DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

Navy seemed to have revived interest in a Future X-band Radar, FXR, to replace the AN/SPQ-9 which dates back to the '80s, the FXR RFI originally released in Feb 2018 and has been re-issued Jan 2022, no mention of the SPY-3 X-band fitted to Zumwalt, did see mention Navy thinking to replace the SPY-3 on the Zumwalts.

SAM.gov

sam.gov sam.gov
 
Cordy said:
Navy seemed to have revived interest in a Future X-band Radar, FXR, to replace the AN/SPQ-9 which dates back to the '80s, the FXR RFI originally released in Feb 2018 and has been re-issued Jan 2022, no mention of the SPY-3 X-band fitted to Zumwalt, did see mention Navy thinking to replace the SPY-3 on the Zumwalts.

SAM.gov

sam.gov sam.gov
Click to expand...

FXR as a replacement to SPG-9B is a relatively small and short-range radar for horizon and sea surface search (sea skimmers, boats, periscopes, etc.). It would not really be a replacement for SPY-3, which (now) has been tweaked for long-range volume search.

If the Navy did replace SPY-3 in the Zs (not holding my breath), it would almost have to be with some version of SPY-6/EASR, maybe with an SPQ-9 or FXR added.

Here is SPQ-9 (to be replaced by FXR) on the notional DDG(X), to give a sense of how it would fit.

1645801421055.png
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:

Navy Reveals Details About Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer

Navy Reveals Details About Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...

Let's hope that the next generation Guided Missile Destroyer is not as expensive as the Zumwalt class has proven to be.
Click to expand...
That's what happens when all your R&D only gets spread across a small percentage of a planned buy. (See B-2, Seawolf, F-22, etc.)
Click to expand...
Or when you don’t get creative with your finances and dump the R&D into a general R&D budget.
 
starviking said:
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:

Navy Reveals Details About Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer

Navy Reveals Details About Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...

Let's hope that the next generation Guided Missile Destroyer is not as expensive as the Zumwalt class has proven to be.
Click to expand...
That's what happens when all your R&D only gets spread across a small percentage of a planned buy. (See B-2, Seawolf, F-22, etc.)
Click to expand...
Or when you don’t get creative with your finances and dump the R&D into a general R&D budget.
Click to expand...
If it's for items that could be used in other classes you'd want to do that.
 
sferrin said:
starviking said:
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:

Navy Reveals Details About Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer

Navy Reveals Details About Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...

Let's hope that the next generation Guided Missile Destroyer is not as expensive as the Zumwalt class has proven to be.
Click to expand...
That's what happens when all your R&D only gets spread across a small percentage of a planned buy. (See B-2, Seawolf, F-22, etc.)
Click to expand...
Or when you don’t get creative with your finances and dump the R&D into a general R&D budget.
Click to expand...
If it's for items that could be used in other classes you'd want to do that.
Click to expand...
Depends on how wide you want to throw the net: “lessons learned” class would fit the bill.
 
1635yankee said:
Not managing the project with the self-control of a kid with a platinum card in a candy shop would also help.
Click to expand...
The project as far as I know was going thru R&D quite well in comparison to other big budget programs until the navy decided that a whole new class of capital ships dedicated to coastal bombardment is a bad idea and cut the purchase number.
 
donnage99 said:
1635yankee said:
Not managing the project with the self-control of a kid with a platinum card in a candy shop would also help.
Click to expand...
The project as far as I know was going thru R&D quite well in comparison to other big budget programs until the navy decided that a whole new class of capital ships dedicated to coastal bombardment is a bad idea and cut the purchase number.
Click to expand...

Is there any ideas as to how many Zumwalt destroyers the US Navy were originally going to purchase?
 
FighterJock said:
donnage99 said:
1635yankee said:
Not managing the project with the self-control of a kid with a platinum card in a candy shop would also help.
Click to expand...
The project as far as I know was going thru R&D quite well in comparison to other big budget programs until the navy decided that a whole new class of capital ships dedicated to coastal bombardment is a bad idea and cut the purchase number.
Click to expand...

Is there any ideas as to how many Zumwalt destroyers the US Navy were originally going to purchase?
Click to expand...
32
 
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
donnage99 said:
1635yankee said:
Not managing the project with the self-control of a kid with a platinum card in a candy shop would also help.
Click to expand...
The project as far as I know was going thru R&D quite well in comparison to other big budget programs until the navy decided that a whole new class of capital ships dedicated to coastal bombardment is a bad idea and cut the purchase number.
Click to expand...

Is there any ideas as to how many Zumwalt destroyers the US Navy were originally going to purchase?
Click to expand...
32
Click to expand...

Thanks sferrin, it’s a pity that the US Navy never stuck to the original plan, I hope that the next destroyer does not meet the same fate.
 
FighterJock said:
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
donnage99 said:
1635yankee said:
Not managing the project with the self-control of a kid with a platinum card in a candy shop would also help.
Click to expand...
The project as far as I know was going thru R&D quite well in comparison to other big budget programs until the navy decided that a whole new class of capital ships dedicated to coastal bombardment is a bad idea and cut the purchase number.
Click to expand...

Is there any ideas as to how many Zumwalt destroyers the US Navy were originally going to purchase?
Click to expand...
32
Click to expand...

Thanks sferrin, it’s a pity that the US Navy never stuck to the original plan, I hope that the next destroyer does not meet the same fate.
Click to expand...
132 B-2s
750 F-22s
29 SSN-21s
:(
 
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:

Navy Reveals Details About Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer

Navy Reveals Details About Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...

Let's hope that the next generation Guided Missile Destroyer is not as expensive as the Zumwalt class has proven to be.
Click to expand...

I have some rambling thoughts on DDG(X) and what it may signal for the Navy's shipbuilding effort in the wake of DD-21.

Consider the number of new weapons or technologies planned to be introduced in DD-21/DD(X). This is a partial list of the technologies that were being tested during development.
1645975624326.png

The picture isn't quite a complete list, even.
  • Tumblehome wave piercing hullform (for both stealth and seakeeping)
  • Composite deckhouse (one of the largest composite structures ever made)
  • Reducing manning (including automatic firefighting and damage control)
  • Total Ship Computing Environment (TSCE) (basically a whole new combat system architecture)
  • Common Display System (control anything from any console)
  • Integrated Power System including Permanent Magnet Motors (replaced by Advanced Induction Motors)
  • MT30 prime mover MTGs (first application, IIRC)
  • Dual-Band Radar (S-Band and X-Band with integrated waveforms)
  • Integrated apertures (comms, navigation, etc were all supposed to use combined flush-mounted antennas in the deckhouse)
  • Littoral sonar suite (SQS-60/61 and SQR-20)
  • Mk 57 PVLS
  • AGS & LRLAP
  • Advanced Land Attack Missile (ALAM)
  • more things I'm probably forgetting
So, DD-21 was basically an attempt to totally rethink every aspect of combatant ship design (both technology and processes) from the ground up, with almost zero carryover from previous designs. Which can also be said of LCS, BTW. The turn of the century was a hell of a time to be alive...

Now, compare to the DDG(X) Illustrative Design and design process that we've seen so far.

1645974560063.png

The Purple/Black (Design Enabled Improvements) and Green (baseline design) text are essentially the DDG(X) Flight I capabilities. Note how many of these are actually new to DDG(X):
  • New hullform for Arctic operations and improved seakeeping
  • Increased Endurance for Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO)
That's ALL (and the second one mostly means IPS and an optimized hullform for economy plus larger fuel bunkerage for range). Every other system proposed for that ship is already extant in 2022 or will be fielded in DDG-51 Flight III and/or FFG(X) first. All the blue text (Future Capabilities) is stuff they can add when/if it becomes available, either as a Flight II design or via backfit, thanks to the SWAP-C margin reset inherent in the new hull design. So all the whizbangs (AMDR w/ 57 RMA, FXR, Next-Gen FRES, future planar arrays, lasers, anti-torpedo torpedoes, payload modules, large missile launcher cells, etc.) can be developed in parallel but are not dependencies for the actual fielding of DDG(X) Flight I.

Combine this with the apparent return to a more conventional contract design process (hiring a designer like Gibbs & Cox directly, instead of teaming them with a shipyard), this is probably the most conservative Navy combatant shipbuilding program since the last DDGX (which became DDG-51).
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:

Navy Reveals Details About Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer

Navy Reveals Details About Next-Generation Guided-Missile Destroyer
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...

Let's hope that the next generation Guided Missile Destroyer is not as expensive as the Zumwalt class has proven to be.
Click to expand...

I have some rambling thoughts on DDG(X) and what it may signal for the Navy's shipbuilding effort in the wake of DD-21.

Consider the number of new weapons or technologies planned to be introduced in DD-21/DD(X). this is a partial list of the technologies that were being tested during development.
View attachment 674874

The picture isn't quite a complete list, even.
  • Tumblehome wave piercing hullform (for both stealth and seakeeping)
  • Composite deckhouse (one of the largest composite structures ever made)
  • Reducing manning (including automatic firefighting and damage control)
  • Total Ship Computing Environment (TSCE) (basically a whole new combat system architecture)
  • Common Display System (control anything from any console)
  • Integrated Power System including Permanent Magnet Motors (replaced by Advanced Induction Motors)
  • MT30 prime mover MTGs (first application, IIRC)
  • Dual-Band Radar (S-Band and X-Band with integrated waveforms)
  • Integrated apertures (comms, navigation, etc were all supposed to use combined flush-mounted antennas in the deckhouse)
  • Littoral sonar suite (SQS-60/61 and SQR-20)
  • Mk 57 PVLS
  • AGS & LRLAP
  • Advanced Land Attack Missile (ALAM)
  • more things I'm probably forgetting
So, DD-21 was basically an attempt to totally rethink every aspect of combatant ship design (both technology and processes) from the ground up, with almost zero carryover from previous designs. Which can also be said of LCS, BTW. The turn of the century was a hell of a time to be alive...

Now, compare to the DDG(X) Illustrative Design and design process that we've seen so far.

View attachment 674872

The Purple/Black (Design Enabled Improvements) and Green (baseline design) text are essentially the DDG(X) Flight I capabilities. Note how many of these are actually new to DDG(X):
  • New hullform for Arctic operations and improved seakeeping
  • Increased Endurance for Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO)
That's ALL (and the second one mostly means IPS and an optimized hullform for economy plus larger fuel bunkerage for range). Every other system proposed for that ship is already extant in 2022 or will be fielded in DDG-51 Flight III and/or FFG(X) first. All the blue text (Future Capabilities) is stuff they can add when/if it becomes available, either as a Flight II design or via backfit, thanks to the SWAP-C margin reset inherent in the new hull design. So all the whizbangs (AMDR w/ 57 RMA, FXR, Next-Gen FRES, future planar arrays, lasers, anti-torpedo torpedoes, payload modules, large missile launcher cells, etc.) can be developed in parallel but are not dependencies for the actual fielding of DDG(X) Flight I.

Combine this with the apparent return to a more conventional contract design process (hiring a designer like Gibbs & Cox directly, instead of teaming them with a shipyard), this is probably the most conservative Navy combatant shipbuilding program since the last DDGX (which became DDG-51).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the added information TomS.
 
aonestudio said:
news.usni.org

UPDATED: Navy Can Install Hypersonic Missiles Aboard Zumwalt Destroyers Without Removing Gun Mounts - USNI News

Following an earlier version of this post, the Navy provided USNI News an update on the Zumwalt-class that included the latest plan to install hypersonic weapons on the ship. The headline of this post has been updated. The latest story can be found here. WASHINGTON, D.C. — There’s enough space...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
Don't know why they keep those guns, Even replacing them with a pair of Mk45s would be better than just leaving them.
 
sferrin said:
aonestudio said:
news.usni.org

UPDATED: Navy Can Install Hypersonic Missiles Aboard Zumwalt Destroyers Without Removing Gun Mounts - USNI News

Following an earlier version of this post, the Navy provided USNI News an update on the Zumwalt-class that included the latest plan to install hypersonic weapons on the ship. The headline of this post has been updated. The latest story can be found here. WASHINGTON, D.C. — There’s enough space...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
Don't know why they keep those guns, Even replacing them with a pair of Mk45s would be better than just leaving them.
Click to expand...

It's a puzzle. But then again, GA just tested a hypersonic defensive guided projectile from a powder gun, so the Navy may be hoping to find a way to put gun rounds back in the AGS magazines.
 
Yes, this makes me wonder if and AGS-HVP is back on the menu, or at least the wish list.

I'm curious to see exactly what the packaging looks like. There's ample "volume" for 87-inch tubes on the ship, but exactly what they're planning isn't yet clear. I would guess just forward of the deck house, though between the AGS mounts is possible.
 
news.usni.org

Latest Zumwalt Hypersonic Missile Installation Plan Calls For Removing Gun Mounts - USNI News

The most recent plan for adding hypersonic weapons to the Zumwalt-class guided-missile will involve removing the two massive 155 mm Advanced Gun Systems aboard the trio of destroyers, the Zumwalt program manager told USNI News on Wednesday. In October of next year, USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

The most recent plan for adding hypersonic weapons to the Zumwalt-class guided-missile will involve removing the two massive 155 mm Advanced Gun Systems aboard the trio of destroyers, the Zumwalt program manager told USNI News on Wednesday.

In October of next year, USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is expected to enter a maintenance availability that will include the removal of the two AGS from the 16,000-ton destroyer and the support systems for the guns and ammunition the destroyers were built around.

“We are removing the guns, the upper and lower gun rooms. That includes the loading system, the transfer carts, the ammo, etc.,” Capt. Matthew Schroeder, DDG 1000 program manager, Program Executive (PEO) Ships told USNI News in a Wednesday interview. “[We’re] going down about five platforms to accommodate the height of the missile, which is significantly larger than other missiles in the inventory.”

When the availability is complete in 2025, Zumwalt will be armed with the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB) — developed for the Army, Air Force and the Navy – according to the Navy’s plan. The conventional prompt strike (CPS) concept extends a long-range strike capability for the U.S.
Click to expand...
 
isayyo2 said:
I'm so confused lol

Did the CNO misspeak, or was he just wrong?
Click to expand...
He was apparently briefed on an older version of the plan before he spoke about it, current planning is different. This isn't all that unusual, sadly.
 
Moose said:
isayyo2 said:
I'm so confused lol

Did the CNO misspeak, or was he just wrong?
Click to expand...
He was apparently briefed on an older version of the plan before he spoke about it, current planning is different. This isn't all that unusual, sadly.
Click to expand...
Not overly surprising, Flag ranks are quite reliant on their Aides for briefings. This removal of AGS plan also makes their cancellation of the hypervelocity projectile a bit more logical.
 
First illustration of CPS on DDG-1000,

www.navalnews.com

First Artwork of Hypersonic Missiles on Zumwalt-class Destroyers - Naval News

A Naval News reader has tipped us off with the first artwork of the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missile on the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class stealth destroyers.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

1652981261572.png
I'm surprised at how large the tubes are relative to AGS. I expected about 50% more capacity (at least 6 CPS per AGS).
 
Is there only one missile per tube? (Also, the artwork doesn't match the text.)

"According to the Lockheed Martin® graphic, four CPS silos are substituted for the removal of the first 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS) turret while the second 155mm AGS is still retained."

“`There’s enough space and weight margin aboard the Zumwalt-class destroyers to install two tubes for hypersonic missiles without removing the ship’s 155mm gun mounts,’ Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday told USNI News last month.

“By 2025, the first 16,000-ton Zumwalt-class destroyer will have at least two sets of missile tubes inserted on the port and starboard sides of the ship without having to remove the guns mounts,’ he said.

:confused:
 
TomS said:
First illustration of CPS on DDG-1000,

www.navalnews.com

First Artwork of Hypersonic Missiles on Zumwalt-class Destroyers - Naval News

A Naval News reader has tipped us off with the first artwork of the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missile on the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class stealth destroyers.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

View attachment 678182
I'm surprised at how large the tubes are relative to AGS. I expected about 50% more capacity (at least 6 CPS per AGS).
Click to expand...
VPTs are supposedly going to 3-pack CPS rounds, eventually, and "6 missiles" was given as the minimum for making the DDG-1000 refit worthwhile. But we may be seeing a lower-cost compromise arrangement.
 
sferrin said:
Is there only one missile per tube? (Also, the artwork doesn't match the text.)

"According to the Lockheed Martin® graphic, four CPS silos are substituted for the removal of the first 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS) turret while the second 155mm AGS is still retained."

“`There’s enough space and weight margin aboard the Zumwalt-class destroyers to install two tubes for hypersonic missiles without removing the ship’s 155mm gun mounts,’ Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday told USNI News last month.

“By 2025, the first 16,000-ton Zumwalt-class destroyer will have at least two sets of missile tubes inserted on the port and starboard sides of the ship without having to remove the guns mounts,’ he said.

