Register here

Author Topic: DDG-1000  (Read 102720 times)

Offline Demon Lord Razgriz

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 188
DDG-1000
« on: September 03, 2009, 09:44:42 pm »
I've been reading up on the DDG-1000 for a project I'm doing for Shipbucket and throughout everything, I keep getting a quote that says the Zumwalt-Class can't operate the SM series missiles. Can someone please explain to me how that's possible? The primary anti-defense missiles of the USN can't work on the next generation of ships?

Someone has dropped the ball somewhere in planning if they forgot to add one of the most basic things a ship needs. Can the Mk 57 PLVS even fire the Tomahawk? Or did they drop the ball there too?

Offline GAU-8 Avenger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2009, 11:45:48 pm »
There have been many contradicting claims, but it seems that the DDG-1000 will have the capability to fire the Block III SM2MR, Block IV SM2ER, and the SM6 once that enters service. It may lack SM3 capability however, which is a concern for some.

I imagine it will have the capability for ESSM too but firm details are hard to come by. I imagine it can fire Tomahawks due to the designs focused on naval fire support. Way back during the DD-221 program I believe, it was said that the ship would carry some sort of supersonic land attack missile.

Offline Demon Lord Razgriz

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 188
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2009, 01:27:29 am »
That Supersonic Land Attack Missile currently is the RATTLRS Cruise missile in development.

Anywho, since you say it's just the SM-3 that it can't fire, then why the hell is it such a big deal? The Ticos & Burkes can fire it IIRC, so bother putting it on the Zumwalt right from the start? Maybe after the Zumwalt is build and hopefully put into production with most of the bugs worked out, then put it in.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2009, 02:26:28 am »
Is the RATTLRS missile the one that looks like one of the Blackbird's engines flying solo?

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2009, 12:33:08 am »
Some said that they were envisioned to be covered by the next generation cruiser.  Anyway, the whole issue about canceling ddg-1000 and the way the navy is dealing with it is very questionable.  Too bad all Congress need is jobs while cutting expensive programs, so when Navy said they would cut zumwalt and build legacy destroyers, instead of asking why the navy revert back and contradict their previous statements, they happily accepted it.  I think a team should be set to analyze what the Navy said about the zumwalt not meeting evolving threats, and would it be more efficiently tactically and economically to add these capabilities into the zumwalt's design or not.  There are alot of question marks raised by contractors and even individuals within the navy that should be confronted.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2009, 03:16:20 am »
Is the RATTLRS missile the one that looks like one of the Blackbird's engines flying solo?

yep
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2009, 03:18:18 am »
 :D Funny and somehow accurate description. I like it!

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2009, 05:30:51 am »
That Supersonic Land Attack Missile currently is the RATTLRS Cruise missile in development.

RATTLRS is pure research along the lines of X-51 and HyFly.  Would love to be wrong but fairly certain I'm not.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Firefly 2

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 461
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2009, 10:47:11 am »
That Supersonic Land Attack Missile currently is the RATTLRS Cruise missile in development.

RATTLRS is pure research along the lines of X-51 and HyFly.  Would love to be wrong but fairly certain I'm not.

It depends on your (online) source. Serious sites say it's a technology demonstrator, whilst the more popular state that it's an actual weapons program. The former usually get it right.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1726
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2009, 01:31:26 pm »
Some said that they were envisioned to be covered by the next generation cruiser.  Anyway, the whole issue about canceling ddg-1000 and the way the navy is dealing with it is very questionable.  Too bad all Congress need is jobs while cutting expensive programs, so when Navy said they would cut zumwalt and build legacy destroyers, instead of asking why the navy revert back and contradict their previous statements, they happily accepted it.  I think a team should be set to analyze what the Navy said about the zumwalt not meeting evolving threats, and would it be more efficiently tactically and economically to add these capabilities into the zumwalt's design or not.  There are alot of question marks raised by contractors and even individuals within the navy that should be confronted.


Keep in mind that when you have a particularly powerful SecDef that enjoys strong support from the President, opinions change  so as to be in line with what he wants.  In early April 2009 Gates said that among other things, the Zumwalt program would be capped at three (down from the original 32).   So, the official navy postion became that.   A similar example happend with the F-22.  The people at USAF top were reshuffled so that people who agreed with his F-22 decision would be the ones giving hi=m the USAF position.  Therefore he could truthfully announce that, "..."all the military advice," including from the Air Force, s indicated that,  "...there is no requirement for more than 187". 

Similarly in the early 1990s, NAVAIR made it very clear that they wanted the F-14D, not the Hornet E/F that Cheney wanted.  A reshuffling, and presto! Navy fully supports the Super Hornet.

This is the way the world is

Offline aim9xray

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2009, 05:21:00 pm »
"The F/A-18E/F is the future of Naval Aviation".  So say we all.

And so it became.

And - in just a few short years, PMA-265 will discover the joys of maintaining an aging out-of-production airframe out of OMN funding while the F-35C enjoys its day at the trough...

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2009, 05:17:19 pm »

Keep in mind that when you have a particularly powerful SecDef that enjoys strong support from the President, opinions change  so as to be in line with what he wants.  In early April 2009 Gates said that among other things, the Zumwalt program would be capped at three (down from the original 32).   So, the official navy postion became that.   

I thought that the navy wanted to cap at 2.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1726
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2009, 06:28:41 pm »

Keep in mind that when you have a particularly powerful SecDef that enjoys strong support from the President, opinions change  so as to be in line with what he wants.  In early April 2009 Gates said that among other things, the Zumwalt program would be capped at three (down from the original 32).   So, the official navy postion became that.  

I thought that the navy wanted to cap at 2.

They did, but then when investigating what that would do to the shipbuilding industrial base decided it would be better to build one more while transitioning back to the Burkes.  A similar thing happened to the third Seawolf.  Clinton would have been perfectly happy to cancel it, but was shown that would leave too big a gap between it and the start of the NSSN/Virginia class.  He didn't want to go down in history as the President that took the US out of the SSN game, so approved the third and last Seawolf.  

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2009, 07:41:06 pm »
The 3rd DDG-1000 (DDG-1002?) will also have a lot of new technology especially in its propulsion system with High Temperature Superconductors (HTS). So keeping this ship in the program will enable it to operationally test and prove the new technology.

http://content.yudu.com/A15e3n/WTMar09/resources/33.htm
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2009, 01:49:46 am »
Any photo of they building DDG-1000 ?

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1722
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2009, 02:53:50 am »
Following a link in another thread I found this :-

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/navys-stealth-d.html


cheers,
         Robin.
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline xmotex

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2009, 02:12:21 pm »
Interesting, the discussion in that article about the "classified new threat" that led to the reevaluation of the Zumwalts.

Quote
The new threat, which­ didn’t exist a couple years ago, is a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile.

I'm aware of the Chinese guided IRBM program, but a "ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile"?

I'm having trouble figuring out how that would work, and what the utility of it would be.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2009, 08:06:47 pm »
I believe the DDG-1000 doesn't have SM-3 capability but I doubt claims that it doesn't have either SM-2 or SM-6 capability. Until I see a source like Janes or another more involved in the defense world confirm this, I don't buy it.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2010, 07:48:36 pm »
Latest news:

Half of the radar systems of the planned ddg-1000 has been scrapped (it was intended to have dual band radar).  Now, before you jump to the conclusion that this is yet another plot from the liberals to undermine our defense, IT'S NOT! Beside obviously saving 600 million dollars, it will open up space for the newer radar that is currently being developed, which has additional capabilities for BMD (which should make it more relevant, and perhaps more justified for continued production if such need arises.).
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/06/navy_radar_cuts_060410w/

On the side note, BAE videos:





Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2010, 07:35:20 am »
Is this new radar under development also a S-band radar?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2010, 01:07:12 pm »
Yes.  It's a radar that is being developed to be retrofit into ddg-51. 

Offline Hammer Birchgrove

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2010, 01:36:28 pm »
Interesting, the discussion in that article about the "classified new threat" that led to the reevaluation of the Zumwalts.

Quote
The new threat, which­ didn’t exist a couple years ago, is a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile.

I'm aware of the Chinese guided IRBM program, but a "ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile"?

I'm having trouble figuring out how that would work, and what the utility of it would be.
Can it turn into a robot as well?  :P
To the heroism of the Resistance Fighters -- past, present and future -- this post is respectfully dedicated.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2010, 06:37:51 am »
Any word on how seriously the Navy is considering using the 155mm AGS on the Flight III Burkes? Also I've heard many claim the unguided 155mm ammo once planned was cancelled, and the DDG-1000 will only carry the LRLAP. Has this been confirmed?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3103
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2010, 03:20:10 pm »
Any word on how seriously the Navy is considering using the 155mm AGS on the Flight III Burkes? Also I've heard many claim the unguided 155mm ammo once planned was cancelled, and the DDG-1000 will only carry the LRLAP. Has this been confirmed?

To my knowledge they are not. Burke Flight III is about ABM with the reduced antenna size AMDR and SM-3 and not about fire support though it should be able to carry Tomahawk.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2010, 07:23:17 pm »
To my knowledge they are not. Burke Flight III is about ABM with the reduced antenna size AMDR and SM-3 and not about fire support though it should be able to carry Tomahawk.

So much for the Navy addressing that whole fire support issue, Marines must be pissed.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Demon Lord Razgriz

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 188
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2010, 12:04:20 am »
If this keeps up with the Navy screwing them for fire support, the Marine should acquire a few barges and mount M777s on them. :/

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2010, 12:37:09 am »
Changing potential scenarios in the future can easily extend the production of the ddg-1000, I'm guessing. 

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2010, 12:39:41 am »


I'm aware of the Chinese guided IRBM program, but a "ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile"?

I'm having trouble figuring out how that would work, and what the utility of it would be.
It's called cruise missile from space ;D

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2010, 01:58:56 am »
So much for the Navy addressing that whole fire support issue, Marines must be pissed.

Marine plans seem to be evolving in step with the navy to stand off over 200nm, not just 25nm as was thought to be sufficient 10 years ago when AGS really got going. AGS can only demonstrate about 78nm of range, the 100nm requirement proved impossible. The rate of fire was also reduced. So the AGS simply does not meet the requirements laid out for it and those requirements were not ambitious enough in the first place.

We are just going to have to figure out a different way then a naval gun to meet support requirements at that kind of range.  I’m thinking the USAF MQ-9 swarm will end up with that job in the highly unlikely event that the USMC launches an opposed landing ever again. The Marines will be very lucky simply if they are allowed to keep the EFV program. If Gates has his way they will most likely fund it by cutting back total Marine strength. That isn’t really a bad thing, the Marines were fine at 177,000 personal in the late 1990s, now they’ve gotten well over 200,000.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2010, 09:41:35 am »
In that case I have to question the Navy's whole premise of standing off at over 200nm, obviously your worrying about anti-ship missilse if your dealing with somebody like the PRC, but I imagine most amphibious landings in the future will occur against countries that don't have tons of modern shore-based anti-ship missiles.

An ex-Marine I know used to argue that the Navy should just get something with plenty of armor on it, several Phalanx CIWS, loaded with MLRS type rockets and guns, then proceed to get close and shoot it out.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #30 on: August 18, 2010, 12:51:59 pm »
At the present time, will the Zumwalt Class constitute two ships, USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) and USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001)? Or will there be a third ship, DDG-1002? Has this issue been decided? I never heard a resolution to the funding issue for ship three. I understand that there was an effort to name ship three for Robert Heinlein. Is General Dynamics and Bath Ironworks being especially quiet about the DDG-1000 program.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 02:01:27 pm by Triton »

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2010, 01:31:03 pm »
In that case I have to question the Navy's whole premise of standing off at over 200nm, obviously your worrying about anti-ship missilse if your dealing with somebody like the PRC, but I imagine most amphibious landings in the future will occur against countries that don't have tons of modern shore-based anti-ship missiles.

If the enemy doesn’t have any anti ship missiles or heavy artillery rocket systems which can equally well engage ships, odds are they also do not have the capability to defend the entire coastline in the first place. Let alone defend the coastline AND defend the air assault landing zones behind the beaches. That means the initial Marine landing is unopposed, and a V-22 can drop a M777 into the landing zone for fire support very quickly. Hugely expensive naval gun system with marginal ammunition loads need not be required. Lots of money is already being spent on systems to find the enemy, so avoiding him is possible.

The USN will eventually get some kind of guided shore bombardment weapon though. It may not be super long ranged, but right now a project I forget the name of is moving along to create a self contained screw in GPS guidance fuse. I think the program name might be 'GPS competent munition' but I'm not sure. I believe they are at the point of test firing. Its internal battery is charged and GPS grid are set by an induction device just before firing using a hand held computer. I'm sure they can bolt one into a Mk45 5in turret. That could cover 'no naval defense weak enemy' scenarios well enough.

It won’t allow super high accuracy because the fins are so small to fit within the diameter of 105-155mm shells rather then unfolding, but it can convert any existing artillery shell that accepts US fuses into a fairly accurate round. CEP of 30-50 meters or so; instead of 300-600 meters at 40km range for normal artillery. That would greatly increase the value of the existing 5in guns and ammo, without the massive cost of an entirely new weapon or entirely new ammo like ERGM. More importantly we already have lots of 5in guns. An invasion force could count on at least one or two such vessels being around. Specialist ships with specialist weapons wont be around when you need them. All the more so since the USN is going to keep shrinking in the future.


Quote

An ex-Marine I know used to argue that the Navy should just get something with plenty of armor on it, several Phalanx CIWS, loaded with MLRS type rockets and guns, then proceed to get close and shoot it out.

Sure, just let me know when you find 2 billion dollars to pay for each one of those things, and then 2 billion more to pay the life insurance benefits and long term care of its dead and wounded crew after it gets sunk by a mine. MLRS leaves duds like crazy anyway. Would you really want to come ashore on a beach or landing zone covered in tens of thousands of unexploded DPICM bomblets? The fact is the USN needs around 5-10 billion dollars more a year, every year, just to keep its strength equal to what it is now. Without that money the USN will shrink to about 200 ships. Specialist ships, for as rarely used a role as shore bombardment no less, are absurdly unaffordable.


Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #32 on: August 18, 2010, 03:10:18 pm »
Sure, just let me know when you find 2 billion dollars to pay for each one of those things, and then 2 billion more to pay the life insurance benefits and long term care of its dead and wounded crew after it gets sunk by a mine. MLRS leaves duds like crazy anyway. Would you really want to come ashore on a beach or landing zone covered in tens of thousands of unexploded DPICM bomblets? The fact is the USN needs around 5-10 billion dollars more a year, every year, just to keep its strength equal to what it is now. Without that money the USN will shrink to about 200 ships. Specialist ships, for as rarely used a role as shore bombardment no less, are absurdly unaffordable.

Well, he also considered the Navy more of taxi service for the Marines than anything else...
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #33 on: September 03, 2010, 09:43:05 pm »
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems DDG-1000 Zumwalt sales brochure from Euronaval 2008.

Source:
http://s11.invisionfree.com/shipbucket/ar/t717.htm

Offline Demon Lord Razgriz

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 188
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2011, 09:36:27 am »
Sorry about this bit of a gravedig, but expanding on the topic of the Zumwalt, I recently saw a picture of the scaled prototype that was built to confirm its seaworthiness. And from what I saw, I have to ask, why did they test it on a lake with calm conditions? :/ Wouldn't it have been better & more realistic to test on the open sea or in the Great Lakes?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2011, 10:45:42 am »
Sorry about this bit of a gravedig, but expanding on the topic of the Zumwalt, I recently saw a picture of the scaled prototype that was built to confirm its seaworthiness. And from what I saw, I have to ask, why did they test it on a lake with calm conditions? :/ Wouldn't it have been better & more realistic to test on the open sea or in the Great Lakes?

The quarter-scale "Sea Jet" AESD model wasn't primarily intended for seakeeping trials.  It was used for testing various waterjet and electrical propulsion technologies, and not just for DDG-1000.  Presumably, NAVSEA felt it was better to operate AESD on Pend Oreille, which was already prepared for acoustic testing and work with electric propulsion thanks to the submarine scale model tests done there in the past.

They took a different (1:20) scale model out on the Chesapeake bay for rough-water testing and it did fine. 

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #36 on: December 22, 2011, 11:42:56 am »
Given the way things are going, it looks like the Zumwalts are going to get a second chance.

Meanwhile:

Raytheon Wins $254M Zumwalt Contract

Quote
The U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon a contract modification this month for up to $254 million for development, test, and delivery of DDG-1000 Total Ship Computing Environment software for the Self Defense Test Ship, post-delivery availability, post-shakedown availability, SPY-3 volume search software and firmware development, as well as software maintenance on the DDG-1000.

The work is expected to be completed by January 2016. About $11 million will be provided upon contract award; those funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #37 on: December 22, 2011, 01:40:45 pm »

[IMAGE CREDIT: Defense Industry Daily]

Quote
Dual-Band Radar (now just X-band). For detection and self-defense, the DDG-1000 was going to rely on a new approach called the Dual-Band Radar, but will now use only the SPY-3. Raytheon’s X-Band SPY-3 radar provides air and surface detection/tracking, and supports fire control. Its use of active array radar technology makes it far more survivable against saturation missile attacks, since it can track and guide against tens of incoming missiles simultaneously. In comparison, the passive S-band phased array SPY-1D radars that equip American AEGIS destroyers and cruisers are limited to terminal guidance against just 3-4 targets at any one time. Active array radars also feature superior reliability, and recent experiments suggest that they could also be used for very high-power electronic jamming, and high-bandwidth secure communications.

Defense Industry Daily
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2447
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #38 on: December 22, 2011, 01:56:17 pm »
From a Chinese forum ...  ::)
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2011, 02:42:15 pm »

...from an Ingalls Shipbuilding web-site...


"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Nils_D

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #40 on: December 23, 2011, 10:30:08 am »
What an abomination of a design.

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #41 on: December 23, 2011, 12:05:08 pm »
How so?  It's supposed to be stealthy so that alone will be a pretty big determinant of exactly how it looks.

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2187
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #42 on: December 24, 2011, 12:48:26 am »
Underway, it looks like it's upside down. Functional design doesn't mean it can't be double ugly.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 01:03:18 am by Arjen »

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #43 on: December 24, 2011, 07:14:35 am »
...and who says an abomination can't be beautiful?

Sea Skimmer, would it be reasonable to assume that the limitations on accuracy for small control-surfaced guided rounds could someday be compensated for by better processing power on the round itself and improved integration of airflow/inertial sensors? I take it that stability is the major problem (especially as higher control surface deflections will be needed to have an effect)?


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #44 on: December 24, 2011, 11:58:47 am »
What an abomination of a design.

I'm sure the old battleship guys from the 30s and 40s would think the same of today's boxy designs. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Madurai

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #45 on: December 24, 2011, 03:45:05 pm »
As long as ram bows are coming back, I think we should get the eyes painted on the prow, too.

Offline Nils_D

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #46 on: December 28, 2011, 06:07:43 am »
I'm sure the old battleship guys from the 30s and 40s would think the same of today's boxy designs.
No, I mean, I think most of the "stealthy" designs today still look kind of nice from the perspective of being a military ship, like LCS-2, that UK FCS design, the Visby corvette etc but the DDG-1000 just is plain ugly. It literally looks like someone placed a shoebox on top of a clothing iron and called it a ship. The least they could've done was make a taller pyramid-style mast on it like the Russians have done for ages. It'd probably have solved most of the interference problems they had with the current design.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2011, 12:25:38 pm »
I'm sure the old battleship guys from the 30s and 40s would think the same of today's boxy designs.
No, I mean, I think most of the "stealthy" designs today still look kind of nice from the perspective of being a military ship, like LCS-2, that UK FCS design, the Visby corvette etc but the DDG-1000 just is plain ugly. It literally looks like someone placed a shoebox on top of a clothing iron and called it a ship. The least they could've done was make a taller pyramid-style mast on it like the Russians have done for ages. It'd probably have solved most of the interference problems they had with the current design.

Those ships are no where near being stealthy, just reduced RCS.  The DDG-1000 would be the one with the lowest RCS, due to the "ugly" design that it has.  Sorry but beauty is not a requirement that justify tax payers money. 

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #48 on: December 28, 2011, 12:39:06 pm »
Zumwalt is just beautiful in its ugliness, I say
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2011, 12:42:51 pm »
Zumwalt is just beautiful in its ugliness, I say

Should the Arleigh Burke class or the Kirov class then be considered stunningly beautiful head-turners to the Zumwalt class? DDG-1000 is first and foremost a warship.

I just have to laugh when the discussion turns to the aesthetics of a particular design. Certainly form has to follow function. I cannot think of anything more worthless than a handsome or proper-looking ship that has poor sea-keeping or poor performance. Aesthetics in vehicle design are a matter of taste. U.S.S. Zumwalt isn't a consumer product like an automobile in which looks matter. No one is refusing to buy because it is just the wrong color.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 12:50:28 pm by Triton »

Offline Racer

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #50 on: January 11, 2012, 07:49:44 am »
Various pics from my harddisk:
« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 07:51:16 am by Racer »

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #51 on: April 03, 2012, 04:59:24 pm »
Video of Zumwalt's second Ultra module (4500 tons) rolling out and taking position on the ways:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwfLunTLlJc&feature

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #52 on: December 20, 2012, 10:09:52 am »
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 10:24:45 am by 2IDSGT »

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #53 on: January 25, 2013, 01:34:26 pm »
Quote
U.S. Navy Seeks Alternate Deckhouse For DDG-1002

...in a Jan. 3 solicitation, Naval Sea Systems Command (Navsea) says it “has a potential requirement for design and construction of a steel deckhouse and hangar superstructure...
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_01_25_2013_p03-01-540970.xml

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2013, 12:35:40 pm »

Offline kaiserbill

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1232
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #55 on: January 27, 2013, 02:09:29 pm »
I'm sure the old battleship guys from the 30s and 40s would think the same of today's boxy designs.
No, I mean, I think most of the "stealthy" designs today still look kind of nice from the perspective of being a military ship, like LCS-2, that UK FCS design, the Visby corvette etc but the DDG-1000 just is plain ugly. It literally looks like someone placed a shoebox on top of a clothing iron and called it a ship. The least they could've done was make a taller pyramid-style mast on it like the Russians have done for ages. It'd probably have solved most of the interference problems they had with the current design.

Those ships are no where near being stealthy, just reduced RCS.  The DDG-1000 would be the one with the lowest RCS, due to the "ugly" design that it has.  Sorry but beauty is not a requirement that justify tax payers money.

It is not just RCS measures on some of the other boats.
The German F-125, Visby, et al all feature, to a lesser or greater degree, infrastructure that reduces their infra-red and acoustic signatures, on top of their RCS.
The Valour Class, on top of RCS reductions, has an infra red signature 75% less than previous vessels of its size when they entered service in 2006.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #56 on: July 19, 2013, 02:16:49 am »
Why is it that the ddg-1000 is significantly larger than the arleigh burke class yet carries less verticle cells for missiles?  Why is it so large then? Just to carry its 2 cannons?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #57 on: July 19, 2013, 02:26:18 am »
Why is it that the ddg-1000 is significantly larger than the arleigh burke class yet carries less verticle cells for missiles?  Why is it so large then? Just to carry its 2 cannons?

Bigger cells, bigger flight deck.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3103
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #58 on: July 19, 2013, 03:23:51 am »
The two 155mm guns dominate the forward part of the ship and thus reduce available space within the design for VLS cells; if something like AGS-Lite or the 5" in a low RCS mount had been used, with just a single mount, more calls could have been carried.

sferrin is right though, the Mk57 is larger than Mk41, the type does have a larger helo deck and it also has the ability to take on considerable amounts of water ballast to lower the free-board and thus further reduce the ships RCS.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #59 on: July 19, 2013, 03:34:38 am »
also has the ability to take on considerable amounts of water ballast to lower the free-board and thus further reduce the ships RCS.

Huh, I'd never heard that before.  I recall pictures of one of the various DD/X concepts with a very low freeboard and just thought that design was that way all the time.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #61 on: October 17, 2013, 03:15:59 am »

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #62 on: October 29, 2013, 08:18:21 am »
 ;D ;D ;D

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2447
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #63 on: October 30, 2013, 05:17:35 am »
Seems as if the DDG-1000 got some wet feet but due to the US financial desaster this event was more or less kept low ...  :-[

http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/slide_8_198_26470.html#p=1

Deino
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #64 on: October 30, 2013, 10:42:03 am »
The prospective captain of U.S.S. Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is James Kirk.

Source:
http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg1000/Pages/bio1.aspx#.UnFEpRA4mKI

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #65 on: October 30, 2013, 10:47:29 am »
The prospective captain of U.S.S. Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is James Kirk.

Source:
http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg1000/Pages/bio1.aspx#.UnFEpRA4mKI

It would be funny if he ended up in command of CVN-80 (Enterprise).   Somebody needs to make it happen.  ;D
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Rhinocrates

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 162
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #66 on: October 30, 2013, 12:50:11 pm »
Somebody needs to make it happen. 


Someone needs to make it so. ;D
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #67 on: October 30, 2013, 04:03:50 pm »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #68 on: April 14, 2014, 06:04:51 pm »

"Zumwalt’s hull and composite deckhouse – a marvel of engineering and know-how – mated perfectly. Ship systems, which have been lab-tested more vigorously than any other, have fired up on or before schedule.  [/size][size=78%][/size]Take away the fleet-number disruptions, and the Zumwalt has been one of the few successful shipbuilding programs for cost and schedule over the past few years. And with all of the new technologies featured for the ship, that’s saying something.  [/size][/size]Given the track record with some other new-class ships (aka LCS), it says a lot.[/color][/size]"[/color]
[/size][/color]
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:0b1cb4af-d191-491b-b0f6-05e1304df298


Can't really agreed more.  The ddg-1000 is the most ground breaking ship program in the fleet yet it delivered on time and on schedule (some of the components were even ahead of schedule).  The program management team should get a reward for this. 

Offline J.A.W.

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • "Keep on Truckin'.."
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #69 on: April 14, 2014, 07:30:47 pm »
She'd maybe do better in the looks dept - with a bit of tarting up?

Like this..

 http://www.modelshipmaster.com/products/submarines/nautilus%20(1).JPG

Or this..

http://www.retronaut.com/2010/07/dazzle-ships-1914-1918/
« Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 07:46:10 pm by J.A.W. »
"I choose to believe - what I am programmed to believe.."

Offline J.A.W.

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • "Keep on Truckin'.."
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #70 on: April 14, 2014, 10:13:25 pm »
Well, James Kirk got the skipper's seat on board the newly commissioned USS Zumwalt.

http://news.usni.org/2014/04/11/interview-zumwalt-commander-capt-james-kirk

He wasn't asked 'bout his ambition to pick up the Enterprise when she rads-up..
"I choose to believe - what I am programmed to believe.."

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #71 on: April 15, 2014, 04:15:36 pm »

Offline J.A.W.

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • "Keep on Truckin'.."
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #72 on: April 15, 2014, 10:04:38 pm »
She'd maybe do better in the looks dept - with a bit of tarting up?

Like this..

 http://www.modelshipmaster.com/products/submarines/nautilus%20(1).JPG

Or this..

http://www.retronaut.com/2010/07/dazzle-ships-1914-1918/
How about some eyes?



Yeah, fair enough, M..

But.. given the apparent focus on crew 'diversity', what colour will the eyes be?

Mayhaps they could rotate the eye colour with the re-painting schedule?


"I choose to believe - what I am programmed to believe.."

Offline Tony Williams

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 368
    • Cannon, machine guns and ammunition
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #73 on: April 17, 2014, 02:13:39 am »
A question to you guys: some time ago I read that the redesign of the Burkes for the Flight III required so much work and so many changes (much more power generation capacity, and much more cooling plant, for example) that the cost saving over the Zumwalts was greatly reduced.

If that's true, the Zumwalts might be better value for money in the long run, especially since their hybrid power plant produces vastly more electrical power, making them far more suitable for conversion in due course to carry railguns and high-powered laser weapons.

Comments?
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #74 on: April 17, 2014, 02:32:37 am »
The problem isn't so much solely about the cost of the ddg-1000.  It's just changing requirements really.  The stealth and the guns are for marine support and littoral combat.  However, new chinese military capabilities are pushing the navy out further to sea, so the navy is returning to a blue water battle group with emphasis on bmd (it's china now, not persian gulf anymore). 

But that's just the chinese part, there's also the russia factor, which is the new START treaty - it puts a limitation on bmd capabilities on new warships - and since ddg-1000 is classified as new warship but flight III isn't, you can see how and why it went down the way it did. 

Offline Tony Williams

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 368
    • Cannon, machine guns and ammunition
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #75 on: April 17, 2014, 02:37:21 am »
Thanks, that's helpful.
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #76 on: April 17, 2014, 11:30:54 am »
But that's just the chinese part, there's also the russia factor, which is the new START treaty - it puts a limitation on bmd capabilities on new warships - and since ddg-1000 is classified as new warship but flight III isn't, you can see how and why it went down the way it did.

I wonder where this rumor started.  New START has no restrictions on ship-based missile defense.  The only thing it says about missile defense is that you can't base BMD interceptors in old SLBM or ICBM silos, and vice versa (unless the conversion was done before the treaty was signed -- to grandfather the five GMD silos at Vandenberg).
 
You can read the treaty text yourself: http://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/c44126.htm
 
 
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 12:03:59 pm by TomS »

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #77 on: April 17, 2014, 03:17:54 pm »
A question to you guys: some time ago I read that the redesign of the Burkes for the Flight III required so much work and so many changes (much more power generation capacity, and much more cooling plant, for example) that the cost saving over the Zumwalts was greatly reduced.
The present Burke Flight III designs have upgrades that are massively scaled back from the initial concept, so some of the cost advantage should have been restored. For example they have abandoned the idea of fitting an IPS into the hull and are making do with larger conventional generators. At the expense of capability, of course.
If that's true, the Zumwalts might be better value for money in the long run, especially since their hybrid power plant produces vastly more electrical power, making them far more suitable for conversion in due course to carry railguns and high-powered laser weapons.

Comments?
Yes the Integrated Power System makes it much easier to "plug in" something like Railgun. The reduction from 64 to 32mj for the IOC railgun and some battery/capacitor magic may allow F3 to eventually use it with some compromises, at least that claim has been made. It looks fairly likely that all 3 DDG-1000s will be converted over to railguns at some point, barring unforeseen technical challenges, but that still maxes the fleet out at 6 fully operational rails. The JHSV demonstration is intriguing to me, I could see a future where the GA truck-mounted system (for example) becomes a roll-on/roll-off package for arming a ship that has a vehicle deck (and/or LCS-style module space). Less ideal but potentially more economical solution to put more rails at sea.


I'm not sure how close a megawatt-class laser realistically is to the fleet, the early weapons will be much less powerful, but it would require an IPS as well. At least I don't see how F3 realistically handles the load.


The place F3 still comes up very short versus Zumwalt is when looking at the next 30+ years of upgrades. Ships get tinkered with all the time, every refit something new tends to get added. A brand new design, the DDG-1000 has lots of margin for future upgrades without compromising the basic design or giving up something else. In fact it has outstanding potential for a radar upgrade since half the Dual Band Radar suite, the Volume Search Radar, was deleted but the space reserved for it in the deckhouse is still there. F3 by comparison is stretching a 30-year-old design to the limit already, further upgrades may require a lot more trade-offs.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 05:25:38 pm by Moose »

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #78 on: April 17, 2014, 05:17:58 pm »
Not to mention that missile tubes on ddg-1000 can accommodate larger missiles - giving potential to house more capable BMD missiles in the future (currently, sm-3 can only provide limited BMD given its size, larger missiles are inevitable).  I think there's a level of dishonesty involving the navy here - they claimed that ddg-1000 is ill suited for BMD even to go as far as saying they can't fire SM-2.  However, older documents from the navy and its contractor repeatedly stated that ddg-1000 is designed from the get go with the ability to fire SM-2.  SM-3 probably needs some re-wiring but if you really think about it, on a larger picture, redesigning the Burke may prove as equally costly if not costlier than upgrading ddg-1000 to BMD capable standard, given that Burke hull has been "layered" so many times over the past decades as part of its upgrades, making it an extremely complex hull despite being old in comparison to a "clean" hull like ddg-1000 with alot of growth margin and designed from the get go to be much more adaptable to upgrades. 


I strongly believe that if the ddg-1000 proves itself in the coming years, reopening the line will be possible.   

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #79 on: April 17, 2014, 05:18:36 pm »

I wonder where this rumor started.  New START has no restrictions on ship-based missile defense.  The only thing it says about missile defense is that you can't base BMD interceptors in old SLBM or ICBM silos, and vice versa (unless the conversion was done before the treaty was signed -- to grandfather the five GMD silos at Vandenberg).
 
You can read the treaty text yourself: http://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/c44126.htm


I read it from an aviationweek article quite long ago if I remember correctly.  Thanks for the correction then.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #80 on: April 17, 2014, 05:24:51 pm »
I strongly believe that if the ddg-1000 proves itself in the coming years, reopening the line will be possible.
F3's limitations make it more likely, if Zumwalt proves a good sailor, that a further small number are built without AGS (more VLS cells or railgun instead) and with AMDR. Hope for good sea trials and an end to Sequestration.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #81 on: May 15, 2014, 07:06:21 pm »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #82 on: May 15, 2014, 07:14:23 pm »
 Published on Apr 24, 2014

Navy to Christen DDG 1000 in Honor of Historic Leader


Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #83 on: May 15, 2014, 07:19:39 pm »
 Published on Nov 5, 2013

On October 28, 2013, the first of three new-generation stealth destroyers, the ZUMWALT (DDG 1000), was launched at Bath Iron Works shipyard in Maine.

Here is a timelapse video of showing DDG 1000's transition from drydock and float-off on the Kennebec River.

Video courtesy Bath Iron Works/U.S. Navy



Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #84 on: May 15, 2014, 07:30:31 pm »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #85 on: May 15, 2014, 07:32:41 pm »

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1726
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #86 on: May 15, 2014, 07:36:25 pm »


I strongly believe that if the ddg-1000 proves itself in the coming years, reopening the line will be possible.

A lot would depend on how long since the previous ones were in production.  One thing that made restarting the Burkes practical is that we were still building them when the decision was made. 

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1815
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #87 on: May 19, 2014, 06:07:40 pm »
When is the production set to wind up?
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #88 on: May 29, 2014, 08:25:53 am »
http://www.special-ops.org/video-take-inside-look-awesome-new-stealth-destroyer/

Look at 40s railgun against what looks like a simulated missile nosecone?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #89 on: May 29, 2014, 09:43:29 am »
Just a silly question: Why the Zumwalt is classified as a destroyer ? Bigger than the last US CGN
and intended for autonomous missions, so not fulfilling the classical escort role of a destroyer either,
I can only assume budgetary reasons.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #90 on: May 29, 2014, 10:03:50 am »
Fundamentally, the only distinction between cruisers and destroyers in the USN is that cruisers have space for a squadron staff.   

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #91 on: May 29, 2014, 11:06:58 am »
Perhaps the Zumwalt-class should have been named for a river and designated LFRG for Inshore (Littoral) Fire Support (LFR) and Guided missile (G) because of the emphasis on Naval Gun Fire Support. The next number in sequence is 537.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #92 on: May 29, 2014, 02:25:07 pm »
Designations do not reflect the mission of a ship anymore, ok, but it would at least be logical
to show their importance for the fleet to the taxpayer, who probably knows better the cost of
a ship, than its task. And "cruiser" probably still sounds better, than "destroyer".
But ok, the biggest ships of the Empire were "Stardestroyers", not "Starcruisers", maybe
the logic of nowadays naval designations works this way ...  ::)
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #93 on: May 29, 2014, 04:27:18 pm »
The Republic and Rebellion used "cruiser" for their ships.


The cynical response to the classification controversy is that since the fleet-wide reclassification resulting from the "Cruiser Gap," all the classifications exist purely for "marketing" purposes: to get the Congress to buy the ships the Navy wants. Congress was receptive to buying Destroyers, so they're called Destroyers. It's a bit like JHSV, they're not Joint anymore but take the J off and you might ruffle the wrong feathers on the Hill so the J stays.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #94 on: September 28, 2014, 09:07:18 pm »
Some interesting slides for the DDG-1000

Look at the excess power available compared to a Burke.

http://www.navytimes.com/interactive/article/20140928/NEWS04/309280027/Meet-Zumwalt-Navy-s-stealth-destroyer-will-go-sea-next-spring
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #95 on: September 29, 2014, 12:32:33 pm »
Some interesting slides for the DDG-1000

Look at the excess power available compared to a Burke.

http://www.navytimes.com/interactive/article/20140928/NEWS04/309280027/Meet-Zumwalt-Navy-s-stealth-destroyer-will-go-sea-next-spring

cool, should be for future electromagnetic gun growth i guess.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 618
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #97 on: October 01, 2014, 10:21:18 am »
In regards to the downsizing of the guns, I imagine then that in order for them to have been found as more effective, they must be more reliable and (due to the caliber) able to fight for longer with a larger ammunition reserve?

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #98 on: October 01, 2014, 10:57:20 am »
They are move effective.. at saving money.

However, I would imagine that the 57mm has a better upgrade path.  Imagine Laser-Guided rounds from the 57mm taking out UAVs, boats, small planes, helos, etc out to 15km.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #99 on: October 01, 2014, 11:27:31 am »
It's interesting.  Bath's original (losing) Blue Team DD-21 proposal (attached) had three 30mm turrets -- two aft on the hangar and one up in the bow.  The winning Gold Team design originally had two 40mm guns on the hangar.  Those were soon replaced with 57mm guns for commonality with LCS and the Coast Guard.  And now we're back to two 30mm guns.   Oy vey...
 
 
 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #100 on: October 01, 2014, 02:03:13 pm »
Hmmm

this:



or this:



I know which I'd pick.   :'(

edit:  if you have to go small (light):


« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 02:08:58 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #101 on: October 01, 2014, 02:32:09 pm »
Yeah, the Millennium Gun was my choice to replace the 30mm pea shooters on the LCS too.

WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 506
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #102 on: October 01, 2014, 03:34:40 pm »
Spudman - nice design.

Does the Millennium gun fire AHEAD rounds? That would be a nice CIWS and anti-small boat weapon...

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #103 on: October 01, 2014, 03:49:21 pm »
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #104 on: October 01, 2014, 06:17:15 pm »
Can anyone come up with a reason why 30mm can be more "capable" having shorter range, less flexibility in term of ammo, shorter blast, and slower rate of fire? I'm not very knowledgable bout gun systems?
Thanks

Offline Creative

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #105 on: October 01, 2014, 09:16:11 pm »
IMO it's just a cost cutting measure. Parts and ammo are shared with the LCSandLPD-17s.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #106 on: October 02, 2014, 03:13:13 am »
Can anyone come up with a reason why 30mm can be more "capable" having shorter range, less flexibility in term of ammo, shorter blast, and slower rate of fire? I'm not very knowledgable bout gun systems?
Thanks

It's not, in any way.  I just wish they hadn't started behaving like our politicians and telling blatant falsehoods expecting people to believe them.  Why couldn't they just say, "we did it to save money" or "we did it because the design is top heavy"?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #107 on: October 04, 2014, 08:51:47 pm »

It's not, in any way.  I just wish they hadn't started behaving like our politicians and telling blatant falsehoods expecting people to believe them.  Why couldn't they just say, "we did it to save money" or "we did it because the design is top heavy"?


Having read the article again, I have to say I'm getting the impression of "I know you guys done the evaluation of which gun system to put on the ship, but this is what I really want so you guys gonna go back and do the evaluation again until you come to the conclusion I want because I'm your boss."

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #108 on: October 05, 2014, 07:02:01 pm »
Can anyone come up with a reason why 30mm can be more "capable" having shorter range, less flexibility in term of ammo, shorter blast, and slower rate of fire? I'm not very knowledgable bout gun systems?
Thanks
More ammunition and dual-feed loading are not nothing, but in general I agree cost and weight were probably the real drivers here. Similar to how the cut from 7-9 DDG-1000s down to 2-3 was justified on on all sorts of questionable grounds when really it was a cost decision.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #109 on: October 12, 2014, 11:43:37 pm »
« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 07:20:03 pm by donnage99 »

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #110 on: October 13, 2014, 03:52:43 pm »
Now that's interesting. The way he's talking, and the lack of a BAE media counter-offensive so far, is making it sound like the Mk110 has performance shortfalls compared to what was expected. Could be a smokescreen, but worth keeping an eye on.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #111 on: October 13, 2014, 04:06:36 pm »
Still. . . they could have gone with this instead:

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline RP1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • I see the truth in it.
    • RP1 dot net
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #112 on: October 14, 2014, 03:53:18 am »
Although I remain somewhat sceptical over the broader accuracy of any official pronouncements regarding DDG-1000 (they will be correct word-for-word, at the time released, however), it is not impossible to imagine that the 30mm would be more preferable for certain scenarios than the 57mm, I'm specifically thinking about multiple small boats approaching from a wide range of directions. Although the 57mm is undoubtedly more capable at mashing up a single boat, it may become overwhelmed at a lower number of threats than the smaller calibre weapon. And that comment about RPG range being about a mile annoys me. Offhand I think RPG-7 rounds self destruct at about half that.


Regarding the Millennium gun - it's an above deck mount which would require sailors to expose themselves to enemy fire whilst reloading, and limits the number of engagements. It would require additional upperdeck equipment to allow personnel to reload, which has been avoided in the interests of reduced RCS. There are also issues with it's actual lethality against boat targets - it makes a lot of holes but it's not certain that they will be lethal - remember that it's original target set was fast moving missiles and aircraft, whose own KE is a weapon to be used against them.


RP1
"Just your standard-issue big gun."
- Batou, Ghost in the Shell

http://rp-one.net/

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #113 on: October 14, 2014, 07:33:06 am »
The Millennium Gun has an "optional" external mount.  It can be mounted just like a traditional turret with its ammunition handling facilities under armor.  It also has a MUCH higher rate of fire which would give it a much better CWIS capability over the 30mm pop gun they are going with.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #114 on: October 14, 2014, 07:50:50 am »
At the cost of introducting yet another caliber and the associated ammunition, parts, and training pipelines. 

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #115 on: October 14, 2014, 08:11:35 am »
Not if they use it fleet wide instead of that pathetic 30mm pop-gun.

Then they could add it to the Bradley

And on the AAAV

And use it for CRAM

etc

etc

Point being that going from a 57mm round to a 30mm one as your ONLY CWIS & close in defensive gun for a destroyer sized ship is embarrassing.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #116 on: October 14, 2014, 08:18:59 am »
Not if they use it fleet wide instead of that pathetic 30mm pop-gun.

Then they could add it to the Bradley

And on the AAAV

And use it for CRAM

etc

etc

Point being that going from a 57mm round to a 30mm one as your ONLY CWIS & close in defensive gun for a destroyer sized ship is embarrassing.

And it's not even a good one.  We're not talking Goalkeepers here.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline RP1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • I see the truth in it.
    • RP1 dot net
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #117 on: October 14, 2014, 09:19:18 am »
Quote
It can be mounted just like a traditional turret with its ammunition handling facilities under armor.


Off the shelf or advertineering? There's enough risk in DDG-1000 as it is without trying buying something new-and-shiny-and-totally-de-risked-honest-guv to add on to it.


RP1
"Just your standard-issue big gun."
- Batou, Ghost in the Shell

http://rp-one.net/

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #118 on: October 14, 2014, 09:38:28 am »
Not if they use it fleet wide instead of that pathetic 30mm pop-gun.

Then they could add it to the Bradley

And on the AAAV

And use it for CRAM

etc

etc

Point being that going from a 57mm round to a 30mm one as your ONLY CWIS & close in defensive gun for a destroyer sized ship is embarrassing.

OK, so we're heading back to fantasy fleets territory again.  Look, for various reasons that made sense at the time, 30mm is established in the fleet.  Tearing it out and starting over with 35mm (and pushing it into other services) is not a realistic option. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #119 on: October 14, 2014, 09:48:04 am »
OK, so we're heading back to fantasy fleets territory again.  Look, for various reasons that made sense at the time, 30mm is established in the fleet.  Tearing it out and starting over with 35mm (and pushing it into other services) is not a realistic option.
Okay great.  Why not go with Goalkeeper? Hell, even throwing a couple Phalanx up there would be better.  Have you seen those 30mm pop guns in action?  Not something to write home about for sure.



*pop* *pop* miss miss, . . .*pop*. . . .miss etc.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2014, 10:57:38 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #120 on: October 14, 2014, 10:37:54 am »
Quote
It can be mounted just like a traditional turret with its ammunition handling facilities under armor.
Off the shelf or advertineering? There's enough risk in DDG-1000 as it is without trying buying something new-and-shiny-and-totally-de-risked-honest-guv to add on to it.
RP1

OTS

Btw, the Millennium Gun has more operational life under it's belt than the Bushmaster44 on the LPD/LCS/DDS-1000.

Not if they use it fleet wide instead of that pathetic 30mm pop-gun.

Then they could add it to the Bradley

And on the AAAV

And use it for CRAM

etc

etc

Point being that going from a 57mm round to a 30mm one as your ONLY CWIS & close in defensive gun for a destroyer sized ship is embarrassing.

OK, so we're heading back to fantasy fleets territory again.  Look, for various reasons that made sense at the time, 30mm is established in the fleet.  Tearing it out and starting over with 35mm (and pushing it into other services) is not a realistic option.
30mm is established where?  They are still testing it on the LCS, the AAAV is a no-go, and there are a few on some support ships (not in the CWIS role).  If the Mk44 is a viable CWIS gun, then why do the LPDs have RAM?
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #121 on: October 14, 2014, 11:21:39 am »
The 30mm was fielded on all the LPD-17s.  Those are not "support ships"; they're asked to right into the heart of littoral defenses. While it's still in testing somewhat on LCS, (LCS-1 did make a westPac deployment with the 30mm guns), the support infrastructure and training pipeline is fully established
 
You keep saying it's going to serve as a CIWS.  It isn't.  It's a close-in gun system (CIGS) for surface and anti-helicopter/UAV defense, not a CIWS for anti-missile defense.  DDG-1000 isn't using them as a CIWS (nor was it using the 57mm as such).  It is relying on ESSM and countermeasures for missile defense.
 
