The Zumwalt Class

[Duffy]

I think it's a little premature to call DDG-51 "Outdated" simply because there's another program in the wings that might or might not be better. These ships have and continue to accomplish all tasks set for them. What in the world out there is better? Certainly nothing Russian, Chinese or Indian. So why the rush to spend 3.5 bil per copy on a funny-looking ship full of unproven and possibly unnecessary widgets and gizmos?

Cheers

I agree the Burke's are still the best at what thy do. With up grades the navy will not be lagging behind any time soon. I just don't understand the change in doctrine.

The USN should stick with blue water operations, Its where thy excel. The US has strong allies that are much more capable in shallow water operations. If the navy wants a couple dozen LCS boats thats fine. I don't agree with the designs that were chosen but the concept is sound.

building DDG-51 the next few year is a much better plain than putting DDG-1000 to sea .

Out of all the armed services of the US the navy always seemed to have a real clear scope of were thy should be in the future but this class if ship makes me question that (Surface to shore fire support)
Don't get me wrong I miss the old 16" guns but also miss B-29s but I don't think the air force should put turrets on the B-2

 

[JonMusser]

Cgx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CG(X)

i think the Zumwalt well be used to help design Americas next Cruiser a CGX it well most likely be a nuclear powered ship congress has mad it clear all capital ships and cruisers included well be nuclear which is sad cause Clinton decommissioned all those California and Virginia Class Cruisers that were Nuclear

i also believe the Zumwalt although just a Tech Demonstrator well have a major job in Navy it has a capability no other ship has in our navy Stealth that can not be overlooked

the SeaWolf class Submarine although kind of a lame duck in our navy has larger torpedoes tubes another nitch it also has many capabilities that the Virginia did not continue for cost reasons i agree the 21st Century fleet project was designed for a different environment however these ships bring new capabilities and new Tech

the LCS program Duffy is a 60 ship fleet replacing all us Frigates and gives the us navy the best littoral fleet in the world

 

[Valin]

I think it's a little premature to call DDG-51 "Outdated" simply because there's another program in the wings that might or might not be better. These ships have and continue to accomplish all tasks set for them. What in the world out there is better? Certainly nothing Russian, Chinese or Indian. So why the rush to spend 3.5 bil per copy on a funny-looking ship full of unproven and possibly unnecessary widgets and gizmos?

Cheers

Sir, It is simply because of the fact that there is an ability to add these 'Gizmos.'
AB's are stretched to the limits when it comes to power for things such as radar, new computer architecture, etc. There is simply not that much growth potential in the design as it already has had enough time to eat up all that growth margin.
With the Navy pushing towards Unmanned type Gizmos, it would be wise to asses weather or not AB's can support Unmanned Systems to the extent that will be required over the next 25 years.
An AB may be able to meet most of the Challenges of today, but when we are looking ahead, we must always keep in mind the potential future requirements. Keep in mind that in 1925 the Army Air Service was flying PW-8 biplanes and in 1950 an F-80 Shooting Star shoots down two NK Migs in the First Jet on Jet action in History. Outside of Billy Mitchell, i dont think many people saw that coming. When WW2 ended, we scrapped many of the ships on the ways rather than be burdened with ships we dont need. In 1965, the US Navy was not considering building more battleships, because the need to produce more ceased once the establishment realized at Midway that the Carrier was the next Capital Ship.

Im not claiming Zumwalt as the Revolutionary change that the carrier was, but I am making a case for not building a 1980 design to meet 2035 threats.

 

[Duffy]

Jomusser I understand there building 60+ I just don't see the need.

Valin Its not that I have a problem with looking ahead. The problem I have is with the operations the ship is designed for. If you take a asset like a destroyer and tie it to land based operations you take away its flexibility. Once that happens it puts a $ 3.5 bn asset in jeopardy. Stealth or not firing projectiles its not going to be hard to find.Let alone the fact the USN and USMC have air craft for ground support. Plus This thing is way under maned. I don't care how animated a ship is if it takes any substantial battle damage you find your self with a problem. Do you keep the thing a float and hope you don't take more Or do you defend it till it sinks, because you can do both.
There building the eight extra AB because the navy doesn't want to start fielding these. That says something but at least going to keep building something. With the budget cuts thy could have just started pumping out LSC

 

[JonMusser]

the Littoral theory the navy was using was to fight Terrorist that is what the LCS mission is for and that is what the Zumwalt was redesigned for its just that they put a TON of capability into these destroyers and do not want to pay for it read this site
http://www.zumwaltfacts.info/wp-content/themes/zumwalt/IssueBriefMythFact.pdf

the Zumwalt is simply to expensive of a ship to big of a ship to heavy to much of everything

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think we we see the DG1000/Zumwalts as general technology demonstrators.

The burkes are good, but they will eventually need something to replace them but the DG1000/Zumwalts aren't the replacement, they sit somewhere in the realm of 21st century battleship.. Some interesting ideas, but not a mass produced major fleet unit.

What they need is a roomy hull, compatable with lots of automation, greater electricity generation/power and distribution, greater UAV/UUV capabilities and future missile types.

Which is why I think they are building the LCS. To see what needs to be done in this regard and to find out how effective multi-missioning/reduced crewing/UAV/UUV/Highspeed is.

No doubt learning from the DDG-51, DG10000 and LCS the USN will build a new destroyer with combination of all three technologies. Creating a very capable, very advanced but very low risk, affordable build. By then laser and direct energy weapons will have matured atleast to the level of known requirements.

Something like...
1 x 155mm gun networked capable of linking ~3 destroyers guns to ensure 10-15 shells land near instantaniously, a direct energy weapon of somesort, 10,000t displacement, Crew ~200, max speed ~38 kts, 90VLS (perhaps a new family of large VLS for ASAT or BMD). UAV and UUV capability or atleast ways to interface with UAV's UUV's based off LCS/carriers etc.

 

[JonMusser]

I think we we see the DG1000/Zumwalts as general technology demonstrators.

The burkes are good, but they will eventually need something to replace them but the DG1000/Zumwalts aren't the replacement, they sit somewhere in the realm of 21st century battleship.. Some interesting ideas, but not a mass produced major fleet unit.

What they need is a roomy hull, compatable with lots of automation, greater electricity generation/power and distribution, greater UAV/UUV capabilities and future missile types.

Which is why I think they are building the LCS. To see what needs to be done in this regard and to find out how effective multi-missioning/reduced crewing/UAV/UUV/Highspeed is.

No doubt learning from the DDG-51, DG10000 and LCS the USN will build a new destroyer with combination of all three technologies. Creating a very capable, very advanced but very low risk, affordable build. By then laser and direct energy weapons will have matured atleast to the level of known requirements.

Something like...
1 x 155mm gun networked capable of linking ~3 destroyers guns to ensure 10-15 shells land near instantaniously, a direct energy weapon of somesort, 10,000t displacement, Crew ~200, max speed ~38 kts, 90VLS (perhaps a new family of large VLS for ASAT or BMD). UAV and UUV capability or atleast ways to interface with UAV's UUV's based off LCS/carriers etc.

1st i wthink it will be intresting to see what the CGX will look like in the next 10 years we should find out like i said it should be a Nuclear powerd ship probably Super Stealth ship and i would say displacing 20 to 25 thousand tons (thats a Large Ship) and with a crew half of what any other ship this size would have most due to the Zumwalts

as for the Arleigh Burke class i do not believe the Zumwalt is a replacement i think its an assist to our existing Arleigh Burke Fleet i would also say there probably wont be a new Destroyer replacing the Arleigh Burke for some time i would put in late 2020's to mid 2030's when we will see Arleigh Burke decommissioned they are a strong Vessel deigned in later 1980's built for a long period of time and are the main stay of the american Fleet that i don't think will change any time soon however we will need a Cruiser sooner than that.

I am Surprised Congress hasn't ordered America class amphibious assault ship be nuclear myself...

 

[Duffy]

1st i wthink it will be intresting to see what the CGX will look like in the next 10 years we should find out like i said it should be a Nuclear powerd ship probably Super Stealth ship and i would say displacing 20 to 25 thousand tons (thats a Large Ship) and with a crew half of what any other ship this size would have most due to the Zumwalts

as for the Arleigh Burke class i do not believe the Zumwalt is a replacement i think its an assist to our existing Arleigh Burke Fleet i would also say there probably wont be a new Destroyer replacing the Arleigh Burke for some time i would put in late 2020's to mid 2030's when we will see Arleigh Burke decommissioned they are a strong Vessel deigned in later 1980's built for a long period of time and are the main stay of the american Fleet that i don't think will change any time soon however we will need a Cruiser sooner than that.

I am Surprised Congress hasn't ordered America class amphibious assault ship be nuclear myself...

Thru out the program it’s been the navy’s goal for the DDG&CGX to share the same hull. So I don’t see a 20kton+ cruiser unless the navy drops this plan. It may look quite different than the destroyer but about the same size.

As far as the CGN there are still a few unanswered questions. There was a study done by the navy you should be able to find online called “2006 Navy Alternative Propulsion Study”. It brings to light only a few of the problems with nuclear powered DDG/CGX/and LHA. Below are just a few I recall.

1- Cost for a CGN class ship is around $ 600 to $700 mil. Per unit and over $800 mil for the LHA class.
2- Operational savings - Actual savings are hard to determine do to the variables involved. Oil price per barrel and the Operation tempo.
3- Ship building – Only a limited number of ship yards are certified and equipped to build nuclear ships.
4- Ship Maintance and Repair – There are four Navy ship yards that are capable of working on nuclear ships and subs and operate at capacity all ready.
5- Port Calls and Forwarding Homeports – Some allied countries do not allow nuclear ships into there ports (WE must respect that). Also repair. No USN nuclear ships are worked on out side of the continental US. For many reasons.
6- Crew train – The infrastructure for training is also at capacity so this to would have to grow substantially.
The real cost to go nuclear is not in the ship but is in the support not only in the US but ports around the world. That’s with out even looking at what kind of battle damage could a ship of that size sustain with out the reactor leaking. Subs are under water this makes it only dangers for the crew and the carries have lots of ships to protect them .Plus can sustain huge amounts of damage before the reactors are of any concern.6.5 x the size of the DDG/ CGN.

 

[turin]

To add to the above post:

2- Operational savings - Actual savings are hard to determine do to the variables involved. Oil price per barrel and the Operation tempo.

The GAO just released a report seriously questioning any savings in operating costs for nuclear propulsion in the CG(X) plans. The USN disputes this, but then again judged by their past POV on the DD(X) they really lost all credibility as far as I am concerned.

As far as the size is concerned, keep in mind that the DDG-1000 in its present state has actually been downsized compared to initial planning. That won't do a common-hull cruiser any favours. Recently the LPD-17-hull was mentioned in studies for getting the CG(X) to work. There is nothing settled yet in terms of size, so much I am sure about. Even two versions of different size are being looked at.

There seem to be unanswered questions as far as the power consumption and size of the CG(X)-radar is concerned and a larger hull plus nuclear propulsion were again viewed favorable in this regard.

 

[Duffy]

Thy have down sized the DDG to 14,000 Ton+ but its still 40% larger than the Ticonderoga class. Most of which is in beam so maybe stretching it is not out of the question. Power supply is a crap shoot, There are marine turbines that produce upto and above 60mw off the shelf that are small enough to put two into a hull that size. That could give the navy the redundancy thy so often desire. I would think a max out put of120mw would be more than enough power and 60mw could get the ship out of harms way in case of a failure. For the navy to go nuclear is feasible but thy would have to do it with more than one class to help absorb the cost for the change in infrastructure.
But thats just my two cents. Lets see how thy like the two DDG there going to build.

 

[JonMusser]

if you look at the Wikki link i sent above on another post you would see where i got my information that the CGX would in fact be both Nuclear a swell as will as displace 20 to 25 thousand tons which is why i am asking then according to Global Securities web site Congress ordered that the CGX and all other Large Ships be Nuclear powered.
so my question is why can other ship yards be certified for nuclear construction?
I do not understand why we have nuclear powered Carriers but its smaller LHA are gas powered especially since the navy is focusing so much on next generation Lasser Defense systems

Jon

 

[Duffy]

I am familiar with the information posted on them sites and by no means say there wrong.Wikki or Global Securities won’t change the information until it’s conclusive.
For anyone to say one way or the other is just speculation. The original plan was for the two classes to share the same hull that may or may not happen. The curser was to be nuclear powered. Congress can ask for any thing thy would like, But to demand that the navy go nuclear is not in there best interests. The navy has presented a report to congress all ready that shows that it will cost more to go nuclear so the ball is in congresses court.
As far as power nuclear reactors don’t produce more power than other means. Thy only do it with les fuel. Look up (Pratt&Whitney Swift Pack) there are lots more. I don’t know what it takes to certify a ship yard to build nuclear war ships but a few things do come to mind. Security at the yard would be one, Security checks of workers. Plus workers certified to work on the reactor piping and equipment, that’s all very specialized.
There are lots of reasons super carries are nuclear powered and LHA are not. Super Carriers will go to sea for very long periods of time and cover thousands of nautical miles. The space saved by not having fuel for the ship allows more fuel to be carried for the air wing. The LHA doesn’t cruse the sea like the supper carrier. Thy tend to get dumped into the same category as the supper carrier only because thy both carry aircraft and have a flat deck but that’s were similarities end.
“Laser defense”, the problem with laser are do more to there size and not actually power consumption.

I will find that report and post the link....

 

[Duffy]

if you look at the Wikki link i sent above on another post you would see where i got my information that the CGX would in fact be both Nuclear a swell as will as displace 20 to 25 thousand tons which is why i am asking then according to Global Securities web site Congress ordered that the CGX and all other Large Ships be Nuclear powered.
so my question is why can other ship yards be certified for nuclear construction?
I do not understand why we have nuclear powered Carriers but its smaller LHA are gas powered especially since the navy is focusing so much on next generation Lasser Defense systems

Jon

John this is the link on the study done for nuclear powered surface ships.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA488366&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

 

[Sea Toby]

Only two shipyards are certified to build nuclear ships, Newport News and Electric Boat. Bath Iron Works and Ingalls among others aren't. Thus building nuclear cruisers would most likely not have much competition among the shipyards for lower bids. Congress prefers to spread the pork around to as many shipyards as possible....

 

[Todjaeger]

Only two shipyards are certified to build nuclear ships, Newport News and Electric Boat. Bath Iron Works and Ingalls among others aren't. Thus building nuclear cruisers would most likely not have much competition among the shipyards for lower bids. Congress prefers to spread the pork around to as many shipyards as possible....

A slight correction I believe. EB in Groton is AFAIK only certified (certainly configured) for subs, not surface vessels. Newport News is the only US facility that is able to build surface nuclear vessels at present.

-Cheers

 

[Duffy]

The cost savings don't exist ether. The only ship yard capable would be NGNN do to the fact the reactor they proposed was the A1B. Which is the same units going into the Ford class CVN. Congress loves to spend money on investigation on how to save money.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think the major issue with the DDG-1000 is, apart from the cost or course, an evolving threat. The USN is moving back towards popper peer competition and high end warfare against a capable foe. BMD and blue water ASW are valuable qualities again, and the DDG-1000 simply isn't as capable as last gen solutions in these rolls (and its a put load more expensive). Its optimized for the littoral environment and the USN is now paying the price for its littoral focus as the threat matrix has evolved.

 

[Duffy]

I think the biggest problem with this ship at this time is its not optimize for any roll. The navy wanted to get into littoral water capability's so they have the Freedom class. Why compromise a ship that cost that much in an environment a ship that size has no advantages or even a disadvantage. I don't particularly like the design but I cant find any draws of the hull below the water line so its esthetic's. I am glade the navy was smart enough to put off the procurement till 2017,but will never understand whey it took right up to the production run. There stuck with two misfit ships for the next 30 years. Id bet Raytheon and General Dynamics are way behind schedule on the electronics systems also.Well they bought some time maybe they can get there head out of there a#* and come up with something worth the price.

 

[turin]

and the DDG-1000 simply isn't as capable as last gen solutions in these rolls

Go with the latest idea of modification for the DDG-1000 (put forward by the Navy, no less), remove the AGS and put in VLS, either Mk 57 or Mk 48 and what you have is a ship considerably more capable than and with an extra price over modified DDG-51 of just the cost for one LCS.

From what I see, the modification of DDG-51 and restart of production is nothing but a job-generating operation. It seems a dumb idea to spend so much money on bringing back a design that goes into its fourth decade in terms of development history. With the DDG-1000 let them build four units to cover that fire-support-argument many people were panicking about for the last ten years, then modify the ship and add to AAW/ASW capabilities. Eventually there needs to be a new surface combatant program anyway, very soon, if the DDG-51mod is the big winner now.

If its the case that peer competition is back on the table - and I am having difficulties seeing the point there, considering whats going on with Russia and even China, in the latter case they need at least another ten years while the building plan for the USN seems to run out of ideas after 2012 already - then whats there what a current or slightly modified DDG-1000 design cannot do (better, in terms of survivability)? It would even go as far as presenting itself for the currently still free-floating ideas for CG(X), considering missile capability after modification.

 

[Duffy]

The modernization was planed from the start.Half way through their 35 year estimated service life .There to be modernized starting with USS Arleigh Burke(DDG-51) planned for 2010. So has nothing to do with the additional ships.
Take the DDG-1000 add VLS Mk 57/Mk48 and you have a ship with the same capability's,a design thats unproven and cost no less than at least $1.2 billion more. To restart AB run will cost about $2.2 thats $275m per unit.Still allot cheaper than the DDG-1000 especially if its a dud.
Peer competition is not back on the table BIW will build the three DDG-1000 and NGSB the DDG-51s. I get the feeling the USN is going to have some real problems with this class. Looking ahead 10 year they should skip the destroyer and start building the cruiser