US Navy News and updates

John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
ASSAIL said:
Judging from this interview Capabilities and Missions of the Zumwalt Class Destroyers
I would imagine that they would be an integral part of any opposed Marine amphibious expedition.

I'm fascinated by them, for their audacity in design, and I only wish the RAN funders were a bit more ambitious (on a smaller scale naturally).
Chris
Click to expand...

Chris, I'm very fascinated with them too, their unique design, their huge size, weapons capabilities, high automation and low crewing requirements too, just wondering if being so unique will go for or against them in the long run.

It would be interesting to know what their projected operating costs are compared to say an Arleigh Burke or a Ticonderoga for example.

Small crew costs vs larger crew costs, all those automated systems and how that all balances out at the end of the day.

And hey, if the US Government does want to get rid of them one day, I'm sure they could find a nice home here in Sydney Harbour!!
 
A

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
John Newman said:
As I understand it, originally they were supposed to be a class of 30+, then reduced to 10 and finally to three. The fact there will only be three of them (certainly good by RAN standards for example) but will they become the victim of future cost cutting (easier to cut a whole class of only three out of service) or not being able find a permanent place for them in the USN fleet structure?
Click to expand...
Enterprise and Long Beach were both unique classes built with heaps of untried technology and they both served long lives full of active deployments.

The engineering plant won't be unique in a few decades, whatever comes after the Flight III Burkes will probably use the DDG-1000 plant (the USN has wanted electric drive since the 1990's and finally has it, they'll want it in a mass produced ship sooner rather than later). The radar fit is also going on the Ford class carrier. AMDR is scheduled to be installed as well. AGS is probably a system that is dead for other ships, and PVLS might or might not make an appearance elsewhere. The combat system might be changed later, it isn't US Government owned Aegis CND.

Reading some of the open source info these ships look like they will be vicious close in carrier escorts or other HVU, supposedly they can guide more ESSM's than a Ticonderoga, so they will be used.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
AegisFC said:
Enterprise and Long Beach were both unique classes built with heaps of untried technology and they both served long lives full of active deployments.

The engineering plant won't be unique in a few decades, whatever comes after the Flight III Burkes will probably use the DDG-1000 plant (the USN has wanted electric drive since the 1990's and finally has it, they'll want it in a mass produced ship sooner rather than later). The radar fit is also going on the Ford class carrier. AMDR is scheduled to be installed as well. AGS is probably a system that is dead for other ships, and PVLS might or might not make an appearance elsewhere. The combat system might be changed later, it isn't US Government owned Aegis CND.

Reading some of the open source info these ships look like they will be vicious close in carrier escorts or other HVU, supposedly they can guide more ESSM's than a Ticonderoga, so they will be used.
Click to expand...
My understanding is they will have SM-2 and logically SM-6 when available. Once the platform is proven and the Flight III Burkes limitations become more apparent I would not be the slightest surprised if the DDG 1000 is restarted. Ingals are offering a modified San Antonio as a Ticonderoga replacement, to be the DDG 1000 platform seems a better fit.
 
A

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes but the as installed radar suite won't be optimized to take advantage of those missiles. From the open source info SPY-1 series will have longer range, at least until AMDR is installed, and even then it will depend on which AMDR set they install.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
AegisFC said:
Yes but the as installed radar suite won't be optimized to take advantage of those missiles. From the open source info SPY-1 series will have longer range, at least until AMDR is installed, and even then it will depend on which AMDR set they install.
Click to expand...
How does DDG do target illumination for ESSM and SM2? Does it have TI's or is there some sort of other radar trickery on tap?
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
AegisFC said:
Enterprise and Long Beach were both unique classes built with heaps of untried technology and they both served long lives full of active deployments.

The engineering plant won't be unique in a few decades, whatever comes after the Flight III Burkes will probably use the DDG-1000 plant (the USN has wanted electric drive since the 1990's and finally has it, they'll want it in a mass produced ship sooner rather than later). The radar fit is also going on the Ford class carrier. AMDR is scheduled to be installed as well. AGS is probably a system that is dead for other ships, and PVLS might or might not make an appearance elsewhere. The combat system might be changed later, it isn't US Government owned Aegis CND.

Reading some of the open source info these ships look like they will be vicious close in carrier escorts or other HVU, supposedly they can guide more ESSM's than a Ticonderoga, so they will be used.
Click to expand...
The fact the Flight III will use technology from the DDG1000, will have higher manning and lacks the LO capability of the DDG1000 gets me to a degree. surely this would be anargument for a few more of this type.
 
A

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
StobieWan said:
How does DDG do target illumination for ESSM and SM2? Does it have TI's or is there some sort of other radar trickery on tap?
Click to expand...
On the DDG-1000's? The SPY-3 will handle that. It looks like SPY-3 will be the main radar until AMDR is installed some time in the future.
 
S

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well, AMDR is looking to come in a bit lighter, using less power and taking up a bit less volume than was originally thought - wasn't the thrust of the argument against DDG1000 that it didn't have the margins to swallow AMDR, couldn't do ABM and couldn't guide SM2?

Never understood the SM2 deal - if it could guide ESSM, then the requirements for SM2 aren't too dissimilar - data link, terminal illumination, job's a good 'un?


I'm drifting to the point of view that by the time you've reworked Flight III, you could have just built DDG1000 in series production.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Pretty much my thoughts on the matter. It seems to me conservative elements were able to convince others that an update of an existing platform would be less risky and less expensive when the opposite was probably the case when all factors were considered.
 
A

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
StobieWan said:
Well, AMDR is looking to come in a bit lighter, using less power and taking up a bit less volume than was originally thought - wasn't the thrust of the argument against DDG1000 that it didn't have the margins to swallow AMDR, couldn't do ABM and couldn't guide SM2?
Click to expand...
Politics, internal navy politics and partial lies told to Congress. When the USN told Congress it couldn't do SM-2 they were technically correct because when that admiral gave the testimony it wasn't done yet.
Information Dissemination: DDG-1000 and SM-2

DDG-1000 was turned from a general purpose replacement of the Spruances to what it is now because Rummy only wanted platforms that were "transformational" that is also why the USN is stuck with LCS. When Rummy and his cronies lost power those that didn't like DDG-1000 choose to attack it from every angle, it didn't matter if it was the truth or not and the arm chair admirals who hate every single new USN program since the Perry class chimed in as usual (their track record has been lousy however).

Never understood the SM2 deal - if it could guide ESSM, then the requirements for SM2 aren't too dissimilar - data link, terminal illumination, job's a good 'un?
Click to expand...
Range and power. From what I understand the X-band set that the DDG-1000 will use for terminal illumination doesn't have the range and power of the old SPG-62's to take full advantage of SM-2.

I'm drifting to the point of view that by the time you've reworked Flight III, you could have just built DDG1000 in series production.
Click to expand...
Yes but a few years back there were no good news stories about the class. It was the worst thing ever, the hull would flip over in a mild sea state, ect, ect, ect. I think the Flight III was a punt by the USN leadership to buy them some time and keep the ship yards ticking over making SOMETHING until they figured out what worked and what didn't on the Zumwalts.
 
B

Belesari

New Member
I think if anything the true legacy of the Zumwalts 3 ships or 30 is the technology factor. So much was put into this one ship design and so much untried or even nonexistent tech and designs that its cost and complexity exploded.

Kinda sounds like 3/4 of the defense programs from the last 20 years...

I think the Flight III burke's sounded good and were a good idea at first. However, eventually like with the DDG-1000 program and others the monster got lose and its turned into another Superweapons program instead of a upgrading of a existing class and design.

If AGS isn't a go for a future run of DDG what about MK71 8in or a dual 5in gun system? Or a traditional 6in 155mm gun system?


AegisFC said:
Politics, internal navy politics and partial lies told to Congress. When the USN told Congress it couldn't do SM-2 they were technically correct because when that admiral gave the testimony it wasn't done yet.
Information Dissemination: DDG-1000 and SM-2

DDG-1000 was turned from a general purpose replacement of the Spruances to what it is now because Rummy only wanted platforms that were "transformational" that is also why the USN is stuck with LCS. When Rummy and his cronies lost power those that didn't like DDG-1000 choose to attack it from every angle, it didn't matter if it was the truth or not and the arm chair admirals who hate every single new USN program since the Perry class chimed in as usual (their track record has been lousy however).



Range and power. From what I understand the X-band set that the DDG-1000 will use for terminal illumination doesn't have the range and power of the old SPG-62's to take full advantage of SM-2.



Yes but a few years back there were no good news stories about the class. It was the worst thing ever, the hull would flip over in a mild sea state, ect, ect, ect. I think the Flight III was a punt by the USN leadership to buy them some time and keep the ship yards ticking over making SOMETHING until they figured out what worked and what didn't on the Zumwalts.
Click to expand...
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The thing that gets me is a simple look at the Spruance and how it was evolved into the Ticonderoga should have served to show them why to proceed with the Zummwalts and future derivatives, vs their cramped predecessors and contemporaries that actually devolved over time i.e. The OHPs, Coontz etc.
 
B

Belesari

New Member
Volkodav said:
The thing that gets me is a simple look at the Spruance and how it was evolved into the Ticonderoga should have served to show them why to proceed with the Zummwalts and future derivatives, vs their cramped predecessors and contemporaries that actually devolved over time i.e. The OHPs, Coontz etc.
Click to expand...
That's the bad part the Burke's were designed with just that understanding in mind. When building and designing a new ship class leave lots of open space to build in future features. Well all the room is taken up on the Burke's.

I do wonder why they are going back to the thinner hull designs. That's one of the things changed with the Burke's also. Wider ships so they can carry more weight up top and more room.
 
harryriedl

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Belesari said:
I think if anything the true legacy of the Zumwalts 3 ships or 30 is the technology factor. So much was put into this one ship design and so much untried or even nonexistent tech and designs that its cost and complexity exploded.

Kinda sounds like 3/4 of the defense programs from the last 20 years...

I think the Flight III burke's sounded good and were a good idea at first. However, eventually like with the DDG-1000 program and others the monster got lose and its turned into another Superweapons program instead of a upgrading of a existing class and design.

If AGS isn't a go for a future run of DDG what about MK71 8in or a dual 5in gun system? Or a traditional 6in 155mm gun system?
Click to expand...
what's wrong with a Volcano set up seems to be widely adopted risk is one someone else budget lots of 5in stuff afloat already rather than the hassle of new system with new logistics load, if their are problems with that set up greater base bleed Excalibur system should be quite straightforward system to implement.

It the obsession to gold plate which is such a problem with these US programs which means the budgets are a joke
 
B

Belesari

New Member
harryriedl said:
what's wrong with a Volcano set up seems to be widely adopted risk is one someone else budget lots of 5in stuff afloat already rather than the hassle of new system with new logistics load, if their are problems with that set up greater base bleed Excalibur system should be quite straightforward system to implement.

It the obsession to gold plate which is such a problem with these US programs which means the budgets are a joke
Click to expand...
A 155mm or MK-71 8in isn't really gold plating. Gold plating is quite frankly AGS or LO (Stealth) Battlecruiser. The problem was like the LCS or the F-35 they crammed basically every none carrier surface vessel technology they wanted into either the LCS or DDG-IK program. That's one of the biggest reasons it went so overboard.

Evolutionary not revolutionary.

Now either the 155mm or 8in can be made to fire a guided round farther and with more force than a 5in. The MK-71 has already been built and really is just a evolution of the guns used on the old Des Moines class heavy cruisers. The AGS started off as a 155mm gun and then morphed into what it is today from there.

Again I would rather see a 2 5in gun set up or even four (x2 per turret) than nothing or a single turret.

----
Er kind of a side note. Anyone know the specifications of the Vulcano round? Not the 155mm the 5in italian one. Its damned hard to find it for some reason. Speed yes however not warhead size etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top