Hm. Seems that USN learned the lessons from its previous "let's stop the old type production, since new type would cer-ta-in-ly be ready just next year" mistakes. And now follow the PLAN philosophy "we won't stop the old type production until we are fully satisfied with new type performance".
Sadly true. But 500kW lasers aren't quite here yet. At least this only needs 500kW pulse lasers and not the 25MW like I had been expecting based on the old MIRACL continuous-wave laser.
That's just the old Soviet model. Keep the old thing in production until the new thing is in full production. Makes more sense to me, really, whether it be ships, planes, tanks, or underwear. F-22 and C-17 would still be in production if the West also did that. Same for all the tanks that are getting upgrades instead of new builds.
Not the C-17 - the Air Force, for once, actually got all the C-17s it asked for.
I’m not a DEW expert but I remember MIRACL from the 80s. With such a power difference, I’m assuming pulse lasers even with much less power are more effective?
They then shut down the production line, and a few years later wanted more only, unlike reassurances to Congress by Boeing and the GAO, not only was there no way to reopen the line, the building had been sold off.
Yes, though I don't exactly understand the mechanics behind it. IIRC, the simple version I got is that a continuous laser is just dumping heat into the target, while a pulsed laser manages to drill a hole.
Sometimes they even get more than they ask for, such as in the case of the F-15 and F-16. But that's rare.
Not if priority is range and power requirements you need look no farther than diesels and diesel generators e.g. Danish Iver Huitfeldt class frigates 9,000 nm, whereas the Zumwalt IEP have seen quoted at 6,000 nm and the Burke GTs 4,400 nm
No.
Diesels are hard to silence, COGAG combined with IEP seems to be the best approach for both minimising acoustic signature whilst maximising range, power generation, and survivability by positioning GTGs throughout the ship.
A continuous-beam laser vaporizes some of the target, but that creates a cloud of vaporized material between the laser and the target, weakening the laser beam or completely blocking it from reaching the target.
Yeah uh, the entire point of SC-21 was not to use a Burke. Multiple studies confirmed that a land-attack Burke would not of had the same effect as a purpose-built ship. Not to mention the Burkes lack the growth margin needed for half the equipment. I'm not sure what using a Burke would accomplish either, technological development would stagnate for a good 20 years.
One would assume a flying target (or hovering rotorcraft) would have a bit of cross-breeze to clear vaporized material.
That depends alot on the physics and target profile.
You know that the Zumwalts can just shut down some of their turbines in order to go farther, assuming that the electrical power isn't necessary, right?
Thank you!
Not a head on. Any material will be quickly behind it. Maybe a tail-on, assuming it's exactly tail on.
As far as know Navy has never disclosed Zumwalt's max range and at what cruising peed and so not hopeful that it can go much farther than 6000 nm (4000 nm operational range) have seen quoted, oilers will be the prime target for enemy subs etc easy targets as Navy unlikely to have enough frigates to defend them in transit, no doubt one reason why Navy pushing for a large increase in numbers of frigates.
Also higher instantaneous power makes mirrors stop working as a defensive measure.
You know that whenever any ship design has its "max range" listed, it is always listed at the most economical propulsion profile? For example, the 4,400NM/8,100km range quoted for the Burkes is not the range for "max speed" of 30+ knots/56KPH, but the range when it limits its speed to 20 knots/37KPH.
Yes, the Zumwalts were intended to go play in the littorals and have little/no AA capabilities.
Agree on automation and powerplant.
Well, USN proper doesn't know how to design ships anymore.
Right, G&C is the only American combat Naval Architecture firm I know of.
I haven't heard any issues about the Zumwalt's IEP, and the base system was designed around the AMDR and other big electrical draws.
Got more details about that? Or the thread where we talked about it?
Problem is, Aegis doesn't like the TSCE, so they'd need to write a new version of Aegis that plays nice with TSCE.
It's going to be a decade before we see DDGX ships in the water, since as far as I know there's not even a solid design yet. At a minimum it'll be 5 years before the ship hits the water, and that assumes a mostly-Zumwalt hull with a different bow.
But with the PMM motor.
Then they have to work on both to get it to work.
I will not call 80 missile and radar par with the Burke, after the cutdown at that, little or no.
