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

DDG-1000

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
161
I imagine the head of the program would say something like that, the question is whether the senior leadership and appropriators will. Rear Admiral Black is on the show floor, but hasn't said much about DDG-1000.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,884
Reaction score
1,240
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
136
A VPM insert would appear to be quite an extensive surgery and will probably require a good part of half a decade to fund, develop, integrate and test assuming that it can accommodate the missile (and that many). Why not consider something more optimized like an OpsFire derivative? I'd much rather they take less risk with ship modifications and more with optimizing missile systems currently being worked upon elsewhere. Would seem like a faster way to get this capability. Regardless, at least one vessel in the class needs to deploy in the next couple of years. Until that happens, I seriously doubt the Congress would be willing to invest even 1 cent into a yet another modification to its role and capability no matter how much sense it may make.
 
Last edited:

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,710
Reaction score
757
A VPM insert would appear to be quite an extensive surgery and will probably require a good part of half a decade to fund, develop, integrate and test assuming that it can accommodate the missile (and that many). Why not consider something more optimized like an OpsFire derivative? I'd much rather they take less risk with ship modifications and more with optimizing missile systems currently being worked upon elsewhere. Would seem like a faster way to get this capability. Regardless, at least one vessel in the class needs to deploy in the next couple of years. Until that happens, I seriously doubt the Congress would be willing to invest even 1 cent into a yet another modification to its role and capability no matter how much sense it may make.
Turn a retired LHA into an arsenal ship less risk than using Zumwalt IMHO
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
136
A VPM insert would appear to be quite an extensive surgery and will probably require a good part of half a decade to fund, develop, integrate and test assuming that it can accommodate the missile (and that many). Why not consider something more optimized like an OpsFire derivative? I'd much rather they take less risk with ship modifications and more with optimizing missile systems currently being worked upon elsewhere. Would seem like a faster way to get this capability. Regardless, at least one vessel in the class needs to deploy in the next couple of years. Until that happens, I seriously doubt the Congress would be willing to invest even 1 cent into a yet another modification to its role and capability no matter how much sense it may make.
Turn a retired LHA into an arsenal ship less risk than using Zumwalt IMHO
I think they probably also want to make it more useful. The guns don't appear to be going anywhere and these are very expensive ships. With the change of role, the Navy probably wants to find some sort of mission for them. Proceedings has a really good podcast with the CO of DDG-1000. Second half is focused on the vessel, the program, how it handles, and what lies ahead. Good stuff.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
161
For a former DDG skipper, Sally's plan here seems a bit off. Replacing AGS with new VLS is credible enough, but the details are wrong. Surface launch cells have more than a few differences to missile tubes on subs, the extra time, money and effort re-engineering the Virginia class' tube probably makes the overall cost similar to that of scaling up an existing surface VLS or even a fresh start designed for LRHW-size weapons. Then again, he's talking about TLAM-sized missiles so why not just use Mk 41 cells, or Mk 57, which the ship already uses, in a dense pack?

Also, the Virginia Payload Tube (VPT) is the Trident-diameter tube in the bows of the 774s since Block III. VPM is the insert behind the sail on a Virginia Block V that carrys 4 additional VPTs. He's talking VPTs, not VPMs.
 
Last edited:

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
161
A VPM insert would appear to be quite an extensive surgery and will probably require a good part of half a decade to fund, develop, integrate and test assuming that it can accommodate the missile (and that many). Why not consider something more optimized like an OpsFire derivative? I'd much rather they take less risk with ship modifications and more with optimizing missile systems currently being worked upon elsewhere. Would seem like a faster way to get this capability. Regardless, at least one vessel in the class needs to deploy in the next couple of years. Until that happens, I seriously doubt the Congress would be willing to invest even 1 cent into a yet another modification to its role and capability no matter how much sense it may make.
Turn a retired LHA into an arsenal ship less risk than using Zumwalt IMHO
The retired LHAs are steam-powered and manpower-intensive, running costs would be...problematic for an arsenal ship. If your notion just just "big, slow, small crew with lots of cells," we could build a T-AO CHAMP, or ESD with a shipload of VLS .
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
161
Zumwalt skipper Capt. Andrew Carlson tells DefenseNews that the DDG-1000 has experienced Sea State 6 in a storm off the coast of Alaska and, while more "stiff" than traditional hulls, is quite stable and comfortable.
"We took advantage of a storm up near Alaska that presented us with Sea State Six conditions,” said Carlson, referring to sea’s waves between 13 and 20 feet high. “All told I’d rather be on that ship than any other ship I’ve been on.”
“You definitely have to get used to the roll, which is very short compared to other ships,” Carlson said. “For those of us who have been on cruisers, especially up top, you kind of lean over 15 degrees and you wonder if you are going to come back. We didn’t experience any of that. As long as you get used to the finer oscillation, it really handles very well."
This will not, of course, convince the Salamanders of the world that she's not going to capsize the first time Neptune throws something wild her way. But it's a good reminder that the people who designed and built her weren't the drooling idiots they are sometimes made out to be.
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,884
Reaction score
1,240
Haven't the Navy claimed that before?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,897
Reaction score
970
What is the future for AGS ?
"The DDG-1000 is a multi-mission destroyer with an originally intended emphasis on naval
surface fire support (NSFS) and operations in littoral (i.e., near-shore) waters. Consistent with
that mission orientation, the ship was designed with two new-design 155mm guns called
Advanced Gun Systems (AGSs). The AGSs were to fire a new 155mm, gun-launched, rocket
assisted guided projectile called the Long-Range Land-Attack Projectile (LRLAP, pronounced
LUR-lap). In November 2016, however, it was reported that the Navy had decided to stop
procuring LRLAP projectiles because the projected unit cost of each projectile had risen to at
least $800,000.9 The Navy to date has not announced a replacement munition for the AGSs.10
In the meantime, it was reported in December 2017 that, due to shifts in the international security
environment and resulting shifts in Navy mission needs, the mission orientation of the DDG-
1000s will be shifted from an emphasis on NSFS to an emphasis on surface strike, meaning the
use of missiles to attack surface ships and perhaps also land targets.11 Under this new plan, the
mix of missiles carried in the 80 vertical launch system (VLS) tubes of each DDG-1000 may now
feature a stronger emphasis on anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles missiles. The two AGSs
on each DDG-1000 will, for the time being at least, remain for the most part dormant, pending a
final decision on whether to procure a replacement munition for the AGSs (which would require
modifying the AGSs and their below-deck munition-handling equipment, since both were
designed specifically for LRLAP), or instead pursue another option, such as removing the AGSs
and their below-deck equipment and replacing them with additional VLS tubes.
"
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
259
Reaction score
396
thanks,

or instead pursue another option, such as removing the AGSs and their below-deck equipment and replacing them with additional VLS tubes. "
imho it will be wrong way
LM offering is Still Best System Solutuion

 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
394
Reaction score
91
and the longest in terms of range too.

The only other solution would be scaling up the NAMMO's Ramjet shell if range+compatibility with every single kind of 155mm piece is desired.
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
The three Zumwalt's just one big black hole, GAO back in Dec 2018 reported R&D plus build $23.5 billion, ~$8 billion per ship. The unique AGS guns have no ammo, the DOT&E 2019 reported the new SPY-3 radar cannot control the AAM's, SM-2 & ESSM, just left with their 80 Mk57 VLS cells for Tomahawks, think best use of Zumwalt's as SINKEX targets.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,897
Reaction score
970
The three Zumwalt's just one big black hole, GAO back in Dec 2018 reported R&D plus build $23.5 billion, ~$8 billion per ship. The unique AGS guns have no ammo, the DOT&E 2019 reported the new SPY-3 radar cannot control the AAM's, SM-2 & ESSM, just left with their 80 Mk57 VLS cells for Tomahawks, think best use of Zumwalt's as SINKEX targets.
Actually the best thing they could do is bring them back into drydock and rework them into the first units of the Tico replacement.
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
The three Zumwalt's just one big black hole, GAO back in Dec 2018 reported R&D plus build $23.5 billion, ~$8 billion per ship. The unique AGS guns have no ammo, the DOT&E 2019 reported the new SPY-3 radar cannot control the AAM's, SM-2 & ESSM, just left with their 80 Mk57 VLS cells for Tomahawks, think best use of Zumwalt's as SINKEX targets.
Actually the best thing they could do is bring them back into drydock and rework them into the first units of the Tico replacement.
How many $billions would it cost to rip out the AGS guns and their massive magazines plus the SPY-3 radar and its TSCE CMS and re-design and re-engineer ship to replace with more VLS cells, Aegis CMS and SPY-6 radar - question is whether the tumblehome hull Zumwalt could take weight of the heavier SPY-6 in its deck house? You would just be pouring more money into Zumwalt's black hole.

 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,897
Reaction score
970
The three Zumwalt's just one big black hole, GAO back in Dec 2018 reported R&D plus build $23.5 billion, ~$8 billion per ship. The unique AGS guns have no ammo, the DOT&E 2019 reported the new SPY-3 radar cannot control the AAM's, SM-2 & ESSM, just left with their 80 Mk57 VLS cells for Tomahawks, think best use of Zumwalt's as SINKEX targets.
Actually the best thing they could do is bring them back into drydock and rework them into the first units of the Tico replacement.
How many $billions would it cost to rip out the AGS guns and their massive magazines plus the SPY-3 radar and its TSCE CMS and re-design and re-engineer ship to replace with more VLS cells, Aegis CMS and SPY-6 radar - question is whether the tumblehome hull Zumwalt could take weight of the heavier SPY-6 in its deck house? You would just be pouring more money into Zumwalt's black hole.

It was designed from the beginning to form the basis of the cruiser. It would be cheaper than starting with a clean sheet (that would likely be inferior anyway).
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
The three Zumwalt's just one big black hole, GAO back in Dec 2018 reported R&D plus build $23.5 billion, ~$8 billion per ship. The unique AGS guns have no ammo, the DOT&E 2019 reported the new SPY-3 radar cannot control the AAM's, SM-2 & ESSM, just left with their 80 Mk57 VLS cells for Tomahawks, think best use of Zumwalt's as SINKEX targets.
Actually the best thing they could do is bring them back into drydock and rework them into the first units of the Tico replacement.
How many $billions would it cost to rip out the AGS guns and their massive magazines plus the SPY-3 radar and its TSCE CMS and re-design and re-engineer ship to replace with more VLS cells, Aegis CMS and SPY-6 radar - question is whether the tumblehome hull Zumwalt could take weight of the heavier SPY-6 in its deck house? You would just be pouring more money into Zumwalt's black hole.

It was designed from the beginning to form the basis of the cruiser. It would be cheaper than starting with a clean sheet (that would likely be inferior anyway).
Do agree Zumwalt designed as basis of future cruiser but when USN started seriously pushing in 2018 for the new LSC, Large Surface Combatant, to replace Ticos and Burkes, CNO Adm Richardson called for the LSC contract award in 2023, Richardson now ret'd and LSC contract now delayed to 2028. The LSC ship is to have a 'future proof' spec with a large surplus of electrical power for the hypothetical/possible DEW's, lasers and rail guns, and to be based on parent design HM&E to speed up IOC, as with FFG(X) which USN considered a great success, USN unable to find suitable parent HM&E of appropriate size and now in R&D for new ship.

You would have thought Zumwalt was tailor made to fit LSC spec with its all electrical integrated power system and hull in water, but its been such a disaster that USN never considered Zumwalt as basis for the LSC which I think says it all, so as said use the Zumwalt's for SINKEX and stop throwing good money after bad into its $24 billion black hole.
 

Attachments

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
The Navy’s next large surface combatant will probably look more like the futuristic Zumwalt class of guided-missile destroyers than fleet’s current workhorse class of Arleigh Burke destroyers, the program executive officer said.
https://news.usni.org/2019/06/19/navy-next-large-surface-combatant-will-look-a-lot-like-zumwalt

The other aspect of the DDG 1000 shape is the stealth advantage it gives. The main problem for the Zumwalt was cost. Fixing the way the Navy manages ship construction so it doesn't balloon up the cost will probably require cultural changes and that is never easy.

DDG 1000 was optimized for land attack and clearly that is not the mission anymore so these 3 ships will probably wind up being like the Seawolf class (highly specialized). I would favor making use of the 80MW of electrical power for railguns and DEWs while also removing the AGS and looking at whether Prompt Global Strike missiles could fit.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,897
Reaction score
970
The Navy’s next large surface combatant will probably look more like the futuristic Zumwalt class of guided-missile destroyers than fleet’s current workhorse class of Arleigh Burke destroyers, the program executive officer said.
https://news.usni.org/2019/06/19/navy-next-large-surface-combatant-will-look-a-lot-like-zumwalt

The other aspect of the DDG 1000 shape is the stealth advantage it gives. The main problem for the Zumwalt was cost. Fixing the way the Navy manages ship construction so it doesn't balloon up the cost will probably require cultural changes and that is never easy.

DDG 1000 was optimized for land attack and clearly that is not the mission anymore so these 3 ships will probably wind up being like the Seawolf class (highly specialized). I would favor making use of the 80MW of electrical power for railguns and DEWs while also removing the AGS and looking at whether Prompt Global Strike missiles could fit.
I would hope they'd use them more as in-service test beds of a sort. I know that sounds contradictory but what I mean is really wring them out and find out what they'd need to change for them to become the basis of the LSC.

Replace the forward AGS with a railgun the aft with something like Northrop Grumman's modular launch system (for larger missiles) while keep the Mk57 PLS. Add a couple SSL turrets above the hangar, and give it the latest Aegis system and you're pretty much there.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
259
Reaction score
396


SM-2 BLK IIIAZ: The DDG 1000 Standard Missile Program of record plan is to procure SM-2 Blk IIIAZ modifications to support deployment of DDG 1000 Class Ships. This line item provides funds to procureSM-2 modification kits to support DDG 1000 Program. Funding includes modification kit installation in SM-2 Blk IIIA rounds. SM-2 Blk IIIA AEGIS missiles require hardware and software changes to becompatible with the new (non-AEGIS) DDG 1000 radar, combat system, X-band link and interrupted continuous wave illumination. The July 2013 R3B (Resources, Requirements Review Board) set the requirement at 40. The addition of 14 kits in FY21 and 25 kits in FY22 is required due to insufficient SM-2 rounds for ZUMWALT Class ships load-out to support full operational capability. SM-2 BLKIIIAZ funding includes rounds and support costs.

The FY2021 budget provides funding for an additional 14 kits and support in FY21 ($17.3M). This is required due to insufficient SM-2 rounds for ZUMWALT Class ships load-out to support fulloperational capability. SM-2 BLKIIIAZ funding includes rounds and support costs. Cost Element 2.1.1/2.1.8: FK830 Production Engineering/Support: Provides field activity and contract production support for missile modification and delivery to include production engineering, design andanalysis, quality and safety assurance, documentation, and production test support for SM-2 BLKIIIAZ and SM-2 BLKIIIC. SM-2 BLKIIIAZ funds support for unit production that initially ended in FY18 but restarted in FY21.


so slowly...
what did they (PEO Ships) do for three years, it was not clear that only 40 missiles it is not enough?

wat.jpg

FY17 cost 407,875 $ for 1 mod
FY21 cost 1,200,000 $ for 1 mod

:mad:
 
Last edited:

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
161
Some genius that came in a couple years ago wanted to force the class to use all ESSM and SM-6, no SM-2 Block IIIA/B, as a cost-saving measure.
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
@fredymac , a later USNI article, March 17, 2020 reporting the Large Surface Combatant, LSC, pushed out to 2028


@sferrin "Replace the forward AGS with a railgun the aft with something like Northrop Grumman's modular launch system (for larger missiles) while keep the Mk57 PLS. Add a couple SSL turrets above the hangar, and give it the latest Aegis system and you're pretty much there. "

Any estimate how many $billions those changes would cost, just the railgun firing Its 25 lb? shell (Iowa battleships had real firepower with its 16" shells of 1,900 and 2,700 lbs). EMRG FY2020 budget $7.6 billion, to move from TRL 2/3 to TRL 6, a 4 to 8 year program and then needs to be at TRL 9 to install on ship, maybe IF development a success will be installed on the LSC for IOC of ~2035.

@AA/AWW-14(V) The DOT&E Dec 20, 2019 reported that Navy has encountered severe problems with the special to Zumwalt SM-2 Blk IIIAZ and ESSM's to work with its SPY-3 radar and were not operationally effective, presume why not buying more than test quantities as they don't work.


As said my view just throwing good money after bad into the Zumwalt $24 billion black hole.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
Any estimate how many $billions those changes would cost, just the railgun firing Its 25 lb? shell (Iowa battleships had real firepower with its 16" shells of 1,900 and 2,700 lbs). EMRG FY2020 budget $7.6 billion, to move from TRL 2/3 to TRL 6, a 4 to 8 year program and then needs to be at TRL 9 to install on ship, maybe IF development a success will be installed on the LSC for IOC of ~2035.

@AA/AWW-14(V) The DOT&E Dec 20, 2019 reported that Navy has encountered severe problems with the special to Zumwalt SM-2 Blk IIIAZ and ESSM's to work with its SPY-3 radar and were not operationally effective, presume why not buying more than test quantities as they don't work.


As said my view just throwing good money after bad into the Zumwalt $24 billion black hole.

Just to make things clear:
-Technology Readiness Level 1: Basic principles observed and reported
-Technology Readiness Level 2: Technology concept and/or application
-Technology Readiness Level 3: Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept formulated
-Technology Readiness Level 4: Component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment
-Technology Readiness Level 5: Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment
-Technology Readiness Level 6: System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment
-Technology Readiness Level 7: System prototype demonstration in an operational environment
-Technology Readiness Level 8: Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration
-Technology Readiness Level 9: Actual system proven through successful mission operations

If you take the railgun currently at White Sands and simply bolted it onto a ship for demonstration and test, that would rate level 7.

The railgun development budget to date is likely to be a $billion or less (to get to TRL 6 in the desert). To get to a fully operational weapon deployed on ships could definitely take $billions but would be applicable to all future ships with the required electrical capacity.

The Iowa guns as big as they were could not reach out more than 20-30 miles. The railgun at 64MJ would go 200 miles and reach into space where it could be used for antimissile intercepts. At $20-30K per shot, the railgun projectile is dirt cheap compared to everything else (other than DEW). And of course, there are no stored explosives required.

Cost killed the Zumwalts. Developing unique weapons for them is not being contemplated but incorporating weapons that can be installed on future ships would keep them useful. They would provide immediately available platforms with the requisite electrical power and size to get early experience with railguns/DEW/Prompt Global Strike.

I see no political support for junking the Zumwalts and Navy support also looks consistent (DOTE wouldn't be DOTE if they weren't saying everything is bad and doesn't work). The introduction of unmanned surface platforms has introduced uncertainty on how the fleet composition will look. Still, if you want a large, manned platform optimized to operate in high threat theaters, the Zumwalt design is still superior to anything else out there.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
PS,
Assuming railguns continue to mature and gain more power, eventually you might be able to dispense with prompt global strike missiles and just launch the glide bodies directly out of the railgun. That would significantly increase magazine depth. It would be the Navy alternative to the Army "1000 mile" cannon but without the rocket propelled shell.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,897
Reaction score
970
As said my view just throwing good money after bad into the Zumwalt $24 billion black hole.
Everybody is entitled to an opinion.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
334
OK, I'm not an expert in the navy or these ships but, does it not make sense to get the most return possible? Scrapping them is a short resolution of what to do with them but does not solve the real question imho, which is, how can we turn this mess into something positive? I believe research and the basis for replacing the Tico's is the best solution
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,884
Reaction score
1,240
It is more than likely though that a true replacement for the Ticonderoga-class will entail nothing less than a proper nuclear powered heavy cruiser design. Precious time has, and still is, being wasted by the anti-cruiser fanatics though.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
684
Looking at this as an outsider, assuming the AGS has no chance of being a servicable weapon in the ground support role, the USN has 2 to 3 test platforms for new weapons systems. Given that we are on the verge of various new technology systems, the Zumwalts would be like the Type 82 Bristol in the RN.
Turning to a replacement for the Spruance AEGIS mod destroyers (aka CG47) the USN needs to revisit first principles:
Most powerful propulsion: Nuc or Electric or?
Role is Command and Area Air Defence how much else essential/desirable
ASW?
Surface to Surface?
gunnery?
Close in Weapons System?
You are soon looking at something like a modern version of the Strike Cruiser or a 21c Long Beach.
Based on past procurement of this sort of ship. Batch 1 2 to 4ships. Batch 2 further 4
Which quickly brings in the bean counters:
Wouldnt an updated Arleigh Burke DX family be easier to afford?
My brain hurts! I'd better stick to the RN
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,631
Reaction score
520
Thinking about LSC, first principles starts with sensors -- how big an aperture radar do they need? Then how large is their most demanding interceptor (the successor to SM-3 Block IIB) and how many of them do you need?

After that, you size your power plant. I think it's important to stop thinking of this as propulsion as the shp going out the propellors is almost secondary to the electrical load for the sensors and/or weapon systems.

As to secondary weapons or sensors, I think it's important NOT to try to field all-new systems on LSC. The urge to put every new possibility into one hull is what broke the DD(X) program. They need to stabilize most of the non-core systems on LSC with proven technology. Which is why starting with DDG-1000 as a baseline is probably a good idea. The hull and mechanical systems appear to be finally sorted out (mostly, anyway). The hull form works and can be stretched back to its original design size. If you need a gun, start with a Mk45; maybe clean up the turret enclosure for better RCS. For point defense, ESSM Block II. Other new stuff like laser point defense or railguns only go on after they are well tested elsewhere. The PEO needs some iron discipline on this front -- nothing new goes into the design that isn't essential to the ship's core mission. Which IMO excludes nuke power. Any surface combatant nuke plant would be a totally new design. Much easier to just add another turbine or two if the power needs are really that huge.

That's how the Ticonderoga effort succeeded -- the only new thing in the whole ship was AEGIS. Everything else was either Spruance or Virginia class hardware. Even VLS didn't flow in until hull 5. That let the program focus one getting AEGIS right and not worry about anything else.
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
31
Reaction score
17
Any estimate how many $billions those changes would cost, just the railgun firing Its 25 lb? shell (Iowa battleships had real firepower with its 16" shells of 1,900 and 2,700 lbs). EMRG FY2020 budget $7.6 billion, to move from TRL 2/3 to TRL 6, a 4 to 8 year program and then needs to be at TRL 9 to install on ship, maybe IF development a success will be installed on the LSC for IOC of ~2035.

@AA/AWW-14(V) The DOT&E Dec 20, 2019 reported that Navy has encountered severe problems with the special to Zumwalt SM-2 Blk IIIAZ and ESSM's to work with its SPY-3 radar and were not operationally effective, presume why not buying more than test quantities as they don't work.


As said my view just throwing good money after bad into the Zumwalt $24 billion black hole.

Just to make things clear:
-Technology Readiness Level 1: Basic principles observed and reported
-Technology Readiness Level 2: Technology concept and/or application
-Technology Readiness Level 3: Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept formulated
-Technology Readiness Level 4: Component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment
-Technology Readiness Level 5: Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment
-Technology Readiness Level 6: System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment
-Technology Readiness Level 7: System prototype demonstration in an operational environment
-Technology Readiness Level 8: Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration
-Technology Readiness Level 9: Actual system proven through successful mission operations

If you take the railgun currently at White Sands and simply bolted it onto a ship for demonstration and test, that would rate level 7.

The railgun development budget to date is likely to be a $billion or less (to get to TRL 6 in the desert). To get to a fully operational weapon deployed on ships could definitely take $billions but would be applicable to all future ships with the required electrical capacity.

The Iowa guns as big as they were could not reach out more than 20-30 miles. The railgun at 64MJ would go 200 miles and reach into space where it could be used for antimissile intercepts. At $20-30K per shot, the railgun projectile is dirt cheap compared to everything else (other than DEW). And of course, there are no stored explosives required.

Cost killed the Zumwalts. Developing unique weapons for them is not being contemplated but incorporating weapons that can be installed on future ships would keep them useful. They would provide immediately available platforms with the requisite electrical power and size to get early experience with railguns/DEW/Prompt Global Strike.

I see no political support for junking the Zumwalts and Navy support also looks consistent (DOTE wouldn't be DOTE if they weren't saying everything is bad and doesn't work). The introduction of unmanned surface platforms has introduced uncertainty on how the fleet composition will look. Still, if you want a large, manned platform optimized to operate in high threat theaters, the Zumwalt design is still superior to anything else out there.
@fredymac "If you take the railgun currently at White Sands and simply bolted it onto a ship for demonstration and test, that would rate level 7"

That's contrary to what USN saying in their Justification Book for $7.6 billion EMRG per the RDT&E Navy March 2019, PE 0602792N Innovative Naval Prototypes (Navy definition of INP, do not develop hardware for service use, TRL 2/3 to TRL 6, typically take 4 to 8 years).

The Iowa battleship with heavy armor allows them to take damage while firing from close range, modern ships, Zumwalt, much more fragile as only limited armor and why need stand off shore ~50 miles and needed the long range 100 mile AGS. A 200 mile railgun with 25 lb solid shot shell for land bombardment will cause minimal damage to target, compared a Iowa 2,700 lb shell, and will need pinpoint accuracy, in hot war there will be no GPS signals to guide the shell as either jammed or taken out by anti-satellites. USAF with the Red Flag exercise jam all GPS signals to make exercise realistic. Does the USN need a land bombardment capability as can't see them supporting a Marine landing attack on China or Russia, if they do would suggest using Arsenal ship with ~500 VLS cells that USN looked at in the 90's with a variant of the Army PrSM.

Agree there is no political support for SINKEX the Zumwalts, but as said near useless, just 80 VLS cells, no AGS for Zumwalt's primary mission of naval gun fire support for Marine landings and at moment after years of trials no AAM defense so unable to be risked if subject to hint of air attack, so why you think Zumwalt superior to anything out there is beyond me. Lastly is the expense of $24 billion for three sub-optimal ships, Modly, Acting Sec of the Navy keeps pushing home his message the USN has to get back to 80's when the 600 fleet ships averaged cost per ship was $1 billion (escalated), whereas today its $2 billion and fleet is only 295.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
334
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.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,631
Reaction score
520
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.
Well, the littoral mission has been dropped because the ships have no NSFS weapons except Tomahawk.

But they don't really have any anti-ship weapons, either, except SM-6 in its secondary anti-ship role and Tomahawk Maritime Strike Missile whenever it reaches the fleet (IOC 2023, supposedly). Surface-ship LRLASM remains unfunded AFAIK, and all the rest (OASuW Inc 2, or whatever they're calling it this month) is still a decade out, optimistically. And there's no reason for optimism...
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,563
Reaction score
331
No littoral mission. No anti ship mission? What ARE the Zumwalts for?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,631
Reaction score
520
No littoral mission. No anti ship mission? What ARE the Zumwalts for?
When they figure that out, I'm sure the Navy will let everyone know.

Right now, their best role is probably ASW. They're crazy quiet (no, not just because they're mostly pierside...) and have an interesting dual-frequency sonar outfit.
 
Top