and effects"
Deadweight here is only the variable payload -- fuel, expendable ammunition, stores, crew, and probably the helicopter. It doesn't include the actual fixed weight of weapons or combat systems, such as the VLS itself, the gun turrets, the ammunition handling system, radars, sonars, etc.
And I guarantee that the extra displacement of the ship is not a significant source of the actual cost. Put the same combat systems in a conventional hull and you may save some displacement, but probably not much cost, and you will sacrifice the ship's LO characteristics.
Suspicion falls on the Zumwalt oddball tumblehome hull design and the necessary systems in making it seaworthy in the name of LO compared to a standard hull and its IPS.
Do agree LO a very desirable feature in navy surface vessel, but Navy appear to have abandoned LO as a priority for Zumwalt, the pic of the current deckhouse shows some hard angle external perturbances now attached destroying its stealth, original design showed clean deckhouse, to emphasize how little priority the Navy has on LO with the last ship the Lyndon B Johnson they replaced the LO composite deckhouse with steel to save a few pennies.Suspicion falls on the Zumwalt oddball tumblehome hull design and the necessary systems in making it seaworthy in the name of LO compared to a standard hull and its IPS.
Yes? Of course the LO features contribute a lot to the displacement. Getting that very low RCS means ballasting to keep the max beam right at the waterline. I wouldn't say that's just making the ship marginally seaworthy. By most accounts the Zs are excellent sea boats, probably better than the Burkes. And the LO isn't a party trick to just ignore. For independent sailing strikers like the Zs with CPS, LO is a critical enabling capability.