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

USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,030
Reaction score
1,071
Very good to hear. Now they need to get the Northrop Grumman Modular Launch System installed where the aft turret goes.
 

Attachments

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,195
Reaction score
1,467
Galinis and co. still won't admit that the USN needs cruisers, not overloaded and fragile destroyers.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,777
Reaction score
679
Galinis and co. still won't admit that the USN needs cruisers, not overloaded and fragile destroyers.
The US hasn't built a cruiser to traditional cruiser standards since 1959. And those standards are pretty much no longer relevant. For most of the cold war, the only thing that really differentiated a destroyer from a cruiser was the presence of space for a squadron or air warfare commander staff. I agree we need to build ships large enough to carry modern combat systems with room for growth and ease of access. Whether we call them cruisers or destroyers is irrelevant, just a game of semantics. Frankly, calling this new warships a Large Surface Combatant is better in some ways, because it doesn't carry the baggage of people complaining that a destroyer can't be 14,000 tons or whatever.
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
149
Reaction score
63
Galinis and co. still won't admit that the USN needs cruisers, not overloaded and fragile destroyers.
There is no viable armor that will protect your ship against a couple of tons of missile moving at mach 3+. Not getting hit is a far better strategy.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
180
Galinis and co. still won't admit that the USN needs cruisers, not overloaded and fragile destroyers.
The US hasn't built a cruiser to traditional cruiser standards since 1959. And those standards are pretty much no longer relevant. For most of the cold war, the only thing that really differentiated a destroyer from a cruiser was the presence of space for a squadron or air warfare commander staff. I agree we need to build ships large enough to carry modern combat systems with room for growth and ease of access. Whether we call them cruisers or destroyers is irrelevant, just a game of semantics. Frankly, calling this new warships a Large Surface Combatant is better in some ways, because it doesn't carry the baggage of people complaining that a destroyer can't be 14,000 tons or whatever.
I don't disagree with your thoughts, but I'd like to point out that there's a not-insignificant number of people in Congress practically begging to build a new "Cruiser" with the Ticos getting old, and it will be that much tougher to sell them on "Large Surface Combatant" if they never at least nod in that direction. So they're making more work for themselves, and let's face it the work of convincing Congress that they know what they're doing isn't something the Navy excels at these days. If it's bigger than AB (or possibly even Z, at this rate) and has space for Alpha Whiskey, just call it a bloody cruiser and stop being cute.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,825
Reaction score
898

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
325
Reaction score
53
Website
www.youtube.com
Seems they're building 2 055 per year. So maybe 22 or so commissioned in mid 2030. Anyway, 055, like burkes or future surface combatants, are primarely anti air platforms. So they're defensive in nature. What matters is the air power, be it from the land bases or the carriers. I don't see how USN matching the numbers of Chinese 055 class is important, given that the carriers would do the job. And burkes and other ships would still be plentiful to protect the carriers. And if all that fails a little bit, there's still the matter of nuclear fueled submarines, where the USN currently outnumbers the Chinese navy 7 to 1. There's little way for chinese navy to break out farther than the first island chain in the next few decades.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,195
Reaction score
1,467
I fear that you are being very optimistic there, at best.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,030
Reaction score
1,071
Seems they're building 2 055 per year. So maybe 22 or so commissioned in mid 2030. Anyway, 055, like burkes or future surface combatants, are primarely anti air platforms.
Type 055s have significantly larger cells than even the Mk57s on the Zumwalts. When (not if) they decide to add land attack and antiship missiles to those cells they'll be nightmares.
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
325
Reaction score
53
Website
www.youtube.com
Type 055s have significantly larger cells than even the Mk57s on the Zumwalts. When (not if) they decide to add land attack and antiship missiles to those cells they'll be nightmares.
There already are images of antiship variant of YJ18 missile being fired from those new VLS (from 052D, not 055, but that should make no difference). But again - all those missiles add over the previous generation missiles is some range. And their speed makes them harder to intercept. So now the safe distance for USN ships from those ships is probably not 150 or so nm but perhaps 200-300 nm, or whatever the range on those YJ18 could be. (they're likely NOT 500 nm missiles, as they have to have that big heavy supersonic stage for the terminal attack)

300 nm, or even a bit more, would still be quite favorable for enemy air power, against those 055 and 052D. Those enemy planes could reach the destroyers before the destroyers get in range of anything. Without constant fighter protection, those Chinese destroyers could not do much out in the open ocean, past the first island chain.

