Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632
They are a ship class of only three ships that have no mission. I don't see how the phrase isn't appropriate. One could argue that the USN could have made a useful class of them and that most of the underlying engineering was sound (outside the gun system), but never the less here we are.
Tell that to the Seawolf-class, which was in a vastly similar situation. Their class was supposed to be some 30 strong but ended up a mere fraction of that.

Then again, the USN has ship classes that were limited in number being used as testbeds...
The Seawolfs managed to find useful work and I suspect a lot of their technology improvements were utilitzed in the Virginia class. Looking at the DDG(X) proposals, the only trace of Zoomie I see in it is the IEP system. It looks like nothing else made the cut. The USN definitely has testbed ships and boats that were usually single ships (although I can't think of one that was built since the 60's). The Zoomies definitely weren't intended to fulfill that purpose and even in that usage they seem sub optimal given how little is carrying over to future classes. I think they are slightly less of a failure than the LCS, in that at least some of their technology seemed sound where as half the LCSs have no redeeming value and the other half's primary use looks to be as a moving helicopter pad.
That was powerpoint art. Whoever made it took a Type 055 and "Americanized" it. I'd wager, 1. the final product (if there ever is one) looks nothing like it, and 2. we'll sorely regret wasting the opportunity the Zumwalt class presents.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
3,781
That was powerpoint art. Whoever made it took a Type 055 and "Americanized" it. I'd wager, 1. the final product (if there ever is one) looks nothing like it, and 2. we'll sorely regret wasting the opportunity the Zumwalt class presents.

Concur. Look at that tank tow model that circulated with DDG(X). It shows a Zumwalt-style superstructure on a more conventional hullform.

I think there will be a lot of lessons learned from the Zs in DDG(X), starting with the evolution of IFEP into IEP.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
I think we can still be confident that the radars, Mk57s, and gun systems die with that class. If the hull form proves to have sufficient advantages and durability such that it carries over, then yes that would be a big deal. There also was supposedly a lot of acoustical attenuation measures taken in this class but I've never heard them qualified. But they are, at best, very expensive technology test beds. If they get the guns ripped out and a fair number of CPS installed I guess that gives them a good role to fill in the Pacific; they can self escort and should be very hard to detect and identify with all the signature reduction measures.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
3,781
There also was supposedly a lot of acoustical attenuation measures taken in this class but I've never heard them qualified.

There were quasi-official statements (off the record) saying the acoustic signature of the Zumwalt class is comparable to the SSN-688 class subs. That's pretty radical compared to previous surface ship classes.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
There also was supposedly a lot of acoustical attenuation measures taken in this class but I've never heard them qualified.

There were quasi-official statements (off the record) saying the acoustic signature of the Zumwalt class is comparable to the SSN-688 class subs. That's pretty radical compared to previous surface ship classes.
RIght, I've heard that stated too, but no one ever got into what physically was done to achieve the effect. Were that to be true, that certainly seems like technology that would be worth transferring to future classes, at least those specializing in ASW.

Also just realized I was talking about acoustical attenuation and then posted I'd never "heard" how it was achieved...hah, presumably that was the goal!
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
3,781
RIght, I've heard that stated too, but no one ever got into what physically was done to achieve the effect. Were that to be true, that certainly seems like technology that would be worth transferring to future classes, at least those specializing in ASW.

Also just realized I was talking about acoustical attenuation and then posted I'd never "heard" how it was achieved...hah, presumably that was the goal!

Yeah, the specific how to is sensitive, in exactly the same way that silencing measures on subs are sensitive. Electric drive is clearly a contributing factor, though, and that's coming through into DDG(X).
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632
RIght, I've heard that stated too, but no one ever got into what physically was done to achieve the effect. Were that to be true, that certainly seems like technology that would be worth transferring to future classes, at least those specializing in ASW.

Also just realized I was talking about acoustical attenuation and then posted I'd never "heard" how it was achieved...hah, presumably that was the goal!

Yeah, the specific how to is sensitive, in exactly the same way that silencing measures on subs are sensitive. Electric drive is clearly a contributing factor, though, and that's coming through into DDG(X).
Any word as to it's sea-keeping? I remember people thinking it would be a concern in big storms but then I never heard of any complaints.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
3,781
Any word as to it's sea-keeping? I remember people thinking it would be a concern in big storms but then I never heard of any complaints.

They've been storm chasing up to at least Sea State 6 with no significant concerns. Scuttlebutt is that they are really good seaboats. You'd expect that given their size but they seem to exceed expectations. They're very snappy (quick, short rolls), which can be a bit uncomfortable, but in terms of worrying about them rolling over, that seems to be totally unfounded.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
4,632
I think we can still be confident that the radars, Mk57s, and gun systems die with that class. If the hull form proves to have sufficient advantages and durability such that it carries over, then yes that would be a big deal. There also was supposedly a lot of acoustical attenuation measures taken in this class but I've never heard them qualified. But they are, at best, very expensive technology test beds. If they get the guns ripped out and a fair number of CPS installed I guess that gives them a good role to fill in the Pacific; they can self escort and should be very hard to detect and identify with all the signature reduction measures.
On the one hand I agree about the Mk57s. But they also allow that giant flight deck. (One thing I think will really be missed.)
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
3,781
On the one hand I agree about the Mk57s. But they also allow that giant flight deck. (One thing I think will really be missed.)

There's no fundamental reason a developed Mk 41 couldn't be installed as a peripheral VLS. Something like a row of Single Cell Launchers in blow-out compartments.

But if you want to reserve the option of swapping some of the Mk 41 for something much bigger, it really has to be installed in a big rectangular block.
 
Last edited:

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,566
Reaction score
3,257
In a $24 trillion economy we should be building 15/year not over five years. Plus way more SSNs
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
307
Reaction score
589
In a $24 trillion economy we should be building 15/year not over five years. Plus way more SSNs
For a vague idea of what the US could achieve in the 1950s and 60s when it came to the production of guided missile-equipped surface combatants:

FY52: 2x Boston CAGs

FY53, FY54, & FY55: N/A

FY56: 1x Galveston CLG, 6x Farragut DLGs

FY57: 1x Long Beach CGN, 2x Galveston CLGs, 3x Providence CLGs, 4x Farragut DLGs and 8x Charles F. Adams DDGs

FY58: 1x Albany CG, 3x Leahy DLGs, 5x Charles F. Adams DDGs

FY59: 2x Albany CGs, 1x Bainbridge DLGN, 6x Leahy DLGs and 5x Charles F. Adams DDGs

FY60: 3x Charles F. Adams DDGs

FY61: 3x Belknap DLGs and 2x Charles F. Adams DDGs

FY62: 1x Truxtun DLGN, 6x Belknap DLGs and 3x Brooke DEGs

FY63: 3x Brooke DEGs

FY57 is the high point, with 13 new-build ships and 5 conversions taking place at the same time.
 

Similar threads

Top