Register here

Author Topic: DDG-1000  (Read 104252 times)

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #450 on: January 07, 2019, 01:30:53 pm »
But if they can make a Spruance into a Ticonderoga. . .  ;)  (Granted, they didn't convert Spruance hulls to Ticos.  Buuut the Zumwalt was designed to be the cruiser hull up front so it should be fairly straightforward to develop them into the cruiser class.)


Oh, absolutely, using the hull as the basis for a cruiser -- not that hard.  Converting the existing units to the cruiser mission -- much harder. 

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #451 on: January 07, 2019, 01:36:06 pm »
and they definitely don't have the theater missile defense capabilities (no SM-3).

Wasn't the surface navy trying to get out of the TMD role?

They're trying to get out of the role of defending fixed land targets.  But forces afloat are clearly going to need TMD capabilities as well, for their own self-protection.

In any event, getting Standard Missile on the same dual-band datalink path as ESSM Block II is
reasonably straight-forward.

I believe DDG-1000 is already an SM-2 and may become an SM-6 shooter.  But doesn't SM-3 entail a whole lot more connectivity to the rest of the TMD architecture, and a very different combat system software build?

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #452 on: January 07, 2019, 01:45:22 pm »
I meant using the hull form and machinery rather than the three current ships.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #453 on: January 07, 2019, 02:43:44 pm »
I meant using the hull form and machinery rather than the three current ships.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.  Yes, the hull could absolutely be adapted to the cruiser role.  That was the intention from the outset of the program.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2161
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #454 on: January 07, 2019, 03:04:08 pm »
and they definitely don't have the theater missile defense capabilities (no SM-3).

Wasn't the surface navy trying to get out of the TMD role?

They're trying to get out of the role of defending fixed land targets.  But forces afloat are clearly going to need TMD capabilities as well, for their own self-protection.

It wasn't clear that that would be midcourse though that's arguably a very good place to hit ASBMs.



But doesn't SM-3 entail a whole lot more connectivity to the rest of the TMD architecture, and a very different combat system software build?

Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11233
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #455 on: January 09, 2019, 05:51:08 am »
Yep.  The whole point of CEC is to enable more ships to contribute shooters to the network.  A shame they were so eager to sink all the VLS-equipped Spruances.  :P
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1840
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #456 on: January 09, 2019, 08:29:29 am »

Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.

Have you come across any plans to backfit SPY-6 or even EASRs on the Zumwalt class? I don't know where but I seem to remember seeing a video where a Navy officer was talking about these radars and how scaled variants would be back fitted on ships and seem to recall a reference to the DDG-1000 (along the smaller SPY-6's for the DDG-51IIAs).
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 08:31:16 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #457 on: January 09, 2019, 08:52:06 am »

Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.

Have you come across any plans to backfit SPY-6 or even EASRs on the Zumwalt class? I don't know where but I seem to remember seeing a video where a Navy officer was talking about these radars and how scaled variants would be back fitted on ships and seem to recall a reference to the DDG-1000 (along the smaller SPY-6's for the DDG-51IIAs).
I don't have anything I can link at hand, but it's on the table. I believe Bath thinks a 3-panel SPY-6 would safely be workable, but there's also the opportunity to adapt the EASR or DDG Back-fit panels to the Zs. It would be a sizable refit and is not currently a program of record, but if a big refit is planned for something like replacing AGS I would expect a push to get the ships their S-band panels.

Online bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1840
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #458 on: January 09, 2019, 09:21:40 am »
Thanks Moose! A three panel SPY-6 derivative would be an upgrade over the planned analog SPY-4 and definitely makes a lot of sense in the long term especially if we're going to be putting SM-6 and its future variants on the ship.  Was the SPY-4 a 12 foot antennal or larger?
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #459 on: January 09, 2019, 11:28:12 am »
Thanks Moose! A three panel SPY-6 derivative would be an upgrade over the planned analog SPY-4 and definitely makes a lot of sense in the long term especially if we're going to be putting SM-6 and its future variants on the ship.  Was the SPY-4 a 12 foot antennal or larger?
SPY-4 on DDG-1000 was listed at 160x152" but I think the aperture was right about 12 foot. Bath and the Navy have said in the past that the Zs can take a 14' panel without "substantial modifications" to the deckhouse, though the Navy of today might not believe it anymore.

Online bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1840
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #460 on: January 10, 2019, 10:09:36 am »
I think the 24 RMA variant of the AMDR would be more suited and likely cheaper to buy and integrate. Let's see if the Navy shares more information on its plans for the Zumwalt later this year but at the very least they should develop a roadmap to get the HVP integrated with the AGS, integrate the VL LRASM, and look to add the sensor thereby providing better capability when the SM-6 comes aboard. Long term they should plan on CPGS integration and develop plans to retrofit the railgun on at least one of the vessels.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #461 on: January 11, 2019, 07:56:06 am »
Never mind.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 08:12:47 am by Foo Fighter »

Offline shivering

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #462 on: January 16, 2019, 07:56:51 am »
"The U.S. Navy's Titanium “Tin Can”

How the sea service transformed destroyers, its most common warship and once among the cheapest, into Frankenships"


https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/01/the-u-s-navys-titanium-tin-can/

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11233
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #463 on: January 17, 2019, 04:46:30 am »
"The U.S. Navy's Titanium “Tin Can”

How the sea service transformed destroyers, its most common warship and once among the cheapest, into Frankenships"


https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/01/the-u-s-navys-titanium-tin-can/

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

Offline shivering

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: DDG-1000
« Reply #464 on: January 17, 2019, 09:19:13 am »
Yeah, but.......the part of the article dealing with procurement issues
rang pretty true.......at least in my limited experience.