isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
389
Reaction score
532
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.
I've have that thought as well. Much like how Long Beach and the Chicago Classes were slated to receive Polaris tubes, a modern ship could have the extra large VPTs for CPS, extra Tomahawks, or even a super-sized SM-3.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
146
Reaction score
199
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.
Well for one is a super size SM3 or the return of the KEI program for ABM defense. Those where to be roughly the same size of the CPS, hell if they would have went through the CPS would probably be design to fit in the KEI tubes.

One of the key design requirements for the LSC I have seen band about is the the ablity to do that better then current ships with bigger radars so why not enable it to shot it down better as well.

Since the system is longer as well you have the ability to stack more boosters on current missiles for more range and speed cheaply. Which is always a plus.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,061
Reaction score
2,411

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
146
Reaction score
199

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,181
High marks (again) for big Z in heavy seas
Sorry boss looks like it was just the reharsing of last years article and nothing actually now. Just a hammering in that the HULL IS FUCKING SEAWORTHY YOU FUCKS type a deal.

Would prefered it being a new test just to hammer it in harder.

The lead part of the article is about late 2020 sea trials up to Sea State 6. That's new data. The rest of the article rehashes the 2019 interview comments, but it looks like there really was a new test up front.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
87
High marks (again) for big Z in heavy seas
Sorry boss looks like it was just the reharsing of last years article and nothing actually now. Just a hammering in that the HULL IS FUCKING SEAWORTHY YOU FUCKS type a deal.

Would prefered it being a new test just to hammer it in harder.

The lead part of the article is about late 2020 sea trials up to Sea State 6. That's new data. The rest of the article rehashes the 2019 interview comments, but it looks like there really was a new test up front.
According to CBO Table 1 of other Navy surface combatants since 1970 given in Cost of the Navy's new frigate (Constellation) Oct 2020 report, Zumwalt is 6,000t - 60% larger ship than AB Flt III, but only has same 2,100t deadweight/payload for weapons, fuel, stores, crew etc.

Why is Zumwalt 6,000 tons larger, can only assume mainly needed for built-in tanks to ensure stability of its non-standard tumblehome hull in rough seas?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,181
We have had this discussion before in this very thread, and I think you are misunderstanding what deadweight covers. Fixed armament and combat systems are certainly not included. It's also a very weird number, that you almost never cited for warships. I'd want to see the actual SWBS breakdowns before I'd comment on how much ballast there is, but 6,000 tons is very implausible.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
2,105
Development of a more flexible Vertical Launch System able to house different sized tubes and allow for weapons growth should have been started years ago. It also applies to point defence missiles.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
146
Reaction score
199
SO I fail a read check... Anyways
High marks (again) for big Z in heavy seas
Sorry boss looks like it was just the reharsing of last years article and nothing actually now. Just a hammering in that the HULL IS FUCKING SEAWORTHY YOU FUCKS type a deal.

Would prefered it being a new test just to hammer it in harder.

The lead part of the article is about late 2020 sea trials up to Sea State 6. That's new data. The rest of the article rehashes the 2019 interview comments, but it looks like there really was a new test up front.
According to CBO Table 1 of other Navy surface combatants since 1970 given in Cost of the Navy's new frigate (Constellation) Oct 2020 report, Zumwalt is 6,000t - 60% larger ship than AB Flt III, but only has same 2,100t deadweight/payload for weapons, fuel, stores, crew etc.

Why is Zumwalt 6,000 tons larger, can only assume mainly needed for built-in tanks to ensure stability of its non-standard tumblehome hull in rough seas?
Have you consider the fact that the 6000 tons is so that the navy has room to play with the weights in the future?

Remember the Burkes been around for 30 years, with the Ticos being around longer. Both of those classes are max out weight wise. Hell the Spruance was called the same, being 4000 tons or so more then its prior class, the Charles F. Adams-class destroyer, and about 2000 tons less then the Burkes. It well in line with the grow from one class to the next.


Also they are apperantly thinking on adding the SPY-6 to the Zumwalts. My Question is will they keep the SPY3 or tear it out for the X Band version of the SPY6 I occisionally read about, will like links to any acticles as well since my google has been hestitate to find me a good arcticle on what the fuck is going on with that...
 
Last edited:

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
87
SO I fail a read check... Anyways
High marks (again) for big Z in heavy seas
Sorry boss looks like it was just the reharsing of last years article and nothing actually now. Just a hammering in that the HULL IS FUCKING SEAWORTHY YOU FUCKS type a deal.

Would prefered it being a new test just to hammer it in harder.

The lead part of the article is about late 2020 sea trials up to Sea State 6. That's new data. The rest of the article rehashes the 2019 interview comments, but it looks like there really was a new test up front.
According to CBO Table 1 of other Navy surface combatants since 1970 given in Cost of the Navy's new frigate (Constellation) Oct 2020 report, Zumwalt is 6,000t - 60% larger ship than AB Flt III, but only has same 2,100t deadweight/payload for weapons, fuel, stores, crew etc.

Why is Zumwalt 6,000 tons larger, can only assume mainly needed for built-in tanks to ensure stability of its non-standard tumblehome hull in rough seas?
Have you consider the fact that the 6000 tons is so that the navy has room to play with the weights in the future?

Remember the Burkes been around for 30 years, with the Ticos being around longer. Both of those classes are max out weight wise. Hell the Spruance was called the same, being 4000 tons or so more then its prior class, the Charles F. Adams-class destroyer, and about 2000 tons less then the Burkes. It well in line with the grow from one class to the next.


Also they are apperantly thinking on adding the SPY-6 to the Zumwalts. My Question is will they keep the SPY3 or tear it out for the X Band version of the SPY6 I occisionally read about, will like links to any acticles as well since my google has been hestitate to find me a good arcticle on what the fuck is going on with that...
Zumwalts additional ~6,000t lightweight displacement vs the AB Flt III (Zumwalt 13,500t vs AB Flt III 7,600t), but both with same deadweight/payload. A ships lightweight is the actual completed build weight of the ship with no weapons (missiles, 155 mm LRLAP projectiles, helo etc), fuel, crew and stores, so no the Navy has very limited room to play with to add future weapon systems (all Navy destroyers (not frigates) and new flights have 10% design weight growth built in for SLA, service life allowance, all ships inevitably put on weight over 25-35 year life span, if too much top weight lead ballast added). Navy could rip out the non-operational AGS 155mm guns and magazines, but as ship designed around the AGS think you might be talking $billion+ including new weapon system.

The X-band SPY-6 never funded, cancelled. Navy had plans in 2017 for a new generation <$30 million X-band radar to replace the old gen SPQ-9B and SPY-3, understand progress limited to a few study contracts. If Navy does replace the Zumwalts X-band SPY-3 with the S-band SPY-6 expect it will be small variant due to top weight concerns, Navy cut costs on third Zumwalt, the Lyndon B Johnson and replaced the light balsa core composite 1,000 ton deckhouse with cheaper/heavier steel version, able to do so as Navy had earlier cancelled installation of the larger heavier S-band SPY-4 in deck house cutting top weight, again to cut costs.
We have had this discussion before in this very thread, and I think you are misunderstanding what deadweight covers. Fixed armament and combat systems are certainly not included. It's also a very weird number, that you almost never cited for warships. I'd want to see the actual SWBS breakdowns before I'd comment on how much ballast there is, but 6,000 tons is very implausible.

Correct but thought fair to raise subject again as the Defense News article yesterday was a rehash of how Zumwalt tumblehome hull sails through rough seas testing. Deadweight, perhaps should have made it clearer as you have have weapons does not include the weapon systems themselves, its the 'ammunition' missiles etc. As you would like to see the SWBS breakdown but think highly unlikely, so what do you think is the driver for the ~6,000t increase in lightweight displacement if not stability tanks for Zumwalts tumblehome hull, eg the Integrated Power System, IPS?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,181
As you would like to see the SWBS breakdown but think highly unlikely, so what do you think is the driver for the ~6,000t increase in lightweight displacement if not stability tanks for Zumwalts tumblehome hull, eg the Integrated Power System, IPS

Yes, IPS. Electric motors are heavy. Also, quieting. The Zumwalts are reported to be exceptionally quiet, like to SSN levels. Armor/protection between the VLS cells and the main hull. A protected citadel in the hull for the crew. Expanded crew accomodations. The big boat deck under the flight deck. The big flight deck itself. And yes, some variable ballast, especially for signature management.
 
Last edited:

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
2,105
Could the Zumwalts be given a Kirov similar armament?
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
146
Reaction score
199
As you would like to see the SWBS breakdown but think highly unlikely, so what do you think is the driver for the ~6,000t increase in lightweight displacement if not stability tanks for Zumwalts tumblehome hull, eg the Integrated Power System, IPS

Yes, IPS. Electric motors are heavy. Also, quieting. The Zumwalts are reported to be exceptionally quiet, like to SSN levels. Armor/protection between the VLS cells and the main hull. A protected citadel on the hull for the crew. Expanded crew accomodations. The big boat deck under the flight deck. The big flight deck itself. And yes, some variable ballast, especially for signature management.
For how quieting...

Recently heard a story from some sailers recently, here you salt block bugger off. Literally head this in a bar Tom Bloody Clancy style...

So the Zumwalt did a short exercise with one of the subs, a short ad hoc thing to train the sub and do some testing on the Zumwalts sonar and sound proofing. Apperantly very short order and every ad-hoc type of thing.

So the exercise starts, and nothing happens.

Some time past and the sub decides to surface to periscope depth for comms, thinking that something must have broke on Zumwalt and no one told them. It happens on occasion so no surprise.

Periscope pops up to a sweep and the Captain starts screaming to dive cause holy fuck the Zumwalt is right there and they are about to be ran the fuck over. Meanwhile the Zumwalt went active to try and miss the sub.

Take away was that 1) the Zumwalts sonars need tweaking and 2) she quiet enough to ghost a submarine.

Rather or not that happen is up to you lot but from the other things I have heard about this class on the things that work, my four cents is this.

Fix the guns, combat system and make more of them. Number of them? YES.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
219
Reaction score
162
As you would like to see the SWBS breakdown but think highly unlikely, so what do you think is the driver for the ~6,000t increase in lightweight displacement if not stability tanks for Zumwalts tumblehome hull, eg the Integrated Power System, IPS

Yes, IPS. Electric motors are heavy. Also, quieting. The Zumwalts are reported to be exceptionally quiet, like to SSN levels. Armor/protection between the VLS cells and the main hull. A protected citadel on the hull for the crew. Expanded crew accomodations. The big boat deck under the flight deck. The big flight deck itself. And yes, some variable ballast, especially for signature management.
For how quieting...

Recently heard a story from some sailers recently, here you salt block bugger off. Literally head this in a bar Tom Bloody Clancy style...

So the Zumwalt did a short exercise with one of the subs, a short ad hoc thing to train the sub and do some testing on the Zumwalts sonar and sound proofing. Apperantly very short order and every ad-hoc type of thing.

So the exercise starts, and nothing happens.

Some time past and the sub decides to surface to periscope depth for comms, thinking that something must have broke on Zumwalt and no one told them. It happens on occasion so no surprise.

Periscope pops up to a sweep and the Captain starts screaming to dive cause holy fuck the Zumwalt is right there and they are about to be ran the fuck over. Meanwhile the Zumwalt went active to try and miss the sub.

Take away was that 1) the Zumwalts sonars need tweaking and 2) she quiet enough to ghost a submarine.

Rather or not that happen is up to you lot but from the other things I have heard about this class on the things that work, my four cents is this.

Fix the guns, combat system and make more of them. Number of them? YES.
The Navy's continuing refusal to actually DO something with what is by all accounts a good design simply because it's too big(?) is getting ridiculous. They NEED a large surface combatant, and they've got the perfect base for one of them sitting right fucking there.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
2,105
The Ticos were a last minute solution to get Aegis into service in the 1980s and did the job.
The Zumwalt has the space to ship sizeable numbers of large VLS for Air, Surface and Sub surface roles.. Now all you need is a new VLS and suitable radars.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
87
As you would like to see the SWBS breakdown but think highly unlikely, so what do you think is the driver for the ~6,000t increase in lightweight displacement if not stability tanks for Zumwalts tumblehome hull, eg the Integrated Power System, IPS

Yes, IPS. Electric motors are heavy. Also, quieting. The Zumwalts are reported to be exceptionally quiet, like to SSN levels. Armor/protection between the VLS cells and the main hull. A protected citadel in the hull for the crew. Expanded crew accomodations. The big boat deck under the flight deck. The big flight deck itself. And yes, some variable ballast, especially for signature management.
IPS weight, don't know actual Zumwalt figures, the generators for the MT30 ~75t x 2 plus its electric motors ~110t x 2 plus 12 drives and misc say ~100t, total say additional 500t less savings compared to Burkes, no MGRs ~100t x 2 and one less GTG 40t, looking at approx additional 250t+ propulsion system weight compared to a Burke Flt III, so don't think its the driver for the Zumwalts near 6,000t increase in weight even if my IPS rom figures understated. Crew accomadation weight would expect to be wash, Zumwalt much higher standard than Burke but Zumwalt crew numbers half Burkes. The much larger flight deck driven by installing the 80 Mk57 cells on the periphey of the flight deck, so would require more weight and armor than required for Burkes compact layout of its MK41 VLS cells so again don't think big numbers in the thousands of tons

Zumwalts will be quiet (no noisy MGRs) but its hull mounted sonars SQS-60 & 61, medium and high frequency, were optimized for operation close in coastal waters, littoral seas, for when Zumwalt firing its non-opersational AGS 155m guns (the Burke SQS-53 is a low frequency long range sonar for operation in blue wate).
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
589
The hull, plant, and electrical system of the zoomies seems sound and by most accounts it is a very quiet design. It seems the basic hull would be fairly ideal for a large combatant. It wouldn’t be hard to drop the guns, add VLS, scale a version of SPY-6 to a follow on and change the sonars to something more blue water capable. The donor suite from FFGX could be substituted, possibly with the existing hull sonar the FFGX lacks.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
87
Naval News update on the three Zumwalts, March 10, a few comments selected. (GAO quotes procurement cost of $14 billion, $4.7 billion each in FY2020 $).

As shared by the U.S. Navy during the Surface Navy Association’s 2021 virtual symposium, held mid-January, and more recently to other defense media. RADM Paul Schlise, NAVSEA, Director, Surface Warfare (N96) at SNA 2021 Virtual Symposium “Make no mistake about it, these three ships will be mainstays of a powerful maritime presence in the Western Pacific.”
At moment the unique AGS 155mm guns non-operational due lack of any ammunition and only 80 VLS cell vs $2 billion Burke's 96.
Naval News inquired Naval Sea Systems Command’s (NAVSEA) Office of Corporate Communication about the possibility of using new rounds for the 155mm Armored Gun Systems. Alan Baribeau of NAVSEA replied via email in February 2021: “[The] Navy continues to consider all options to include development of a round compatible with AGS or repurposing the available space should the gun be removed in a future availability.”

Rear Admiral Schlise did mention that the U.S. Navy does not plan to use the DDG 1000’s tumblehome hull as the basis for the future DDG(X) destroyer replacement, citing that a totally new hull and power plant system is required for the DDG(X) to power future systems that haven’t yet matured.
Navy not saying why its not the basis for the DDG(X) even though Zumwalt has the integrated electric power system which Navy wants for the DDG (X) for its DEW, lasers etc, as have posted previously think reason is its the additional ~ 60% displacement/very expensive costs incurred with Zumwalt's non-standard/unique tumblehome hull.

NAVSEA replied to the question on if the Zumwalts will receive new SPY radars and sensors: “The Navy is exploring several alternatives to sustain air and surface search capability aboard the Zumwalt-class ships but no decision has been made at this time.”
Navy has never explained why Zumwalts new Raytheon X-band SPY-3 radars are unfit for purpose (also fitted on Ford).

“A full ship quarter-scale Underwater Explosion (UNDEX) whipping test series was conducted in 2005 to validate the design approach and ruggedness of the hull structural design. The tests demonstrated the design capability of the tumblehome hull against design and threat level scenarios,”
Navy has refused to subject Zumwalt FSST, full ship shock trials, understand FSST is a mandatory test for new surface ships and suburmarine classes unless given explicit authority to exempt by Congress, which Navy did not receive.

NAVSEA’s Mr. Tom Rivers, Executive Director, PEO Ships for Amphibious, Auxillary, and Sealift said that the DDG 1002, USS Lyndon B. Johnson, is 97% complete and that the other two Zumwalts are undergoing testing as of mid-January 2021.
January 21, Navy spokesman said the final delivery of the Zumwalt-class destroyer Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) has been delayed two years, did they get it wrong and its the DDG-1002 Lyndon B Johnson ?

 
Last edited:

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
146
Reaction score
199
At moment the unique AGS 155mm guns non-operational due lack of any ammunition and only 80 VLS cell vs $2 billion Burke's 96.
The guns you have a point on. But for the missiles, remember that the Burkes generally carry about 8 to 16 SM3s. Which while are useful as is the SPY3 can't see well enough to be actually useful on the Zumwalts. So the SM3s that a Burke has will not be on a Zumwalt, add in the fact that their limit amount of ARSOC, less then 400 right from what I heard, and the Zumwalts limited sonar... That is anywhere from 16 to 32 missiles the Zums will not have cause it can not use. So it still carry a similar amount of SAMS and ground attack weapons that the Burkes do.
Navy not saying why its not the basis for the DDG(X) even though Zumwalt has the integrated electric power system which Navy wants for the DDG (X) for its DEW, lasers etc, as have posted previously think reason is its the additional ~ 60% displacement/very expensive costs incurred with Zumwalt's non-standard/unique tumblehome hull.
90% that is a law issue. Basically for any new hull design the navy NEEDS to through ALL the fucking hoops for getting a new ship class. Basically the Navy can't say anymore that they want the ZUMWALT Hull with X, they have to do the whole dog and pony show to give all the manufactures a fair stick. Remember that the NON STANDARD is going to apply to any new hull design, tumblehome or not. Its part of the cost of being a new design.
Navy has never explained why Zumwalts new Raytheon X-band SPY-3 radars are unfit for purpose (also fitted on Ford).
Again 95% that while the SPY3 is a good air/ground search sensor... Any new surface combatant hull will need to be ABM capable and the SPY3 does not have the range to do that cause of the size, the face is half the size of the SPY1 Face. It literally can not do ABM search like the SPY1 or newer SPY6 can. Its not design for it, if it the Spy4 was install it be fine cause ABM was part of the SPY4 design job while the SPY3 was horizon search and fire control only system.
Basically the SPY3 even with the mods it got LACKS THE RANGE that the SPY1s or hell the NTU ships have.
Navy has refused to subject Zumwalt FSST, full ship shock trials, understand FSST is a mandatory test for new surface ships and suburmarine classes unless given explicit authority to exempt by Congress, which Navy did not receive.
The Navy has pushed back the Shock trails dates for years before on other classes. The Nimitz class for example didn't get theirs until Congress schedule for them with the Teddy IRCC. Hell the LSC didnt get theirs until almost 10 years later, same with the Burkes and Ticos. Generally speaking the Navy seems wants to be a few ships in with more under constuction before they do shock trails. Plus they prefer to have all the other tests down so they have a good baseline to go off of. Something that the Zumwalts lack at the moment.

Also consider that they are probably going into a fairly large refit, they may be waiting to get all the new toys before doing the trials since why do them with the systems that will not be installed? It will literally make the trails useless since they will have no base line to compare against and will not have the data on how the new gear that the hulls will deploy with will react to shock.
 
Last edited:

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
229
Reaction score
417
Would it be possible to fit the 34.5" diameter VLS tubes required for LRHW in the place of the AGS System?
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
589
I’d also argue shock trials are fairly pointless for a three ship class.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
87
I’d also argue shock trials are fairly pointless for a three ship class.

I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.

The 32 Zumwalt class mission/design was as replacement for the Iowa class battleships to give NGFS for the Marines, the Zumwalts survivability depended on its 100 mile range AGS 155mm/LRLAP, 25lb shell, and stealth vs the Iowa 16" (406mm) guns, 2,240 & 2,700 lb shells, with its heavy armor.

Navy was always very lukewarm on the NGFS mission for Marines, the LRLAP never hit its required range and as its costs ballooned as did the ships costs due to its stealth design gave easy reason for Navy to cancel program (and go back to building AAW/ABM Burkes) the first two ships were thought to be too far advanced in build to cancel, Pentagon overruled the Navy and insisted 3rd ship which had started in build also be completed.

Navy has now abandoned large scale NGFS mission to support Marine landings and Navy has in theory repositioned the three Zumwalts as offensive surface strike ships, think instead of shoveling more $$$ down Zumwalt black hole, instead spend the money on the DDG(X), won't happen.

GAO Zumwalts latest estimate for development and build program is currently $26.1 billion.
Would it be possible to fit the 34.5" diameter VLS tubes required for LRHW in the place of the AGS System?

Unlikely as there is question if Congress will even fund the Army/Navy 34.5" hypersonic missile for the Virginia Block V VPM, the Navy’s first priority for the hypersonic missile.

 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
87
I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.
As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,181
THe switch to MF/HF sonar wasn't a deemphasis on ASW overall for DD-21/DD(X), it was a change in the expected ASW operating environment. They thought they were going to be working in shallow near-shore waters were LF hull sonar is a terrible idea. Then the design got caught, again, by the changing operating environment and LF was back in favor. But it was also supposed to have stuff like a bistatic active/passive towed array and flank arrays like an SSN (also victims of the budget).
 
Last edited:

totallyaverage

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
17
Reaction score
30
I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.
As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.
I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
146
Reaction score
199
I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.
As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.
I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.
Especailly when you consider that after taking in all the costs of restarting...

Basically all the production of stuff that the burkes need, like the MK41, and finding replacement for the parts that they couldn't restart...

I am will to bet ANYTHING that the Flight 3s program more then the Zumwalt do at this point.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
389
Reaction score
532
I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.
As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.
I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.
Could you go more into that last bit? I've never read about an additional procurement of Kidd's but it sounds fascinating, they certainly had a leg up with their helicopter hangers and perceived commonality with the Tico's and Spurances.
 

totallyaverage

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
17
Reaction score
30
I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.
As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.
I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.
Could you go more into that last bit? I've never read about an additional procurement of Kidd's but it sounds fascinating, they certainly had a leg up with their helicopter hangers and perceived commonality with the Tico's and Spurances.

Friedman's destroyers goes into it a little bit. DDG-51 was purchased for $1.1bn in FY86, or $2.612 in today's money. The four Kidds were purchased collectively for $1.35bn in FY79, $338mm per, or $1.182bn per hull today. So 220% the cost of DDG-993, which is not far different from the 235% premium paid for DDG-1000 over a Burke IIA. I recall reading some congressional hearings that actually discuss procuring additional Kidds, but I do not have that on hand and it would be a massive pain to find again.

You have to remember that the Burkes, and Aegis as a whole, were treated very much like the Zumwalt class is today. Too big, to complicated, too expensive, and not actually performing any better than the ships they were replacing was a common argument amongst the reformer crowd in the 80s. I'm sure you've heard the claim that NTU was better than Aegis. Which it was...in the 80s, when Aegis was still rocking the UYK-7, not the UYK-43 that NTU was using. But long term, Aegis was far better in the ways that actually mattered, particularly against low altitude threats or against intense jamming, which the SPY-1 was all but immune to back in the day, at least against the common less complex threats. But that doesn't matter to reformers, the dollar signs and superficial specifications are what matter. You can see this today with Zumwalt, when people complain about it having only 80 VLS cells, instead of looking at the actual meaningful improvements in power and growth margin as well as stealth.

But with Zumwalt, the reformers won, which has led to catastrophic consequences for the class and Navy surface combatants as a whole. Which has led to us restarting production of a hull that is fundamentally obsolete in ways that cannot be rectified without completely redesigning the class, no idea how to replace the Ticos, and the Navy scrambling to find any excuse as for why the Zumwalt hull doesn't fulfill what they need.
 
Last edited:

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
389
Reaction score
532
I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.
As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.
I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.
Could you go more into that last bit? I've never read about an additional procurement of Kidd's but it sounds fascinating, they certainly had a leg up with their helicopter hangers and perceived commonality with the Tico's and Spurances.

Friedman's destroyers goes into it a little bit. DDG-51 was purchased for $1.1bn in FY86, or $2.612 in today's money. The four Kidds were purchased collectively for $1.35bn in FY79, $338mm per, or $1.182bn per hull today. So 220% the cost of DDG-51, which is not far different from the 235% premium paid for DDG-1000 over a Burke IIA. I recall reading some congressional hearings that actually discuss procuring additional Kidds, but I do not have that on hand and it would be a massive pain to find again.

You have to remember that the Burkes, and Aegis as a whole, were treated very much like the Zumwalt class is today. Too big, to complicated, too expensive, and not actually performing any better than the ships they were replacing was a common argument amongst the reformer crowd in the 80s. I'm sure you've heard the claim that NTU was better than Aegis. Which it was...in the 80s, when Aegis was still rocking the UYK-7, not the UYK-43 that NTU was using. But long term, Aegis was far better in the ways that actually mattered, particularly against low altitude threats or against intense jamming, which the SPY-1 was all but immune to back in the day, at least against the common less complex threats. But that doesn't matter to reformers, the dollar signs and superficial specifications are what matter. You can see this today with Zumwalt, when people complain about it having only 80 VLS cells, instead of looking at the actual meaningful improvements in power and growth margin as well as stealth.

But with Zumwalt, the reformers won, which has led to catastrophic consequences for the class and Navy surface combatants as a whole. Which has led to us restarting production of a hull that is fundamentally obsolete in ways that cannot be rectified without completely redesigning the class, no idea how to replace the Ticos, and the Navy scrambling to find any excuse as for why the Zumwalt hull doesn't fulfill what they need.
Thanks for typing all out that, I am in total agreeance with you. How do you feel about the Large Surface Combatant program? Could a stretched Burke fit the bill, or must the Navy reinvent the wheel again?
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
2,105
The Spruance class started life as a destroyer with two variants, one for ASW and one for Air Defence. (for what produced the Spruances go here
The ASW ones were built to try and replace the various Gearing and Sumner FRAMs after the dismal Knox class.
Air Defence throughout the 70s to 90 rested in the Adams class destroyers (everything else had been redesignated as Cruisers, though Destroyer Leaders really)
The Kidds were based on the original AD Spruance. They were 4 ships ordered by the Shah but taken over by the USN after the 1979 Revolution in Iran.
The threat from Soviet air and missile power justified more AEGIS ships so Burke was ordered.
Had the Cold War ended 5 years earlier they might never have been built and the USN would consist of Ticos and Spruances.
 

totallyaverage

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
17
Reaction score
30
I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.
As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.
I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.
Could you go more into that last bit? I've never read about an additional procurement of Kidd's but it sounds fascinating, they certainly had a leg up with their helicopter hangers and perceived commonality with the Tico's and Spurances.

Friedman's destroyers goes into it a little bit. DDG-51 was purchased for $1.1bn in FY86, or $2.612 in today's money. The four Kidds were purchased collectively for $1.35bn in FY79, $338mm per, or $1.182bn per hull today. So 220% the cost of DDG-51, which is not far different from the 235% premium paid for DDG-1000 over a Burke IIA. I recall reading some congressional hearings that actually discuss procuring additional Kidds, but I do not have that on hand and it would be a massive pain to find again.

You have to remember that the Burkes, and Aegis as a whole, were treated very much like the Zumwalt class is today. Too big, to complicated, too expensive, and not actually performing any better than the ships they were replacing was a common argument amongst the reformer crowd in the 80s. I'm sure you've heard the claim that NTU was better than Aegis. Which it was...in the 80s, when Aegis was still rocking the UYK-7, not the UYK-43 that NTU was using. But long term, Aegis was far better in the ways that actually mattered, particularly against low altitude threats or against intense jamming, which the SPY-1 was all but immune to back in the day, at least against the common less complex threats. But that doesn't matter to reformers, the dollar signs and superficial specifications are what matter. You can see this today with Zumwalt, when people complain about it having only 80 VLS cells, instead of looking at the actual meaningful improvements in power and growth margin as well as stealth.

But with Zumwalt, the reformers won, which has led to catastrophic consequences for the class and Navy surface combatants as a whole. Which has led to us restarting production of a hull that is fundamentally obsolete in ways that cannot be rectified without completely redesigning the class, no idea how to replace the Ticos, and the Navy scrambling to find any excuse as for why the Zumwalt hull doesn't fulfill what they need.
Thanks for typing all out that, I am in total agreeance with you. How do you feel about the Large Surface Combatant program? Could a stretched Burke fit the bill, or must the Navy reinvent the wheel again?
Not confident unfortunately. The Navy has completely failed to articulate a plan, and from an external point of view the program appears completely rudderless. Which is a program attribute that leads to Congress slapping cuts before the program really began, despite the Navy listing the desperate need for almost two decades.

A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

The Zumwalt hull can perform either of these functions with far less effort, at least in theory. Though re-sourcing production for the IPS and propulsion may be problematic...this was an issue on the Burke restart, with getting production of the reduction gear taking some wrangling. I can only imagine it will be worse on the much more complicated Zumwalt plant, the tooling to reproduce those components may no longer exist. If that were the case, they would need new tooling or to design new components, both of which are expensive. They would also need to figure out if it would be better to go with the original composite deckhouse or the cheaper DDG-1002 steel one. Composite would require constructing a new facility to build it, since HII closed it down after the Navy made the switch.

The other problem is that the Zumwalt hull is built in a completely different manner, with smaller numbers of larger modules compared to the Burkes. Reconfiguring the yard to build Burkes again was a near-death experience for Bath, and I'm not sure they would want to go through that again.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
87
A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

Stretched Burke, CRS reported back in 2009 on various possible options with info provided by Navy

Flight IIA base length 96 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 1 - 12' ext 128 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 2 - 30' ext 160 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 3 - <56' ext 192 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 4 - 56' ext 256 Mk 41 VLS cells

From memory remember maximum Burke hull plug length possible ~66', not saying a preferred option as Burkes original design dates back to the late 1980's and as totallyaverage said dense ship making expensive to maintain, but it would be possible basis for the DDG(X). IPS is not a mandatory requirement for possible future electric power for DEW, certainly preferable but a quick and dirty and cheaper solution would be an additional GTG.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
146
Reaction score
199
A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

Stretched Burke, CRS reported back in 2009 on various possible options with info provided by Navy

Flight IIA base length 96 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 1 - 12' ext 128 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 2 - 30' ext 160 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 3 - <56' ext 192 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 4 - 56' ext 256 Mk 41 VLS cells

From memory remember maximum Burke hull plug length possible ~66', not saying a preferred option as Burkes original design dates back to the late 1980's and as totallyaverage said dense ship making expensive to maintain, but it would be possible basis for the DDG(X). IPS is not a mandatory requirement for possible future electric power for DEW, certainly preferable but a quick and dirty and cheaper solution would be an additional GTG.
And still be basically kicking the can down the road. Even with the added GTG it still does not solve the crewing issues, infact INCREASE IT, nor will it allow for a Bigger radar like the Navy wants cause the Burkes hull cant support it.

Wow you got a bigger missile load, big deal, we cant afford to LOAD THEM. And they cant carry the newer larger missiles any how.

It have the same issues as the Viriginia Class Cruisers did in the 90s. Too expansive, crew heavy, and limited for what they bring.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
87
A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

Stretched Burke, CRS reported back in 2009 on various possible options with info provided by Navy

Flight IIA base length 96 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 1 - 12' ext 128 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 2 - 30' ext 160 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 3 - <56' ext 192 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 4 - 56' ext 256 Mk 41 VLS cells

From memory remember maximum Burke hull plug length possible ~66', not saying a preferred option as Burkes original design dates back to the late 1980's and as totallyaverage said dense ship making expensive to maintain, but it would be possible basis for the DDG(X). IPS is not a mandatory requirement for possible future electric power for DEW, certainly preferable but a quick and dirty and cheaper solution would be an additional GTG.
And still be basically kicking the can down the road. Even with the added GTG it still does not solve the crewing issues, infact INCREASE IT, nor will it allow for a Bigger radar like the Navy wants cause the Burkes hull cant support it.

Wow you got a bigger missile load, big deal, we cant afford to LOAD THEM. And they cant carry the newer larger missiles any how.

It have the same issues as the Viriginia Class Cruisers did in the 90s. Too expansive, crew heavy, and limited for what they bring.
Navy bigger radar requirement, would note that AMDR, now the SPY-6, estimated as 30 times more sensitive than SPY-1 was the largest Navy could fit on an upgraded Burke IIA, the Flight III, they went with that option due to budget constraints. Raytheon claims the new SPY-6 with its GaN silicon under testing has exceeded expectations and achieved 100 times sensitivity, so talk of Navy needing larger radar for its BMD mission has died.

Probability of DDG(X) fitting large missiles, hypersonic, think low due to the high cost, if they do it will be in penny packet numbers, mentioned previously above there is a question mark if Congress will even fund the large Army/Navy hypersonic missile for Virginia Block V's to partially replace the four Ohio Tomahawk SSGN's, let alone the DDG(X). At moment Ticos, Burkes and Ohio SSGN have total of ~10,000 VLS cells and use the 1980's era land attack Tomahawks and at ~$1.5 million each, so 'cheap', but Navy needs new gen missile for land attack and the Army/Navy hypersonic looks unaffordable in big numbers, a big problem for the Navy needing an affordable replacement for the Tomahawk..

As said new Burke flight variant also not my preferred option either for DDG(X) but it would be an option, think would gain Congressional funding, Congress substantially cut Navy development funding for the DDG(X) in FY2021 NDAA.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
219
Reaction score
162
A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

Stretched Burke, CRS reported back in 2009 on various possible options with info provided by Navy

Flight IIA base length 96 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 1 - 12' ext 128 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 2 - 30' ext 160 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 3 - <56' ext 192 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 4 - 56' ext 256 Mk 41 VLS cells

From memory remember maximum Burke hull plug length possible ~66', not saying a preferred option as Burkes original design dates back to the late 1980's and as totallyaverage said dense ship making expensive to maintain, but it would be possible basis for the DDG(X). IPS is not a mandatory requirement for possible future electric power for DEW, certainly preferable but a quick and dirty and cheaper solution would be an additional GTG.
And still be basically kicking the can down the road. Even with the added GTG it still does not solve the crewing issues, infact INCREASE IT, nor will it allow for a Bigger radar like the Navy wants cause the Burkes hull cant support it.

Wow you got a bigger missile load, big deal, we cant afford to LOAD THEM. And they cant carry the newer larger missiles any how.

It have the same issues as the Viriginia Class Cruisers did in the 90s. Too expansive, crew heavy, and limited for what they bring.
Navy bigger radar requirement, would note that AMDR, now the SPY-6, estimated as 30 times more sensitive than SPY-1 was the largest Navy could fit on an upgraded Burke IIA, the Flight III, they went with that option due to budget constraints. Raytheon claims the new SPY-6 with its GaN silicon under testing has exceeded expectations and achieved 100 times sensitivity, so talk of Navy needing larger radar for its BMD mission has died.

Probability of DDG(X) fitting large missiles, hypersonic, think low due to the high cost, if they do it will be in penny packet numbers, mentioned previously above there is a question mark if Congress will even fund the large Army/Navy hypersonic missile for Virginia Block V's to partially replace the four Ohio Tomahawk SSGN's, let alone the DDG(X). At moment Ticos, Burkes and Ohio SSGN have total of ~10,000 VLS cells and use the 1980's era land attack Tomahawks and at ~$1.5 million each, so 'cheap', but Navy needs new gen missile for land attack and the Army/Navy hypersonic looks unaffordable in big numbers, a big problem for the Navy needing an affordable replacement for the Tomahawk..

As said new Burke flight variant also not my preferred option either for DDG(X) but it would be an option, think would gain Congressional funding, Congress substantially cut Navy development funding for the DDG(X) in FY2021 NDAA.
Yes, because the Navy seems to be unable to actually articulate correctly what they want in DDG(X).

You're proposing keeping on faffing about with an overloaded hull that would require major design work to make longer, and will still struggle to fit in all the power future systems will require.

Meanwhile the basis for a DDG(X) is right there. We're not saying that Zumwalt should be used 1:1, but the hull shape, the systems, the power, all of that works. And by all accounts works pretty darn well.

Take the basic hull and power systems, and build up from that.
 

Similar threads

Top