"I should really just relax"
- Nov 19, 2013
- Reaction score
I'm even suggesting that even the current operational assessment of the class is unduly pessimistic.
The problem is that the Zumwalts aren't operationally interchangeable with the Burkes. Not in terms of role, not in terms of weapons systems, not in terms of machinery.sferrin said: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 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P9OypSfIq8&t=84sA great picture of MICHAEL MONSOOR transiting the Panama Canal enroute the Pacific Ocean and San Diego.
Courtesy of Tom Welch - http://www.monsoorcommissioning.org/monsoor-transits-panama-canal/
Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001), British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08), and Tide-class replenishment tanker Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Tidespring (A136) conduct a photo exercise, Nov. 11.
I highly doubt the Navy will consider re-starting the program on acquiring the existing round for the 3 ships. That decision has been made. I think they should explore the HVP for the future and perhaps buy an interim solution if it is determined that the HVP with the associated changes to the round or the ship will take a while longer. The guns on the three ships aren't going anywhere and all three of them will be deployed in the Pacific so we need the Navy has to get the system to work using an affordable but future proof solution which the HVP is.sfferin said:As for how to use the current three, finish developing the ammunition for the gun.....
Well, for starters, they don't have facilities or people for the air warfare commander (AW) role, which is what cruisers do in carrier groups. With the down-sized radar suite, I'm not sure they have the sensor capability either, and they definitely don't have the theater missile defense capabilities (no SM-3).Foo Fighter said:What, if any, are the problems with re purposing the class as a cruiser with duties around the carrier groups?
As Sfferin has mentioned there are already designs and proposals for a cruiser based on this family since this was the plan since its inception. There is a distinction here in reconfiguring the class to support a future cruiser mission vs reconfiguring the the 3 Zumwalt class ships. The latter will likely not happen and the Navy is moving towards more of an offensive role for these vessels. The former can definitely happen as cruiser concepts based on broadly the same design have been presented on a number of occasions. At the end it comes down to $$.Foo Fighter said:What, if any, are the problems with re purposing the class as a cruiser with duties around the carrier groups?
Wasn't the surface navy trying to get out of the TMD role?TomS said:
sferrin said:But if they can make a Spruance into a Ticonderoga. . . (Granted, they didn't convert Spruance hulls to Ticos. Buuut the Zumwalt was designed to be the cruiser hull up front so it should be fairly straightforward to develop them into the cruiser class.)
They're trying to get out of the role of defending fixed land targets. But forces afloat are clearly going to need TMD capabilities as well, for their own self-protection.marauder2048 said:
I believe DDG-1000 is already an SM-2 and may become an SM-6 shooter. But doesn't SM-3 entail a whole lot more connectivity to the rest of the TMD architecture, and a very different combat system software build?marauder2048 said:In any event, getting Standard Missile on the same dual-band datalink path as ESSM Block II is
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, the hull could absolutely be adapted to the cruiser role. That was the intention from the outset of the program.Foo Fighter said:I meant using the hull form and machinery rather than the three current ships.
It wasn't clear that that would be midcourse though that's arguably a very good place to hit ASBMs.TomS said:They're trying to get out of the role of defending fixed land targets. But forces afloat are clearly going to need TMD capabilities as well, for their own self-protection.marauder2048 said:
Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.TomS said:But doesn't SM-3 entail a whole lot more connectivity to the rest of the TMD architecture, and a very different combat system software build?
Have you come across any plans to backfit SPY-6 or even EASRs on the Zumwalt class? I don't know where but I seem to remember seeing a video where a Navy officer was talking about these radars and how scaled variants would be back fitted on ships and seem to recall a reference to the DDG-1000 (along the smaller SPY-6's for the DDG-51IIAs).marauder2048 said:Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.
I don't have anything I can link at hand, but it's on the table. I believe Bath thinks a 3-panel SPY-6 would safely be workable, but there's also the opportunity to adapt the EASR or DDG Back-fit panels to the Zs. It would be a sizable refit and is not currently a program of record, but if a big refit is planned for something like replacing AGS I would expect a push to get the ships their S-band panels.bring_it_on said:Have you come across any plans to backfit SPY-6 or even EASRs on the Zumwalt class? I don't know where but I seem to remember seeing a video where a Navy officer was talking about these radars and how scaled variants would be back fitted on ships and seem to recall a reference to the DDG-1000 (along the smaller SPY-6's for the DDG-51IIAs).marauder2048 said:Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.
SPY-4 on DDG-1000 was listed at 160x152" but I think the aperture was right about 12 foot. Bath and the Navy have said in the past that the Zs can take a 14' panel without "substantial modifications" to the deckhouse, though the Navy of today might not believe it anymore.bring_it_on said:Thanks Moose! A three panel SPY-6 derivative would be an upgrade over the planned analog SPY-4 and definitely makes a lot of sense in the long term especially if we're going to be putting SM-6 and its future variants on the ship. Was the SPY-4 a 12 foot antennal or larger?
Pogo. . . :shivering said:"The U.S. Navy's Titanium “Tin Can”
How the sea service transformed destroyers, its most common warship and once among the cheapest, into Frankenships"
POGO writers frequently have good points and include solid information, they also do not hide their lights under bushels so the good content in their articles can often feel like it's reinforcing a bias rather than informing a position. Th is program certainly has plenty of "this is what not to do" moments and absolutely should be examined in order to inform and teach so that the process can be improved, but calling them "...not tin cans so much as over-larded, cruiser-sized, titanium canisters" is both very inaccurate and generally neither useful nor helpful when evaluating either the ships or the process. The author also seems to misinterpret, deliberately or not, quotes and events from the program's troubled past in order to portray the present condition of the program as an inevitable outcome. That's problematic for any number of reasons, and it's hard to overlook when trying to evaluate the rest of the piece.shivering said:Yeah, but.......the part of the article dealing with procurement issues
rang pretty true.......at least in my limited experience.
A powerful video;:I Will Defend: Michael Monsoor’s story
Named for a Medal of Honor recipient and Navy SEAL, USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) will be commissioned Jan. 25. Ahead of the ceremony, Master-At-Arms 2nd Class (SEAL) Michael Monsoor’s teammates share his story of his courageous and selfless actions. (U.S. Navy video by Austin Rooney/Released)