DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

bobbymike said:
My comment was responding specifically to the CPS launch story and the picture of the launch.
Click to expand...
That's fine, I wasn't denying as such. But how does your proposed converted amphib fit within DMO? It seems to me that it flat out doesn't. It's a large single unit that brings a lot of centralized capability instead of distributing it across multiple vessels. It does a quasi arsenal ship mission in a form factor flat out not favorable for arsenal ship missions.

In isolation I don't see how this ship is any more valuable than an amphib, within the context of modern US strategy it seems to make even less sense
 
Df26
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...
df26 has about 5000km of range. But yes much better than the current useless usecase
 
cccgong said:
Df26

df26 has about 5000km of range. But yes much better than the current useless usecase
Click to expand...
And how is it much better? Again, I invite you to please espouse it’s benefits within the context of DMO and USN strategy?
 
We can't design the fleet of 2050 by ignoring any threat that hasn't demonstrated capability today. There's no physical reason why a kill chain and ASBM couldn't work over that range, so it is logically possible that it could be developed given sufficient investment of time and resources. What the question comes down to is your intelligence assessment of the likelihood of that investment.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
We can't design the fleet of 2050 by ignoring any threat that hasn't demonstrated capability today. There's no physical reason why a kill chain and ASBM couldn't work over that range, so it is logically possible that it could be developed given sufficient investment of time and resources. What the question comes down to is your intelligence assessment of the likelihood of that investment.
Click to expand...
Nobody suggested we should. Obviously we'd want to take into account potential.
 
Any news about what the other space under the other turret will be used for? Added command facilities? Added Mk41 VLS? Or simply room reserved for additional CPS missiles sometime in the future?
 
totoro said:
Any news about what the other space under the other turret will be used for? Added command facilities? Added Mk41 VLS? Or simply room reserved for additional CPS missiles sometime in the future?
Click to expand...
If I had to put money on it, "empty space where the gun used to be".
 
Maybe they really do believe a railgun is possible. Apparently: The space previously taken up by Mount 62 “will remain open for future capabilities.”

I would say the sensible option is to replace with Mk-41. Since its kind of an experimental ship, it might be worth trialling the LM GVLS. Or if its more of the same silos, then there might be space for PVLS beside them.
 
DJK said:
I would say the sensible option is to replace with Mk-41. Since its kind of an experimental ship, it might be worth trialling the LM GVLS. Or if its more of the same silos, then there might be space for PVLS beside them.
Click to expand...
Huh?
 
Status:

DDG-1000 (Expected to gradually achieve initial operational capability by 2026)

DDG-1001 (Scheduled for shipyard refitting later in 2026 (around August), expected to be completed in 2028)

DDG-1002 (Currently undergoing refitting; Command and Control System (CPS) refitting (removal of naval guns and installation of missile modules) has been completed at Ingalls Shipbuilding; planned for delivery to the fleet in 2027)
 

Attachments

  • USS_Zumwalt_(DDG_1000).jpg
    USS_Zumwalt_(DDG_1000).jpg
    128.6 KB · Views: 87
Last edited by a moderator:
Felocie said:
And how is it much better? Again, I invite you to please espouse it’s benefits within the context of DMO and USN strategy?
Click to expand...
It's much better than an amphib doing amphib things which is almost definitely impossible vs China and will only get more impossible as their capabilities grow.

I would say large laser (larger than current ~250kw max systems), railgun, GVLS would all make sense to test on the space the 2nd gun used to be. Maybe config for each ship.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:

USS Zumwalt Set To Return To Fleet After Long Anticipated Hypersonic Missile Upgrade​

https://www.twz.com/sea/uss-zumwalt...r-long-anticipated-hypersonic-missile-upgrade
Click to expand...
DDG-1000: Modification begins in 2023 and continues until the ship returns to the fleet in September 2026. A live-fire demonstration is scheduled for 2027.

DDG-1001: Modification begins in 2026; completion is expected around 2027.

DDG-1002: Delivery/modification completion phase; the timeline extends to 2027–2028.

Initial estimate: $1.8 billion.
Updated estimate: Approaching $2.0 billion.
Difference: Costs have risen by approximately 11% compared to the initial plan.

Operational testing of the CPS (Conventional Prompt Strike) system for DDG-1001 and DDG-1002 is concentrated in 2028, with DDG-1000 serving as the lead validation ship.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20260720_010538.jpg
    IMG_20260720_010538.jpg
    293.6 KB · Views: 31
  • IMG_20260720_010607.jpg
    IMG_20260720_010607.jpg
    479.2 KB · Views: 36
Looks like they had to raise a structure where the forward gun used to be in order to accomodate the missiles. I assumed the tubes would sit flush with hull in order to not compromise the ships singature reducing measures.
 
I think that’s too far forward for the new tubes. Look more like the original dog house for the forward barrel, welded up at the back to continue to serve as a beak to stop water shipping over the bow, as per the tweet.
 
bobthemonkey said:
I think that’s too far forward for the new tubes. Look more like the original dog house for the forward barrel, welded up at the back to continue to serve as a beak to stop water shipping over the bow, as per the tweet.
Click to expand...
I assume the structure the tweet mentioned against waves is this (meant to deflect them so they don't ride over the bow)
IMG_20260720_203649.jpg

Leaving a huge, empty cube on top of the ship with no purpose would seem rather stupid, which would be totally on brand for all naval things coming from America, but I doubt they'd be that stupid.
 