 

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #122 on: October 14, 2014, 11:31:28 am »

Okay great.  Why not go with Goalkeeper? Hell, even throwing a couple Phalanx up there would be better.  Have you seen those 30mm pop guns in action?  Not something to write home about for sure.

Let's take a ship with a dramatically reduced RCS and bolt a couple of radar reflectors and highly detectable emitters on top.  That's what a Phalanx would be on DDG-1000 -- a giant "shoot me" sign with a flashing strobe light, just in case someone missed it. 
 
Again, CIGS is not CIWS.  They don't have the same roles at all.
 
The system I'd want to consider for these ships is a RAM launcher, but even that is a big enough corner reflector that it may screw up their real missile defenses, which is ESSM plus countermeasures.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #123 on: October 14, 2014, 11:46:37 am »
though some RCS reduction is applied to the 30mm, it would still be sitting exposed and increase the RCS of the ship over the originally planned 57mm. 

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #124 on: October 14, 2014, 12:27:37 pm »
Make no mistake, I was not advocating the 35mm Millennium Gun instead of the 57mm, only the 30mm pop-gun.

You are right in saying CIGS is not CIWS, it's more.  CIGS covers the same targets set as CIWS then adds surface targets.

btw, The previous video show clearly how ineffective the 30mm will be at swarms.  If it can't hit a RHB coming straight for it, what chance does it have vs  a massed amount of boats, UAVs, or god forbid a AShM?
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #125 on: October 14, 2014, 12:29:50 pm »
Nope.  The CIGS target set does not include anti-ship missiles. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #126 on: October 14, 2014, 12:48:18 pm »

Okay great.  Why not go with Goalkeeper? Hell, even throwing a couple Phalanx up there would be better.  Have you seen those 30mm pop guns in action?  Not something to write home about for sure.

Let's take a ship with a dramatically reduced RCS and bolt a couple of radar reflectors and highly detectable emitters on top.  That's what a Phalanx would be on DDG-1000 -- a giant "shoot me" sign with a flashing strobe light, just in case someone missed it. 
 
Again, CIGS is not CIWS.  They don't have the same roles at all.
 
The system I'd want to consider for these ships is a RAM launcher, but even that is a big enough corner reflector that it may screw up their real missile defenses, which is ESSM plus countermeasures.

If you're fighting off swarms of boats (that don't have radars on them) I'm pretty even an infinitely small RCS wouldn't make a hill of beans difference.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #127 on: October 14, 2014, 12:53:56 pm »

If you're fighting off swarms of boats (that don't have radars on them) I'm pretty even an infinitely small RCS wouldn't make a hill of beans difference.

The mounts don't magically disappear when there are missiles instead of boats to deal with. 
 
 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #128 on: October 14, 2014, 01:02:16 pm »

If you're fighting off swarms of boats (that don't have radars on them) I'm pretty even an infinitely small RCS wouldn't make a hill of beans difference.

The mounts don't magically disappear when there are missiles instead of boats to deal with.
No, they don't.  But you'll be shooting ESSMs at those antiship missiles whether you had those mounts or not.  If we'd kept hte 57mm mounts would they have been in stealthy turrets like this one:

 
Or merely dups of those on the LCS?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #129 on: October 14, 2014, 01:30:39 pm »
Found this tidbit in the latest DOT&E report

Quote
Replacement of an integrated Mk 110 57 mm close-in gun system with non-integrated Mk 46 30 mm guns

So not only are we only losing the hitting power, range, and versatility of the 57mm, but it's replacement will not be integrated into the ship-wide battle network.

Lovely


Another tidbit I found, guess it's only an advantage till you say it's not.

« Last Edit: October 14, 2014, 01:45:50 pm by SpudmanWP »
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #130 on: October 14, 2014, 03:28:18 pm »
That looks like the non-stealthy turret too.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #131 on: October 15, 2014, 06:03:10 am »
You guys are misunderstanding me here.  I'm not saying the 30mm gun is superior to the 57mm, or to the 35mm Millennium. I'm a huge fan of Millenium, actually.  If I was starting the fleet from scratch, it would be my choice in a heartbeat.  However:
 
1) Selecting a new mount, a new gun, and especially a new caliber just to equip three ships is not a realistic option.  However much we'd all like a better gun, the expense of new training, maintenance, and supply pipelines is just too much (it's bad enough that DDG-1000 has unique VLS, unique main guns, and unique propulsion systems...) 
 
2) The secondary guns on DDG-1000 are not intended for anti-ship missile defense, and there's a reason the ship didn't have CIWS as originally designed.  The Zumwalt was designed to be stealthy and rely on offboard decoys for a large portion of its anti-ship missile defense (after ESSM has its turn).  The CIWS type guns being suggested have radar antennas (i.e., reflectors) right in the key frequencies for radar-guided anti-ship missiles.  This isn't a big deal on most ships, which have lots of little reflectors anyway, but for a ship as clean as the Zumwalts, those RCS hot spots are a huge compromise of the ship's signature and thus its defenses against radar-guided missiles.  To preserve the ship's RCS, the 57mm guns were going to need to be in those low-RCS houses with concealed barrels.  The Mk 46 30mm mounts have at least somewhat reduced RCS thanks to their use on the LPD-17, another fairly clean reduced RCS design. 
 
 

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #132 on: October 15, 2014, 08:50:49 am »
ok, I think the confusion (especially on my part) is that the definition of CIGS is not well defined (especially on the DDG-1000) and I have see videos and articles specifically highlighting the Mk100's AShM defensive capability with it's 6P ammo.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #133 on: November 20, 2014, 03:54:35 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #135 on: February 21, 2015, 09:42:16 am »
Quote
DDG 1000 on the Kennebec River after a Snow Storm
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #136 on: April 03, 2015, 12:05:23 pm »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #137 on: September 21, 2015, 05:47:52 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #138 on: September 21, 2015, 09:30:44 am »
"SECNAV Mabus, Maine Delegation Back Third Zumwalt Construction"
By: Sam LaGrone
September 16, 2015 6:11 PM • Updated: September 17, 2015 8:16 AM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/09/16/secnav-mabus-maine-delegation-back-third-zumwalt-construction

Quote
PENTAGON — Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus and the Maine congressional delegation have thrown their support behind finishing the third Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer — one that the Department of Defense is studying canceling.

At issue is a Monday report from Bloomberg in which the the wire service reported the Office of the Secretary Defense’s (OSD) Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) would review canceling the third Zumwalt-class destroyer — Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002).

As reported by USNI News in July, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) is struggling to efficiently build both the three highly complex Zumwalts and a new crop of Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers (DDG-51s) at the Maine yard. Delays in the construction of lead ship Zumwalt (DDG-1000) have had, at least in part, a knock-on effect in building the new Burkes, setting construction of the first two planned ships back several months. Canceling Johnson, while not saving the Navy money, could free up capacity at the yard for other work, USNI News understands.

According to Bloomberg, the conversation occurred during an Aug. 25 Defense Acquisition Executive summary meeting that canceling Johnson would “be reviewed in the next few weeks.”

Sources confirmed the pending CAPE review to USNI News on Wednesday.

While the Navy confirmed the meeting, the service would not provide any details from the discussion.

“The internal discussions of this meeting are not publically releasable,” read a Monday statement provided to USNI News by a spokesman for the Navy’s Research, Development & Acquisition (RDA) office.

While OSD is reviewing the fate of Johnson, Mabus told Politico in an interview following the Aug. 25 meeting, the service was still committed to completing the $22.1 billion, three ship program.

“If you were going to make a decision to not all have all three, that decision should have been made a long time ago because now it’s probably as expensive to cancel as it is to build them, just because of the way contracts are written and the way that materials bought and infrastructure’s put in and some other stuff,” according to a partial transcript of the late August interview provided to USNI News.
“You won’t bring any money back into this building.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) issued a joint statement in response to the report throwing their support behind keeping Johnson.

“If Pentagon officials are contemplating the cancellation of this ship at the eleventh hour and when it is already more than 40 percent complete, it would be a policy and financial mistake that would weaken the Navy’s fleet, degrade the manufacturing industrial base upon which our country’s security depends, and would not save money at this stage due to cancellation and other contractual fees,” read the statement provided to USNI News on Wednesday.
“There is no workforce better positioned to build these ships than the talented, highly-skilled men and women of BIW who have a long history of designing, building, and supporting the most advanced ships in the world.”

Collins has long championed BIW and was instrumental in securing construction of the three ships at the yard following the Department of Defense’s truncation of the Zumwalt-class to three ships in 2009.

While Mabus and Collins are committed to a three-ship class, the path forward for BIW, the Navy and OSD on the Zumwalt programs is difficult to ascertain.

For its part, the Navy has been committed to maintaining a strong industrial base — seen as a national security asset — and has taken extensive steps to both preserve competition and provide business to as many U.S. naval yards as possible, as evidenced in the complicated deal it constructed to compete building the third America-class amphibious warship and a new class of fleet oilers.

Almost all of the money for the $22.1 billion program — about the cost of two Ford-class aircraft carriers or ten Burkes — has been authorized and cancelling Johnson will net the service a miniscule amount of money — if any.

However unless BIW, mired in an ongoing labor dispute with its shipyard workers, increases the efficiency in construction of all of its ship lines and drives down overall ship construction costs it would be at risk to winning new work.

In particular, BIW is a finalist to construct the U.S. Coast Guard’s 25-ship $10.5 billion Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC).

If the yard fails to secure the Coast Guard contract, BIW management has said 1,200 of its 5,700 employees will be let go.

“It’s a must-win for us,” BIW president Fred Harris told Mainebiz in January.

The following is the complete Sept. 16 joint statement from Sens. Collins and King.

“There are always challenges in building a first-of-its-class weapons system, whether it’s an aircraft, ship, or land combat vehicle, particularly one with the cutting-edge technologies of the Zumwalt. There is no workforce better positioned to build these ships than the talented, highly-skilled men and women of BIW who have a long history of designing, building, and supporting the most advanced ships in the world.

“Just last week, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said the Navy is committed to all three ships because of the capabilities they will bring to the fleet, and we take him at his word.

“If Pentagon officials are contemplating the cancellation of this ship at the eleventh hour and when it is already more than 40 percent complete, it would be a policy and financial mistake that would weaken the Navy’s fleet, degrade the manufacturing industrial base upon which our country’s security depends, and would not save money at this stage due to cancellation and other contractual fees.”

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #140 on: December 07, 2015, 09:21:30 am »
Underway and heading out for sea trials.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 11:13:18 am by pometablava »

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #141 on: December 07, 2015, 01:52:38 pm »
Here's hoping the Navy doesn't skimp on the pictures and video.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #142 on: December 07, 2015, 08:01:48 pm »
When did they decide to name DDG-1002 after LBJ? Can we officially conclude the Navy no longer gives a damn about naming conventions and will forever more just name ships after whatever politician is appropriate for the moment?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #143 on: December 08, 2015, 01:18:22 am »
When did they decide to name DDG-1002 after LBJ? Can we officially conclude the Navy no longer gives a damn about naming conventions and will forever more just name ships after whatever politician is appropriate for the moment?
2012. LBJ was a Navy vet, in fact he left Congress to serve during WW2, and he was at least elected President which is more than GRF had going for him. People get too upset about who gets what named after them.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #144 on: December 08, 2015, 02:15:15 am »
Underway and heading out for sea trials.


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #145 on: December 08, 2015, 07:19:24 am »
LBJ was a Navy vet, in fact he left Congress to serve during WW2, and he was at least elected President which is more than GRF had going for him. People get too upset about who gets what named after them.

Johnson didn't actually leave Congress.  He was called to active duty while still in Congress and served briefly overseas as an observer, then went back to Congress and became the head of a House Naval Affairs subcommittee on profiteering.

It would be nice if there was more of a coherent system of names, but I'm not losing sleep over it.  That said, being a sailor on "the Johnson" is rife with opportunities for tasteless jokes.  But then, what ship name ever isn't somehow turned into a bawdy joke?

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #146 on: December 08, 2015, 10:21:44 am »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #147 on: December 08, 2015, 10:55:46 am »
That said, being a sailor on "the Johnson" is rife with opportunities for tasteless jokes.  But then, what ship name ever isn't somehow turned into a bawdy joke?

Well we have "Growlers" on the USS Bush so. . . :o
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 11:25:20 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #148 on: December 08, 2015, 11:18:52 am »
Looks beautiful underway, IMO.  Obviously not moving fast in that last video but look at how flat her wake is.  Can't wait to see her at high speed sometime.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #149 on: December 08, 2015, 05:28:44 pm »
The ship's stealthiness works by making enemy think it's just CGI on screen. 

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #150 on: December 08, 2015, 11:48:02 pm »
The ship's stealthiness works by making enemy think it's just CGI on screen.
haha, clever.

I have always considered this **cruiser** beautiful. shame it doesn't have the 57mm and also that they are only building 3. When will China or Russia start building anything even close?!?!
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #151 on: December 09, 2015, 05:02:42 am »
The ship's stealthiness works by making enemy think it's just CGI on screen.
haha, clever.

I have always considered this **cruiser** beautiful. shame it doesn't have the 57mm and also that they are only building 3. When will China or Russia start building anything even close?!?!

Looks like they didn't even install the replacement pop-guns (30mm Mk44 guns).
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #152 on: December 09, 2015, 02:17:10 pm »
I was disappointed with their choice to replace the 57mm with a much inferior gun and no integration with the ship's main defensive system while giving the public some BS excuse.  However, now thinking about it, I think they might looking toward installing laser based system, and it might be soon enough that they would do away with the 57mm to save money

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #153 on: December 09, 2015, 02:25:59 pm »
Looks like they didn't even install the replacement pop-guns (30mm Mk44 guns).

At this point, there are probably a bunch of smaller systems that aren't fitted yet.  I think you can see some missing antenna arrays on the superstructure too.  Par for the course for pre-commissioning trials.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 506
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #154 on: December 09, 2015, 02:47:04 pm »
I was disappointed with their choice to replace the 57mm with a much inferior gun and no integration with the ship's main defensive system while giving the public some BS excuse.  However, now thinking about it, I think they might looking toward installing laser based system, and it might be soon enough that they would do away with the 57mm to save money

There has been some scuttlebutt on military blogs (*cough CDR Salamander cough*) that the 57mm gun is a wholly inadequate weapon. The weight of fire + accuracy is, according to these unverifiable statements, nowhere near comparable to a 76mm rapid fire gun.

If that is true, then it would explain a reason why the USN cut them from the DDG-1000.
A) DDG-1000 is more of a test-bed then a warship expected to continually deploy into hostile areas
B) If A is true and the statements about the 57mm gun are also true, then deleting them from the ship represents only a marginal decrease in ship combat power, which doesn't matter anyway.

Scratch the above, here is a source:

Quote
The Mark 110 57mm gun, “was nowhere near meeting the requirements,” said Capt. Jim Downey, program manager for the DDG 1000 Zumwalt class.

In fact, Downey said, the 57mm gun — selected years ago for the DDG 1000 as a close-in weapon and in service as the primary gun for the littoral combat ship and Coast Guard national security cutters — is overrated.

“They were significantly over-modeled on the lethality,” he said. “The results of the actual live test-fire data was that the round was not as effective as modeled.”


http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20141012/DEFREG02/310120010/Experts-Question-US-Navy-s-Decision-Swap-Out-DDG-1000-s-Secondary-Gun

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #155 on: December 09, 2015, 02:49:12 pm »
I was disappointed with their choice to replace the 57mm with a much inferior gun and no integration with the ship's main defensive system while giving the public some BS excuse.  However, now thinking about it, I think they might looking toward installing laser based system, and it might be soon enough that they would do away with the 57mm to save money

I'm not even going to try to get my hopes up there.  (Though it does make sense.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #156 on: December 09, 2015, 02:54:17 pm »
I was disappointed with their choice to replace the 57mm with a much inferior gun and no integration with the ship's main defensive system while giving the public some BS excuse.  However, now thinking about it, I think they might looking toward installing laser based system, and it might be soon enough that they would do away with the 57mm to save money

There has been some scuttlebutt on military blogs (*cough CDR Salamander cough*) that the 57mm gun is a wholly inadequate weapon. The weight of fire + accuracy is, according to these unverifiable statements, nowhere near comparable to a 76mm rapid fire gun.

If that is true, then it would explain a reason why the USN cut them from the DDG-1000.
A) DDG-1000 is more of a test-bed then a warship expected to continually deploy into hostile areas
B) If A is true and the statements about the 57mm gun are also true, then deleting them from the ship represents only a marginal decrease in ship combat power, which doesn't matter anyway.

Scratch the above, here is a source:

Quote
The Mark 110 57mm gun, “was nowhere near meeting the requirements,” said Capt. Jim Downey, program manager for the DDG 1000 Zumwalt class.

In fact, Downey said, the 57mm gun — selected years ago for the DDG 1000 as a close-in weapon and in service as the primary gun for the littoral combat ship and Coast Guard national security cutters — is overrated.

“They were significantly over-modeled on the lethality,” he said. “The results of the actual live test-fire data was that the round was not as effective as modeled.”


http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20141012/DEFREG02/310120010/Experts-Question-US-Navy-s-Decision-Swap-Out-DDG-1000-s-Secondary-Gun

How about a pair of Millennium guns up there then?  The clunkers they decided to put in their place leave. . .something to be desired:

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 948
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #157 on: December 09, 2015, 03:09:52 pm »
I've been pushing a Millennium Gun upgrade for the LCS for .. ever.

WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #158 on: December 09, 2015, 05:48:55 pm »
There has been some scuttlebutt on military blogs (*cough CDR Salamander cough*) that the 57mm gun is a wholly inadequate weapon. The weight of fire + accuracy is, according to these unverifiable statements, nowhere near comparable to a 76mm rapid fire gun.

If that is true, then it would explain a reason why the USN cut them from the DDG-1000.
A) DDG-1000 is more of a test-bed then a warship expected to continually deploy into hostile areas

The issues with the 57mm Bofors gun and the DDG-1000 are not to do with the conventional performance vs weight and so on of the weapon but to do with the lethality claims of the 3P (aka Mk 295) ammo vs anti ship missiles. So its not an issue of 57mm vs 76mm or whatever. But rather does the 3P live up to the hype? And can it replace a more expensive ASMD capability (RAM + Phalanx) as was claimed to justify its acquisition in the first place.

This is a different issue to the capability of the 57mm gun as a naval surface fire weapon as seen in its installation on LCS and NSC type vessels. Though it was a secondary consideration for DDG-1000. That is the ASMD weapon could also be used to bash boats.

The 76mm gun can compete with the 57mm in bashing boats and ASMD while also providing a useful NGS capability. However to be effective as an ASMD weapon the 76mm relies on its own high tech solution (DART) which could have its issues like 3P.

B) If A is true and the statements about the 57mm gun are also true, then deleting them from the ship represents only a marginal decrease in ship combat power, which doesn't matter anyway.

Even a bad inner layer ASMD system is better than no inner layer ASMD system. The 30mm can bash boats but the DDG-1000 needs RAM and/or Phalanx (or som other ASMD) to be combat deployable.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #159 on: December 09, 2015, 11:33:47 pm »
The Zumwalt class has defenses against anti-ship missiles, they're called RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles. Plus the reduced signature that makes targeting more difficult in the first place. If, in the course of testing the class the Navy decides some type of CIWS is needed they'll add it, these hulls have impressive growth margin. Buy it probably won't be a laser for a few years yet.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #160 on: December 10, 2015, 03:15:30 am »
I think people were really confused about the purpose of those small-caliber guns on the DD-21 design.  They were never meant to be anti-ship missile defense weapons.  As noted, that was ESSM and decoys (made much more effective by the ship's very small RCS). 

The Navy refered to the small-caliber guns as  Close-In Gun Systems, which is distinct from Close-In Weapon Systems.  CIGS is intended for engaging swarming small boats, with helos and UAVs as secondary targets.  The 30mm was always considered adequate for this--it was offered on one of the initial DD-21 proposals (the winner offered 40mm Bofors).  The 57mm was a late change in the first place, mainly for commonality with LCS, and was never seen as a core capability for the ship.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #161 on: December 10, 2015, 06:17:14 pm »
Asmd is layered: essm stand off kinetic kill, decoys, ecm, sig mngt and finally an inner layer system for when all else fails. Even if you have awesome sig mngt and great essm you need a dinal layer. Why phalanx has been put back on DDG 51 and why the lack of such on DDG 1000 is being an issue. 57mm 3p is designed and purchased to be an asmd weapon. Mk 295 mod 1 is designed to provide asmd with a guided shell with IIR fusing.

"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #162 on: December 10, 2015, 07:21:39 pm »
Asmd is layered: essm stand off kinetic kill, decoys, ecm, sig mngt and finally an inner layer system for when all else fails. Even if you have awesome sig mngt and great essm you need a dinal layer. Why phalanx has been put back on DDG 51 and why the lack of such on DDG 1000 is being an issue. 57mm 3p is designed and purchased to be an asmd weapon. Mk 295 mod 1 is designed to provide asmd with a guided shell with IIR fusing.
I have no objection to the Phalanx mounts being added back to the Flight IIA-onward Burke class, but it was omitted from them for the same reason it was omitted from Zumwalt: the Navy believed it didn't offer enough benefit over the ESSM to justify the cost (in money, weight, crew workload, etc). And if it were just down to missile defense, they wouldn't have added the guns back. It took Raytheon and the program office seriously expanding the guns' utility in other roles to prompt the Navy to that decision.

As I said, if in testing they decide that a gun-based CIWS inner, inner layer is warranted then one will be added. Or they may fit a stealthy RAM turret instead. Or a laser turret. The Mk 110 mounts intended for the Zumwalt never had an air/missile defense role for the class, the ORKA round was not even a concept when the design was being finalized.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #163 on: December 10, 2015, 09:46:07 pm »
It was never a case of essm or ciws/ ram but rather with essm and a tight budget and no soviet union we can get away without ciws/ram. As to mk 295 mod 1 this development is in response to the lack of lethality in mod 0 ie 3p. As to the 57mm not ever being a part of the ddg 1000 aaw system that would not quite explain why it was going to be part of the aaw cms
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3103
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #164 on: December 11, 2015, 02:33:36 am »
Because it isn't just an AAW CMS, its multi-function/domain. The 57mm on the DDG1000 was always intended primarily as a close-in anti-surface weapon, sure you can point it at and fire it at incoming missiles and aircraft but that was not its intended primary role (you can do the same thing with the 5") which was in part why the weapon was dropped from DDG1000 and replaced by the thus far also absent 30mm.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #165 on: December 13, 2015, 11:30:23 am »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #166 on: December 13, 2015, 12:00:34 pm »
Expensive platform for this mission  ;D but 'way to go Navy'

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/12/12/new-stealth-destroyer-helps-rescue-maine-fisherman/77205428/

Sure to be denounced as "predictable requirements creep."

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #167 on: December 14, 2015, 02:38:38 am »
For some reason reminds me of a certain politician who in an paid effort to save the f-22 production line at the time, suggested that we should use f-22 to catch pirates on fishing boats. 

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #169 on: January 05, 2016, 08:15:15 am »
Quote
According to the Navy, the new class of destroyers will be able to triple naval surface fire coverage, while also tripling anti-ship cruise missile capabilities.

This is badly written.  What the Navy'd DDG-1000 fact sheet says is "tripling capability against anti-ship cruise missiles," which is a different matter altogether.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #171 on: January 14, 2016, 03:55:05 pm »
Quote
DDG 1000 On Track For Delivery In April

01/14/2016

The Navy’s first Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000) will return to the seas for builder’s trials in about a month’s time, and the General Dynamics [GD] Bath Iron Works ship is on schedule for delivery on April 25, a program official said Jan. 14.

Rear Adm. David Gale, the Navy’s program executive officer for ships, said the Zumwalt “performed exquisitely” in its first trip out to sea during December, a weeklong event that culminated in the rescue of a Maine fisherman who was having health problems.
The first of the Zumwalt class of destroyers, the DDG-1000. Photo: Dana Rene, special to Defense Daily.The first of the Zumwalt class of destroyers, the DDG-1000. Photo: Dana Rene, special to Defense Daily.

“There were some lessons learned,” he said in a speech at the Surface Navy Association’s national symposium. “There were some things we need to go work on, but nothing that we can't overcome will prevent us from delivering that ship by 25 April of this year. We've got work to do, a lot of coordination, a lot of teamwork to get that done."

After delivery, the Zumwalt will be turned over to Capt. James Kirk and his crew for training and qualification, Gale said. The commissioning of the ship is tentatively scheduled for October in Baltimore, Md.

The DDG 1000 is the Navy’s largest destroyer ever built and contains a host of advanced technologies. The design features a radar cross section more akin to a fishing boat, and its integrated power system allows operators to shift energy from one part of the ship to another. The latter capability could become critical if technologies such as the rail gun, which consumes vast amounts of power, become prevalent on ships.

During its week at sea, the crew demonstrated a variety of the Zumwalt’s shipboard systems, including its anchors, electric steering system and power handling and conditioning system, Rear Adm. Jim Downey, the Navy’s DDG-1000 program manager, said during a briefing Thursday afternoon. Its integrated power system ran 33 knots at full power, and its power generators met its goals for the sea trials. The ship also successfully deployed and recovered 11 mm rigid inflatable boats (RIB).

"We saw eight to 10 foot seas,” he said. "The ship performed extremely well. We ran up full power and full rudder swings, 35 degree of rudder swings in each direction."

Though unexpected, the rescue effort provided a showcase for the ship’s handling capabilities, he said.

"We steamed over there at full plant, got some good data on an unplanned two-hour power ride, and we launched our RIB,” he said. “It was 12 minutes from the launch of the RIB until they got to the vessel, got the person aboard and got back."

Kirk, who was present for the briefing, said the ship “handled marvelously,” comparing the difference in steering a DDG-1000 and DDG-51 as being similar to driving a smaller sedan versus a larger one. 

Tests of the ship’s Advanced Gun System, built by BAE Systems, will start after the DDG-1000 has arrived in San Diego, Downey said. There, the ship will also be upgraded with the eighth release of software.

Radar modifications on AN/SPY-3 X band radar, manufactured by Raytheon [RTN], have continued to progress. The radar will move onto the Self Defense Test ship soon, he said.

The USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) is 84 percent complete. All mission systems have been installed, and it is scheduled to be launched in June, he said. The third ship in the class, USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) 43 percent complete.

http://www.defensedaily.com/ddg-1000-on-track-for-delivery-in-april/?fullview=1

"The ship also successfully deployed and recovered 11 mm rigid inflatable boats (RIB)."  -> I guess they were rescuing ants.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2016, 04:00:19 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #172 on: January 14, 2016, 11:46:28 pm »
Sorry couldn't help myself



The DDG-1000 has to be at least three times bigger than this
« Last Edit: January 14, 2016, 11:48:53 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #173 on: January 15, 2016, 11:02:58 am »

Looks like they still haven't installed the VLS systems up front.  (Looks like a pretty smooth surface on the two raised areas where the cells go.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #174 on: January 15, 2016, 11:44:25 am »
I'm sure I've seen pictures of the modules installed but I can't find them now.  I think there might be a plate over the hatch covers (maybe for RCS reduction?)

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #175 on: January 15, 2016, 12:06:02 pm »
The Mk 57 modules are already in place, the clean look was an effort to reduce RCS.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #177 on: March 04, 2016, 02:02:19 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #178 on: March 04, 2016, 03:59:53 am »
http://news.usni.org/2016/03/03/new-external-ddg-1000-mast-reduces-ships-stealth-from-original-design

This could go very badly indeed.

Why?  While reduced RCS is a feature it wasn't ever relying on it.  (Maybe that means they'll put some actual CIWS on it, but more likely they'll just let it remain a white elephant.  Such a shame.  The class could have been the backbone of the fleet going forward.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #179 on: March 04, 2016, 05:25:09 am »
If they're still hitting the Threshold requirement, the signature reduction is still rather dramatic compared to previous surface combatants. 

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1857
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #180 on: March 04, 2016, 07:42:00 am »
For some reason reminds me of a certain politician who in an paid effort to save the f-22 production line at the time, suggested that we should use f-22 to catch pirates on fishing boats.

See the M61A2 almost paid off!

Seriously though - in Canada the F-35 was pitched as a Search and Rescue aircraft (as well as a maritime patrol aircraft). It is amazing what politicians will sometimes suggest!

The DDG-1000 can actually fulfil these missions quite well though (and a lot of other more impressive missions)!

Offline Tony Williams

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 368
    • Cannon, machine guns and ammunition
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #181 on: March 05, 2016, 02:59:25 am »
For some reason reminds me of a certain politician who in an paid effort to save the f-22 production line at the time, suggested that we should use f-22 to catch pirates on fishing boats.

Seriously though - in Canada the F-35 was pitched as a Search and Rescue aircraft (as well as a maritime patrol aircraft). It is amazing what politicians will sometimes suggest!

The opposite approach was taken by the British government when they scrapped the Nimrod MRP in 2010: they claimed that it could be replaced by a Hercules transport manned by men with binoculars....  :o

Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #182 on: March 22, 2016, 10:17:10 am »
Heading out again for sea trials.


Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #183 on: March 29, 2016, 08:59:23 am »
You may want to turn off the audio.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #185 on: March 31, 2016, 04:09:19 pm »
Quote
"All ahead one third on the starboard shaft.” The order was called out by the Bath Iron Works (BIW) conning officer

God, I hope not. "All ahead" means both shafts.  The proper order is "Starboard ahead one third. "

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #186 on: April 07, 2016, 06:42:33 pm »
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 06:47:03 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #187 on: April 09, 2016, 04:48:14 am »
There is an amazing amount of open space in this ship.  Given the cost amd volume issues with the Burke Flight IIIs, the Navy must be seriously wondering if sticking with the DDG-1000 might not have been a better move long term.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #188 on: April 09, 2016, 06:57:47 am »
There is an amazing amount of open space in this ship.  Given the cost amd volume issues with the Burke Flight IIIs, the Navy must be seriously wondering if sticking with the DDG-1000 might not have been a better move long term.

When it comes time to replace the Ticos I'll bet they look at that hull REAL hard.  (And then moan about how it's costs have exploded, mystified as to how it happened.)   I thought the well-deck and amount of hangar space was interesting.  I think the USN hasn't done a real good job of selling this hull.  When railguns and DEWs come online in the coming years the Zumwalts will be the only surface combatants ready for them.  They make me think about the Spruance class when it first came out.  Big giant ship with little in the way of weapons.  Then they got a pair of Phalanx, a VLS system, Harpoon cannisters. . .  They were excellent ships by the time the Navy decided to use them for target practice.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 07:02:52 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #191 on: April 11, 2016, 06:03:15 am »
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/08/all-three-zumwalt-class-destroyers-assigned-to-pacific-carter.html

No shock here -- a class of three ships with a large number of unique systems to support, were never going to be based in more than one homeport. 

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #192 on: April 11, 2016, 01:14:33 pm »
Anyone know the dimensions and weight limitations of the stern boat launch system? Looks big in the internal photos. Wondering if it can handle more than just the obvious RIBs.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #193 on: April 11, 2016, 07:12:23 pm »
The 11-meter RHIBs are 3.2 meters wide, and about 8 tons. By the looks of it that's about the max size that would fit.  I would hope they could fit the CUSV unmanned vehicle as well.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #196 on: June 09, 2016, 08:32:37 am »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #197 on: June 19, 2016, 04:23:28 am »
2nd in class Christened.


Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #198 on: June 25, 2016, 05:05:03 pm »
Launching of MICHAEL MONSOOR (DDG 1001) from drydock to pierside.

 ;D

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #199 on: June 25, 2016, 09:46:39 pm »
DDG-1000 Presentation from Surface Navy Association 2016 (disregard the date on the opening slide)

Slide 6 seems to support TomS supposition that they had enough RCS margin above the threshold requirement to tolerate the steel superstructure.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #200 on: June 25, 2016, 09:47:58 pm »
Preso continued:

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #201 on: June 26, 2016, 04:39:44 am »
That Requirements (Threshold/Objective) slide has been around for a while, which makes for some interesting trend analysis.  I can't pull the slides out as images, but this 2011 brief has RCS being noticeably closer to threshold than the more recent version.  Meaning that despite the various  antenna and superstructure changes that were supposedly hurting the signature, RCS may have actually gotten better over the last four years.

http://www.portengineerprogram.org/Conference_Presentations/2011/DDG1000_Program_Overview.pdf
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 05:37:20 am by TomS »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #202 on: June 26, 2016, 06:34:25 am »
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SNA_DDG1000_DistroA_SNA_BRIEF_0142016.pdf

I hope they're smart enough to go back to this hull for the Ticonderoga replacement.  (Though with some real guns instead of those lousy pop guns on top of the hanger.)  One thing I do wonder about though is why they went with the cell size they did with the Mk57 VLS.  It's not big enough for multiple SM-2s, nor are they ever likely to produce weapons that would maximize the use of the cell volume considering the now low numbers of cells deployed.   ???

« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 06:57:46 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #203 on: June 26, 2016, 08:38:48 am »
They were future-proofing for CG-21, which was a major design driver when DD-21 started. 

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #204 on: June 27, 2016, 09:10:56 am »
Pretty cool to see that image of the pVLS detonation test aftermath, even in low-rez form.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #205 on: June 27, 2016, 10:12:16 am »
I think this is the test


Offline totoro

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 240
    • Binkov's Battlegrounds
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #206 on: June 30, 2016, 03:42:57 am »
One would expect that future systems would use mk57 cell size better.  Like new cruise missiles, larger in diameter due to shaping and applied RA material. Or anti-ship variants of same missile. Or even super/hypersonic antiship missiles if needed. Or new missiles to replace both essm and sm-2/6. Something that could quad pack in mk57 could have 50% greater envelope than said missles. Or a smaller variant of ASROC that can be quadpacked?

Of course, all this may take a few more decades.

www.youtube.com/c/binkovsbattlegrounds - military analysis videos

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #207 on: June 30, 2016, 06:36:31 am »
One would expect that future systems would use mk57 cell size better.  Like new cruise missiles, larger in diameter due to shaping and applied RA material. Or anti-ship variants of same missile. Or even super/hypersonic antiship missiles if needed. Or new missiles to replace both essm and sm-2/6. Something that could quad pack in mk57 could have 50% greater envelope than said missles. Or a smaller variant of ASROC that can be quadpacked?

Of course, all this may take a few more decades.

Given that any such missiles wouldn't be able to fit in the Mk41 VLS that's almost a non-starter.  If the Ticonderogas were replace with a ship based on the Zumwalt hull, or any new hull incorporated the Mk57 VLS that might be a different matter.  I can't believe the Flight III Burkes aren't getting any of those cells but I'd guess that's at least part of the reason why.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #208 on: June 30, 2016, 08:34:39 am »
They were future-proofing for CG-21, which was a major design driver when DD-21 started.

Right but you'd think they'd have at least made them big enough to hold 2 SM-2s rather than take such a large hit in loadout.  As it is a Zumwalt can't even carry what a Burke does.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #209 on: June 30, 2016, 08:56:56 am »
They were future-proofing for CG-21, which was a major design driver when DD-21 started.

Right but you'd think they'd have at least made them big enough to hold 2 SM-2s rather than take such a large hit in loadout.  As it is a Zumwalt can't even carry what a Burke does.

The initial DD-21 designs had 128 cells -- the shrink didn't hit until after the PVLS cell size was settled.

Dual-pack for SM-2 was considered a possibility, and I think it might have happened if they'd built more than three ships.  There was talk of dual-pack even in the Mk 41 envelope, but you have to radically rethink the missile -- no strakes, no tail fins, etc.  With the extra space in the Mk 57, it would be a lot easier. 

The size may also have been influenced by NSFS plans. Congress was talking about an "Advanced Land Attack missile" for DD-21.  The clear preference from the Navy was for something similar to NTACMS, but that was a very tight squeeze in a Mk 41 cell.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1815
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #210 on: June 30, 2016, 09:41:27 am »
Integrate the PAC-3MSE with VLC and pack 2 of those in using it as a short-medium range interceptor for higher end threats that the ESSM can't deal with.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #211 on: June 30, 2016, 04:04:57 pm »
Dual-pack for SM-2 was considered a possibility, and I think it might have happened if they'd built more than three ships.  There was talk of dual-pack even in the Mk 41 envelope, but you have to radically rethink the missile -- no strakes, no tail fins, etc.  With the extra space in the Mk 57, it would be a lot easier.

In a Mk57 and no fins?  Possibly:



In a Mk41?  Nope:


 

The size may also have been influenced by NSFS plans. Congress was talking about an "Advanced Land Attack missile" for DD-21.  The clear preference from the Navy was for something similar to NTACMS, but that was a very tight squeeze in a Mk 41 cell.

It's a tight squeeze in a Mk57.  No way in a Mk41 (shown):

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #212 on: June 30, 2016, 04:20:31 pm »
Integrate the PAC-3MSE with VLC and pack 2 of those in using it as a short-medium range interceptor for higher end threats that the ESSM can't deal with.

A regular PAC-3 can fit in the same diameter cell an ESSM can.  You might be able to quad-pack MSE in a Mk57.  (You could certainly dual-pack THAAD in one of those cells.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1815
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #213 on: June 30, 2016, 05:23:34 pm »
Integrate the PAC-3MSE with VLC and pack 2 of those in using it as a short-medium range interceptor for higher end threats that the ESSM can't deal with.

A regular PAC-3 can fit in the same diameter cell an ESSM can.  You might be able to quad-pack MSE in a Mk57.  (You could certainly dual-pack THAAD in one of those cells.)

Aren't the MK57 cells the same dimensions as the 41? Here's what Lockheed has claimed on the MK41s from IHS:

Quote
Patriot fire units are slanted and the MSE launcher for the Medium Extended Air Defence System (MEADS) was canted marginally from vertical - for safety reasons - but a naval version would need to be fired vertically to fit into legacy launch cells and deck architecture, and provide all-round coverage. However, Barry McCullough, vice president of international business development for Aegis programmes said that the company proved the MSE's basic fit in a Mk.41 vertical launch system cell and its vertical launch capability in a launcher at Aberdeen Proving Ground.
Trotsky acknowledged that "there is a small amount of integration work required to get the missile into a vertical launch cell, but you can get two MSE in each launch canister". The missile's solid fuel configuration should also ease its integration into the shipboard environment.

THAAD would be a natural fit for an evolution of the AEGIS system if the ballistic missile threat continues to remain serious and gets longer ranges, challenges with the navy picking it up aside. With a dual packed MSE arrangement you could substitute some of the long range interceptors with 2 shorter ranged ones, keeping the SM2's/6's for AAW and create capacity for offensive capability. A good option to have since systems are already developed, and have a pretty decent planned production run once international orders are factored in. I think a lot will depend on how good the ESSM Block II gets against future threats. Having said that, I don't think the DDG-1000 is going to be gearing up for THAAD like missions, I think they'll stick to interceptors that can do both the AAW and BMD mission for now and for the future.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2016, 05:37:57 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #214 on: June 30, 2016, 06:24:47 pm »
Aren't the MK57 cells the same dimensions as the 41? Here's what Lockheed has claimed on the MK41s from IHS:

Nope, the Mk41 is smaller.  It's still big enough to hold 2 MSEs (or four regular PAC-3s or ESSMs) though.  You could probably fit four MSEs in a Mk57 cell.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1815
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #215 on: June 30, 2016, 06:39:00 pm »
If you can indeed pack 4 MSE's per one SM6 that may just be a trade that is worth looking into if it frees up cells for TLAM's, LRASM"s and whatever future offensive missile they wish to develop. SM6 will still be the long range weapon and have secondary anti surface capability but you'll just have less of them.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #216 on: June 30, 2016, 07:12:23 pm »
If you can indeed pack 4 MSE's per one SM6 that may just be a trade that is worth looking into if it frees up cells for TLAM's, LRASM"s and whatever future offensive missile they wish to develop. SM6 will still be the long range weapon and have secondary anti surface capability but you'll just have less of them.

You can't trade 4 MSEs for one SM-6 in a Mk41 cell. 

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #217 on: June 30, 2016, 07:44:01 pm »
Your drawings don't tell the whole story there. 

In November 1996, Lockheed actually test flew an ATACMS from a Mk41 VLS at the Desert Ship facility at White Sands.  IIRC, it used a Mk72 booster repurposed from SM-2 Block IV.  The canister was obviously not a standard one -- LM had developed a special thin-wall design that I believe would also have been used in the dual-pack SM-2 concept.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #218 on: June 30, 2016, 08:21:03 pm »
Your drawings don't tell the whole story there. 

In November 1996, Lockheed actually test flew an ATACMS from a Mk41 VLS at the Desert Ship facility at White Sands.  IIRC, it used a Mk72 booster repurposed from SM-2 Block IV.  The canister was obviously not a standard one -- LM had developed a special thin-wall design that I believe would also have been used in the dual-pack SM-2 concept.

Sounds like it wasn't actually an ATACMS either.   (Or was a normal ATACMS mounted on the front end of an Mk72 booster?)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1815
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #219 on: July 01, 2016, 02:21:19 am »
Quote
You can't trade 4 MSEs for one SM-6 in a Mk41 cell. 

I meant on the DDG-1000.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #220 on: July 01, 2016, 02:49:31 am »
Your drawings don't tell the whole story there. 

In November 1996, Lockheed actually test flew an ATACMS from a Mk41 VLS at the Desert Ship facility at White Sands.  IIRC, it used a Mk72 booster repurposed from SM-2 Block IV.  The canister was obviously not a standard one -- LM had developed a special thin-wall design that I believe would also have been used in the dual-pack SM-2 concept.

Sounds like it wasn't actually an ATACMS either.   (Or was a normal ATACMS mounted on the front end of an Mk72 booster?)

The latter.  That combination of ATACMS + Mk72 is what was offered for the interim land attack missile program ultimately won by Land Attack Standard Missile. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #221 on: July 01, 2016, 05:19:11 am »
Your drawings don't tell the whole story there. 

In November 1996, Lockheed actually test flew an ATACMS from a Mk41 VLS at the Desert Ship facility at White Sands.  IIRC, it used a Mk72 booster repurposed from SM-2 Block IV.  The canister was obviously not a standard one -- LM had developed a special thin-wall design that I believe would also have been used in the dual-pack SM-2 concept.

Sounds like it wasn't actually an ATACMS either.   (Or was a normal ATACMS mounted on the front end of an Mk72 booster?)

The latter.  That combination of ATACMS + Mk72 is what was offered for the interim land attack missile program ultimately won by Land Attack Standard Missile.

That's actually fairly amusing in a perverse sort of way.  They pick SM-4 over a purpose-built land attack missile, that's already proving it's effectiveness, almost purely on cost.  Then they cancel it due to lack of effectiveness, leaving the USN with nothing.  Sounds about right.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 05:56:44 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #222 on: July 01, 2016, 06:55:36 am »
Yeah, it was a real head-scratcher at the time.  The interim ATACMS solution required more development effort (Booster integration and canister both needed work to refine) while LASM was almost entirely off the shelf, so that made sense as an interim solution.  But not proceeding with LASM at all was weird.  They could have recycled old SM-2MR airframes, warheads, and motors -- the only new stuff needed was the guidance package and fuzing (and maybe a new nosecone for better aerodynamics).  It should have been amazingly cheap.   

There was a bunch of politics at play, as usual.  I think there was a feeling that if they could field an interim NSFS capability (LASM + ERGM) on the existing fleet, they might lose the specialized ship (DD-21) and associated systems (ALAM + AGS).  Which basically happened anyway...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #223 on: July 01, 2016, 08:33:59 am »
Yeah, it was a real head-scratcher at the time.  The interim ATACMS solution required more development effort (Booster integration and canister both needed work to refine) while LASM was almost entirely off the shelf, so that made sense as an interim solution.  But not proceeding with LASM at all was weird.  They could have recycled old SM-2MR airframes, warheads, and motors -- the only new stuff needed was the guidance package and fuzing (and maybe a new nosecone for better aerodynamics).  It should have been amazingly cheap.   

There was a bunch of politics at play, as usual.  I think there was a feeling that if they could field an interim NSFS capability (LASM + ERGM) on the existing fleet, they might lose the specialized ship (DD-21) and associated systems (ALAM + AGS).  Which basically happened anyway...

Sad thing is they could be using SM-4s as antiship missiles. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #224 on: July 01, 2016, 01:52:35 pm »
So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #225 on: July 01, 2016, 02:10:38 pm »
So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

Would have needed new launchers;  much larger, on the centerline, and maybe needing a deckhouse to create enough depth.

(2:50)  (Don't know if this just some artist's impression or if any factual information went into it.)



« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 02:16:24 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #226 on: July 01, 2016, 03:37:01 pm »
So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

In a very large VLS that would replace the Advanced Gun System. You can see it in the attached painting.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #227 on: July 01, 2016, 04:37:38 pm »
Yeah, it was a real head-scratcher at the time.  The interim ATACMS solution required more development effort (Booster integration and canister both needed work to refine) while LASM was almost entirely off the shelf, so that made sense as an interim solution.  But not proceeding with LASM at all was weird.  They could have recycled old SM-2MR airframes, warheads, and motors -- the only new stuff needed was the guidance package and fuzing (and maybe a new nosecone for better aerodynamics).  It should have been amazingly cheap.   

There was a bunch of politics at play, as usual.  I think there was a feeling that if they could field an interim NSFS capability (LASM + ERGM) on the existing fleet, they might lose the specialized ship (DD-21) and associated systems (ALAM + AGS).  Which basically happened anyway...

Or they have a secret missile program in black world .

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #228 on: July 01, 2016, 04:40:58 pm »
So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

In a very large VLS that would replace the Advanced Gun System. You can see it in the attached painting.

And THAT is how they should have done the VLS in the SSGNs.  So much wasted space.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #229 on: July 01, 2016, 04:45:01 pm »
So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

In a very large VLS that would replace the Advanced Gun System. You can see it in the attached painting.

And THAT is how they should have done the VLS in the SSGNs.  So much wasted space.

I think steath ship VLS better than SSGN .

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #230 on: July 01, 2016, 05:30:36 pm »
So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

In a very large VLS that would replace the Advanced Gun System. You can see it in the attached painting.

And THAT is how they should have done the VLS in the SSGNs.  So much wasted space.

I think steath ship VLS better than SSGN .
Both
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #231 on: July 01, 2016, 05:39:38 pm »
So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

In a very large VLS that would replace the Advanced Gun System. You can see it in the attached painting.

And THAT is how they should have done the VLS in the SSGNs.  So much wasted space.

IIRC, there were some major concerns about the sheer amount of debris that would fall back on the sub from the large
number of sequential Tomahawk launches.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #232 on: July 01, 2016, 07:11:12 pm »
There was a bunch of politics at play, as usual.  I think there was a feeling that if they could field an interim NSFS capability (LASM + ERGM) on the existing fleet, they might lose the specialized ship (DD-21) and associated systems (ALAM + AGS).  Which basically happened anyway...

Or they have a secret missile program in black world .

A black missile program that could field large numbers of cheap land-attack/fire support missiles to fill up VLS cells across the fleet?  Seems a bit unlikely.  You'd need to tell very low level people about them; folks like ANGLICO forward observers who would be calling in their strikes.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #233 on: July 01, 2016, 11:21:22 pm »
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/weapons/2015/03/10/boeing-saab-small-diameter-bomber-ground-launch/24705183/

Quote
Range-wise, the GLSDB can hit targets 150 kilometers

For the experts here at SPF a SDB on a maximum sized solid rocket in VLS would/could give you what range?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #234 on: July 02, 2016, 03:33:16 am »
There was a bunch of politics at play, as usual.  I think there was a feeling that if they could field an interim NSFS capability (LASM + ERGM) on the existing fleet, they might lose the specialized ship (DD-21) and associated systems (ALAM + AGS).  Which basically happened anyway...

Or they have a secret missile program in black world .

A black missile program that could field large numbers of cheap land-attack/fire support missiles to fill up VLS cells across the fleet?  Seems a bit unlikely.  You'd need to tell very low level people about them; folks like ANGLICO forward observers who would be calling in their strikes.

Maybe the black missile used same launch system as SM-6 .

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #235 on: July 02, 2016, 04:34:29 am »
I'm not sure you're understanding the mission we're talking about here.  Late 1990s, about 20 years ago, long before SM-6 was even considered.  A black missile could exist for strategic strike missions (like the CALCM and various special cruise missile warheads) because they would only need to be known to a few folks in a strike planning cell, but fire support assets are different. But the requirement here was for a missile to provide naval surface fire support to Marines doing amphibious assaults and raiding sorts of stuff (This is the era when Operational Maneuver from the Sea was the buzzword).  By definition that can't be a black project because the capability has to be widely known to Marine infantry commanders and their assigned fire support coordinators who would be tasking the missiles, and by junior officers on the ships that would be shooting them. 

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #236 on: July 02, 2016, 05:25:16 am »
I'm not sure you're understanding the mission we're talking about here.  Late 1990s, about 20 years ago, long before SM-6 was even considered.  A black missile could exist for strategic strike missions (like the CALCM and various special cruise missile warheads) because they would only need to be known to a few folks in a strike planning cell, but fire support assets are different. But the requirement here was for a missile to provide naval surface fire support to Marines doing amphibious assaults and raiding sorts of stuff (This is the era when Operational Maneuver from the Sea was the buzzword).  By definition that can't be a black project because the capability has to be widely known to Marine infantry commanders and their assigned fire support coordinators who would be tasking the missiles, and by junior officers on the ships that would be shooting them.

A black missile can used bigger warhead and hit bigger range .

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #237 on: July 02, 2016, 08:58:43 am »
So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

In a very large VLS that would replace the Advanced Gun System. You can see it in the attached painting.

And THAT is how they should have done the VLS in the SSGNs.  So much wasted space.

IIRC, there were some major concerns about the sheer amount of debris that would fall back on the sub from the large
number of sequential Tomahawk launches.

Not sure what you mean here.  SSGNs carry something like 154 Tomahawks.  I'd say that's a large number.  What my comment was aluding to is that there is a lot of wasted space on the SSGNs.  Each former SLBM tube is deep enough they could have stacked two Tomahawks in tandem in each of their cells.  Would it have required some thought and work to get it to work?  Sure.  But they could have doubled the loadout or opened up more tubes for other uses. *cough* IRBMs *cough*
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #238 on: July 02, 2016, 11:48:57 am »
A black missile can used bigger warhead and hit bigger range .

Not sure why a black program would translate into a bigger or more powerful missile.

But in any case, the mission was tactical support for ground forces, not strategic strike like Tomahawk.   That's not a mission you can do with a black program.  Too many people have to know the weapon is available.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #239 on: July 02, 2016, 02:57:17 pm »
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/weapons/2015/03/10/boeing-saab-small-diameter-bomber-ground-launch/24705183/

Quote
Range-wise, the GLSDB can hit targets 150 kilometers

For the experts here at SPF a SDB on a maximum sized solid rocket in VLS would/could give you what range?
There's no real way to make an accurate forecast without substantially more information that is available, and you're going to run into cost effectiveness issues. But imagine something like an ESSM quad pack with SDBs on top, each sporting a couple hundred kilometers of range and it starts to look interesting for some missions.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #240 on: July 02, 2016, 03:44:45 pm »
So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

In a very large VLS that would replace the Advanced Gun System. You can see it in the attached painting.

And THAT is how they should have done the VLS in the SSGNs.  So much wasted space.

IIRC, there were some major concerns about the sheer amount of debris that would fall back on the sub from the large
number of sequential Tomahawk launches.

Not sure what you mean here.  SSGNs carry something like 154 Tomahawks.  I'd say that's a large number.  What my comment was aluding to is that there is a lot of wasted space on the SSGNs.  Each former SLBM tube is deep enough they could have stacked two Tomahawks in tandem in each of their cells.  Would it have required some thought and work to get it to work?  Sure.  But they could have doubled the loadout or opened up more tubes for other uses. *cough* IRBMs *cough*

Given that the tube fills with seawater after the missile launches I would think a double stack would be tricky and there's very little in the way of margin; they had to redesign the MAC after some of the adjacent TLAMs suffered damage during launch trials.   

The real mystery is why the SSGNs aren't provisioned for launching TLAMs from their torpedo tubes. That would solve some of the capacity issues. But I'm with you on the SLIRBM angle.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #241 on: July 02, 2016, 03:57:52 pm »
With potentially 154 rounds in the MACs, it's hard to imagine needing a dozen or so more in the torpedo room.  But they might want to use the torpedo room for things that can't fit in the MACs, like UUVs or mines.

Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 951
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #242 on: July 02, 2016, 11:31:51 pm »

In a very large VLS that would replace the Advanced Gun System. You can see it in the attached painting.
Didn't northrop propose tilting the axis of the launch cell with a cold launch method to accommodate for a much deeper cell?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #243 on: July 03, 2016, 05:24:32 am »
I think that's a more recent development but it might have been proposed back in the day as well.  Here's a handout dated 2011.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #244 on: July 03, 2016, 09:57:12 am »
Essentially it trades depth for width.  (That, and you don't have a missile falling back on the deck, or have to deal with the heat of a large ABM motor.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #245 on: July 03, 2016, 11:13:58 am »
Judging by the brochure, it's a very shallow angle so the cell is not a lot longer.  Probably reducing the fall-back risk is the main reason for the angled tube.  With a hot launch, you know that at least the booster is going to light and hopefully get the missile away from the ship (though not always.  Ask the folks on USS Gonzalez).  With a cold launch, it's possible that the rocket just won't fire and the whole thing will come crashing back on deck unless it's angled to get the missile over the side in the event of a dud.. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #246 on: July 03, 2016, 11:25:35 am »
Judging by the brochure, it's a very shallow angle so the cell is not a lot longer.  Probably reducing the fall-back risk is the main reason for the angled tube.  With a hot launch, you know that at least the booster is going to light and hopefully get the missile away from the ship (though not always.  Ask the folks on USS Gonzalez).  With a cold launch, it's possible that the rocket just won't fire and the whole thing will come crashing back on deck unless it's angled to get the missile over the side in the event of a dud..

Big as KEI was, and as high as it was being lofted before motor ignition, that'd have been a painful "oops".
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #247 on: August 18, 2016, 04:03:38 am »
RHIB bay on Zumwalt


Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2074
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #248 on: August 18, 2016, 04:53:49 am »
Obamaphones Zumwaltphones for NCOs onboard the PCU Zumwalt  ;)
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline RP1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • I see the truth in it.
    • RP1 dot net
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #249 on: August 22, 2016, 04:23:06 am »
Quote
The real mystery is why the SSGNs aren't provisioned for launching TLAMs from their torpedo tubes.

I believe that this is because Block IV is designed for vertical launch only. Certainly those in UK service had to have some modification to enable horizontal launch. I suspect this increases the unit cost.
"Just your standard-issue big gun."
- Batou, Ghost in the Shell

http://rp-one.net/

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #250 on: August 22, 2016, 05:34:21 am »
Quote
The real mystery is why the SSGNs aren't provisioned for launching TLAMs from their torpedo tubes.

I believe that this is because Block IV is designed for vertical launch only.

This. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #251 on: August 25, 2016, 09:48:51 am »
I'm just bookmarking this video because the last 30 seconds show the Advanced Gun System in operation during tests.  AGS test videos used to be easy to find but I think they got pulled.  Too bad the audio got dumped for the annoying background music.


Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #252 on: August 25, 2016, 10:43:03 am »
AGS test videos used to be easy to find but I think they got pulled.


« Last Edit: August 25, 2016, 11:02:33 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #253 on: August 25, 2016, 02:57:19 pm »
Much better.  I wonder why BAE Systems removed these from their Youtube Channel.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #254 on: August 25, 2016, 03:44:00 pm »
Did the last video say "16 to 50" projectiles in the air at one time??  :o Now that's a fireworks display.

Just like I complain about not watching the 400th F-22 roll off the assembly line we should be building the original numbers of DDG-1000s (32??)
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #255 on: August 25, 2016, 06:42:23 pm »
Did the last video say "16 to 50" projectiles in the air at one time??  :o Now that's a fireworks display.

Sounds right --10 rounds per minute with a 5-minute time of flight would put 50 rounds in flight if it was firing continuously.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #256 on: August 25, 2016, 07:00:58 pm »
Did the last video say "16 to 50" projectiles in the air at one time??  :o Now that's a fireworks display.

Sounds right --10 rounds per minute with a 5-minute time of flight would put 50 rounds in flight if it was firing continuously.

Not trying to be Debbie Downer here but that's a huge volume of airspace to deconflict.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #257 on: August 25, 2016, 07:31:12 pm »
Did the last video say "16 to 50" projectiles in the air at one time??  :o Now that's a fireworks display.

Just like I complain about not watching the 400th F-22 roll off the assembly line we should be building the original numbers of DDG-1000s (32??)
32 "Land Attack Destroyers" is questionable in a limited budget, even ardent NSFs advocates will admit that much. Now if the hull were to be adapted to host the Air and Missile Defense radar and next-gen (electrical power-intensive) weapons, it might become a lot more of a workable decision...

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #258 on: August 25, 2016, 07:49:46 pm »
Calling DD-21 a Land-attack Destroyer was a terrible marketing choice.  The ship was always a general-purpose destroyer with top of the line ASW capability.  Land-attack was the flavor of the month, so it was overemphasized in the marketing, which backfired badly when land attack stopped being cool.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #259 on: August 25, 2016, 08:40:24 pm »
Calling DD-21 a Land-attack Destroyer was a terrible marketing choice.  The ship was always a general-purpose destroyer with top of the line ASW capability.  Land-attack was the flavor of the month, so it was overemphasized in the marketing, which backfired badly when land attack stopped being cool.

Yep, and now here we are, with the cruiser hull we actually need and we're what? That's right. We're killing it so we can build more of another class of of ships which had already been deemed inadequate. Keystone Cops at it again.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #260 on: August 26, 2016, 05:35:31 am »
They tried to do too much in a single hull at one time:

1.) 155mm AGS (it's actually more like super 155mm+++ it weighs as much as a 203mm round IIRC.

2.) Stealthy tumblehome hull.

3.) Integrated Electric Drive Systems

4.) Lots and lots of networking

Offline Jeb

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #261 on: August 26, 2016, 06:58:51 am »
I get tickled by the "positive ejection" for shell casings when the AGS cycles. Those suckers fly.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #262 on: August 26, 2016, 07:23:51 am »
They tried to do too much in a single hull at one time:

1.) 155mm AGS (it's actually more like super 155mm+++ it weighs as much as a 203mm round IIRC.

2.) Stealthy tumblehome hull.

3.) Integrated Electric Drive Systems

4.) Lots and lots of networking

Be that as it may, the work is getting close to done.  And now after all the effort and money we're going to toss it away - and then complain that we don't have a hull up to the task of the cruiser/missile defense mission.  Flight III Burke is already under fire, justifiably so.  It's a great ship, just not for the mission we need.  And it will only get worse if we intend to bring rail guns and DEWs online. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #263 on: September 05, 2016, 09:17:40 am »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #264 on: September 08, 2016, 06:51:36 am »
Navy crewed Zumwalt passes by Monsoor en route to home port in San Diego.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #265 on: September 08, 2016, 07:39:01 am »
Video of it at sea seems to show a smaller wake than you'd see from a Burke.

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #266 on: September 08, 2016, 09:08:03 am »
Here is an extended video of Zumwalt sea trials showing high speed maneuvers and reverse direction.  The "wave piercing" front end does seem to reduce the bow wave quite a bit.



Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #267 on: September 08, 2016, 12:36:48 pm »
It would be nice to know what the speed actually is through those maneuvers.  Also, I wish there wasn't a cut right in the middle of that crash-back.  But I suspect that's deliberate.

Offline phil gollin

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #268 on: September 09, 2016, 05:39:35 am »
.

It's never going to be stealthy with music that loud blaring out all the time.   ;D

Does anyone know if she's encountered any heavy weather yet ?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #269 on: September 10, 2016, 02:54:02 am »
.

It's never going to be stealthy with music that loud blaring out all the time.   ;D

Does anyone know if she's encountered any heavy weather yet ?

She apparently had some heavy weather exposure in the April Bravo trials.  Full heavy weather trials aren't scheduled until next year.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #270 on: September 20, 2016, 07:11:07 pm »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #271 on: September 21, 2016, 03:16:21 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #272 on: October 16, 2016, 03:26:58 am »
H/t 2805662 over at Tanknet: http://usszumwalt.org/commissioning-2016/
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2074
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #273 on: October 16, 2016, 06:42:49 am »
Quote from: US Navy
USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) commissioning
BALTIMORE, MD (Sept. 15, 2016) The US Navy’s newest and most technologically advanced surface ship, USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) is commissioned in Baltimore. It is the first surface combatant to introduce the Integrated Fight Through Power (IFTP) system for power distribution with increased automation, quality, reliability and survivability. The ship also employs an innovative and highly survivable Integrated Power System (IPS) with unique architectural capabilities, including the provision of power to propulsion, ship’s service and combat systems. In addition to the ship’s stealth and advanced Vertical Launch System, DDG 1000 has two medium-range MK46, 30mm Close-in Gun Systems that provide robust rapid fire capability against hostile surface targets approaching the ship. (U.S. Navy video/Released)
Video (1h 51min 45s long):

Code: [Select]
https://youtu.be/aRZhTy1j2bc
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #274 on: October 19, 2016, 09:11:20 am »
with aircrafts  ;D

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #275 on: October 19, 2016, 02:23:48 pm »
with aircrafts  ;D

Thanks for the pics.

Does DDG-1000 have some means of actively suppressing wake?

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 889
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #276 on: October 28, 2016, 07:04:50 am »
with aircrafts  ;D

Thanks for the pics.

Does DDG-1000 have some means of actively suppressing wake?

I should think it would have, otherwise there is little point on spending all those billions of dollars on making the ship stealthy to radar but failing to combat the old problem of the wake which would make the ship visible to the MK.1 eyeball.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #278 on: November 08, 2016, 02:22:12 am »
I officially give up.  How in God's name did they not even develop an unguided round as a fallback option.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #279 on: November 08, 2016, 04:37:43 am »
Not surprising.  They canceled the DDG program and with it all the expected production that would have been used to drive down the cost per round.  Now with only 3 ships, the unit price is $800,000.  It looks like they are hoping to leverage economies paid for by other guided projectiles and adapt them for use in the AGS gun.

From the article:
“We are looking at multiple different rounds for that gun,” the Navy official said, adding that “three or four different rounds” have been looked at, including the Army’s Excalibur munition from Raytheon, and the Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP), a project under development by the Office of Naval Research and BAE Systems.

“There are multiple companies that have looked at alternatives to get the cost down and use that delivery system,” the Navy official said.
 

Realistically, terminating a program financially tied to a cost basis which has been rendered defunct is necessary to clear the way to a real solution.  The sunk cost needs to be written off so it isn’t factored into recurring costs in future production.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #280 on: November 08, 2016, 05:15:08 am »
Problem is, doing a new program start now means those ships will be in the fleet for years with no main gun ammunition at all.  That's fucking absurd.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #281 on: November 10, 2016, 04:03:15 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #282 on: November 10, 2016, 04:42:22 am »
https://blog.usni.org/2016/11/09/zumwalt-the-light-grey-elephant

If you only have 3 ships using this gun and there are no plans on installing it on any other, and if the political origin for the gun (and ammunition) was land operations support fire, a senior level naval official might reasonably be thinking why bother?  Missiles and aircraft can perform the land support role while the railgun continues to mature and eventually step in to replace the entire system.  The DDG is purpose built to provide massive electrical power which can be readily used to operate the railgun.  In an era of tight budgets, I would guess there will be significant internal debate on cost/benefit trades.  An interim solution based on minimum cost which can provide adequate performance while waiting for a replacement technology would seem to offer a politically palatable compromise.  I would suspect someone writing an official USNI blog might have access to senior managers who might be able to provide background on the rationale.  However, that would actually require some real work.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #283 on: November 10, 2016, 05:10:21 am »
The problem is there are no "minimal cost" alternatives here.  Even "just" trying to shoehorn Excalibur into the AGS magazines is going to be a massive undertaking.  You'll probably have to build something like a sabot to "pad out" the Excalibur round to match the shape of LRLAP, since the AGS ammo handling system apparently can't deal with any other shape.  And you'll have to make a propellant charge that fills out the AGS chamber while not overloading the projectile (the AGS wants semi-fixed ammo, while the Army is using modular charges).  Plus there's the question of whether Excalibur even meets Navy HERO and insensitive munition specs, whether it's compatible with a 100% unmanned loading cycle, etc. 

And at the same time, the Navy is still spinning its wheels on any possible procurement of 127mm precision rounds.  With limited money, why spend it on 6 tubes instead of 100?

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #284 on: November 10, 2016, 12:52:46 pm »
Plus there's the question of whether Excalibur even meets Navy HERO and insensitive munition specs, whether it's compatible with a 100% unmanned loading cycle, etc. 

This is what drove a lot of LRLAP's cost particularly the conflicting requirements of slow/fast cookoff due to a thermal event while at the same time
remaining functional after ~ two hours in a hot gun barrel.

The guidance requirements accounted for ~ 40% (possibly slightly more) of the total cost.

All of which would have been tolerable once amortized across the quantities required for envisioned fleet of DD(X) and CG(X) shooters. 

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 506
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #285 on: November 10, 2016, 04:21:50 pm »
So, navalizing was a dominant cost?

The GPS was solved with Excaliber 155 shells, perhaps there could have been a saving there by not duplicating work.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #286 on: November 11, 2016, 12:14:57 pm »
So, navalizing was a dominant cost?

The GPS was solved with Excaliber 155 shells, perhaps there could have been a saving there by not duplicating work.

The Navy has more exacting IM requirements than the Army but there was an effort early on to leverage GNC, ESAD, and HOB sensor work for Excalibur.
I don't know how much actual commonality and cost reduction was achieved. But the image below highlights some of the scale challenges.

I'm curious to see if the Army's XM1113 RAP round + PGK could be leveraged since it's the most IM compliant round developed by the Army to-date and
is designed to survive much higher muzzle velocities (~ 1200 m/s).

Offline phil gollin

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #287 on: November 14, 2016, 03:35:47 am »
.

Does anyone know whether the two gun mounts and their magazines are "plug-in modules or whether they are an integral part of the ships' structure ?

IF they are plug-in modules PRESUMABLY other modules (whether missile or gun) could be substituted - an integral structural support framework would make things much more difficult.

.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #288 on: November 14, 2016, 08:06:18 am »
They're not modular to the degree of a MEKO or Stanflex box.  The magazine spaces are several decks down in the hull and there are probably non-gun spaces above them, around the ammo hoists. 

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #289 on: November 15, 2016, 06:46:06 pm »
The automated ammunition system was designed, initially, to be adaptable to a wide range of rounds. And BAE has been advertising a variant of the system which is compatible with 5" ammunition for the Mk45. So the potential is there to replace the 155s with another gun without having to cut the bow off the DDGs and start over.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 06:48:27 pm by Moose »

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #290 on: November 15, 2016, 07:18:36 pm »
The automated ammunition system was designed, initially, to be adaptable to a wide range of rounds. And BAE has been advertising a variant of the system which is compatible with 5" ammunition for the Mk45. So the potential is there to replace the 155s with another gun without having to cut the bow off the DDGs and start over.

Can you post the literature for this?  I recall seeing the AGS-Light proposal which was a replacement for the Mk45 on the Flight III Burkes that fired LRLAP. 

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #291 on: November 16, 2016, 05:48:03 am »
The automated ammunition system was designed, initially, to be adaptable to a wide range of rounds. And BAE has been advertising a variant of the system which is compatible with 5" ammunition for the Mk45. So the potential is there to replace the 155s with another gun without having to cut the bow off the DDGs and start over.

The only thing I've seen on that front is the idea of saboting the 5-inch Hypervelocity Projectile to fit AGS.  But that seems like a huge waste -- you get more range (70km from AGS vs 50 km from a Mk 45 Mod 4), but a 50% drop in RoF (10 rpm vs 20 rpm) and no increase in terminal effect, in exchange for a several-fold increase in size and cost of the launcher.

I should have seen the writing on the walls for AGS back in the very beginning of the DD-21 program, when the Navy seriously considered referring to AGS as a Trainable Rocket Launcher rather than a gun system.  Once they started down that path, they really should have just gone with an actual rocket launcher.  A reloadable MLRS would be more effective and easier to field than AGS. 
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 06:39:37 am by TomS »

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #292 on: November 16, 2016, 09:41:10 am »
The automated ammunition system was designed, initially, to be adaptable to a wide range of rounds. And BAE has been advertising a variant of the system which is compatible with 5" ammunition for the Mk45. So the potential is there to replace the 155s with another gun without having to cut the bow off the DDGs and start over.

Can you post the literature for this?  I recall seeing the AGS-Light proposal which was a replacement for the Mk45 on the Flight III Burkes that fired LRLAP.
The Type 26 GCS' Mk45 will have ammunition handling system heavily based on that of the DDG-1000, adapted to fit the smaller ship and different rounds. I'm not sitting here and saying it's "simple" or trivial to do, but obviously the potential to make changes without going back to square one is there.

And here's the AGS Lite proposal from a few years ago.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #293 on: November 16, 2016, 09:48:00 am »
The automated ammunition system was designed, initially, to be adaptable to a wide range of rounds. And BAE has been advertising a variant of the system which is compatible with 5" ammunition for the Mk45. So the potential is there to replace the 155s with another gun without having to cut the bow off the DDGs and start over.

The only thing I've seen on that front is the idea of saboting the 5-inch Hypervelocity Projectile to fit AGS.  But that seems like a huge waste -- you get more range (70km from AGS vs 50 km from a Mk 45 Mod 4), but a 50% drop in RoF (10 rpm vs 20 rpm) and no increase in terminal effect, in exchange for a several-fold increase in size and cost of the launcher.

I should have seen the writing on the walls for AGS back in the very beginning of the DD-21 program, when the Navy seriously considered referring to AGS as a Trainable Rocket Launcher rather than a gun system.  Once they started down that path, they really should have just gone with an actual rocket launcher.  A reloadable MLRS would be more effective and easier to field than AGS.
The navalized MLRS mount was considered pretty seriously as far back as the Arsenal Ship debate. I don't see the AGS-HVP as an ideal solution, rather as a decent enough bridge toward the full-EMRG HVP down the road rather than having to replace the guns "now" and either getting a railgun which isn't ready or another powder gun which will itself get pulled off the ships down the road. And this is me being optimistic about rails, the doomsayers still insist it's a debacle and we'll all wish the DDGs were armed with low-velocity 8" powder guns 20 years down the road. We'll see.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #294 on: November 16, 2016, 11:41:22 am »
I should have seen the writing on the walls for AGS back in the very beginning of the DD-21 program, when the Navy seriously considered referring to AGS as a Trainable Rocket Launcher rather than a gun system.  Once they started down that path, they really should have just gone with an actual rocket launcher.  A reloadable MLRS would be more effective and easier to field than AGS.
The navalized MLRS mount was considered pretty seriously as far back as the Arsenal Ship debate. I don't see the AGS-HVP as an ideal solution, rather as a decent enough bridge toward the full-EMRG HVP down the road rather than having to replace the guns "now" and either getting a railgun which isn't ready or another powder gun which will itself get pulled off the ships down the road. And this is me being optimistic about rails, the doomsayers still insist it's a debacle and we'll all wish the DDGs were armed with low-velocity 8" powder guns 20 years down the road. We'll see.

Yeah, ArShip was pretty contemporary with the beginnings of DD-21.  IIRC, MLRS looked unattractive at the time because the rounds are big and were dominated by the submunition warhead, which was not ideal for direct fire support, the problem set the Marines were demanding a solution to.  Fifteen years and a war in Afghanistan later, GMLRS-Unitary makes this a lot more attractive (though it still weights 3-4 times as much as an LRLAP round).  OTOH, why design a dedicated naval MLRS launcher when POLAR (GMLRS with extended rocket motor) could be launched from almost any VLS cell?

The problem I have with HVP in any form (5-inch and AGS) is that it isn't actually a system, it's just a study project.  AFAIK, all they've done so far are some ballistic test firings for gun compatibility and some terminal effects demonstrations.  To actually turn the current project into a fieldable system, they have to revisit every single issue that cropped up in ERGM and LRLAP and solve them for the worst case situation in multiple guns, plus deal with whatever unique issues come up with heavy saboted rounds at Mach 3+.  Sure, the fact that they've done most of it before helps, but it's still a minimum of several years to develop, even if they go sole-source.  If they compete it, we're a decade away, at least.

Online marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #295 on: November 16, 2016, 04:36:01 pm »
In fairness, GMLRS (not "Plus", not POLAR) is still two years out from getting an IM compliant rocket motor so I can understand
the lukewarm response that LM got from the Navy. Then there's internal corporate dynamics with LRLAP at LM .

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 889
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #296 on: November 17, 2016, 05:09:49 am »
Whilst browsing on YouTube today I came across this new video about the DDG-1000.






Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #297 on: November 22, 2016, 06:32:37 am »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #299 on: December 14, 2016, 07:04:50 pm »
DDG-1000, LCS-2, CG-52
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 07:07:39 pm by seruriermarshal »

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #300 on: December 14, 2016, 07:11:38 pm »
Guided-Missile Destroyer USS Zumwalt Arrives in San Diego

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/08/destroyer-uss-zumwalt-arrives-san-diego

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #301 on: December 15, 2016, 05:19:02 am »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #302 on: December 21, 2016, 06:36:43 pm »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1280
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #306 on: June 13, 2017, 01:54:25 pm »
On board the Zumwalt but no views of the CIC or missile hatches.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #308 on: July 30, 2017, 06:36:38 pm »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #309 on: August 01, 2017, 06:15:09 pm »
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-stealthy-zumwalt-class-destoyer-americas-new-21713

Should be the Tico replacement.  It's the only class that can realistically field railguns and DEWs.

Are you defending this money pit masquerading as a destroyer? This and LCS have set the USN back 20 years by virtue of what we could have and should have built.
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 579
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #310 on: August 01, 2017, 06:51:21 pm »
Are you defending this money pit masquerading as a destroyer? This and LCS have set the USN back 20 years by virtue of what we could have and should have built.
LCS I'd agree with but DDG-1000? I'm not completely sold on the hull design but it has a lot of power capacity and other improvements we need for new destroyers/cruisers and would have been quite impressive on its own if so many items hadn't been cut over the years.

The 155mm AGS may not have been a bad idea if we were going to have it on 30+ ships as originally envisioned.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #311 on: August 02, 2017, 05:23:31 am »
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-stealthy-zumwalt-class-destoyer-americas-new-21713

Should be the Tico replacement.  It's the only class that can realistically field railguns and DEWs.

Are you defending this money pit masquerading as a destroyer? This and LCS have set the USN back 20 years by virtue of what we could have and should have built.

Not sure what you've been smoking but aside from LCS you couldn't be more wrong.  The ship itself is exactly what is needed.  The way the USN has mishandled the program is why it's where it is today.  That's what happens when you kick the can down the road for over a decade and then half-ass it.  I know it's fashionable to bash the Zumwalt because it looks funny but it's far FAR more prepared for the future than the Burkes.  The Burke Flight III is like the "Silent Hornet"- a desperate attempt to keep an already dated design relevant.  Easily one of the USN's stupider decisions (almost as bad as sinking the entire Spruance class, VLS and all).
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 07:39:38 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #312 on: August 02, 2017, 10:08:03 am »
"How the Navy’s Zumwalt-Class Destroyers Ran Aground"
by Mike Fredenburg December 19, 2016 4:00 AM

Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443165/zumwalt-class-navy-stealth-destroyer-program-failure
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 10:12:04 am by Triton »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #313 on: August 02, 2017, 10:33:55 am »
"How the Navy’s Zumwalt-Class Destroyers Ran Aground"
by Mike Fredenburg December 19, 2016 4:00 AM

Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443165/zumwalt-class-navy-stealth-destroyer-program-failure

"Adding insult to injury, absolutely no one has been held accountable for this budget-busting debacle."

Clearly the pinnacle of objectivity.  The article is pretty much an extended rant against, well, everything.

"As we look across a range of big-budget defense programs, such as the CH-53K helicopter, the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Osprey tilt-rotor program, the F-22, the F-35, etc., we see this pattern repeated over and over and over again. Not only is there zero accountability, but this behavior is rewarded. Indeed, in today’s military, successfully expanding a program beyond its initial budget is viewed highly favorably in terms of rank advancement, as well as being valued by defense contractors looking to hire “team players” who can effectively wield influence with their former colleagues on their behalf. It should go without saying that whistle-blowers are not considered “team players” by senior military commanders and the defense-contractor executives who increasingly happen to be former senior military commanders."

The fact remains, the Zumwalt design is the one that should be going forward, not yet another version of a design already showing it's age and ill-equipped for the future.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue