• 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
1,189
Reaction score
161
ASW, VLS truck, surface spec ops support, technology demonstration, CTF/presence missions, some Command ship roles, there are things they can do now even if you discount the ASuW role as unfinished and downplay SPY-3/TSCE's ability to do AA in their current state.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
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.

The definition of TRL makes it explicitly clear where things currently stand. Unless you cite a document where the Navy says TRL doesn't apply to them and railguns must be considered to be no better than TRL 2/3 you will need to show it. Where are you getting your $7.6Billion number? I can't find it. Railgun budgets usually show double digit $Millions for any given year and I would guess total R&D dollars to date to be a $Billion or less. Show me this reference you keep citing so I can read it myself and see if they are saying what you think they are saying.

70,000 tons of steel didn't keep the Yamato afloat. Active defense is the only way to survive against precision weapons and armor piercing munitions. No warship anywhere will take a 2000lb armor piercing bomb and not either sink or break off for major repairs. You need to stop the bomb from hitting you.

Hypersonic munitions will kill any high value point structure it hits. Large area effects will need old fashioned explosives but today that comes in the form of cruise missiles rather than giant naval cannons. GPS can be locally degraded (although so far nobody seems to have stopped US GPS munitions in actual combat). Supplemental inertial systems that take over when needed are already in use.

The Zumwalts are a full stealth platform with high electrical power and large size needed to host future weapon systems. No other platform compares to it in these features. The Navy has already indicated they are looking at using them form DEW/railgun applications. The 3 Seawolf class submarines have made themselves useful after the program was cancelled. I see a similar potential for the Zumwalts.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,562
Reaction score
330
ASW, VLS truck, surface spec ops support, technology demonstration, CTF/presence missions, some Command ship roles, there are things they can do now even if you discount the ASuW role as unfinished and downplay SPY-3/TSCE's ability to do AA in their current state.
Well, that's why I asked. Thanks! Useful, but expensive for those roles.
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
30
Reaction score
16
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.
My view already partially covered by above posts, the Zumwalt destroyers were designed and built to replace the Iowa battleships for land bombardment to support the Marines. The impression was the Navy was not too enthusiastic on taking on this mission, reducing Zumwalt buy from 32 to 3 ships, even tried to cancel 3rd ship but overruled by Pentagon. Navy cancelled the LM LRLAP, the GPS long range land attack projectile rocket when costs escalated to $800+thou per round and it could not reach specified range. The LRLAP ammo for Zumwalts is the only munition able to be fired from its two huge AGS 155 mm guns and fit the automated magazines and handling system.

Navy was left with three $8 billion white elephants and following year Dec 2017 came up with a new mission for Zumwalt, an"offensive surface strike platform" using its 80 VLS cells for the Maritime Strike Tomahawk V with its new seeker to engage moving target at sea, has been mention of using SM-6 in anti-ship role, question whether Zumwalts SPY-3 radar has ability to use SM-6 in AAM role. The Ticos and Burkes can carry out the Zumwalt "offensive surface strike platform" role as well as using their Aegis for AAM and BMD, so in effect its a made up role to justify the continued existence for the 3 Zumwalts with their oddball radar, sonar, CMS etc.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
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.
My view already partially covered by above posts, the Zumwalt destroyers were designed and built to replace the Iowa battleships for land bombardment to support the Marines.
They weren't designed and built to replace the Iowas. Those were long-gone by the time Zumwalt came along.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,872
Reaction score
1,235
They were intended to among other things fill the NSFS role previously carried out by the Iowas. Unfortunately, the Transformationalists had a rather skewed idea of what that role would entail and require...
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
30
Reaction score
16
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.
My view already partially covered by above posts, the Zumwalt destroyers were designed and built to replace the Iowa battleships for land bombardment to support the Marines.
They weren't designed and built to replace the Iowas. Those were long-gone by the time Zumwalt came along.
Wikipedia
Zumwalts primary role of naval gunfire support. It was intended to take the place of battleships in meeting a congressional mandate for naval fire support, Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 421)
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
509
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.
My view already partially covered by above posts, the Zumwalt destroyers were designed and built to replace the Iowa battleships for land bombardment to support the Marines.
They weren't designed and built to replace the Iowas. Those were long-gone by the time Zumwalt came along.
Well, yes and no. The Navy requirement to replace the NSFS capability of the Iowas dates back to the mid-1990s, when it became clear that the Iowas would have to go away (way too expensive to maintain for their limited warfighting utility). DD-21/DD(X) in general and AGS in specific was designed to fulfill a USMC requirement for naval surface fires that the battleships could never have answered anyway -- a combination of range inland to support Ship-to-Objective Maneuver doctrine plus required standoff to defeat coastal defenses. The Iowas' guns wouldn't reach that far inland (barring a development program that would make LRLAP look cheap), and the ships could not just sail right up to the beach either. The threat was multi-dimensional, including both high-performance antiship missiles that an Iowa could not just "shrug off" and undersea weapons like mines that an Iowa could definitely not ignore. Not to mention that driving a battleship right onto the coast would kind of telegraph the location of an operation to an degree that a couple of stealthy destroyers much further out would not.

It's also worth noting that DD-21 really started as a general-purpose destroyer and only morphed into a littoral NSFS platform when that looked like the only game in town -- no one thought "war at sea" was going to be a thing after about 1993 and "anti-anti-access" became the buzzword of the day. Positioning the DD-21 effort as a direct Spruance/Kidd replacement looked like a bad bet in 1994, but probably would have been a better idea in the end.
 
Last edited:

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
509
Wikipedia
Zumwalts primary role of naval gunfire support. It was intended to take the place of battleships in meeting a congressional mandate for naval fire support, Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 421)
Let's just say Wiki doesn't tell the whole story. How we got from the SC-21 COEA to DD-21/DD-X/DDG-1000 and LCS is a story you could write a book about, with a whole chapter on the process that turned VGAS into AGS, plus another on the fiasco of the Navy's efforts on fire support missiles (LASM, NTACMS, ALAM, etc.). Also, an appendix on Arsenal Ship and how that skewed the Navy's perspectives on ship manning and operational concepts for a decade or more.

Edit: And now I'm outlining that book in my head. Damnit. I'm not going to be retired for a long while yet and I don't have time for this and a day job...
 
Last edited:

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
@fredymac
Attached Navy document and checkout my infoView attachment 630522

No mention of $7.6Billion cost to date for R&D. On the other hand, in searching around I have seen mention of total R&D expenditures to date of around 1$Billion or less which would be as expected given the amounts expended in any one year. Also, the wording says "INP investments are tpyically......" It goes on to describe "typical" INP program goals. The railgun is clearly TRL 6 just based on the definitions and INP does nothing to override that.

---------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Found your $7.6Billion. It is the bottom line of the chart. That number is $7.6Million for FY2020. Not billion.
---------------------------------------------------

The original Zumwalt mission and weapons have been rendered obsolete by events. The question now is whether the platform can be adapted for other missions and as I have said, if you want a large, manned platform optimized for a high threat environment, these would be a good place to experiment.

Whatever the next LSC will be, it will not be a heavily armored WWII style battleship and large naval guns will not be making a comeback. Missiles are now the main battery for maximum damage effect (unless you happen to be an aircraft carrier). Railguns can earn a spot for both defensive and offensive effects on point targets.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
509
Missiles are now the main battery for maximum damage effect (unless you happen to be an aircraft carrier).
And honestly, what is an aircraft carrier except a platform for launching multi-stage missiles with separating warheads and reusable (usually manned) air-breathing boosters?
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
Missiles are now the main battery for maximum damage effect (unless you happen to be an aircraft carrier).
And honestly, what is an aircraft carrier except a platform for launching multi-stage missiles with separating warheads and reusable (usually manned) air-breathing boosters?
And where the "booster" can change course, attack multiple targets over a wide area, or just come home if called off. Also, the booster is reusable and can wreak havoc on enemy boosters that get in the way.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
Missiles are now the main battery for maximum damage effect (unless you happen to be an aircraft carrier).
And honestly, what is an aircraft carrier except a platform for launching multi-stage missiles with separating warheads and reusable (usually manned) air-breathing boosters?
Well there are also AWACS, ASW, EA/ECM. . . .
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
509
Missiles are now the main battery for maximum damage effect (unless you happen to be an aircraft carrier).
And honestly, what is an aircraft carrier except a platform for launching multi-stage missiles with separating warheads and reusable (usually manned) air-breathing boosters?
Well there are also AWACS, ASW, EA/ECM. . . .
ASW done right is just a separating torpedo warhead... And as for EA/ECM, MALD-J would like a word... Seriously, I think AEW, transport and refueling are about the only aircraft roles without missile counterparts.

Obviously, somewhat kidding, but carriers and missiles aren't entirely unalike in concept. They're both about delivering effects beyond line-of-sight and classical gun range.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
ASW done right is just a separating torpedo warhead...
ASROC hardly compares to an S-3 Viking.

And as for EA/ECM, MALD-J would like a word...
MALD-J makes a poor Growler. (Not to mention it still needs an aircraft to get anywhere.)

Seriously, I think AEW, transport and refueling are about the only aircraft roles without missile counterparts.
Airspace control alone would earn the carrier it's place.
 

Cordy

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
30
Reaction score
16
@fredymac Thx for correction on railgun cost.

Quotes from CRS R44175 April 2, 2020, Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Gun-Launched Guided Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress - gives the impression that at moment railgun not a priority for the Navy and future problematical.

The Navy is continuing development work on ERGM, but it is unclear when production-model ERGMs will be installed on Navy ships. The Navy’s FY2021 budget submission requests $9.5 million in FY2021 for continued development of ERGM, but does not appear to program any additional development funding for ERGM in FY2022-FY2025.

Following tests with early Navy-built EMRG prototypes, the Navy funded the development of two industry-built EMRG prototype demonstrators, one by BAE Systems and the other by General Atomics (see Figure 12 and Figure 13). The two industry-built prototypes are designed to fire projectiles at energy levels of 20 to 32 megajoules, which is enough to propel a projectile 50 to 100 nautical miles. (Such ranges might refer to using the EMRG for NSFS missions. Intercepts of missiles and UAVs might take place at much shorter ranges.) The Navy began evaluating the two industry-built prototypes in 2012.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,885
Reaction score
959
@fredymac Thx for correction on railgun cost.

Quotes from CRS R44175 April 2, 2020, Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Gun-Launched Guided Projectile: Background and Issues for Congress - gives the impression that at moment railgun not a priority for the Navy and future problematical.

The Navy is continuing development work on ERGM, but it is unclear when production-model ERGMs will be installed on Navy ships. The Navy’s FY2021 budget submission requests $9.5 million in FY2021 for continued development of ERGM, but does not appear to program any additional development funding for ERGM in FY2022-FY2025.

Following tests with early Navy-built EMRG prototypes, the Navy funded the development of two industry-built EMRG prototype demonstrators, one by BAE Systems and the other by General Atomics (see Figure 12 and Figure 13). The two industry-built prototypes are designed to fire projectiles at energy levels of 20 to 32 megajoules, which is enough to propel a projectile 50 to 100 nautical miles. (Such ranges might refer to using the EMRG for NSFS missions. Intercepts of missiles and UAVs might take place at much shorter ranges.) The Navy began evaluating the two industry-built prototypes in 2012.
Classic USN. Spend a lot of money developing something ground-breaking then do nothing with it. (See Fasthawk, RATTLRS, VLS LRASM, etc. etc. etc.)
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
Throw in the FEL too. Got it working and had technical momentum but then just let it die. I suspect it has more to do with personal agendas among the DOD GS staff working in the various research branches than with actual technical merit and military utility.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,710
Reaction score
753
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,623
Reaction score
509
Yeah, losing the 57mm mounts is really disappointing.
 
Top