DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

Sferrin said:
I wonder why the turrets are still there up front.
Click to expand...
Possibly the same gun used on other USN ships in a smaller enclosure (similar to what's used on the Visby-Corvettes). Because these dont look as large as the enclosures that were initially on the ship that housed the AGS. I assume it's a move done to ensure the signature of the ship remains small. But that's certainly something I'm not 100% sure about.
retouch_2026011622545094.jpg
retouch_2026011622551835.jpg
(Also damn, the ship looks rough)
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
It's just easier/cheaper to leave them that to cut them off, I suspect.
Click to expand...
Is this really reasonable to assume after they literally ripped half the ship open and ripped everything up front out? Doubtful they left anything in place that's not needed
 
EmoBirb said:
Is this really reasonable to assume after they literally ripped half the ship open and ripped everything up front out? Doubtful they left anything in place that's not needed
Click to expand...

It's definitely true that those are the old barrel deckhouses. Every image makes that clear. Why, I'm not sure, but cost is the most likely reason.

1768601806846.jpeg
 
EmoBirb said:
Is this really reasonable to assume after they literally ripped half the ship open and ripped everything up front out? Doubtful they left anything in place that's not needed
Click to expand...
Agreed.

So I suspect they're needed for RCS for some strange reason. I know there's math behind it, but I swear that RCS is closer to black magic than math. Non-Euclidian angles, ia ia Cthulhu Ftangh! *sounds of madness*
 
USN funding is being rescheduled in a somewhat...ad-hoc manner. At present I have no idea if the money for CPS testing at sea is going to be there when the program needs it. Along with the obvious problem, Navy is still saying they're going to make her available for testing this year. So we could be looking at a future where they're not deploying her to keep her available for testing, but not doing the testing because the money's not there.
 
Moose said:
USN funding is being rescheduled in a somewhat...ad-hoc manner. At present I have no idea if the money for CPS testing at sea is going to be there when the program needs it. Along with the obvious problem, Navy is still saying they're going to make her available for testing this year. So we could be looking at a future where they're not deploying her to keep her available for testing, but not doing the testing because the money's not there.
Click to expand...
So. . .business as usual? Of course the elephant in the room is what would they test if there was money and a ship? Are the missiles even in production? You see lots of stuff about SM-6, PAC-3, and JASSM but nothing about Dark Eagle.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
So I suspect they're needed for RCS for some strange reason. I know there's math behind it, but I swear that RCS is closer to black magic than math. Non-Euclidian angles, ia ia Cthulhu Ftangh! *sounds of madness*
Click to expand...
One possible explanation - they want to move a center of radar signature forward from the middle of the ship, to confuse enemy seekers more.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
In Navy sea trials? They should, but are there any CPS available to shoot?

Else it may happen in the workups for first deployment post sea-trials.
Click to expand...
The ship needs to be tested first. The Navy plans to conduct JFC-5 later this year but I believe that is from land too. Not sure when DDG-1000 will perform a test shot, but likely after everything else has wrapped up so likely next year. I think its 2027 from Zumwalt and 2029 from a submarine.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Seems odd they're getting dropped down to SPY6v3. Should be fitted with SPY6v1 on the low end, or v4 on the higher end.
Click to expand...

Very much doubt the 3rd Zumwalt Lyndon B Johnson could take the top weight of the larger sized SPY-6 (V)1 or 4 as to save costs the deck house built of steel compared to the lighter sandwich construction of carbon fiber with balsa wood core used on first two ships.


Again to save costs the larger SPY-4 S-band radar was never fitted to Zumwalts only the smaller SPY-3 X-band radar, though if the SPY-6(V)3 S-band was fitted replacing the SPY-3 it would have a larger aperture, 60.9 sq ft vs 108 sq ft, but 108 sq ft of the SPY-6(V)3 is only 18.2 % of the aperture of SPY-6(V)1, with a diffraction-limited beamwidth so no ability to control SM-6 or SM-3 at longer ranges as that's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Seems odd they're getting dropped down to SPY6v3. Should be fitted with SPY6v1 on the low end, or v4 on the higher end.
Click to expand...
If they were planning to replace DBR-S/SPY-4, they would be looking at a larger panel. But the SPY-4 space is going to remain unused, they're going talking about replacing SPY-3 instead. The space SPY-3 is mounted cannot support a much larger array.

Bigger concern is that, while this would give the 1000s much better volume search+track for AAW compared to -3, it means losing that X-band advantage for horizon search. So they're either going to slap a rotating SPQ-9B on top the deckhouse or do without until the FXR is ready to be tested.
 
Moose said:
If they were planning to replace DBR-S/SPY-4, they would be looking at a larger panel. But the SPY-4 space is going to remain unused, they're going talking about replacing SPY-3 instead. The space SPY-3 is mounted cannot support a much larger array.

Bigger concern is that, while this would give the 1000s much better volume search+track for AAW compared to -3, it means losing that X-band advantage for horizon search. So they're either going to slap a rotating SPQ-9B on top the deckhouse or do without until the FXR is ready to be tested.
Click to expand...
It's the Navy. It'll be "doing without until FXR"
 
Although they backfit SM-6, with new radars will the Zumwalts get better than specialized versions of Block I ESSM and Block III SM-2 missiles? The SPY-3 requires Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination to guide these missiles instead of the Continuous Wave Illumination common on other USN warships.
 
TomS said:
This is probably an effort to recycle FFG-62 radars that have already been ordered (at least long-lead items), so changing versions may no longer be an option.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it make more sense to keep SPY-3 for horizon search and whatever else, and fit the SPY-6 into the SPY-4 space?
 
DJK said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to keep SPY-3 for horizon search and whatever else, and fit the SPY-6 into the SPY-4 space?
Click to expand...

SPY-6 probably goes along with a switch in combat system to AEGIS, which may not be integrated to SPY-3. They would also love to to a vertical cut and eliminate the whole SPY-3 schoolhouse and support infrastructure.
 
Firefinder said:
Guess the railgun is back on the menu, apparently its firing at White Sands.

https://d34w7g4gy10iej.cloudfront.net/pubs/pdf_76259.pdf
Also have the Turret designs for the Zumwalt, never seen these posted before.
Click to expand...
fzm6mbfvuaadrd8-jpg.805132

fzm6s4eucaan7ys-jpg.805133
 
TomS said:
SPY-6 probably goes along with a switch in combat system to AEGIS, which may not be integrated to SPY-3.
Click to expand...
It is apparently possible to run Aegis VM alongside the TSCEI. This would help alleviate the problem of integrating Aegis-like capabilities into the system or making a new system to accomplish TSCEI functions
 
Felocie said:
It is apparently possible to run Aegis VM alongside the TSCEI. This would help alleviate the problem of integrating Aegis-like capabilities into the system or making a new system to accomplish TSCEI functions
Click to expand...
Read on this forum that Virtual Aegis doesn't work so well...
 
Most likely we are dealing with people who only worked with the OLDER versions of teh Virtual Aegis system.

Which lets be honest, when has the first version of ANY software been Good?

And got out, either of service or the program, before the Bugs got properly Iron out.

Like I can go on a DAMN RANT that get me banned... Then Arrested on the ANTPq50 issues.

But When I got out, those issues WHERE being addressed. Far Slower then I like but they are programing issues. Programing is going to be THE ACHILLES HEEL of any military program going forward this Century if not longer.

And unlike some, CoughCommanderSalamanderCough, I have realize that shit have change since I was in five years ago let alone the nearly ten he has. And fully admit where my Experaince ends.
 
Moose said:
Some people also said Aegis itself doesn't work well, and that it could never handle actual combat conditions in a real shooting war.
Click to expand...
On this, a lot of future USN programs have been rebaselined with Aegis or Aegis derived combat systems on account of performance over recent conflicts.
 

Attachments

  • C90EBAD4-1A92-4933-A3D0-F983B9BF09BB.jpeg
    C90EBAD4-1A92-4933-A3D0-F983B9BF09BB.jpeg
    195.8 KB · Views: 23
  • 8D3B1B37-3CCF-4E4A-A17B-C7C50A74FA34.jpeg
    8D3B1B37-3CCF-4E4A-A17B-C7C50A74FA34.jpeg
    111.2 KB · Views: 21
bobbymike said:
Not sure it would be possible (technically not budgetary) to do but the picture in the article I just can’t help seeing a converted LHA/LHD with about 50 of these missiles. Launched from 4K+km away pretty invulnerable.
Click to expand...
How does this fit within DMO?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom