Register here

Author Topic: DDG-1000  (Read 96747 times)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9687
  • 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 doesnít 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 wonít 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: 571
  • 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: 9687
  • 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: 2818
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: 7952
  • 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: 7952
  • 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. Raytheonís 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: 2435
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: 8551
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: 2132
  • 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: 1837
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: 10926
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.