DDG-1000

Demon Lord Razgriz

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
I've been reading up on the DDG-1000 for a project I'm doing for Shipbucket and throughout everything, I keep getting a quote that says the Zumwalt-Class can't operate the SM series missiles. Can someone please explain to me how that's possible? The primary anti-defense missiles of the USN can't work on the next generation of ships?

Someone has dropped the ball somewhere in planning if they forgot to add one of the most basic things a ship needs. Can the Mk 57 PLVS even fire the Tomahawk? Or did they drop the ball there too?
 

Lampshade111

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
There have been many contradicting claims, but it seems that the DDG-1000 will have the capability to fire the Block III SM2MR, Block IV SM2ER, and the SM6 once that enters service. It may lack SM3 capability however, which is a concern for some.

I imagine it will have the capability for ESSM too but firm details are hard to come by. I imagine it can fire Tomahawks due to the designs focused on naval fire support. Way back during the DD-221 program I believe, it was said that the ship would carry some sort of supersonic land attack missile.
 

Demon Lord Razgriz

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
That Supersonic Land Attack Missile currently is the RATTLRS Cruise missile in development.

Anywho, since you say it's just the SM-3 that it can't fire, then why the hell is it such a big deal? The Ticos & Burkes can fire it IIRC, so bother putting it on the Zumwalt right from the start? Maybe after the Zumwalt is build and hopefully put into production with most of the bugs worked out, then put it in.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,244
Reaction score
1
Is the RATTLRS missile the one that looks like one of the Blackbird's engines flying solo?
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
0
Some said that they were envisioned to be covered by the next generation cruiser. Anyway, the whole issue about canceling ddg-1000 and the way the navy is dealing with it is very questionable. Too bad all Congress need is jobs while cutting expensive programs, so when Navy said they would cut zumwalt and build legacy destroyers, instead of asking why the navy revert back and contradict their previous statements, they happily accepted it. I think a team should be set to analyze what the Navy said about the zumwalt not meeting evolving threats, and would it be more efficiently tactically and economically to add these capabilities into the zumwalt's design or not. There are alot of question marks raised by contractors and even individuals within the navy that should be confronted.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,684
Reaction score
0
Stargazer2006 said:
Is the RATTLRS missile the one that looks like one of the Blackbird's engines flying solo?
yep
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,344
Reaction score
1
Demon Lord Razgriz said:
That Supersonic Land Attack Missile currently is the RATTLRS Cruise missile in development.
RATTLRS is pure research along the lines of X-51 and HyFly. Would love to be wrong but fairly certain I'm not.
 

Firefly 2

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
Demon Lord Razgriz said:
That Supersonic Land Attack Missile currently is the RATTLRS Cruise missile in development.
RATTLRS is pure research along the lines of X-51 and HyFly. Would love to be wrong but fairly certain I'm not.
It depends on your (online) source. Serious sites say it's a technology demonstrator, whilst the more popular state that it's an actual weapons program. The former usually get it right.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
0
donnage99 said:
Some said that they were envisioned to be covered by the next generation cruiser. Anyway, the whole issue about canceling ddg-1000 and the way the navy is dealing with it is very questionable. Too bad all Congress need is jobs while cutting expensive programs, so when Navy said they would cut zumwalt and build legacy destroyers, instead of asking why the navy revert back and contradict their previous statements, they happily accepted it. I think a team should be set to analyze what the Navy said about the zumwalt not meeting evolving threats, and would it be more efficiently tactically and economically to add these capabilities into the zumwalt's design or not. There are alot of question marks raised by contractors and even individuals within the navy that should be confronted.

Keep in mind that when you have a particularly powerful SecDef that enjoys strong support from the President, opinions change so as to be in line with what he wants. In early April 2009 Gates said that among other things, the Zumwalt program would be capped at three (down from the original 32). So, the official navy postion became that. A similar example happend with the F-22. The people at USAF top were reshuffled so that people who agreed with his F-22 decision would be the ones giving hi=m the USAF position. Therefore he could truthfully announce that, "..."all the military advice," including from the Air Force, s indicated that, "...there is no requirement for more than 187".

Similarly in the early 1990s, NAVAIR made it very clear that they wanted the F-14D, not the Hornet E/F that Cheney wanted. A reshuffling, and presto! Navy fully supports the Super Hornet.

This is the way the world is
 

aim9xray

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
466
Reaction score
1
"The F/A-18E/F is the future of Naval Aviation". So say we all.

And so it became.

And - in just a few short years, PMA-265 will discover the joys of maintaining an aging out-of-production airframe out of OMN funding while the F-35C enjoys its day at the trough...
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
0
F-14D said:
Keep in mind that when you have a particularly powerful SecDef that enjoys strong support from the President, opinions change so as to be in line with what he wants. In early April 2009 Gates said that among other things, the Zumwalt program would be capped at three (down from the original 32). So, the official navy postion became that.
I thought that the navy wanted to cap at 2.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
0
donnage99 said:
F-14D said:
Keep in mind that when you have a particularly powerful SecDef that enjoys strong support from the President, opinions change so as to be in line with what he wants. In early April 2009 Gates said that among other things, the Zumwalt program would be capped at three (down from the original 32). So, the official navy postion became that.
I thought that the navy wanted to cap at 2.
They did, but then when investigating what that would do to the shipbuilding industrial base decided it would be better to build one more while transitioning back to the Burkes. A similar thing happened to the third Seawolf. Clinton would have been perfectly happy to cancel it, but was shown that would leave too big a gap between it and the start of the NSSN/Virginia class. He didn't want to go down in history as the President that took the US out of the SSN game, so approved the third and last Seawolf.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
1
The 3rd DDG-1000 (DDG-1002?) will also have a lot of new technology especially in its propulsion system with High Temperature Superconductors (HTS). So keeping this ship in the program will enable it to operationally test and prove the new technology.

http://content.yudu.com/A15e3n/WTMar09/resources/33.htm
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
0
Following a link in another thread I found this :-

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/navys-stealth-d.html


cheers,
Robin.
 

xmotex

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Interesting, the discussion in that article about the "classified new threat" that led to the reevaluation of the Zumwalts.

The new threat, which­ didn’t exist a couple years ago, is a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile.
I'm aware of the Chinese guided IRBM program, but a "ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile"?

I'm having trouble figuring out how that would work, and what the utility of it would be.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
598
Reaction score
1
I believe the DDG-1000 doesn't have SM-3 capability but I doubt claims that it doesn't have either SM-2 or SM-6 capability. Until I see a source like Janes or another more involved in the defense world confirm this, I don't buy it.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
0
Latest news:

Half of the radar systems of the planned ddg-1000 has been scrapped (it was intended to have dual band radar). Now, before you jump to the conclusion that this is yet another plot from the liberals to undermine our defense, IT'S NOT! Beside obviously saving 600 million dollars, it will open up space for the newer radar that is currently being developed, which has additional capabilities for BMD (which should make it more relevant, and perhaps more justified for continued production if such need arises.).
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/06/navy_radar_cuts_060410w/

On the side note, BAE videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWjVFzxzG10&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXyH1OYuyIw&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf941T7pFTY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5LYPMRMVUs&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8j0YBGo3PQ&NR=1
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
0
Yes. It's a radar that is being developed to be retrofit into ddg-51.
 

Hammer Birchgrove

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
586
Reaction score
0
xmotex said:
Interesting, the discussion in that article about the "classified new threat" that led to the reevaluation of the Zumwalts.

The new threat, which­ didn’t exist a couple years ago, is a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile.
I'm aware of the Chinese guided IRBM program, but a "ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile"?

I'm having trouble figuring out how that would work, and what the utility of it would be.
Can it turn into a robot as well? :p
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
598
Reaction score
1
Any word on how seriously the Navy is considering using the 155mm AGS on the Flight III Burkes? Also I've heard many claim the unguided 155mm ammo once planned was cancelled, and the DDG-1000 will only carry the LRLAP. Has this been confirmed?
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
0
Colonial-Marine said:
Any word on how seriously the Navy is considering using the 155mm AGS on the Flight III Burkes? Also I've heard many claim the unguided 155mm ammo once planned was cancelled, and the DDG-1000 will only carry the LRLAP. Has this been confirmed?
To my knowledge they are not. Burke Flight III is about ABM with the reduced antenna size AMDR and SM-3 and not about fire support though it should be able to carry Tomahawk.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
598
Reaction score
1
sealordlawrence said:
To my knowledge they are not. Burke Flight III is about ABM with the reduced antenna size AMDR and SM-3 and not about fire support though it should be able to carry Tomahawk.
So much for the Navy addressing that whole fire support issue, Marines must be pissed.
 

Demon Lord Razgriz

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
If this keeps up with the Navy screwing them for fire support, the Marine should acquire a few barges and mount M777s on them. :/
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
0
Changing potential scenarios in the future can easily extend the production of the ddg-1000, I'm guessing.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
0
xmotex said:
I'm aware of the Chinese guided IRBM program, but a "ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile"?

I'm having trouble figuring out how that would work, and what the utility of it would be.
It's called cruise missile from space ;D
 

Attachments

Sea Skimmer

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Colonial-Marine said:
So much for the Navy addressing that whole fire support issue, Marines must be pissed.
Marine plans seem to be evolving in step with the navy to stand off over 200nm, not just 25nm as was thought to be sufficient 10 years ago when AGS really got going. AGS can only demonstrate about 78nm of range, the 100nm requirement proved impossible. The rate of fire was also reduced. So the AGS simply does not meet the requirements laid out for it and those requirements were not ambitious enough in the first place.

We are just going to have to figure out a different way then a naval gun to meet support requirements at that kind of range. I’m thinking the USAF MQ-9 swarm will end up with that job in the highly unlikely event that the USMC launches an opposed landing ever again. The Marines will be very lucky simply if they are allowed to keep the EFV program. If Gates has his way they will most likely fund it by cutting back total Marine strength. That isn’t really a bad thing, the Marines were fine at 177,000 personal in the late 1990s, now they’ve gotten well over 200,000.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
598
Reaction score
1
In that case I have to question the Navy's whole premise of standing off at over 200nm, obviously your worrying about anti-ship missilse if your dealing with somebody like the PRC, but I imagine most amphibious landings in the future will occur against countries that don't have tons of modern shore-based anti-ship missiles.

An ex-Marine I know used to argue that the Navy should just get something with plenty of armor on it, several Phalanx CIWS, loaded with MLRS type rockets and guns, then proceed to get close and shoot it out.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
2
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
At the present time, will the Zumwalt Class constitute two ships, USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) and USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001)? Or will there be a third ship, DDG-1002? Has this issue been decided? I never heard a resolution to the funding issue for ship three. I understand that there was an effort to name ship three for Robert Heinlein. Is General Dynamics and Bath Ironworks being especially quiet about the DDG-1000 program.
 

Sea Skimmer

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Colonial-Marine said:
In that case I have to question the Navy's whole premise of standing off at over 200nm, obviously your worrying about anti-ship missilse if your dealing with somebody like the PRC, but I imagine most amphibious landings in the future will occur against countries that don't have tons of modern shore-based anti-ship missiles.
If the enemy doesn’t have any anti ship missiles or heavy artillery rocket systems which can equally well engage ships, odds are they also do not have the capability to defend the entire coastline in the first place. Let alone defend the coastline AND defend the air assault landing zones behind the beaches. That means the initial Marine landing is unopposed, and a V-22 can drop a M777 into the landing zone for fire support very quickly. Hugely expensive naval gun system with marginal ammunition loads need not be required. Lots of money is already being spent on systems to find the enemy, so avoiding him is possible.

The USN will eventually get some kind of guided shore bombardment weapon though. It may not be super long ranged, but right now a project I forget the name of is moving along to create a self contained screw in GPS guidance fuse. I think the program name might be 'GPS competent munition' but I'm not sure. I believe they are at the point of test firing. Its internal battery is charged and GPS grid are set by an induction device just before firing using a hand held computer. I'm sure they can bolt one into a Mk45 5in turret. That could cover 'no naval defense weak enemy' scenarios well enough.

It won’t allow super high accuracy because the fins are so small to fit within the diameter of 105-155mm shells rather then unfolding, but it can convert any existing artillery shell that accepts US fuses into a fairly accurate round. CEP of 30-50 meters or so; instead of 300-600 meters at 40km range for normal artillery. That would greatly increase the value of the existing 5in guns and ammo, without the massive cost of an entirely new weapon or entirely new ammo like ERGM. More importantly we already have lots of 5in guns. An invasion force could count on at least one or two such vessels being around. Specialist ships with specialist weapons wont be around when you need them. All the more so since the USN is going to keep shrinking in the future.


An ex-Marine I know used to argue that the Navy should just get something with plenty of armor on it, several Phalanx CIWS, loaded with MLRS type rockets and guns, then proceed to get close and shoot it out.
Sure, just let me know when you find 2 billion dollars to pay for each one of those things, and then 2 billion more to pay the life insurance benefits and long term care of its dead and wounded crew after it gets sunk by a mine. MLRS leaves duds like crazy anyway. Would you really want to come ashore on a beach or landing zone covered in tens of thousands of unexploded DPICM bomblets? The fact is the USN needs around 5-10 billion dollars more a year, every year, just to keep its strength equal to what it is now. Without that money the USN will shrink to about 200 ships. Specialist ships, for as rarely used a role as shore bombardment no less, are absurdly unaffordable.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
598
Reaction score
1
Sea Skimmer said:
Sure, just let me know when you find 2 billion dollars to pay for each one of those things, and then 2 billion more to pay the life insurance benefits and long term care of its dead and wounded crew after it gets sunk by a mine. MLRS leaves duds like crazy anyway. Would you really want to come ashore on a beach or landing zone covered in tens of thousands of unexploded DPICM bomblets? The fact is the USN needs around 5-10 billion dollars more a year, every year, just to keep its strength equal to what it is now. Without that money the USN will shrink to about 200 ships. Specialist ships, for as rarely used a role as shore bombardment no less, are absurdly unaffordable.
Well, he also considered the Navy more of taxi service for the Marines than anything else...
 

Demon Lord Razgriz

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Sorry about this bit of a gravedig, but expanding on the topic of the Zumwalt, I recently saw a picture of the scaled prototype that was built to confirm its seaworthiness. And from what I saw, I have to ask, why did they test it on a lake with calm conditions? :/ Wouldn't it have been better & more realistic to test on the open sea or in the Great Lakes?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
2,972
Reaction score
0
Demon Lord Razgriz said:
Sorry about this bit of a gravedig, but expanding on the topic of the Zumwalt, I recently saw a picture of the scaled prototype that was built to confirm its seaworthiness. And from what I saw, I have to ask, why did they test it on a lake with calm conditions? :/ Wouldn't it have been better & more realistic to test on the open sea or in the Great Lakes?
The quarter-scale "Sea Jet" AESD model wasn't primarily intended for seakeeping trials. It was used for testing various waterjet and electrical propulsion technologies, and not just for DDG-1000. Presumably, NAVSEA felt it was better to operate AESD on Pend Oreille, which was already prepared for acoustic testing and work with electric propulsion thanks to the submarine scale model tests done there in the past.

They took a different (1:20) scale model out on the Chesapeake bay for rough-water testing and it did fine.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,188
Reaction score
0
Given the way things are going, it looks like the Zumwalts are going to get a second chance.

Meanwhile:

Raytheon Wins $254M Zumwalt Contract

The U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon a contract modification this month for up to $254 million for development, test, and delivery of DDG-1000 Total Ship Computing Environment software for the Self Defense Test Ship, post-delivery availability, post-shakedown availability, SPY-3 volume search software and firmware development, as well as software maintenance on the DDG-1000.

The work is expected to be completed by January 2016. About $11 million will be provided upon contract award; those funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,188
Reaction score
0

[IMAGE CREDIT: Defense Industry Daily]​

Dual-Band Radar (now just X-band). For detection and self-defense, the DDG-1000 was going to rely on a new approach called the Dual-Band Radar, but will now use only the SPY-3. Raytheon’s X-Band SPY-3 radar provides air and surface detection/tracking, and supports fire control. Its use of active array radar technology makes it far more survivable against saturation missile attacks, since it can track and guide against tens of incoming missiles simultaneously. In comparison, the passive S-band phased array SPY-1D radars that equip American AEGIS destroyers and cruisers are limited to terminal guidance against just 3-4 targets at any one time. Active array radars also feature superior reliability, and recent experiments suggest that they could also be used for very high-power electronic jamming, and high-bandwidth secure communications.

Defense Industry Daily
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,453
Reaction score
0
From a Chinese forum ... ::)
 

Attachments

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,684
Reaction score
0
...from an Ingalls Shipbuilding web-site...
 
Top