Land attack cruise missiles are not yet proven on them, though it is likely they will appear, sooner or later. But Even when they do, and even if they have, say 1500 nm range - what do they REALLY do? They're one time strike. 10 destroyers firing 40 missiles each is still something a single US carrier could deliver in two attack waves via its planes.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,030
Reaction score
1,071
Type 055s have significantly larger cells than even the Mk57s on the Zumwalts. When (not if) they decide to add land attack and antiship missiles to those cells they'll be nightmares.
There already are images of antiship variant of YJ18 missile being fired from those new VLS (from 052D, not 055, but that should make no difference). But again - all those missiles add over the previous generation missiles is some range. And their speed makes them harder to intercept. So now the safe distance for USN ships from those ships is probably not 150 or so nm but perhaps 200-300 nm, or whatever the range on those YJ18 could be. (they're likely NOT 500 nm missiles, as they have to have that big heavy supersonic stage for the terminal attack)

300 nm, or even a bit more, would still be quite favorable for enemy air power, against those 055 and 052D. Those enemy planes could reach the destroyers before the destroyers get in range of anything. Without constant fighter protection, those Chinese destroyers could not do much out in the open ocean, past the first island chain.

Land attack cruise missiles are not yet proven on them, though it is likely they will appear, sooner or later. But Even when they do, and even if they have, say 1500 nm range - what do they REALLY do? They're one time strike. 10 destroyers firing 40 missiles each is still something a single US carrier could deliver in two attack waves via its planes.
Not to 1500 miles it can't. And a cell the size of those on Type 055 could fire a hell of a missile. Think scaled up RATTLRS or an ASBM or a much larger SM-3 Block IIA (much bigger than even the SM-3 Block IIB would have been).
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
325
Reaction score
53
Website
www.youtube.com
1500 nautical miles is pretty much unattainable for any supersonic missile that could fit into that chinese VLS. RATTLERS was designed to have some 600 nm range. India and Russia are developing new Brahmos/Onyx variants to go to 350 nm. A similar class missile could fit into the VLS. Russian Zircon can also do 600 nm at best. And we don't know its dimensions and whether it could fit. Though I guess for compatibility sake with their VLS, it's plausible it's within the same footprint as Onyx.

Chinese DF-11 ballistic missile can do perhaps 400 or 500 nm. And that's on the very verge of fitting inside that VLS. (Not the DF-11 itself but missile of approximate class)

So... I simply don't see how either a ballistic missile or a supersonic cruising missile could do 1500 nm, out of that VLS. 600 nm - maybe. In x years. But not almost three times that far.

A subsonic stealthy missile, on the other hand, could do 1500 nm. I'd say USN would be more right to worry about a possible future enlarged LRASM equivalent from the PLAN, in the coming decade.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,030
Reaction score
1,071
1500 nautical miles is pretty much unattainable for any supersonic missile that could fit into that chinese VLS. RATTLERS was designed to have some 600 nm range. India and Russia are developing new Brahmos/Onyx variants to go to 350 nm. A similar class missile could fit into the VLS. Russian Zircon can also do 600 nm at best. And we don't know its dimensions and whether it could fit. Though I guess for compatibility sake with their VLS, it's plausible it's within the same footprint as Onyx.

Chinese DF-11 ballistic missile can do perhaps 400 or 500 nm. And that's on the very verge of fitting inside that VLS. (Not the DF-11 itself but missile of approximate class)

So... I simply don't see how either a ballistic missile or a supersonic cruising missile could do 1500 nm, out of that VLS. 600 nm - maybe. In x years. But not almost three times that far.

A subsonic stealthy missile, on the other hand, could do 1500 nm. I'd say USN would be more right to worry about a possible future enlarged LRASM equivalent from the PLAN, in the coming decade.
ArcLight was planned for 2000 and it would have fit in a Mk41 VLS. Fasthawk 700 miles with a 700lb warhead at Mach 4. Also from a Mk41 VLS. Even so, you were never referring to supersonic missiles specifically.

"Land attack cruise missiles are not yet proven on them, though it is likely they will appear, sooner or later. But Even when they do, and even if they have, say 1500 nm range - what do they REALLY do? They're one time strike. 10 destroyers firing 40 missiles each is still something a single US carrier could deliver in two attack waves via its planes."

No, US carrier aircraft cannot deliver strikes 1500 miles from a carrier. At best you could load up SuperHornets with JASSM-ERs, if they had them. Furthermore a carrier can only be in one place at a time. Not so with the destroyers. Also, given the size of their cells, they could have multiple SAMs per cell, opening up the remaining cells for more offensive missiles.

china-Type-055-guided-missile-destroyer-1.jpg

41li48e3pfw21.jpg

mrqdxgkngos21.jpg
 
Last edited:

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
325
Reaction score
53
Website
www.youtube.com
ArcLight was planned for 2000 and it would have fit in a Mk41 VLS. Fasthawk 700 miles with a 700lb warhead at Mach 4. Also from a Mk41 VLS. Even so, you were never referring to supersonic missiles specifically.

"Land attack cruise missiles are not yet proven on them, though it is likely they will appear, sooner or later. But Even when they do, and even if they have, say 1500 nm range - what do they REALLY do? They're one time strike. 10 destroyers firing 40 missiles each is still something a single US carrier could deliver in two attack waves via its planes."

No, US carrier aircraft cannot deliver strikes 1500 miles from a carrier. At best you could load up SuperHornets with JASSM-ERs, if they had them. Furthermore a carrier can only be in one place at a time. Not so with the destroyers. Also, given the size of their cells, they could have multiple SAMs per cell, opening up the remaining cells for more offensive missiles.
Arclight was, in my opinion, a wet dream. Some basic research may've transpired, but once they realized such performance was way out of scope of the tech at the time, the idea was terminated. Sort of like brilliant pebbles idea. Fasthawk is certainly closer to that China might field. But when? Who knows. I guess within 10 years the Chinese may field further hypersonic warheads on their missiles, so 700nm reach in a small package could be viable. But that's still far away from 1500 nm.

China could go for range instead and thus go subsonic. 1500nm would be doable then. And perhaps go for stealth, to increase survivability. Though, again, both adding stealth materials and various subsystems needed for anti-ship roles does increase weight. So such a missile will always have shorter range than a pure land attack cruise missile. Similar to how LRASM has shorter range than JASSM. It may be a decade more to get to 1000 nm for such a Chinese missile (to date we haven't seen any stealthy missiles fielded) and then more years to increase that range.

I do agree it was incorrect of me to state that USN carrier planes can strike 1500 nm from a carrier. When i did mention it, i did envision 4 1000 lb bombs (roughly equivalent to what a cruise missile warhead) per plane. With such a load, a SH could do perhaps 500 nm or so, without in air refuelling? So to get to 1500 nm it'd probably need to be refueled both on the way there and on the way back. Possibly taking another whole SH to do each refueling. So 150 planes needed, of which 50 actually delivering bombs? Possibly requiring 2-3 days worth of strikes for one carrier, if it had to do it all by itself? (don't see the MQ-25 changing the numbers that much)

Still, cruise missiles are not the end of it all. They're still too pricey. If they would be good for everything, the US would have 500 000 of them, instead of roughly 10 000 that is has now. And destroyers aren't even the best delivery method. If China really wanted to do a cruise missile spam, current h6 bombers (and later on H20 bombers) would be a better platform in my opinion.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
148
A late 2020's LSC is probably a good decision. The Flight III will only become operational in the 2023-2025 time-frame and they still have to deliver on the numerous vessels on contract. The FFGX likewise is only going to be awarded towards the end of this Fiscal Year and production won't pick up steam until much later. Some of the changes required to upgun the LCS will take a number of years to be fully implemented fleet wide and there are still vessels yet to be delivered. The Columbia class is in advanced development and there is risk associated with that. The DDG-1000 or the Ford are yet to deploy operationally. They should spend the time to de-risk things like a larger radar, a 500-1 MW class HEL and develop larger diameter VL cells. Unless one advocates outright termination of some of the risky investment tracks with new ships and subs (Columbia and VPM) it is probably better for the USN to wait till those are fielded or sufficiently de-risked to embark on a program that is expected to cost tens of Billions of dollars. No matter who wins the Presidential election this year, defense spending has likely peaked so its unlikely that a fresh pot of cash would be headed the USN's way anytime soon even after the BCA caps disappear.

The Flight III's will be very capable vessels especially as the smaller half of the LSC fleet. Once they deliver there, and buy in adequate amount they can move to the larger LSC just like the transition from the LCS to the FFGX. I think they've realised that the new LSC can't just be a larger Flight III with a slightly scaled up HEL or EMRG. It needs to be substantially more capable and field all the laser scaling and large magazine and VL cells the Navy will need in the 2030+ time-frame. Those things will take time to de-risk.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,030
Reaction score
1,071
The DDG-1000 or the Ford are yet to deploy operationally. They should spend the time to de-risk things like a larger radar, a 500-1 MW class HEL and develop larger diameter VL cells.
No reason this couldn't be done in parallel. Why put the hulls on hold waiting for the perfect laser? No reason they couldn't add it on later. The radar should just be a SPY-6 with more modules/power. How much "de-risking" does that really need? Larger VL cells shouldn't take a decade. They should approach this in flights. Flight I could be a Zumwalt with Mk-41 cells where the aft AGS is, the same radar system as the Flight III Burke (with space to add additional AESA modules later), and a pair of RAM launchers in place of the Mk110s.

How much time and money (and industrial base) is going to go down the toilet by completely disregarding everything we've put into the Zumwalt class? It's maddening.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
451
Reaction score
90
Why not use the San Antonio class as the hull base? The main advantage I see is that the line is active while the Zumwalt was abandoned. Zumwalt is a better choice than a brand new hull design, but wouldn't it be cheaper to extend/expand the LPD-17 buy as a base? Lots and lots of room for Osprey capable deck and hangar space (maybe finally see an AEW variant?) and/or ASW. More if they dump the well deck area. Lots of room for a larger radar array and VLS cells. Didn't they already look at a BMD modification? Why not load up a bunch of VLS with a mixed load (or the oft talked about "triple threat" Standards)?

Just seems like an easy way to go to me. Quite a bit larger and slower than a Zumwalt, probably larger signature, but lots of room for growth, flexibility with an air component, and far superior range/persistence needing less support.

Naval stuff isn't particularly my bailiwick, but makes more sense than the Zumwalt, imo, because that line already dried up and contractors have moved on. San Antonios are still being built. Either would make more sense than a clean sheet design to me in terms of time and money.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
148
No reason this couldn't be done in parallel. Why put the hulls on hold waiting for the perfect laser? No reason they couldn't add it on later. The radar should just be a SPY-6 with more modules/power. How much "de-risking" does that really need? Larger VL cells shouldn't take a decade. They should approach this in flights. Flight I could be a Zumwalt with Mk-41 cells where the aft AGS is, the same radar system as the Flight III Burke (with space to add additional AESA modules later), and a pair of RAM launchers in place of the Mk110s.
It isn't a decade. When the LSC as future acquisition concept was first announced, they wanted the contract in the FY23-FY24 time-frame. Later this moved a couple of years to the right (mid 2020's IIRC), and now they have added a couple of years over that so the actual schedule change may only be 4-5 years depending upon how things turn up. I don't favor working on multiple non-proven and in development items concurrently and parrallel to the development of the hull and its power supply solution. Not in this budget environment. I think the Navy has done well by choosing which areas to take risks in (leadership at SNA said that it was going to be around things like HEL, and Power generation) and which areas to adopt more mature solutions on (Combat system and sensors).

Based on my understanding, Laser scaling from projects ranging in the 100-200 kW class to 500 kW to MW class is not an incremental change but a much larger technological challenge which the three services are currently addressing in a collective fashion IIRC. That and the budget outlook is probably forcing the LSC to be pushed out by 5 years or so. They also probably don't want to work on several high risk projects all at once and then run out of money when one or multiple ones find trouble that requires extra $$. I think delivering on the current programs, will also bode well for the Navy when it comes to asking for an appropriate funding profile for the LSC. This ship won't be cheap so they'll need all the political support they can muster..

I don't know if it was you, or someone else, who had earlier suggested that one of the DDG-1000's be converted into more of a test article and used to test out some of the technologies and changes as a de-risking measure for the LSC. If indeed the Navy's hull studies point to it being a strong contender then I would fully support that. I think that can shave some risk and potential delays from such a program. Regardless, I think the FY21 budget which comes out in a couple of weeks could provide some insight into where the Navy is putting its R&D $$ aimed at this ship class...
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
148
Why not use the San Antonio class as the hull base? The main advantage I see is that the line is active while the Zumwalt was abandoned. Zumwalt is a better choice than a brand new hull design, but wouldn't it be cheaper to extend/expand the LPD-17 buy as a base? ...
I'm sure they'll look at something like that with its pros and cons. However, I believe the Navy has not yet completed the hull studies for this program so nothing has been determined as far as I can tell outside of some of the technologies that will be needed and the fact that the Navy appears to be committed to larger diameter VL cells and Laser scaling to get into the specs that can deal with the more complicated missile threats out there (and not just cheap drones and fast attack crafts).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,030
Reaction score
1,071
I don't know if it was you, or someone else, who had earlier suggested that one of the DDG-1000's be converted into more of a test article and used to test out some of the technologies and changes as a de-risking measure for the LSC. If indeed the Navy's hull studies point to it being a strong contender then I would fully support that. I think that can shave some risk and potential delays from such a program.
I said it but maybe others have as well. Use the Zumwalt hull and plan Flights from the get go. Flight I would use existing stuff and be relatively low risk. Flow new weapons and launch systems in as they become available. Think of the Spruance class. My concern is that we'll lose a decade recreating a production line for a hull that will only be marginally more capable than Zumwalt (if at all). And you want something both Ingalls and Bath can build. Ingalls could be brought up to speed on the Zumwalt hull but you'll never be able to build a San Antonio at Bath.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
148
I don't know if it was you, or someone else, who had earlier suggested that one of the DDG-1000's be converted into more of a test article and used to test out some of the technologies and changes as a de-risking measure for the LSC. If indeed the Navy's hull studies point to it being a strong contender then I would fully support that. I think that can shave some risk and potential delays from such a program.
I said it but maybe others have as well. Use the Zumwalt hull and plan Flights from the get go. Flight I would use existing stuff and be relatively low risk. Flow new weapons and launch systems in as they become available. Think of the Spruance class.

Navy may arm new destroyer with conventional missile able to hit anywhere on Earth in an hour

ARLINGTON, Va. - The Navy’s newest destroyer may fire a not-yet-to-be fielded Conventional Prompt Strike conventionally-armed missile engineered to hit anywhere on earth within an hour, service program managers said. The weapon, now being considered by Navy weapons developers for the emerging USS Zumwalt, will bring new attack options to the stealthy destroyer being prepared for combat as soon as 2021, Capt. Kevin Smith, Zumwalt-class destroyer Program Manager said Jan. 15 at the Surface Naval Association Annual Symposium.

“This would be the perfect platform for Conventional Prompt Strike,” Smith said.


The Conventional Prompt Strike weapons program, which emerged [in] the era of former President George W. Bush, is designed to arm a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead, bringing the range and speed similar to a nuclear weapon to conventional strike.

The weapon has virtually unprecedented range for a conventional weapon and has the ability to hit anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes in some instances.

The concept of the weapon is to enable fast attack against enemy targets from safe standoff distances quickly, potentially at the beginning of a conflict. This would enable rapid attack without having to wait for deployment options or placing vital war assets in closer range of enemy attack. In essence, should a conflict quickly break out, CPS will give command authority a “rapid hit” option to possibly deter further war or destroy crucial enemy targets with “tactical surprise.”

Firing this weapon from the new stealth destroyer brings several new strategic and tactical advantages.

First and foremost, arming the ship with CPS aligns with the service’s strategic requirements for the ship which, as of 2017, migrated from an initial conception of a largely land-attack destroyer to the “premier strike platform in the surface fleet,” Vice Adm. Rich Brown, Commander, Naval Surfaces Forces, said at the SNA symposium.

As a “blue water” attack platform, the Zumwalt is now being prepared for major power warfare on the “open ocean” and therefore armed with long-range weapons, sensors and other lethality-enhancing technologies.

Also, the integration of this long-range strike weapon onto a maritime platform such as the new Zumwalt will capitalize on the ship’s stealthy characteristics, thus allowing for surprise attacks with a lower chance of being detected by enemy sensors. The ship is built with external contours designed to be less detectable to enemy radar.

“The inherent capability of this ship is signatures. (stealth, low radar signatures) It is designed to be stealthy and carry the fight offensively to the adversary,” Smith said.



Arming the Zumwalt with this weapon, Smith explained, is at the moment merely something being considered or “looked at” for future possibilities and not yet a program of record.

While the program has had various starts and stops in recent years, Congressional decision-makers and Pentagon weapons developers are now giving the weapon a new push toward operational status. A 2019 Congressional Research Service Report, called “Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long Range Ballistic Missiles,” cited increased budget requests for the program. In particular, the Pentagon’s 2019 budget request increased its desired amount for CPS from $201 million in 2018 to $278 million in 2019, the report says.

Part of the program’s ups and downs over the years relate to some stated concerns that, if a conventional weapon travels with the speed, range and trajectory of a nuclear-armed missile, adversaries might be confused as to the precise nature of an attack -- and mistake it for a nuclear attack.


“CPS could upset stability and possibly increase the risk of a nuclear response to a U.S. attack,” the Congressional report states.


Despite this stated concern, developers of the weapon say that it would be distinguishable and not function as a substitute for nuclear weapons but rather a way to “supplement U.S. conventional capabilities,” the CRS report explains.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,030
Reaction score
1,071
Hell, they could even use the existing Zumwalts as prototypes / test articles for the cruiser. Now THAT would be the kind of risk reduction I could get behind.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
148
IIRC, DDG-1002 cost around $2.5 Billion to procure (additional cost for GFE/outfitting etc adds a further billion or so). Assuming that they can to about $2 Billion per ship (in current $$) with a larger buy, it would be tough to imagine the Navy being able to afford anything more than 20-25% above that and yet still maintain a healthy annual buy rate and total buy. So there are probably other non performance or requirements related determinants on how large this ship will be unless the Navy is willing to trade away things like RCS, speed, etc..
 
Last edited:

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
451
Reaction score
90
Why not use the San Antonio class as the hull base?
Because it's a slow, high RCS, barge?
Does it much matter that the Zumwalt can sprint 10knts faster if it has to be tied to a train of slower support ships? Does a lower RCS matter as much operationally if it is escorted by or escorting ships with higher signatures?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,030
Reaction score
1,071
Why not use the San Antonio class as the hull base?
Because it's a slow, high RCS, barge?
Does it much matter that the Zumwalt can sprint 10knts faster if it has to be tied to a train of slower support ships? Does a lower RCS matter as much operationally if it is escorted by or escorting ships with higher signatures?
So why have any ships be able to go faster than 20 knots? Kind of a silly question. As for RCS it's not like they'll be a couple hundred yards separation like you see in pictures. There would likely be miles between them.
 

trose213

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
59
Reaction score
11
Why not use the San Antonio class as the hull base?
Because it's a slow, high RCS, barge?
Does it much matter that the Zumwalt can sprint 10knts faster if it has to be tied to a train of slower support ships? Does a lower RCS matter as much operationally if it is escorted by or escorting ships with higher signatures?
Doesn't it matter if the Zumwalt requires half the complement or that it has the power margins needed? It's not going to be tied to slower support ships in a shooting war.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
451
Reaction score
90
So why have any ships be able to go faster than 20 knots? Kind of a silly question. As for RCS it's not like they'll be a couple hundred yards separation like you see in pictures. There would likely be miles between them.
Several miles. But it's still waving a flag at the surface group. The advantage is real, but perhaps overstated operationally. Same with a sprint speed. Doesn't open many doors if you're tethered to fleet oilers or ports because of short legs and limited magazines.

Trose213 said:
Doesn't it matter if the Zumwalt requires half the complement or that it has the power margins needed? It's not going to be tied to slower support ships in a shooting war.
All good questions. Hard to imagine you couldn't squeeze a lot more power generation into a San Antonio. Lots of growth potential for tomorrow's rail guns, or extremely large radar arrays. Plenty of room for an aviation detachment and VLS cells as well. I just looked up the BMD proposal and it had 288 VLS cells. That's quite a bit of loadout. Three times a Burke's capacity.
Not at all sure about the last bit. What mission exactly does it (Zumwalt) have currently? Does it have the legs to get away and use the extra speed? It's a bit of problem that they don't have ammo for the guns. Idiotic. How many VLS cells could you squeeze into the bow if they remove the guns? Maybe they could be useful in such a configuration.
Sferrin's idea of using the hulls as test beds is a good one, too.

I'm hardly a naval strategist, but it seems a BMD style variant would pack a punch in the Pacific, and the capacity means they wouldn't need to be in port nearly as often if the shooting starts.

Good discussion, all.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
523
Reaction score
220
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
So why have any ships be able to go faster than 20 knots?
Generally? Because it was kind of tradition since World War 2 (and at this time it was the highest speed that could be achieved without extraordinary power requirements). Most of modern warships at the end of World War 2 were roughly in 30+ knots range, and new warships, of course, were build to operate with them, so they also have that kind of speed.

There isn't much tactical difference between 25 and 30 knots by now. And little strategic difference also, because non-nuclear ships could not cruise fast at this speed also.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
523
Reaction score
220
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
How many VLS cells could you squeeze into the bow if they remove the guns?
Well, one AGS gun is about 105 ton, so two of them are about 210 tons.

The strike length Mk-41 module weight about 15 tons. So, we could trade two AGS for 210/15 = 14 Mk-41 modules, eight cell each. 14*8=112 cells.

About a hundred more cells. Probably less, of course, since the missiles in them also not weightless. Let's agree on 10 modules - 80 additional cells.

We would have 160 cells on Zumwalt - 80 of her own Mk-57 side-mounted and 80 of Mk-41 center-mounted. We could fill the Mk-57 with "Tomahawk" and LRASM missiles (being liquid-fueled with large warheads they are more dangerous if hit, and thus better be placed in the side-mounted cells), and use central-mounted Mk-41 for a mix of SM-6, quad-packed ESSM and VL-ASROC.

Let's assume the ammo capacity:

* 40 Tomahawk V land-attack missiles - side Mk-57 cells
* 40 LRASM stealth anti-ship missiles - side Mk-57 cells
* 16 VL-ASROC anti-submarine rockets - central Mk-41 cells
* 40 SM-6 long-range SAM - central Mk-41
* 96 ESSM short-range SAM - central Mk-41 cells

Looks promising, actually)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,030
Reaction score
1,071
So why have any ships be able to go faster than 20 knots?
Generally? Because it was kind of tradition since World War 2 (and at this time it was the highest speed that could be achieved without extraordinary power requirements). Most of modern warships at the end of World War 2 were roughly in 30+ knots range, and new warships, of course, were build to operate with them, so they also have that kind of speed.

There isn't much tactical difference between 25 and 30 knots by now. And little strategic difference also, because non-nuclear ships could not cruise fast at this speed also.
That just sounds like a lot of hand waving that doesn't amount to much. "Tradition" doesn't drive design requirements. And it's more like 22 kts vs 32+kts. That's 100 nm difference in 10 hrs. By tying your defenses to a 22 kt ship you've just handicapped your fleet for nothing.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
27
Seems they're building 2 055 per year.
Where you're getting that from? They are currently building 2 concurrently within interval of 3 months. 5 are in different stages of outfitting right now. That's not accounting for type 54D. They currently building more destroyers in one shipyard than the entire royal navy fleet of capital ships.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,030
Reaction score
1,071
China's Type 055 Warship Larger, More Powerful Than Expected

"It has emerged that China's most advanced destroyer, the 10,000-ton-class Type 055, is larger than previously reported as the Chinese Navy recently revealed it has an actual displacement of more than 12,000 tons. Experts said on Friday that the difference between 10,000 and 12,000 tons could be huge and indicate the warship is even more powerful than expected.

In an introduction video for Nanchang, the first ship of its type, released by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy during the Spring Festival holidays, the service confirmed the ship has a displacement of more than 12,000 tons.

The warship was previously only vaguely referred to as China's first 10,000-ton-class destroyer, without information of its exact displacement."


 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
180
Who believed the 10K figure? A Flight III Burke is near enough 10K, a Ticonderoga is close to 10K with an aluminium deckhouse and all its growth margin used up. If 055 really was 10,000 tons it would either have to have been made of plastic or have nothing under the skin.
 

Firefinder

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
17
Reaction score
9
Who believed the 10K figure? A Flight III Burke is near enough 10K, a Ticonderoga is close to 10K with an aluminium deckhouse and all its growth margin used up. If 055 really was 10,000 tons it would either have to have been made of plastic or have nothing under the skin.
Or be made extremely LIGHT, as in not a lot of reinforcements and the similar, civilian spec built as it were. Like how the IJN Mogamis were pre-WW2 refits, lightly built hull that cracked under the gun pressure wave.

Also who here want to bet that is will spark of another Cruiser Gap type deal?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
180
The Congress has already been pushing for new cruisers a little bit, but the current state of their ability to conduct oversight or bring pressure to bear on procurement is....somewhat limited of late. There needs to be strong bipartisan faction, particularly in the Senate, who really takes up the cause of the state of the Navy, if they're going to effectively force the Navy into rewponding.
 
Top