Register here

Author Topic: DDG-1000  (Read 104315 times)

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #375 on: February 06, 2018, 01:37:34 am »
From the article at https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/02/04/2nd_zumwalt-class_stealth_destroyer_passes_sea_test_113011.html?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=34652d2709-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_02_04&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-34652d2709-81812733

"As a porter of a perfected rail gun, it would be fearsome. Steel spikes launched at 4,000 mph at a target on land or at sea. If you fired a rail gun almost straight up 3 miles, the projectiles would come racing back down and steel arrows would pierce an enemy warship's hull vertically" !

Only if the enemy warship remains in the same place, rather unlikely that an enemy combatant will sit still waiting for that.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #376 on: February 06, 2018, 03:06:07 am »
At 60+ nm, time of flight would be only a minute or two at most.  All you have to do is catch the target between zigs.  A small pattern could cover the likely possible locations effectively.  And you might be able to do some mid-course guidance if the rounds have a datalink. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11251
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #377 on: February 06, 2018, 06:48:49 am »
Only if the enemy warship remains in the same place, rather unlikely that an enemy combatant will sit still waiting for that.

Which is why the rounds would be guided.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #378 on: February 06, 2018, 02:22:25 pm »
How? Laser, data link?  Radio, self guided terminal guidance?  All of which can be interrupted.  Nice idea though but it does explain the very high cost per ammunition round.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11251
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #379 on: February 06, 2018, 03:31:30 pm »
How? Laser, data link?  Radio, self guided terminal guidance?  All of which can be interrupted. 

Same could be said about any antiship missile on the planet.  I guess none of them can hit anything either.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #381 on: February 08, 2018, 08:32:16 pm »
So regarding the 155mm AGS, just what the hell happened? Wasn't this gun designed from the start to be more "friendly" to guided munitions and thus bring down the costs per round? Of course cutting the number down to a mere 6 guns on 3 hulls didn't help. Yet still shouldn't some of LRLAP's development cost been reduced by all of the work done for the 5" ERGM and other artillery PGMs? Then there is the matter of the unguided ballistic ammunition they were evidently planning earlier. Why did something so relatively simple get cut and why can't we start there at least so the guns are worth something?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline stealthflanker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 239
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #382 on: February 09, 2018, 05:51:44 am »
The question is of course whether we can build IR or Radar seeker that can withstand over thousands of G's so our railgun can have application against moving target. Accelerating rounds at 0.0015 sec in railgun barrel to mach 7 can exert over 161,000 of G force.

Offline RP1

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 440
  • I see the truth in it.
    • RP1 dot net
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #383 on: February 09, 2018, 12:04:23 pm »
Quote
The question is of course whether we can build IR or Radar seeker that can withstand over thousands of G's so our railgun can have application against moving target. Accelerating rounds at 0.0015 sec in railgun barrel to mach 7 can exert over 161,000 of G force.

More like 30,000-40,000G for the 64MJ designs. A 155mm conventional gun might be 16,000G. Heating effects and limitations on the nose shape might prove more of a limitation on guidance methods. we shall see.
"Just your standard-issue big gun."
- Batou, Ghost in the Shell

http://rp-one.net/

Online fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #384 on: February 14, 2018, 03:08:03 am »
Wave piercing bow seems to work although anyone doing the Titanic "I'm Flying" pose will get a face full of spray.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11251
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #385 on: February 14, 2018, 04:53:35 am »
Have these ever been in really heavy seas?  With their high freeboard I would think they'd be okay but I'm definitely no navel architect.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #386 on: February 14, 2018, 10:40:19 am »
1000 has seen some decent size seas, 1001 may have on its trials as well though I don't know. The computers and the scale models like Sea Jet both say the hull can take the big stuff pretty well, though differently from a conventional hull.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #388 on: February 15, 2018, 04:35:13 pm »
Quote
In July 2007 Christopher P. Cavas reported in Navy Times that the Center for Naval Analyses Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) may recommend two different ships to form the CG(X) program. "One ship would be a 14,000-ton derivative of the DDG 1000, an "escort cruiser," to protect aircraft carrier strike groups. The vessel would keep the tumblehome hull of the DDG 1000 and its gas turbine power plant. The other new cruiser would be a much larger, 25,000-ton nuclear-powered ship with a more conventional flared bow, optimized for the ballistic missile defense (BMD) mission. In all, five large CGN(X) ships and 14 escort cruisers would be built to fulfill the cruiser requirement in the Navy's 30-year, 313-ship plan, which calls for replacing today's CG 47 Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers and adding a specially designed sea-based missile defense force."

Source:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cgn-x.htm

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1843
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #389 on: February 15, 2018, 04:42:35 pm »
Quote
In July 2007 Christopher P. Cavas reported in Navy Times that the Center for Naval Analyses Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) may recommend two different ships to form the CG(X) program. "One ship would be a 14,000-ton derivative of the DDG 1000, an "escort cruiser," to protect aircraft carrier strike groups. The vessel would keep the tumblehome hull of the DDG 1000 and its gas turbine power plant. The other new cruiser would be a much larger, 25,000-ton nuclear-powered ship with a more conventional flared bow, optimized for the ballistic missile defense (BMD) mission. In all, five large CGN(X) ships and 14 escort cruisers would be built to fulfill the cruiser requirement in the Navy's 30-year, 313-ship plan, which calls for replacing today's CG 47 Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers and adding a specially designed sea-based missile defense force."

Pre BCA..those were the days... ;)
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown