• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

DDG-1000

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
75
I'm even suggesting that even the current operational assessment of the class is unduly pessimistic.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
29
The newest Russian missiles aren't even the problem the old stuff fast enough to require standoff and larger ships.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/breaker-battleships-5-anti-ship-missiles-could-kill-any-navy-29017
Club (3M-54E1 anti-ship variant)

"An anti-ship missile used by the Russian Navy, Club is actually a family of weapons sharing the same airframe. It is a versatile weapons system with variants capable of anti-ship (3M-54E1), land attack, and anti-submarine missions. Club has been exported to Algeria, China, and India.

There are four versions. Club-S is designed to be launched from 533mm torpedo tubes, a standard diameter for submarines worldwide. Club-N is designed to be launched from surface ships, Club M is launched from land, and Club K is fired from camouflaged shipping containers.

Club has a solid-fueled first stage , which clears the missile of the launcher and boosts it to cruising altitude. After the first stage burns out, the missile’s turbofan engine kicks in. The latest anti-ship version, 3M-54E1, is directed to the target by an active radar seeker, GLONASS global positioning system targeting, and internal navigation systems. The 3M-54E1’s warhead weighs 881 pounds.

Technically a cruise missile, 3M-54E1 typically cruises at 0.8 Mach at an altitude of 10-15 meters. Some versions accelerate to 2.9 Mach supersonic flight during the terminal stage shorten the reaction time of enemy anti-missile defenses.

The maximum range of the 3M-54E1 is 300 kilometers, or 186 miles. It’s surely a coincidence that the missile’s range is the maximum allowable for cruise missiles under the Missile Technology Control Regime. MCTR is a nonproliferation agreement designed to limit the range of nuclear-capable missiles, to which Russia is a signatory.

Developer Concern Morinformsystem-Agat JSC caused a stir in 2010 when it announced Club K, a version that is camouflaged as a standard 40-foot shipping t container. The launcher, which can be carried by container ship, flatbed train car or truck, carries four missiles. It was never fully explained why any legitimate military would want weapon system camouflaged as a staple of global commerce. The launcher sparked fears that rogue states such as Iran (which subsequently announced interest) and terrorists could use it to hide missiles in plain sight. "
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
904
Reaction score
45
I would suggest the USN should try to sell them to the Egyptian navy. It worked for France at least... [/joke]
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
9
sferrin said:
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.
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.

As far as the hull, you're severely volume limited for something the size of a Cleveland class cruiser.

As far as the machinery, it's largely non-standard by current USN practices. Sure, your LCS has the MT30, albeit in direct drive form. You don't see them being deployed either.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
25
A 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/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P9OypSfIq8&t=84s

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.
sfferin said:
As for how to use the current three, finish developing the ammunition for the gun.....
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.
 

Attachments

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
893
Reaction score
72
What, if any, are the problems with re purposing the class as a cruiser with duties around the carrier groups?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
Foo Fighter said:
What, if any, are the problems with re purposing the class as a cruiser with duties around the carrier groups?
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).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
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.)
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
25
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 $$.

As a baseline, the Navy wants Aegis BL 10, AMDR and a missions systems closely aligned with the Flight III DDG. A modified zumwalt can accommodate that while providing for the possibility of a larger radar, larger and more vertical launch cells and more power and thermals for DEW/EMRG etc.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
75
TomS said:
and they definitely don't have the theater missile defense capabilities (no SM-3).
Wasn't the surface navy trying to get out of the TMD role?

In any event, getting Standard Missile on the same dual-band datalink path as ESSM Block II is
reasonably straight-forward.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
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.)

Oh, absolutely, using the hull as the basis for a cruiser -- not that hard. Converting the existing units to the cruiser mission -- much harder.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
marauder2048 said:
TomS said:
and they definitely don't have the theater missile defense capabilities (no SM-3).
Wasn't the surface navy trying to get out of the TMD role?
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:
In any event, getting Standard Missile on the same dual-band datalink path as ESSM Block II is
reasonably straight-forward.
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?
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
893
Reaction score
72
I meant using the hull form and machinery rather than the three current ships.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
Foo Fighter said:
I meant using the hull form and machinery rather than the three current ships.
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.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
75
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
TomS said:
and they definitely don't have the theater missile defense capabilities (no SM-3).
Wasn't the surface navy trying to get out of the TMD role?
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.
It wasn't clear that that would be midcourse though that's arguably a very good place to hit ASBMs.


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?
Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
Yep. The whole point of CEC is to enable more ships to contribute shooters to the network. A shame they were so eager to sink all the VLS-equipped Spruances. :p
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
25
marauder2048 said:
Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.
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).
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
40
bring_it_on said:
marauder2048 said:
Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.
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).
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

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
25
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?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
40
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?
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

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,938
Reaction score
25
I think the 24 RMA variant of the AMDR would be more suited and likely cheaper to buy and integrate. Let's see if the Navy shares more information on its plans for the Zumwalt later this year but at the very least they should develop a roadmap to get the HVP integrated with the AGS, integrate the VL LRASM, and look to add the sensor thereby providing better capability when the SM-6 comes aboard. Long term they should plan on CPGS integration and develop plans to retrofit the railgun on at least one of the vessels.
 

shivering

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
"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"


https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/01/the-u-s-navys-titanium-tin-can/
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
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"


https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/01/the-u-s-navys-titanium-tin-can/
Pogo. . . ::)
 

shivering

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
Yeah, but.......the part of the article dealing with procurement issues
rang pretty true.......at least in my limited experience.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
40
shivering said:
Yeah, but.......the part of the article dealing with procurement issues
rang pretty true.......at least in my limited experience.
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.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
116
The USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) will be commissioned on the 25th of January,2019.
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)
A powerful video;:
https://youtu.be/256ymQN8F70
Code:
https://youtu.be/256ymQN8F70
Pay attention to "Jocko" at end of the video. B)
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
893
Reaction score
72
An extremely powerful piece. We must make sure that everyone who defends and represents their nation in this manner get the very best support and equipment possible. Something that has not been the case and is not the case now sadly.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
77
Zumwalt initial weapons load includes SM-6 IA, SM-2, Maritime Tomahawk, and ESSM Block II. Future plans include HEL’s. No mention of railguns to replace the AGS.

Defense Maven Article
 

Capthale

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
1
The new sm will have an anti ship software and hopefully the new anti ship missiles will come on line
 

Capthale

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
1
They changed there mission back to blue water and more of a anti ship toke but still no dedicated anti ship missile until the lrasm come out
 

Capthale

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
1
There long range is there anti air short range is there with 30mm close essm there strike capabilities are there tomahawks but the intermediate range. is lacking with no close in and no real self defense
 

Capthale

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
1
Pretty much big for nothing as they say all that talent and all show no go
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137
The new sm will have an anti ship software and hopefully the new anti ship missiles will come on line
Block V Maritime Strike Tomahawk looks like a done deal as an interim capability.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
I'd feel a lot better if the USN had the foresight to pursue VL-LRASM. The only legitimate excuse for not doing so IMO would be if they've got something better close to flight test.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,007
Reaction score
198
Alas, logic is still a scarce commodity so far as the Armed Services/DOD is concerned...
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,098
Reaction score
353
PLAN Type 055 DDG vs. USN Zumwalt-class destroyer ... an amazing model comparison

(images via LKJ86/PDF)

Really drives home how much the Type 055 outclasses the Ticonderogas. And those cells are monstrous compared to the Mk41s.
 
Last edited:
Top