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

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,801
The Zumwalts remind me of the UK Type 82 HMS Bristol. She was originally intended to be the lead ship for a class of 8. She ended up as a single ship used to develop the Seadart SAM and Ikara ASW for the RN.
The Zums are large platforms that can trial new weapon systems and techniques much like the Long Beach and Bainbridge nuclear escorts did.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
385
As long as the Navy and Congress can be kept on to make it happen
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
72
War Zone reporting Navy will be ripping out Zumwalts Raytheon SPY-6 X-band radar and replacing with new radar before their first deployment, no reason was given. Assume it was the failure under trials with Zumwalt system on the SDTS, Self Defense Test Ship, an ex-Spruance, to control its SM-2s and ESSMs, DOT&E reported. (SPY-3 also installed on Ford)

The October CBO report on cost on the new FFG, gave details Table 1 of surface combatants since 1970, shows both full load and light displacement, the difference is the deadweight available for weapons, fuel, crew stores etc. Though the Zumwalt ~16,000t ship and the Burke Flight III ~10,000t both have the same deadweight of 2,100t, reflects the massive hit Zumwalt tumblehome hull design takes to stop it capsizing requiring ~6,000t internal stabilizing tanks.

Yesterday CNO Adm Gilday talking about the future destroyer LSC/DDG Next and ‘No more monstrosities’ refering to the $26 billion Zumwalt .
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
War Zone reporting Navy will be ripping out Zumwalts Raytheon SPY-6 X-band radar and replacing with new radar before their first deployment, no reason was given

Wouldn't the Navy just activate the space allocated for SPY-4 rather than replace SPY-3?
Where did DOT&E claim ESSM/SM-2 midcourse/ICWI failures?

CBO has no particularly good insight on ship specs beyond what they've gleaned from USNI pubs.
 
Last edited:

fredymac

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,158
Reaction score
709
I thought I just posted something but it seems to have disappeared. Strange.
===========================================================



Here is the article discussing possible radar options for the Zumwalts:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ars-replaced-before-ever-sailing-on-a-mission

It mentions SPY6 as a strong contender but that Northrop/Lockheed are also making proposals. Since there are only 3 ships and the Navy is limiting how much money it will spend, the main issue is how to repurpose the ship’s main mission away from land support without having to sacrifice already installed hardware/software.

A spokesperson for Naval Sea Systems Command confirmed to The War Zone that "the Navy is exploring several alternatives to sustain air and surface search capability aboard the Zumwalt class ships" on Oct. 15, 2020. That same statement said that "no decision has been made at this time" as to how the service will necessarily proceed

Ironically, the ships stealth and integrated power systems are elements that are identified in this USNI article for inclusion in defining the future large surface combatant.

https://news.usni.org/2020/08/27/to...elopment-planned-spy-6-backfit-effort-in-flux

Apart from its mission, the signature features of the Zumwalts are their shape and the integrated power system. And those are still recognized as desirable for the future.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
72
War Zone reporting Navy will be ripping out Zumwalts Raytheon SPY-6 X-band radar and replacing with new radar before their first deployment, no reason was given

Wouldn't the Navy just activate the space allocated for SPY-4 rather than replace SPY-3?
Where did DOT&E claim ESSM/SM-2 midcourse/ICWI failures?

CBO has no particularly good insight on ship specs beyond what they've gleaned from USNI pubs.


Check out the DOT&E FY2019 report , Navy, Ship Self Defense DDG1000 on the failed AAM system

The Zumwalt do not have seperate ICWI for final targeting as Ticos and Burke for the semi-active homing ESSM Blk 1 and SA-2 Blk III missiles, but presume was supposed to built into the SPY-3 as with the successful Thales Nederland APAR X-band AESA radar (saw mention tech was licensed to the Japanese for their radars to control the ESSM Blk 1), presume why SPY-3 was a failure.

Who knows what radar the USN will replace the failed Raytheon X-band SPY-3, possible S-band SPY-6(V)3 as planned for FFG(X) or even SPY-7, but both years off. The SPY-4 also S-band and as far as know only the one production model built, made for the Ford. Just think throwing good money after bad plus there will be cost of integrating ? radar with Zumwalts unique CMS, nearly all Zumwalts weapon systems and sensors unique and will cost Navy fortune to support for the next 30 years. As said by the CNO Zumwalts a monstrosity.

PS Mauauder have any info to support you suggestion that the Zumwalt 13,559 long tons light displacement quoted by CBO is wrong? (do agree CBO do lack credibilty on some of figures they quote)
 
Last edited:

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
Check out the DOT&E FY2019 report , Navy, Ship Self Defense DDG1000 on the failed AAM system

It says absolutely nothing about SPY-3.

The Zumwalt do not have seperate ICWI for final targeting as Ticos and Burke for the semi-active homing ESSM Blk 1 and SA-2 Blk III missiles, but presume was supposed to built into the SPY-3 as with the successful Thales Nederland ARAR X-band AESA radar (saw mention tech was licensed to the Japanese for their radars to control the ESSM Blk 1), presume why SPY-3 was a failure.

Who said it had separate ICWI? That's rather counter to the point of ICWI. You were claiming a failure to control which
means either midcourse or terminal both of which are under SPY-3 control. I don't see any evidence of that.

The one thing that's come up was a detection/track maintenance issue in a multi-threat scenario with MFR + CEC on CVN-78
that DOT&E acknowledges may have been a threat presentation issue.

Who knows what radar the USN will replace the failed Raytheon X-band SPY-3, possible S-band SPY-6(V)3 as planned for FFG(X) or even SPY-7, but both years off. The SPY-4 also S-band and as far as know only the one production model built, made for the Ford. Just think throwing good money after bad plus there will be cost of integrating ? radar with Zumwalts unique CMS, nearly all Zumwalts weapon systems and sensors unique and will cost Navy fortune to support for the next 30 years. As said by the CNO Zumwalts a monstrosity.
I would think that any SPY-6, SPY-7 variant would be imminent since the Navy has just taken first delivery.

PS Mauauder have any info to support you suggestion that the Zumwalt 13,559 long tons light displacement quoted by CBO is wrong? (do agree CBO do lack credibilty on some of figures they quote)
Given that CBO doesn't do precise citations of where they got what who can say?
 
Last edited:

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
The one thing that's a wrinkle is that, per GAO, the TSCE contract for Zumwalt prohibits BMD development.

So if you need to add BMD capability the more direct route is through an AEGIS combat system which
in turn implies a solitary SPY-6 or SPY-7 unless the Navy wants to pay to (re)-integrate SPY-3.

And I don't think we've heard anything about the dual-band datalink for SM-6 in some time.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,814
Reaction score
2,042

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,726
Reaction score
1,801
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,190
Reaction score
678
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Wouldn't the Navy just activate the space allocated for SPY-4 rather than replace SPY-3?
Where did DOT&E claim ESSM/SM-2 midcourse/ICWI failures?

Cost. It cost less to run, if there are no unique electronics, and all radars are standard-model. For a small-series ship, this is especially important.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
Wouldn't the Navy just activate the space allocated for SPY-4 rather than replace SPY-3?
Where did DOT&E claim ESSM/SM-2 midcourse/ICWI failures?

Cost. It cost less to run, if there are no unique electronics, and all radars are standard-model. For a small-series ship, this is especially important.

Cost less to run: in terms of fuel? Or in terms or recurring maintenance?

They run SPY-1 + SPQ-9B on DDG-51.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
Cost less to run: in terms of fuel? Or in terms or recurring maintenance?

Maintenance, spare parts, training personnel & making two systems work together, when they are not designed for that.
SPQ-9 and SPY were not designed to work together either.

The ship was designed to host and coordinate two power and cooling hungry AESAs: one X-band, one S-band.

Previous Navy studies have looked at SPY-3 + AMDR-S (and SPQ-9 and VSR) in some detail both for DDG-51 and DDG-1000
integration was not regarded as particularly challenging. The O&S differences between the various configurations was
vary slight like < 4%.

And the Navy's then "preferred solution" was adding SPY-3, and associated TSCE components, back into AEGIS
along with either AMDR-S or VSR.
 

Attachments

  • 587883.pdf
    1.8 MB · Views: 13
Last edited:

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
72
Check out the DOT&E FY2019 report , Navy, Ship Self Defense DDG1000 on the failed AAM system

It says absolutely nothing about SPY-3.

Did you even read the report, if you had how can you have missed the pic of the SPY-3 and listing it under major contractors "TSCE and SPY-3: Raytheon Company, Integrated Defense Systems – Tewksbury, Massachusetts"
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
Check out the DOT&E FY2019 report , Navy, Ship Self Defense DDG1000 on the failed AAM system

It says absolutely nothing about SPY-3.

Did you even read the report, if you had how can you have missed the pic of the SPY-3 and listing it under major contractors "TSCE and SPY-3: Raytheon Company, Integrated Defense Systems – Tewksbury, Massachusetts"

I did. It doesn't indicate any issues with SPY-3.

IIRC, the only SPY-3 issue highlighted by DOT&E was a SPY-3 + CEC detection/track maintenance issue
on CNV-78 in a multi-target test which they indicated might merely be due to target presentation.

CVN-78 and DDG-1000 do share the same CEC processor so it's possible that the detect/track maintenance
issue would manifest on DDG-1000 but without combing through the budget docs on RDT&E it's hard
to know exactly what CVN-78 was testing.
 
Last edited:

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
72
Check out the DOT&E FY2019 report , Navy, Ship Self Defense DDG1000 on the failed AAM system

It says absolutely nothing about SPY-3.

Did you even read the report, if you had how can you have missed the pic of the SPY-3 and listing it under major contractors "TSCE and SPY-3: Raytheon Company, Integrated Defense Systems – Tewksbury, Massachusetts"

I did. It doesn't indicate any issues with SPY-3.

IIRC, the only SPY-3 issue highlighted by DOT&E was a SPY-3 + CEC detection/track maintenance issue
on CNV-78 in a multi-target test which they indicated might merely be due to target presentation.

CVN-78 and DDG-1000 do share the same CEC processor so it's possible that the detect/track maintenance
issue would manifest on DDG-1000 but without combing through the budget docs on RDT&E it's hard
to know exactly what CVN-78 was testing.

You originally said report didn't mention SPY-3 and now changed to saying it doesn't indicate any issues with SPY-3.

If there are no issues with the SPY-3 why do you think Navy ripping the SPY-3 out of Zumwalts?
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
You originally said report didn't mention SPY-3 and now changed to saying it doesn't indicate any issues with SPY-3.
Your original claim:

Assume it was the failure under trials with Zumwalt system on the SDTS, Self Defense Test Ship, an ex-Spruance, to control its SM-2s and ESSMs, DOT&E reported. (SPY-3 also installed on Ford)

This is what I said:

Where did DOT&E claim ESSM/SM-2 midcourse/ICWI failures?

You then provided a document that doesn't highlight any issues with SPY-3 which does that control part.

If there are no issues with the SPY-3 why do you think Navy ripping the SPY-3 out of Zumwalts?
It may be completely unrelated to performance.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
As someone noted above, it seems likely that SPY-3 is being replaced to simply parts/maintenance/training. Since these ships haven't entered service yet, it might be worth while to standardize them on the same scalable radar installation that is being installed on all other new construction rather than three unique systems (I'm still really surprised Ford is still getting its one off installation).
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
As someone noted above, it seems likely that SPY-3 is being replaced to simply parts/maintenance/training. Since these ships haven't entered service yet, it might be worth while to standardize them on the same scalable radar installation that is being installed on all other new construction rather than three unique systems (I'm still really surprised Ford is still getting its one off installation).

Which means they are throwing away greater than $100 million worth of RDT&E and procurement of SM-2 Block IIIAZ ICWI/JUWL missiles.
Which also leaves the ICWI/JUWL ESSM missiles as a USS Ford only weapon...

Trading a "four-off" for a one-off?

If AMDR-X was a thing there would be no concern. But it's not.

I would suggest the motivation is programmatic: Navy leadership is being forced into verbal and mental contortions in speci'ng
out a large surface combatant that's Zumwalt but they insist is definitely not Zumwalt.

And unlike the Air Force and F-22, the Navy can't point to Robert Gates decapitating Navy leadership as an explanation
for why the Zumwalt line was truncated.
 
Last edited:

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
72
And unlike the Air Force and F-22, the Navy can't point to Robert Gates decapitating Navy leadership as an explanation
for why the Zumwalt line was truncated.

Posted previously thought reason why Zumwalts canned

"The October CBO report on cost on the new FFG, gave details Table 1 of surface combatants since 1970, shows both full load and light displacement, the difference is the deadweight available for weapons, fuel, crew stores etc. Though the Zumwalt ~16,000t ship and the Burke Flight III ~10,000t both have the same deadweight of 2,100t, reflects the massive hit Zumwalt tumblehome hull design takes to stop it capsizing requiring ~6,000t internal stabilizing tanks.

Yesterday CNO Adm Gilday talking about the future destroyer LSC/DDG Next and ‘No more monstrosities’ referring to the $26 billion Zumwalt "

You have said you don't belive the CBO Zumwalt displacement figures, full load 15,656 long tons and light 13,539 long tons, but think they are in the right ballpark

Would add the retired CNO Adm Roughead who canned Zumwalt, tried to restrict buy to two ships but Congress/Pentagon insisted on completion of partially built third ship to support BIW, the procurement/build costs of the three ships, excluding development costs, $14 billion, $4.7 billion each (GAO figures in FY2020$) do understand that includes additional higher cost of first ship in class which includes the detail design etc, but even so compared to a Burke ~$2 billion each can understand Adm Roughead decision purely on cost grounds.
 

fredymac

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,158
Reaction score
709
Posted previously thought reason why Zumwalts canned

"The October CBO report on cost on the new FFG, gave details Table 1 of surface combatants since 1970, shows both full load and light displacement, the difference is the deadweight available for weapons, fuel, crew stores etc. Though the Zumwalt ~16,000t ship and the Burke Flight III ~10,000t both have the same deadweight of 2,100t, reflects the massive hit Zumwalt tumblehome hull design takes to stop it capsizing requiring ~6,000t internal stabilizing tanks.

Yesterday CNO Adm Gilday talking about the future destroyer LSC/DDG Next and ‘No more monstrosities’ referring to the $26 billion Zumwalt "

You have said you don't belive the CBO Zumwalt displacement figures, full load 15,656 long tons and light 13,539 long tons, but think they are in the right ballpark

Would add the retired CNO Adm Roughead who canned Zumwalt, tried to restrict buy to two ships but Congress/Pentagon insisted on completion of partially built third ship to support BIW, the procurement/build costs of the three ships, excluding development costs, $14 billion, $4.7 billion each (GAO figures in FY2020$) do understand that includes additional higher cost of first ship in class which includes the detail design etc, but even so compared to a Burke ~$2 billion each can understand Adm Roughead decision purely on cost grounds.



Deadweight is the designed weight provision for:

crews
stores (food)
ammo
fuel

The weight is based on what the designer has been told is needed. In other words, given the crew size and weapons load, how long do you intend to be on mission and how many times to do you expect to fire your weapons. The Zumwalts have smaller crews so that means more is proportionally going to ammo. But the overall amount is based on what the US Navy thinks they will need for mission requirements.

I can’t find anything when searching for ballast tonnage in the Zumwalt. Please specify the source for your claim of 6000 tons of ballast. It sounds like you simply assigned it based on the weight difference between Zumwalt vs Burke.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
72
Posted previously thought reason why Zumwalts canned

"The October CBO report on cost on the new FFG, gave details Table 1 of surface combatants since 1970, shows both full load and light displacement, the difference is the deadweight available for weapons, fuel, crew stores etc. Though the Zumwalt ~16,000t ship and the Burke Flight III ~10,000t both have the same deadweight of 2,100t, reflects the massive hit Zumwalt tumblehome hull design takes to stop it capsizing requiring ~6,000t internal stabilizing tanks.

Yesterday CNO Adm Gilday talking about the future destroyer LSC/DDG Next and ‘No more monstrosities’ referring to the $26 billion Zumwalt "

You have said you don't belive the CBO Zumwalt displacement figures, full load 15,656 long tons and light 13,539 long tons, but think they are in the right ballpark

Would add the retired CNO Adm Roughead who canned Zumwalt, tried to restrict buy to two ships but Congress/Pentagon insisted on completion of partially built third ship to support BIW, the procurement/build costs of the three ships, excluding development costs, $14 billion, $4.7 billion each (GAO figures in FY2020$) do understand that includes additional higher cost of first ship in class which includes the detail design etc, but even so compared to a Burke ~$2 billion each can understand Adm Roughead decision purely on cost grounds.



Deadweight is the designed weight provision for:

crews
stores (food)
ammo
fuel

The weight is based on what the designer has been told is needed. In other words, given the crew size and weapons load, how long do you intend to be on mission and how many times to do you expect to fire your weapons. The Zumwalts have smaller crews so that means more is proportionally going to ammo. But the overall amount is based on what the US Navy thinks they will need for mission requirements.

I can’t find anything when searching for ballast tonnage in the Zumwalt. Please specify the source for your claim of 6000 tons of ballast. It sounds like you simply assigned it based on the weight difference between Zumwalt vs Burke.


Correct, taking the CBO figures for displacement in long tons, both full and light, Zumwalt 15,656t and 13,539t and Burke Flight III 9,714t and 7,597t, the difference the is the deadweight as you say available for crews, fuel, stores, weapons - missiles and ammo etc.

The deadweight for both ships is the same at 2,117t yet the Zumwalt lightweight is 5,942t heavier than the Burke.

So question is why and only reason think of is the Burke uses a standard hull where the bow and ship sides flare out which naturally increases ship volume and buoyancy and forces the ship up when in heavy seas especially when the water comes over the decks, whereas its the opposite tumbledown hull Zumwalt, so Zumwalt needs other means, one such way is with internal tanks.

First to point out I'm not a naval architect, but would appreciate your thoughts for why the Zumwalt is 6,000t heavier ship than Burke and only delivers same deadweight/payload and that additional tonnage no doubt contributing its cost more than double that of a Burke.

Would note CBO base their cost estimates on new classes of USN surface combatants on the ships lightweight, so would presume CBO figures near enough correct.
 

fredymac

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,158
Reaction score
709
Correct, taking the CBO figures for displacement in long tons, both full and light, Zumwalt 15,656t and 13,539t and Burke Flight III 9,714t and 7,597t, the difference the is the deadweight as you say available for crews, fuel, stores, weapons - missiles and ammo etc.

The deadweight for both ships is the same at 2,117t yet the Zumwalt lightweight is 5,942t heavier than the Burke.

So question is why and only reason think of is the Burke uses a standard hull where the bow and ship sides flare out which naturally increases ship volume and buoyancy and forces the ship up when in heavy seas especially when the water comes over the decks, whereas its the opposite tumbledown hull Zumwalt, so Zumwalt needs other means, one such way is with internal tanks.

First to point out I'm not a naval architect, but would appreciate your thoughts for why the Zumwalt is 6,000t heavier ship than Burke and only delivers same deadweight/payload and that additional tonnage no doubt contributing its cost more than double that of a Burke.

Would note CBO base their cost estimates on new classes of USN surface combatants on the ships lightweight, so would presume CBO figures near enough correct.


Again. Deadweight is by design and not due to leftover buoyancy. The ship is bigger and the structure itself means more weight. The flight deck is bigger. The internal mission bay has no counterpart in the Burke. The command and control center is much bigger. The 80MW of power generating equipment is significantly more powerful. The AGS guns and loading systems probably weigh a lot. There is spare space allotted for future use. There a lot of things that immediately come to mind instead of ballast. One other thing. Given the hostile attitude towards the Zumwalts evident in so much "reporting", a killer accusation of 6000 tons bigger and nothing but ballast would have been all over the place before any metal was cut.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
My understanding is that the ballast (such as there is) is used to maintain a target waterline position for RCS purposes. Adding more system weight would allow this ballast to be reduced without affecting the draft/air draft.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,801
The Spruances were criticised when they first entered service in the 70s for being too large, too expensive and underarmed. Ironically their derivatives, the Bunker Hill cruisers were so stuffed with kit that they have topweight and seakeeping issues.
The Zumwalt designers (bit like the UK T45 and CVF) clearly decided to give themselves plenty of space.
No new class of warship, especially a radical design like the Zumwalt, comes without issues. The LHA and Spruances had them in spades in the 70s, but it was the Cold War and the Soviet Navy in the North Atlantic was the traditional "enemy fleet in being".
Only with the expansion of China's Navy has it become possible to create a similar atmosphere for equipping the USN.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
418
He [Rear Adm. Paul Schlise] said the service has previously executed initial design work on integrating CPS into a DDG-1000 and is now moving to the next phase to detail the design and mature a plan that can be executed to outfit the destroyer with the planned new weapon.

"I think we're looking at getting that done in the next one to two years," Schlise said. "And then, if we do have a decision [to proceed with pairing the hypersonic weapon with the destroyer] and the resources to back it up we will look at the best timeline to backfit it on the DDG-1000 class, coincident with its major yard overhaul periods that are on its schedule."

"So, the timeline is not definite yet, but we're going to move out on the congressional direction and, frankly, there's -- both within the Navy and within OSD -- a lot of excitement over this, so we're going to move pretty quickly on exploring the art of the possible for the engineering or design work that it would take to incorporate that system into DDG-1000."

Originally designed to provide naval surface fire to Marines during forcible entry operations, the Navy in 2017 shifted its thinking about how to use the DDG-1000, focusing on strike missions.

Arming a DDG-1000 with a hypersonic missile would give the destroyer a powerful new punch.

"Certainly it's going to be able to extend the range substantially and put a larger set of targets at risk," said Schlise. "The CPS round is still very much a developmental round but you know the different types of potential warheads and target sets that we can add to it is an open book still -- and I think it's probably going to be capable both in the maritime and in the land-attack role. So, we're pretty excited about it."

The two-star admiral said the statutory mandate to press ahead with plans for pairing CPS with the DDG-1000 will influence thinking about the design of the planned follow-on to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

"We are working on the large surface combatant top-level requirements right now; they were just recently approved," said Schlise. "And we think a version of a larger-diameter launcher that can handle a round like CPS will absolutely be part of that platform. And so, what we learn from the DDG-1000 integration will be applied going forward, as we think about that future Large Surface Combatant."

 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
385
So they're leaning toward a large-diameter VLS that can accommodate CPS, which previous information has as a 34.5" weapon, for LSC. But they're also talking as if LSC's gonna have to wait for the DDG-1000 refit before it gets going.
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,030
Reaction score
192
So they're leaning toward a large-diameter VLS that can accommodate CPS, which previous information has as a 34.5" weapon, for LSC. But they're also talking as if LSC's gonna have to wait for the DDG-1000 refit before it gets going.
they need put CPS in SSN not DDG
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
So they're leaning toward a large-diameter VLS that can accommodate CPS, which previous information has as a 34.5" weapon, for LSC. But they're also talking as if LSC's gonna have to wait for the DDG-1000 refit before it gets going.
they need put CPS in SSN not DDG
They are, the Mission Module Virginia and the SSGN Ohios are still a thing the last I heard.

Also the Navy does want a new DDG cause the Burkes are tapped out. The Zumwalt fits the bill perfectly in all ways but policitial the most important one.

Slapping the CPS on them will make them seem useful to congress and get more of them built and all that...
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
The range of CPS is such that it seems wasteful to include it in an escort ship that should focus on defense. Presumably LSC will focus on air and missile defense; CPS just dilutes its magazine.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
418
The range of CPS is such that it seems wasteful to include it in an escort ship that should focus on defense. Presumably LSC will focus on air and missile defense; CPS just dilutes its magazine.

Has the Navy clearly defined the DDG(X)'s exact role as part of the LSC fleet? I know many of us view it is through the lens of a cruiser replacement but is the navy thinking just in those terms or does it fit into the broader fleet differently? Certainly rehosting the then in service AEGIS baseline (10) and the same 14" AMDR isn't consistent with them seeking some additional AMD capability from the vessel at least in terms of targeting. Also, I'd assume that any large (r) diameter cell would also benefit future air and ballistic missile defense needs and allow the Navy to not have the Mk41 constraint slapped on its future interceptors as well. I expect it to be capable of accommodating various missile types at the very least.

I think they want a hull that can accommodate a mix of more weapons, larger weapons, and larger sensors and more room and power for directed energy etc. Exact mix of these capabilities onboard will evolve with the ship. I like it but the Navy needs to have something in its next budget that begins to show that they are serious enough to put some cash down to begin the work instead of just talking about it.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
It seems to me the main driver of LSC vs more Burke III or a Burke IV is the need for larger radar arrays and more power. That sugguests to me that air defense, and in particular anti missile defense, is envisioned as a primary role, whether the USN has explicitly stated so or not. The CPS is a huge weapon not just in terms of diameter but also length such that fitting it will require custom cells with more deck penetration. I think employing a wider launch cell for future anti-missile systems is a good idea, but I think a CPS sized cell is *too* large and unnecessary for ship whose role is defensive.

With a range measured in thousands of miles, it seems to me that CPS could easily be based on auxiliary ships or a version of the LUSV, where they could be supported by a large cheap hull that didn't have competition for other weapons in its magazines and didn't need to host other large installations like helos, ABM radars, etc. A CPS ship never needs to be inside the first island chain. If there is a truly high priority, very inland target that requires being in theater, have the SSGNs do it.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
418
To the best of my knowledge, the Navy has not really explicitly stated that the first iteration of the LSC will house a radar that is larger than the biggest SPY-6 currently funded. I think the initial versions will just re-host the variant that will be on the Flight IIIs.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
385
The range of CPS is such that it seems wasteful to include it in an escort ship that should focus on defense. Presumably LSC will focus on air and missile defense; CPS just dilutes its magazine.

Has the Navy clearly defined the DDG(X)'s exact role as part of the LSC fleet?
No, which is part of the reason Congress is giving them a hard time over funding their early design work on it.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
You all forgetting that the Subs have two "soft" issues that surface ships dont have.

One is Visibility. A sub by its nation can not be seen, and should not be know where its at. It can not do a show the Flag job. Sure it the bigger threat, but to most national leaders, it seems less of one. Very much out of sight out of mind type of deal. A sub doesn't trigger the predator response like a Surface Ship Does.

Basically its one thing to know that a Sub with CPS is there, but you get another entire reaction to SEEING a DDG with CPS off you shores. Which is often enough to keep the situation from getting worse. This has been proven multiple times over the years. Thats before you get into the Public showing of doing something at home.

Also known as Gunboat Diplomacy.

Second is Flexibility, More hulls with CPS tubes means that you have more options to do things. The USN is planing to have only 10 BV Virginias at the moment. Meaning at most 6 be out at sea at any given time. And while these missiles allow them to cover massive ranges, there is something to be said about having a several such platforms to cover a more complete range.

Also just thought of a third reason.

These tubes probably be like the VPTs on the Virginias, meaning that you can design different canisters to hold different missiles. Basically think of it like an over size MK41 VLS tube, You can put two standards or four ESSMs, or a Tomahawk in on tube. Now make that bigger. These tubes could hold 3 CPS, 12 Tomahawks or 24 plus SM2/6s per tube depending on the mission load out needs. Or an utter fuck ton of ESSMs. So say 8 tubes? Well that easly 6 CPS(2) 24 tomahawks(2) and 96 Standards(4). Looking like the USN Kirov my friends.

That is a Fleixibility the Navy will love have just on its lonesome without the before mention.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,814
Reaction score
2,042
CPS? As for the rest of it it sounds. . .unlikely. A better solution would be a comb of Mk41s and this:

Capture (1).PNG
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
I think any surface warship works for gunboat diplomacy, regardless of specific weapons fit. I agree with the idea of needing more tubes than just subs for CPS, but I don't think they should interfere with the primary mission of an escort. It was one thing to have arsenal ships or strike cruisers when BGM-109 was the weapon with the absolute longest range and many shorter ranged weapons were contemplated; CPS is effectively an IRBM that barely needs to be in the same theater of operations as its targets. If you want more tubes on more hulls, put them on something intrinsically cheap in the first place.

As to launch tube size and flexibility: I'm not against wider cells, but CPS is going to involve penetrating an entire additional deck compared to Mk41/56. You are going to have to sell me on the other non-CPS weapons that can make use of that much weight/volume being used up for magazine before I subscribe to your newsletter.
 

Similar threads

Top