Last edited:
That flat structure sticking sideways from the bow is a work stage and not permanent.

The forward deckhouse/breakwater looks new, and not the same shape as the old structure that housed the forward gun barrel. I'm fairly sure there are accesses from those deckhouses down into the hull that needed to be preserved. You can see the dark shadowed areas that may be hatches or vents of some sort.
 
If they had been deployed about 20 years sooner there is no AGS or railgun plans and the weapon system matches the era. But to launch them so much changed from the initial version, there was zero hope to be anywhere near bleeding edge. I suspect it coming out with SPY-6 and the latest Standard RIM-174 ERAM then nobody clowns on them. But they eere shoehorned into a bad radar plan and custom Standards with low end of the spectrum capabilities. Would have also been nice to see naval 8-inch guns. But instead they dumped limited funds into exploring hopium railguns and large, exotic guided shell technologies. Even Mark 51 looked capable as a big caliber but then they overpromised smart guidance from an otherwise dumb gun.
 
MadRat said:
If they had been deployed about 20 years sooner there is no AGS or railgun plans and the weapon system matches the era. But to launch them so much changed from the initial version, there was zero hope to be anywhere near bleeding edge. I suspect it coming out with SPY-6 and the latest Standard RIM-174 ERAM then nobody clowns on them. But they eere shoehorned into a bad radar plan and custom Standards with low end of the spectrum capabilities. Would have also been nice to see naval 8-inch guns. But instead they dumped limited funds into exploring hopium railguns and large, exotic guided shell technologies. Even Mark 51 looked capable as a big caliber but then they overpromised smart guidance from an otherwise dumb gun.
Click to expand...
Yes, apart from the 8" idea and the now lacking gun systems. If a couple of 57mm can be added, there may still be sufficient space in the 2nd AGS slot for a few Mk-41. I would say a 35mm to 40mm on each corner would be worthwhile; even after lasers take the bulk of close-in defence you still need guns as backup. The stealth deckhouse didn't create a lot of positions for CIWS.
 
DJK said:
Yes, apart from the 8" idea and the now lacking gun systems. If a couple of 57mm can be added, there may still be sufficient space in the 2nd AGS slot for a few Mk-41. I would say a 35mm to 40mm on each corner would be worthwhile; even after lasers take the bulk of close-in defence you still need guns as backup. The stealth deckhouse didn't create a lot of positions for CIWS.
Click to expand...
Was supposed to have the 57mm from the start. Should be room for a lot more than a few Mk41 at the aft AGS slot but they won't do that. The USN has shown itself to be particularly inept at maximizing the utility of the Zumwalt design.
 
Sferrin said:
Was supposed to have the 57mm from the start. Should be room for a lot more than a few Mk41 at the aft AGS slot but they won't do that. The USN has shown itself to be particularly inept at maximizing the utility of the Zumwalt design.
Click to expand...
I suspect there would be some space below deck alongside the new CPS silos, maybe enough to fit magazines for some small calibre gun mounts. Brazil following the UK for Bofors 40Mk4, sounds like more useful than Mk38.
 
DJK said:
I suspect there would be some space below deck alongside the new CPS silos, maybe enough to fit magazines for some small calibre gun mounts. Brazil following the UK for Bofors 40Mk4, sounds like more useful than Mk38.
Click to expand...
They were supposed to have a pair of 57mm M110 turrets on top of the hangar. Instead they put a couple 30 mm Mk46 POSs up there.
 

Attachments

  • USS_Zumwalt_(DDG-1000)_Design.jpg
    USS_Zumwalt_(DDG-1000)_Design.jpg
    127.8 KB · Views: 53
The Navy could just bit the bullet and Buy an Army Gun.

Specifically the XM913 50mm.

Which is design to fit in any 35mm bushmaster slot. And has guided shells on plan.

It's not as big as a 57 yes, but it fires just as fast, as far, with nearly as good as throw weight.

And the conversion can be done by 4 people, three privates and a nco type in a afternoon with time for smoke breaks.

Second biggest issue with the Zumwalts is the radar and the Navy already debating on fitting the Monsoor with SPY6s in the 4 spot on her refit. And apparently they are already running Aegis on TSC as well since lockmark finally got the emulator to work properly universally.

80 missiles, 12 hypersonics and two 50s, hell even the 35s, on a hull that stealthy on both Radar, Acoustic and Visually is nothing to scuff at. Especially with its best in type seakeeping.


The only thing that the Navy not looking at but what I'll change is it's range and endurance. And Honestly that more likely limited by fuel stores over food...

Zumwalts are a solid design and should be built more of to the Hypersonic with SPY6s design over whatever the TubGxs are. Be cheaper and FASTER even with needing to rebuild the yards, that needs to done anyways and here we can just cut out the RD time since we know it works.
 
A destroyer nuclear reactor and turbines would have been a pretty nice one-two range booster from the get go. But now the program is on life support. Surely there is a plan to bridge the capability between LCS Independence class and Zumwalt for the future.
 
Firefinder said:
The Navy could just bit the bullet and Buy an Army Gun.

Specifically the XM913 50mm.

Which is design to fit in any 35mm bushmaster slot. And has guided shells on plan.

It's not as big as a 57 yes, but it fires just as fast, as far, with nearly as good as throw weight.
Click to expand...
Better yet, make the same changes to the 57mm and get 76mm performance in a 57mm. Am I doing this right?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom