DDG-1000

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
873
Reaction score
3
GD Bath Iron Works Delivered the future USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) to the US Navy

Posted On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 09:31

The U.S. Navy accepted hull, mechanical and electrical (HM&E) delivery of the future USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) from shipbuilder General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) April 24.

Delivery of DDG 1001 follows extensive tests, trials and demonstrations of the ship's HM&E systems, including the boat handling, anchor and mooring systems as well as major demonstrations of the damage control, ballasting, navigation and communications systems.

"Delivery of DDG 1001 marks the culmination of years of dedication and hard work from our Navy and industry team," said Capt. Kevin Smith, DDG 1000 program manager, Program Executive Office, Ships. "We have incorporated many lessons learned from DDG 1000 and are proud of the end result. DDG 1001 will be a tremendous asset to the Navy."

The 610-foot, wave-piercing tumblehome ship design provides a wide array of advancements. The shape of the superstructure and the arrangement of its antennas significantly reduce radar cross section, making the ship less visible to enemy radars.

Like the first ship of the class, USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000), DDG 1001 employs an innovative and highly survivable integrated power system (IPS), distributing 1,000 volts of direct current across the ship. The IPS's unique architectural capabilities include the ability to allocate all 78 megawatts of installed power to propulsion, ship's service and combat system loads from the same gas turbine prime movers based on operational requirements.

DDG 1000-class ships are delivered through a two-phase approach in which combat systems are installed and activated subsequent to HM&E delivery. Following HM&E delivery, Michael Monsoor will transit to its homeport in San Diego, California, for commissioning in January 2019 and to begin combat systems activation, testing and trials.

DDG 1001 is the second ship of the Zumwalt class. The third and final ship of the class, the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG 1002), is currently in construction at BIW's shipyard along with Arleigh Burke-class destroyers Daniel Inouye (DDG 118), Carl M. Levin (DDG 120) and John Basilone (DDG 122).
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
968
Reaction score
6
marauder2048 said:
From GAO's "WEAPON SYSTEMS ANNUAL ASSESSMENT" April 2018 (my highlights).
If the Zumwalt hull ends up forming a baseline for the CG, it's imperative that additional units are purchased to bridge the gap until Cruiser buys start. Every year of gap will just make the process of re-starting that much more problematic.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,467
Reaction score
40
Moose said:
marauder2048 said:
From GAO's "WEAPON SYSTEMS ANNUAL ASSESSMENT" April 2018 (my highlights).
If the Zumwalt hull ends up forming a baseline for the CG, it's imperative that additional units are purchased to bridge the gap until Cruiser buys start. Every year of gap will just make the process of re-starting that much more problematic.
Last thing we want is another Burke situation.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
703
Reaction score
5
Moose said:
marauder2048 said:
From GAO's "WEAPON SYSTEMS ANNUAL ASSESSMENT" April 2018 (my highlights).
If the Zumwalt hull ends up forming a baseline for the CG, it's imperative that additional units are purchased to bridge the gap until Cruiser buys start. Every year of gap will just make the process of re-starting that much more problematic.
This would appear to be unobtainium, might as well bring the cruiser requirement forward but that would have to be new money which is unlikely.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,467
Reaction score
40
Foo Fighter said:
Moose said:
marauder2048 said:
From GAO's "WEAPON SYSTEMS ANNUAL ASSESSMENT" April 2018 (my highlights).
If the Zumwalt hull ends up forming a baseline for the CG, it's imperative that additional units are purchased to bridge the gap until Cruiser buys start. Every year of gap will just make the process of re-starting that much more problematic.
This would appear to be unobtainium, might as well bring the cruiser requirement forward but that would have to be new money which is unlikely.
If the case is there for the Zumwalt to form the basis of the next cruiser then it could be argued that keeping the line "hot" would reduce the overall program cost.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
968
Reaction score
6
Foo Fighter said:
Moose said:
marauder2048 said:
From GAO's "WEAPON SYSTEMS ANNUAL ASSESSMENT" April 2018 (my highlights).
If the Zumwalt hull ends up forming a baseline for the CG, it's imperative that additional units are purchased to bridge the gap until Cruiser buys start. Every year of gap will just make the process of re-starting that much more problematic.
This would appear to be unobtainium, might as well bring the cruiser requirement forward but that would have to be new money which is unlikely.
Adding "extra" money for shipbuilding has become something of par for the course. A sizable chunk of the LPD-17 class has been funded by Congress inserting in money that the Navy didn't explicitly request, and the Columbia-class may (may) end up funded in part outside the shipbuilding budget. If Richardson and Co. walked over to the Hill and said "hey we believe ordering 2-3 more DDG-1000s would help make the transition to the CG easier and more affordable, plus jobs" they might get it.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
885
Reaction score
0
At one point, the IPS was supposed to be somewhat common between the Future Surface Combatant family of ships. What is the status of IPS today?

Thanks!
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
968
Reaction score
6
NeilChapman said:
At one point, the IPS was supposed to be somewhat common between the Future Surface Combatant family of ships. What is the status of IPS today?

Thanks!
Status as in how is it doing on DDG-1000 or as in what are it's prospects for the future? In the former, none of the hulls have been in service long enough to really see how IPS performs, but thus far it's not waved any big red flags. As to the future, the Navy can't get its story straight about the next combatant so it's hard to nail it down. They know they need lots of power, and they view IPS as a good way to make a lot of power available in the next hull, but they won't be pinned down on anything yet. They claim they want to start buying the new combatant in 2023, so it seems a bit silly that they can't define the goal for something as basic as the general power architecture, but here we are.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
885
Reaction score
0
Moose said:
NeilChapman said:
At one point, the IPS was supposed to be somewhat common between the Future Surface Combatant family of ships. What is the status of IPS today?

Thanks!
Status as in how is it doing on DDG-1000 or as in what are it's prospects for the future? In the former, none of the hulls have been in service long enough to really see how IPS performs, but thus far it's not waved any big red flags. As to the future, the Navy can't get its story straight about the next combatant so it's hard to nail it down. They know they need lots of power, and they view IPS as a good way to make a lot of power available in the next hull, but they won't be pinned down on anything yet. They claim they want to start buying the new combatant in 2023, so it seems a bit silly that they can't define the goal for something as basic as the general power architecture, but here we are.
At one point, IPS was to be ubiquitous. An efficient design solution for most of the new ship designs. Another way to simplify training and maintenance. In fact, Columbia-class will be using IPS. So the question is how confident should we be at this stage of IPS development and deployment? Is it meeting the design metrics for dependability, efficiency etc?
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,383
Reaction score
32
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/11/zumwalt-close-to-losing-gun-but-open-to-ew-and-directed-energy/
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
0
Grey Havoc said:
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/11/zumwalt-close-to-losing-gun-but-open-to-ew-and-directed-energy/
All the more reason to rethink what a next generation combatant should be (what does frigate, destroyer, cruiser really mean, antiquated concepts).

A no gun ship is nearly defenseless and useless. Even the Arsenal Ship had a VGAS as it turns out. Future projectile/UAs threats will have various Laser defeat system/tactics only PBWs w/ KE like effects will defeat threats .
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
703
Reaction score
5
Perhaps changing role will be more of a fit for rhe type. As a replacement for the Tico's, they make more sense imho. Wasted in the intended role.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,467
Reaction score
40
They should bite the bullet and finish developing the AGS and ammo for it. It's not as though we'll never need a gun for a surface combatant in the future. And continuing with the Zumwalt hull is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be said.
 

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
873
Reaction score
3
LYNDON B JOHNSON DDG1002, 3rd and last ship of the DDG1000 Zumwalt class, was launched yesterday (9 Dec) at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath ME
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,467
Reaction score
40
That sucks. This really is the ship they should be using for the Tico replacement.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
0
They haven't yet decided on what the large surface ship would be so there is still a possibility.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,467
Reaction score
40
bring_it_on said:
They haven't yet decided on what the large surface ship would be so there is still a possibility.
Remove the aft gun and replace it with either Mk41 cells, or something more versitile like the Northrop Grumman Modular Launch System, swap out the radars for something more capable, and you're there for Flight I.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
703
Reaction score
5
Whatever they do, perhaps they can decide soon and save some money from the budget a little ways down the line. The DDG1000 does make a very good case for the Ticonderoga class. If they get of their seats they may even be able to keep the yards current and able to go.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,467
Reaction score
40
Foo Fighter said:
Whatever they do, perhaps they can decide soon and save some money from the budget a little ways down the line. The DDG1000 does make a very good case for the Ticonderoga class. If they get of their seats they may even be able to keep the yards current and able to go.
Hell the line ALREADY exists. How much is it going to cost, in time and money, to design a completely new ship, tool up the line, etc. etc. etc. just to end up with something likely inferior to the Zumwalt?
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
703
Reaction score
5
Yes, I agree, logic fails me with people like those in power.
 

phil gollin

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
199
Reaction score
1
.

Have they decided what is going to replace the space where the two redundant guns are in the present design ?

.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
703
Reaction score
5
Whoopee cushions? Some form of the 5.2" probably, give it a gun worth having at the very least but those turrets will likely remain.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,383
Reaction score
32
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/12/ddg-1000-our-mark-of-shame.html
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,467
Reaction score
40
Grey Havoc said:
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/12/ddg-1000-our-mark-of-shame.html
Ye Gods. I've seen more intelligence in a Tumblr comments section.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
0
I don't think Sal is completely wrong there. Zumwalt is a class that has a lot of potential but one that has been underserved by the Navy and the Congress, and given the money it was given we couldn't invest in any other meaningful ship class during the same time. The gun seems to be going nowhere for a lack of ammo, the radar was neutered, and it doesn't have the capability to replace a cruiser (which it isn't). Hopefully, this becomes a future carrier of hypersonic weapons and more offensive capability in general and perhaps we look to modify these things with a larger Directed Energy Weapon or the railgun in the medium term. Back from the LCS and DDG-1000, we are still looking for a capable frigate and still have a need to find a new cruiser. Hopefully the zumwalt can be the basis of a highly capable large-surface-combatant or at minimum it gets a chance to heavily influence the new ship.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,467
Reaction score
40
bring_it_on said:
I don't think Sal is completely wrong there. Zumwalt is a class that has a lot of potential but one that has been underserved by the Navy and the Congress, and given the money it was given we couldn't invest in any other meaningful ship class during the same time. The gun seems to be going nowhere for a lack of ammo, the radar was neutered, and it doesn't have the capability to replace a cruiser (which it isn't).
It's barely usable thanks to the poor way in which the USN has handled the program. (Stretching it out so long that the world changed didn't help.) But it DOES have the capability to form the basis of the Ticonderoga replacement - which was the plan all along. Sadly all most people can see is, "OMG no gunz, no ammo, white elephant, burn it to the ground and bury the ashes".
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
0
I agree with its potential. But from an ex operator's perspective (which Sal provides) that doesn't mean much in terms of having hulls in the water with a desired capability that can replace large surface combatants that actually do require replacement. Fact still is that the Navy and Congress have dragged their feet and not made the requisite changes at the required speed to support the Zumwalt. The third ship is nearly complete and the Navy is still figuring out what to do with the ship and seems to be interested in removing the guns, adding new air defense missiles and figuring out a more missile based offensive role. A proper IAMD variant of the DDG-1000 requires considerable changes and I don't see it getting them given the political fallout of pumping yet more money even before the first operational patrol.

Meanwhile we do not have a Tico replacement and we do not have a new mass produced DDG forcing the Navy to restart DDG-51 production and insert a Flight III which is not really a ship for the future but just a band-aid for the short-medium term. If you are an operationally minded commentator you'd look at the dollar amount pumped into the Zumwalt and LCS and wonder what the heck did we get in terms of capability at the tip of the spear though obviously it isn't as black and white given the institutional inertia and politics which cannot be ignored unfortunately. The fact still is that the Navy is now having to choose a new Frigate and a new large combatant. We are essentially starting clean and hoping to have an operational frigate by mid 2020s and an operational LSC by 2030.

Another indicator of the institutional rot in the Navy is the fact that we are buying a foreign weapon as a Harpoon alternative because the richest and largest Navy never invested to recapitalize and modernize that capability. Same with the Frigate choices that we have to make. The only saving grace being the LRASM which owes its existence to the USAF's investment but even there, the Navy is buying peanuts and walked away from the B variant at the first sight of risk. It would be fascinating to see whether the Navy has the chops to stay the course on the IRCPGS or it runs away at the first sight of trouble which is normal with high-tech weapon programs. The Navy bet big on CVN-21, LCS and DDG-1000 and everything else was on hold as we went through these programs. Besides the Ford Class carrier which we will hopefully begin to buy at a faster rate and which will serve for 50+ years the other two haven't really brought forward a heck of a lot of capability to the Navy. While the reasons are related to the Navy's management, and politics I don't think the operator cares much about that distinction.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,467
Reaction score
40
bring_it_on said:
I agree with its potential. But from an ex operator's perspective (which Sal provides) that doesn't mean much in terms of having hulls in the water with a desired capability that can replace large surface combatants that actually do require replacement.
Except that it's far closer to something that COULD replace the Ticos than anything else. People need to stop focusing on what it is right now and think about what it could be.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
0
The Zumwalt can't really be anything else. It is done as far as the ship class is concerned as there will not be a DDG-1003. As far as how we can leverage the design on a new cruiser replacement, that is obviously a possibility but again, not something that can get underway on an operational patrol till at least 2030 and in the meantime we still have not fully hammered out how we will be utilizing the 3 ships of the current class and how we will be modifying them to serve that role.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,467
Reaction score
40
bring_it_on said:
The Zumwalt can't really be anything else. It is done as far as the ship class is concerned as there will not be a DDG-1003. As far as how we can leverage the design on a new cruiser replacement, that is obviously a possibility but again, not something that can get underway on an operational patrol till at least 2030 and in the meantime we still have not fully hammered out how we will be utilizing the 3 ships of the current class and how we will be modifying them to serve that role.
I'm not talking about modifying the current three ships into a cruiser. I'm talking about using the hull and machinery for the basis of the cruiser. As for how to use the current three, finish developing the ammunition for the gun and use them like Burkes, albeit superior ones. And put the damn guns back on top of the hangar.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
0
I get what you are trying to say, and I am too advocating for that. However, to the original point, the fact still holds that the Navy is left with 3 DDG-1000 class ships and has yet to fully define their roles and perform any necessary modifications to serve that well. Meanwhile, the Navy has had to restart DDG-51 production and launch a new Frigate program. The LSC won't hit the water until mid next decade and is really a 2030's capability. This after tens of Billions invested on the Zumwalt class, and the LCS. While we have invested in lots of future tech on the former we don't really have a lot to show for it NOW or in the near term in terms of overall fleet capability. There is plenty of blame to go around in the Navy and with the politicos but if you look at this from an operator's perspective you have pretty good reason to be dissapointed.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
0
In the 2030 timeframe multi-sensor guided hypersonic cruise missiles will be a dime a dozen. Destroyers are not large enough to carry significant numbers of large weapons systems to have "game winning effects" at a any significant distance. In short they offer nothing but coral bait or a bullet stopper for carriers. A recent USN Strategy doc stays there is such as concept as the Large Unmanned Surface Vessel (LUSV). That sounds like a good bullet stopper for carriers. Sailors don't need to be sacrificed for inevitable swarms on carriers. A mini-unmanned arsenal ship to defend carriers is needed.

127mm or even 155mm are way to small for navies of the 2030s. Small surface threats are autocannon problems.

PS: BIO can us identify IRCPGS?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
0
*Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike..
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
0
bring_it_on said:
*Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike..
Thank you BIO

Another system requiring a large ship in order to carry enough to render a significant land and air effect ie Anti-Area Denial/Anti-Access.

PS Glade to see it is likely a INF violation :)
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
7
bring_it_on said:
Meanwhile, the Navy has had to restart DDG-51 production
The justification for which was premised on claims subsequently shown to be spurious.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
0
Right and we can go on and on about this as I mentioned in my original post on this, from an operator's perspective this is where the Navy and the fleet currently stands.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
7
bring_it_on said:
from an operator's perspective this is where the Navy and the fleet currently stands.
And my point is that it was that sort of mentality that resulted in the short sighted decision to truncate the line in the first place.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
0
We are in agreement that truncating the class was a terrible decision and that we should have iterated and improved and morphed the design to fit different and evolving needs.
 
Top