DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

Documentary on stealth. Zumwalt is discussed at the start so I am placing this here although other platforms like B-2 and F-35 are covered as well.


 
bobbymike said:
https://news.usni.org/2020/06/22/ho...4bRiAbXzJvuru8a7SPUFSXIi-8K7I_WrOOOHrnaEylRRU
Click to expand...
“We have some language that fences money on that program until they can show us some design maturity and that they really understand the autonomy that they’re trying to get after. We don’t believe that going right into serial production on something that they don’t understand completely is the right way to do it, especially using (research and development) funds – this is all very similar to how [Littoral Combat Ship] started, I think all of you are probably aware that that was not a good news story for many of the first years,” a committee aide said.

These craft are certainly not serial production ready or POR ready but can the USN be trusted
? DARPA's roles needs to be changed to mature this program as the USN can not be trusted to do so. Evolution of LUSV is a threat to the core USN culture.
However, the complete unmanning of these LUSVs may well be realized as an impossible task. The nuances of maintaining anything on the ocean for any length of time may never be completed automated.
 
TWZ picks up on the AGS test rig being used during DoD's HVP testing.
Testing Points To Relevance Of Hyper Velocity Projectile For Zumwalt Destroyer's Dormant Guns
As the test showed, at least indirectly, combining the HVP-armed AGS with the three Zumwalt-class hulls could add a significant new air defense capability to the already advanced warships. In particular, the new projectile could give the destroyers an effective and relatively low-cost counter to anti-ship cruise missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as conventional manned aircraft.
Click to expand...
There is also an initiative underway that will examine equipping the Zumwalt class with another type of hypersonic weapon — the new Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile, providing a fast-response standoff attack capability against enemy ships and targets on land. These plans would involve the removal of the warships’ Mk 51 AGS installations, so a decision may have to be made over which of these high-speed weapons to prioritize.
Click to expand...
 
Cordy said:
Foo Fighter said:
I thought the Zumwalts had an altered primary mission now, mainly anit ship. It is my understanding that the littoral mission had been dropped a while ago.
Click to expand...

My view already partially covered by above posts, the Zumwalt destroyers were designed and built to replace the Iowa battleships for land bombardment to support the Marines. The impression was the Navy was not too enthusiastic on taking on this mission, reducing Zumwalt buy from 32 to 3 ships, even tried to cancel 3rd ship but overruled by Pentagon. Navy cancelled the LM LRLAP, the GPS long range land attack projectile rocket when costs escalated to $800+thou per round and it could not reach specified range. The LRLAP ammo for Zumwalts is the only munition able to be fired from its two huge AGS 155 mm guns and fit the automated magazines and handling system.

Navy was left with three $8 billion white elephants and following year Dec 2017 came up with a new mission for Zumwalt, an"offensive surface strike platform" using its 80 VLS cells for the Maritime Strike Tomahawk V with its new seeker to engage moving target at sea, has been mention of using SM-6 in anti-ship role, question whether Zumwalts SPY-3 radar has ability to use SM-6 in AAM role. The Ticos and Burkes can carry out the Zumwalt "offensive surface strike platform" role as well as using their Aegis for AAM and BMD, so in effect its a made up role to justify the continued existence for the 3 Zumwalts with their oddball radar, sonar, CMS etc.
Click to expand...
They were designed to replace the Spruance Class DDs, the guns were added as an extra mission on top of the intended primary role of fleet destroyer. Had more of them been built their cost would have come down substantially, has there been more than 20 or them the economics of mass producing ammunition for their guns would have worked.
 
I wonder how much the cost of these ships could have achieved in the Iowa's. Nuclear propulsion?
 
Well, a larger elastic band would have been so oily it would have gone everywhere. New overalls twice a day is sufficient.
 
The Zumwalts remind me of the UK Type 82 HMS Bristol. She was originally intended to be the lead ship for a class of 8. She ended up as a single ship used to develop the Seadart SAM and Ikara ASW for the RN.
The Zums are large platforms that can trial new weapon systems and techniques much like the Long Beach and Bainbridge nuclear escorts did.
 
As long as the Navy and Congress can be kept on to make it happen
 
War Zone reporting Navy will be ripping out Zumwalts Raytheon SPY-6 X-band radar and replacing with new radar before their first deployment, no reason was given. Assume it was the failure under trials with Zumwalt system on the SDTS, Self Defense Test Ship, an ex-Spruance, to control its SM-2s and ESSMs, DOT&E reported. (SPY-3 also installed on Ford)

The October CBO report on cost on the new FFG, gave details Table 1 of surface combatants since 1970, shows both full load and light displacement, the difference is the deadweight available for weapons, fuel, crew stores etc. Though the Zumwalt ~16,000t ship and the Burke Flight III ~10,000t both have the same deadweight of 2,100t, reflects the massive hit Zumwalt tumblehome hull design takes to stop it capsizing requiring ~6,000t internal stabilizing tanks.

Yesterday CNO Adm Gilday talking about the future destroyer LSC/DDG Next and ‘No more monstrosities’ refering to the $26 billion Zumwalt .
 
War Zone reporting Navy will be ripping out Zumwalts Raytheon SPY-6 X-band radar and replacing with new radar before their first deployment, no reason was given
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the Navy just activate the space allocated for SPY-4 rather than replace SPY-3?
Where did DOT&E claim ESSM/SM-2 midcourse/ICWI failures?

CBO has no particularly good insight on ship specs beyond what they've gleaned from USNI pubs.
 
Last edited:
I thought I just posted something but it seems to have disappeared. Strange.
===========================================================



Here is the article discussing possible radar options for the Zumwalts:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ars-replaced-before-ever-sailing-on-a-mission

It mentions SPY6 as a strong contender but that Northrop/Lockheed are also making proposals. Since there are only 3 ships and the Navy is limiting how much money it will spend, the main issue is how to repurpose the ship’s main mission away from land support without having to sacrifice already installed hardware/software.

A spokesperson for Naval Sea Systems Command confirmed to The War Zone that "the Navy is exploring several alternatives to sustain air and surface search capability aboard the Zumwalt class ships" on Oct. 15, 2020. That same statement said that "no decision has been made at this time" as to how the service will necessarily proceed
Click to expand...

Ironically, the ships stealth and integrated power systems are elements that are identified in this USNI article for inclusion in defining the future large surface combatant.

https://news.usni.org/2020/08/27/to...elopment-planned-spy-6-backfit-effort-in-flux

Apart from its mission, the signature features of the Zumwalts are their shape and the integrated power system. And those are still recognized as desirable for the future.
 
marauder2048 said:
War Zone reporting Navy will be ripping out Zumwalts Raytheon SPY-6 X-band radar and replacing with new radar before their first deployment, no reason was given
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the Navy just activate the space allocated for SPY-4 rather than replace SPY-3?
Where did DOT&E claim ESSM/SM-2 midcourse/ICWI failures?

CBO has no particularly good insight on ship specs beyond what they've gleaned from USNI pubs.
Click to expand...


Check out the DOT&E FY2019 report , Navy, Ship Self Defense DDG1000 on the failed AAM system
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97...2019ssd_ddg1000.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115519-893
The Zumwalt do not have seperate ICWI for final targeting as Ticos and Burke for the semi-active homing ESSM Blk 1 and SA-2 Blk III missiles, but presume was supposed to built into the SPY-3 as with the successful Thales Nederland APAR X-band AESA radar (saw mention tech was licensed to the Japanese for their radars to control the ESSM Blk 1), presume why SPY-3 was a failure.

Who knows what radar the USN will replace the failed Raytheon X-band SPY-3, possible S-band SPY-6(V)3 as planned for FFG(X) or even SPY-7, but both years off. The SPY-4 also S-band and as far as know only the one production model built, made for the Ford. Just think throwing good money after bad plus there will be cost of integrating ? radar with Zumwalts unique CMS, nearly all Zumwalts weapon systems and sensors unique and will cost Navy fortune to support for the next 30 years. As said by the CNO Zumwalts a monstrosity.

PS Mauauder have any info to support you suggestion that the Zumwalt 13,559 long tons light displacement quoted by CBO is wrong? (do agree CBO do lack credibilty on some of figures they quote)
 
Last edited:
Cordy said:
Check out the DOT&E FY2019 report , Navy, Ship Self Defense DDG1000 on the failed AAM system
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97...2019ssd_ddg1000.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115519-893
Click to expand...

It says absolutely nothing about SPY-3.