:confused:
Click to expand...
They're quoting Gilday in the second and third of your quoted paragraphs, and Gilday was describing one of the configurations which the Navy was looking at. But people closer to the program have stated that at least one of the guns is definitely coming off each hull.
 
My impression the Zumwalt launch tubes are variations of ~86" dia Trident VLS tubes from Ohio/ two shorter in length versions used in the Virginia Payload Tubes fitted in the bow of Virginia Blk III's firing 6 Tomahawks each. The four longer tubes to be fitted in a straight line on the Virginia Blk V's with its Virginia Payload Module requires a 84 ft mid hull plug firing 7 Tomahawks from each tube or the future CPS, hypersonic Conventional Prompt Strike missile ~$100 million each including R&D, is 34.5" dia, max three per tube. The Lockheed graphic show the cells offset so as to presumably shorten length to fit in space available on Zumwalt by taking out one AGS 155mm gun and its very large magazine.

As opposed to to the Mk41 VLS cells which hard launch missiles the submarines with the Trident tube the missiles are soft launched under water using a steam cannon. Presumably for Zumwalt and future DDG(X) the Navy will continue to use the soft launch version of the Trident tube with its expensive steam cannon and Navy will need to certify and qualify it for surface launch.
 

Attachments

  • Virginia_Blk_V_VPM.jpg
    Virginia_Blk_V_VPM.jpg
    86.7 KB · Views: 19
Why are they removing just the one gun mount? May as well chuck both or, are they going to go back to a standard 5" mount in the forward part of the ship?
 
Last edited:
Foo Fighter said:
Why are they removing just the one gun mount? May as well chuck both or, are they going to go back to a standard 5" mount in the forward par t of the ship?
Click to expand...

If this is the final configuration, I assume it's mainly a money issue. Even just removing the AGS turret takes time and labor.

Adding a Mk45 would cost even more, and require money/time to engineer the installation, integration with the combat system, testing, etc. And what is the return? Putting CPS on the ship indicates a plan to use them for deep strike from standoff, not as GP escorts. So the gun doesn't do anything at that point.
 
Last edited:
Cordy said:
My impression the Zumwalt launch tubes are variations of ~86" dia Trident VLS tubes
Click to expand...

That's what we all expected. But the article implies that these are individual tubes.

If they are still MACs, that's definitely better (12 CPS per AGS is more than expected). But the art is a bit unclear still.
 
Cost probably.
Plus it keeps the second AGS and magazine space 'free' for other potential future upgrades.

Rule #1
Never get steamed up about CGI art. Most of the time its just cool looking graphics and is often replaced by newer cooler looking graphics.
 
Hood said:
Cost probably.
Plus it keeps the second AGS and magazine space 'free' for other potential future upgrades.

Rule #1
Never get steamed up about CGI art. Most of the time its just cool looking graphics and is often replaced by newer cooler looking graphics.
Click to expand...
With the production model looking less cool than all of them.
 
Would the 5" gun or the 155mm gun in the potential M-109 replacement fit the current turret in the class?
 
Foo Fighter said:
Would the 5" gun or the 155mm gun in the potential M-109 replacement fit the current turret in the class?
Click to expand...

Not without totally reengineering both the turret and the automated magazine system.
 
TomS said:
Foo Fighter said:
Would the 5" gun or the 155mm gun in the potential M-109 replacement fit the current turret in the class?
Click to expand...

Not without totally reengineering both the turret and the automated magazine system.
Click to expand...

The Guntube in the turret is fine, it actually can shot standard 155 shells.

But like TomS said.

The Entire loading system set up such that the only shells it can used is basically the LRAP style shells.
 
Firefinder said:
The Guntube in the turret is fine, it actually can shot standard 155 shells.
Click to expand...

Can it? I've heard several times that the rifling and chamber are not compatible with Army 155mm ammo. It's definitely not a Quadrilateral Ballistics MOU gun.
 
TomS said:
Firefinder said:
The Guntube in the turret is fine, it actually can shot standard 155 shells.
Click to expand...

Can it? I've heard several times that the rifling and chamber are not compatible with Army 155mm ammo. It's definitely not a Quadrilateral Ballistics MOU gun.
Click to expand...
the Test one they have on the M110 chassis out in White Sands apparently shots Excalibur and PGK munitions just fine in tests.

So they either can and the loader fuck or the change up the bore design between the test piece and the ship mounting.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom