Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by Moose on Today at 10:19:19 am »
I think the largest radar that BIW looked at mounting on DDG-1000 was 21 feet which
probably falls slightly short of SPY+30dB which was previously the objective requirement
for the high-end threat environment.
The objective CG(X) AMDR array size was 22ft and objective sensitivity was 30 decibels better than SPY-1 (usually shorthanded as SPY+30). The Hull/Radar study, however, only considered a maximum of 14-foot SPY+15 AMDR arrays on a largely unchanged DDG-1000 or somewhat modified DDG-51. Bath Iron Works has a design for a deckhouse which can accommodate up to 21ft arrays, but the Navy says they haven't considered it. On the other hand, the 2007 CG(X) AoA studied options and apparently credited some version of DDG-1000 being able to accommodate a radar with a sensitivity SPY+25. Raytheon gives their scaling information based on the number of RMA blocks the radar will use. 9 RMAs (the EASR size) is SPY+0 in about a 6'x6' square, 37 RMAs (SPY-6A) is SPY+15 in a 14-foot array, and 69 RMAs would by SPY+25 in an about 18-foot array.

I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough.  Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt.  That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers. 

Any idea how much longer the cruiser was supposed to be?  I'm of the opinion the Zumwalt is the obvious route for a CG-47 replacement.

I can't remember how much longer the original DD-21 was -- maybe 80 feet more?

I don't think anyone had actually worked out how much bigger the cruiser might be.  I suspect the initial thinking was about the same as the full-size DD.  Same basic relationship as the Tico and Spruance -- the hulls are the same length but the Tico rides lower and so has higher displacement.  But remember that a chunk of the DD-21's displacement is ballast to maintain waterline for RCS. Until you run out of ballast weight, adding equipment doesn't necessarily change the overall displacement.

Now, the one thing that really has changed since the old CG-21/G(X) is radar size.  Back then, no one really imagined the monster BMD radars that are being discussed these days. 
I don't believe there were firm numbers for how long/wide DD-21 would be, only that it has a higher target displacement than the one DD(X) aimed for. I believe the objective for the CG-21 was to use the same hull with same dimensions, but that was pretty notional and consideration was still being given to a non-tumblehome hull for the Cruiser.
2
Aerospace / Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Last post by Flyaway on Today at 09:53:49 am »
Not behind a paywall.

USAF eyes more orders as B-21 finishes preliminary design review

Quote
The heavy bomber is now moving towards a critical design review, says Lt Gen Arnold Bunch, the air force's military deputy for acquisition during an 18 April Senate Armed Services hearing. Critical design review is the next step before assembly of the first aircraft can begin.

Northrop Grumman has also delivered the first set of software for the B-21 programme, said Bunch.

“We are making good progress,” he said. “I am comfortable today with were we are at, the progress that Northrop Grumman is making on the programme.”

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-eyes-more-orders-as-b-21-finishes-preliminary-d-447860/
3
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by marauder2048 on Today at 09:31:18 am »
I think the largest radar that BIW looked at mounting on DDG-1000 was 21 feet which
probably falls slightly short of SPY+30dB which was previously the objective requirement
for the high-end threat environment.
4
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by TomS on Today at 08:31:39 am »
I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough.  Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt.  That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers. 

Any idea how much longer the cruiser was supposed to be?  I'm of the opinion the Zumwalt is the obvious route for a CG-47 replacement.

I can't remember how much longer the original DD-21 was -- maybe 80 feet more?

I don't think anyone had actually worked out how much bigger the cruiser might be.  I suspect the initial thinking was about the same as the full-size DD.  Same basic relationship as the Tico and Spruance -- the hulls are the same length but the Tico rides lower and so has higher displacement.  But remember that a chunk of the DD-21's displacement is ballast to maintain waterline for RCS. Until you run out of ballast weight, adding equipment doesn't necessarily change the overall displacement.

Now, the one thing that really has changed since the old CG-21/G(X) is radar size.  Back then, no one really imagined the monster BMD radars that are being discussed these days. 
5
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 07:37:03 am »
I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough.  Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt.  That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers. 

Any idea how much longer the cruiser was supposed to be?  I'm of the opinion the Zumwalt is the obvious route for a CG-47 replacement.
6
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 07:35:36 am »
The US Assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell has threatened to use the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme as a retaliatory tool against Turkey if it goes ahead with its planned S-400 Triumpf purchase.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-diplomat-threatens-turkeys-f-35-role-in-s-400-sp-447859/

Good.  If Turkey is going to get in bed with Russia we'd be insane to keep them in the program anyway.
7
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by Hood on Today at 07:29:47 am »
The US Assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell has threatened to use the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme as a retaliatory tool against Turkey if it goes ahead with its planned S-400 Triumpf purchase.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-diplomat-threatens-turkeys-f-35-role-in-s-400-sp-447859/
8
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by TomS on Today at 07:24:28 am »
I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough.  Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt.  That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers.  Removing the AGS would give you room for one gun (initially a 5-inch powder gun, later possibly a railgun if the technology matures sufficiently) and still give you room for another large block of VLS -- at least 64 Mk41-size cells, or possibly a smaller number of much larger cells for future BMD solutions.  With strike weapons offlaoded to the destroyers, that's more than enough magazine depth.

Power isn't a problem -- DDG-1000 already has nearly 80 MW available, and the MT30 turbines could grow significantly if needed.  Rolls Royce says there is a growth path from MT30 to a 50-MW MT50, if you really need >100MW. 

The design has volume enough for future BMD radar (especially if they extend the superstructure when they restretch the hull).  Unless you insist on Sea-based X-Band or equivalent on a combatant hull, which feels like overkill in a networked warfighting environment.



9
Aerospace / Re: Mitsubishi X-2 ATD-X Shinshin Demonstrator
« Last post by Arjen on Today at 07:15:41 am »
There is another post here in the F-22 thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4505.msg328171.html#msg328171

I posted in this thread, because I'm guessing if any part of it is going to be done, it will result in something that's neither F-22 nor F-35. And possibly a follow-on to ATD-X/X-2. I don't expect anything of it, to be honest.
10
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 06:59:03 am »
This might need it's own thread. . . .

Exclusive: Lockheed Martin to propose stealthy hybrid of F-22 and F-35 for Japan
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-lockheed-exclusive/exclusive-lockheed-martin-to-propose-stealthy-hybrid-of-f-22-and-f-35-for-japan-sources-idUSKBN1HR0MM
Think they'll market it as "F-57" or some other clever play on 22 and 35?
Called PCA-J ?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10