Cordy said:
The Zumwalt do not have seperate ICWI for final targeting as Ticos and Burke for the semi-active homing ESSM Blk 1 and SA-2 Blk III missiles, but presume was supposed to built into the SPY-3 as with the successful Thales Nederland ARAR X-band AESA radar (saw mention tech was licensed to the Japanese for their radars to control the ESSM Blk 1), presume why SPY-3 was a failure.
Click to expand...

Who said it had separate ICWI? That's rather counter to the point of ICWI. You were claiming a failure to control which
means either midcourse or terminal both of which are under SPY-3 control. I don't see any evidence of that.

The one thing that's come up was a detection/track maintenance issue in a multi-threat scenario with MFR + CEC on CVN-78
that DOT&E acknowledges may have been a threat presentation issue.

Cordy said:
Who knows what radar the USN will replace the failed Raytheon X-band SPY-3, possible S-band SPY-6(V)3 as planned for FFG(X) or even SPY-7, but both years off. The SPY-4 also S-band and as far as know only the one production model built, made for the Ford. Just think throwing good money after bad plus there will be cost of integrating ? radar with Zumwalts unique CMS, nearly all Zumwalts weapon systems and sensors unique and will cost Navy fortune to support for the next 30 years. As said by the CNO Zumwalts a monstrosity.
Click to expand...
I would think that any SPY-6, SPY-7 variant would be imminent since the Navy has just taken first delivery.

Cordy said:
PS Mauauder have any info to support you suggestion that the Zumwalt 13,559 long tons light displacement quoted by CBO is wrong? (do agree CBO do lack credibilty on some of figures they quote)
Click to expand...
Given that CBO doesn't do precise citations of where they got what who can say?
 
Last edited:
The one thing that's a wrinkle is that, per GAO, the TSCE contract for Zumwalt prohibits BMD development.

So if you need to add BMD capability the more direct route is through an AEGIS combat system which
in turn implies a solitary SPY-6 or SPY-7 unless the Navy wants to pay to (re)-integrate SPY-3.

And I don't think we've heard anything about the dual-band datalink for SM-6 in some time.
 
Last edited:
marauder2048 said:
Wouldn't the Navy just activate the space allocated for SPY-4 rather than replace SPY-3?
Where did DOT&E claim ESSM/SM-2 midcourse/ICWI failures?
Click to expand...

Cost. It cost less to run, if there are no unique electronics, and all radars are standard-model. For a small-series ship, this is especially important.
 
Dilandu said:
marauder2048 said:
Wouldn't the Navy just activate the space allocated for SPY-4 rather than replace SPY-3?
Where did DOT&E claim ESSM/SM-2 midcourse/ICWI failures?
Click to expand...

Cost. It cost less to run, if there are no unique electronics, and all radars are standard-model. For a small-series ship, this is especially important.
Click to expand...

Cost less to run: in terms of fuel? Or in terms or recurring maintenance?

They run SPY-1 + SPQ-9B on DDG-51.
 
Dilandu said:
marauder2048 said:
Cost less to run: in terms of fuel? Or in terms or recurring maintenance?
Click to expand...

Maintenance, spare parts, training personnel & making two systems work together, when they are not designed for that.
Click to expand...
SPQ-9 and SPY were not designed to work together either.

The ship was designed to host and coordinate two power and cooling hungry AESAs: one X-band, one S-band.

Previous Navy studies have looked at SPY-3 + AMDR-S (and SPQ-9 and VSR) in some detail both for DDG-51 and DDG-1000
integration was not regarded as particularly challenging. The O&S differences between the various configurations was
vary slight like < 4%.

And the Navy's then "preferred solution" was adding SPY-3, and associated TSCE components, back into AEGIS
along with either AMDR-S or VSR.
 

Attachments

  • 587883.pdf
    1.8 MB · Views: 27
Last edited:
marauder2048 said:
Cordy said:
Check out the DOT&E FY2019 report , Navy, Ship Self Defense DDG1000 on the failed AAM system
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97...2019ssd_ddg1000.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115519-893
Click to expand...

It says absolutely nothing about SPY-3.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the report, if you had how can you have missed the pic of the SPY-3 and listing it under major contractors "TSCE and SPY-3: Raytheon Company, Integrated Defense Systems – Tewksbury, Massachusetts"
 
Cordy said:
marauder2048 said:
Cordy said:
Check out the DOT&E FY2019 report , Navy, Ship Self Defense DDG1000 on the failed AAM system
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97...2019ssd_ddg1000.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115519-893
Click to expand...

It says absolutely nothing about SPY-3.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the report, if you had how can you have missed the pic of the SPY-3 and listing it under major contractors "TSCE and SPY-3: Raytheon Company, Integrated Defense Systems – Tewksbury, Massachusetts"
Click to expand...

I did. It doesn't indicate any issues with SPY-3.

IIRC, the only SPY-3 issue highlighted by DOT&E was a SPY-3 + CEC detection/track maintenance issue
on CNV-78 in a multi-target test which they indicated might merely be due to target presentation.

CVN-78 and DDG-1000 do share the same CEC processor so it's possible that the detect/track maintenance
issue would manifest on DDG-1000 but without combing through the budget docs on RDT&E it's hard
to know exactly what CVN-78 was testing.
 
Last edited:
marauder2048 said:
Cordy said:
marauder2048 said:
Cordy said:
Check out the DOT&E FY2019 report , Navy, Ship Self Defense DDG1000 on the failed AAM system
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97...2019ssd_ddg1000.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115519-893
Click to expand...

It says absolutely nothing about SPY-3.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the report, if you had how can you have missed the pic of the SPY-3 and listing it under major contractors "TSCE and SPY-3: Raytheon Company, Integrated Defense Systems – Tewksbury, Massachusetts"
Click to expand...

I did. It doesn't indicate any issues with SPY-3.

IIRC, the only SPY-3 issue highlighted by DOT&E was a SPY-3 + CEC detection/track maintenance issue
on CNV-78 in a multi-target test which they indicated might merely be due to target presentation.

CVN-78 and DDG-1000 do share the same CEC processor so it's possible that the detect/track maintenance
issue would manifest on DDG-1000 but without combing through the budget docs on RDT&E it's hard
to know exactly what CVN-78 was testing.
Click to expand...

You originally said report didn't mention SPY-3 and now changed to saying it doesn't indicate any issues with SPY-3.

If there are no issues with the SPY-3 why do you think Navy ripping the SPY-3 out of Zumwalts?
 
Cordy said:
You originally said report didn't mention SPY-3 and now changed to saying it doesn't indicate any issues with SPY-3.
Click to expand...
Your original claim:

Cordy said:
Assume it was the failure under trials with Zumwalt system on the SDTS, Self Defense Test Ship, an ex-Spruance, to control its SM-2s and ESSMs, DOT&E reported. (SPY-3 also installed on Ford)
Click to expand...

This is what I said:

Where did DOT&E claim ESSM/SM-2 midcourse/ICWI failures?
Click to expand...

You then provided a document that doesn't highlight any issues with SPY-3 which does that control part.

Cordy said:
If there are no issues with the SPY-3 why do you think Navy ripping the SPY-3 out of Zumwalts?
Click to expand...
It may be completely unrelated to performance.
 
As someone noted above, it seems likely that SPY-3 is being replaced to simply parts/maintenance/training. Since these ships haven't entered service yet, it might be worth while to standardize them on the same scalable radar installation that is being installed on all other new construction rather than three unique systems (I'm still really surprised Ford is still getting its one off installation).
 
Josh_TN said:
As someone noted above, it seems likely that SPY-3 is being replaced to simply parts/maintenance/training. Since these ships haven't entered service yet, it might be worth while to standardize them on the same scalable radar installation that is being installed on all other new construction rather than three unique systems (I'm still really surprised Ford is still getting its one off installation).
Click to expand...

Which means they are throwing away greater than $100 million worth of RDT&E and procurement of SM-2 Block IIIAZ ICWI/JUWL missiles.
Which also leaves the ICWI/JUWL ESSM missiles as a USS Ford only weapon...

Trading a "four-off" for a one-off?

If AMDR-X was a thing there would be no concern. But it's not.

I would suggest the motivation is programmatic: Navy leadership is being forced into verbal and mental contortions in speci'ng
out a large surface combatant that's Zumwalt but they insist is definitely not Zumwalt.

And unlike the Air Force and F-22, the Navy can't point to Robert Gates decapitating Navy leadership as an explanation
for why the Zumwalt line was truncated.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom