DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

[Firefinder]

At moment the unique AGS 155mm guns non-operational due lack of any ammunition and only 80 VLS cell vs $2 billion Burke's 96.

The guns you have a point on. But for the missiles, remember that the Burkes generally carry about 8 to 16 SM3s. Which while are useful as is the SPY3 can't see well enough to be actually useful on the Zumwalts. So the SM3s that a Burke has will not be on a Zumwalt, add in the fact that their limit amount of ARSOC, less then 400 right from what I heard, and the Zumwalts limited sonar... That is anywhere from 16 to 32 missiles the Zums will not have cause it can not use. So it still carry a similar amount of SAMS and ground attack weapons that the Burkes do.

Navy not saying why its not the basis for the DDG(X) even though Zumwalt has the integrated electric power system which Navy wants for the DDG (X) for its DEW, lasers etc, as have posted previously think reason is its the additional ~ 60% displacement/very expensive costs incurred with Zumwalt's non-standard/unique tumblehome hull.

90% that is a law issue. Basically for any new hull design the navy NEEDS to through ALL the fucking hoops for getting a new ship class. Basically the Navy can't say anymore that they want the ZUMWALT Hull with X, they have to do the whole dog and pony show to give all the manufactures a fair stick. Remember that the NON STANDARD is going to apply to any new hull design, tumblehome or not. Its part of the cost of being a new design.

Navy has never explained why Zumwalts new Raytheon X-band SPY-3 radars are unfit for purpose (also fitted on Ford).

Again 95% that while the SPY3 is a good air/ground search sensor... Any new surface combatant hull will need to be ABM capable and the SPY3 does not have the range to do that cause of the size, the face is half the size of the SPY1 Face. It literally can not do ABM search like the SPY1 or newer SPY6 can. Its not design for it, if it the Spy4 was install it be fine cause ABM was part of the SPY4 design job while the SPY3 was horizon search and fire control only system.
Basically the SPY3 even with the mods it got LACKS THE RANGE that the SPY1s or hell the NTU ships have.

Navy has refused to subject Zumwalt FSST, full ship shock trials, understand FSST is a mandatory test for new surface ships and suburmarine classes unless given explicit authority to exempt by Congress, which Navy did not receive.

The Navy has pushed back the Shock trails dates for years before on other classes. The Nimitz class for example didn't get theirs until Congress schedule for them with the Teddy IRCC. Hell the LSC didnt get theirs until almost 10 years later, same with the Burkes and Ticos. Generally speaking the Navy seems wants to be a few ships in with more under constuction before they do shock trails. Plus they prefer to have all the other tests down so they have a good baseline to go off of. Something that the Zumwalts lack at the moment.

Also consider that they are probably going into a fairly large refit, they may be waiting to get all the new toys before doing the trials since why do them with the systems that will not be installed? It will literally make the trails useless since they will have no base line to compare against and will not have the data on how the new gear that the hulls will deploy with will react to shock.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Would it be possible to fit the 34.5" diameter VLS tubes required for LRHW in the place of the AGS System?

 

[Josh_TN]

I’d also argue shock trials are fairly pointless for a three ship class.

 

[Cordy]

I’d also argue shock trials are fairly pointless for a three ship class.

I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.

The 32 Zumwalt class mission/design was as replacement for the Iowa class battleships to give NGFS for the Marines, the Zumwalts survivability depended on its 100 mile range AGS 155mm/LRLAP, 25lb shell, and stealth vs the Iowa 16" (406mm) guns, 2,240 & 2,700 lb shells, with its heavy armor.

Navy was always very lukewarm on the NGFS mission for Marines, the LRLAP never hit its required range and as its costs ballooned as did the ships costs due to its stealth design gave easy reason for Navy to cancel program (and go back to building AAW/ABM Burkes) the first two ships were thought to be too far advanced in build to cancel, Pentagon overruled the Navy and insisted 3rd ship which had started in build also be completed.

Navy has now abandoned large scale NGFS mission to support Marine landings and Navy has in theory repositioned the three Zumwalts as offensive surface strike ships, think instead of shoveling more $$$ down Zumwalt black hole, instead spend the money on the DDG(X), won't happen.

GAO Zumwalts latest estimate for development and build program is currently $26.1 billion.

Would it be possible to fit the 34.5" diameter VLS tubes required for LRHW in the place of the AGS System?

Unlikely as there is question if Congress will even fund the Army/Navy 34.5" hypersonic missile for the Virginia Block V VPM, the Navy’s first priority for the hypersonic missile.

Lawmakers flinch at hypersonic cost estimate, dial back Navy plans | InsideDefense.com

A key congressional panel, concerned by a recent independent cost estimate for the Pentagon's marquee offensive hypersonic strike weapon, is moving to rein in plans for the Conventional Prompt Strike program by clipping Navy-requested procurement funding as well as resources sought for a Block 2...

insidedefense.com

 

[chimeric oncogene]

I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.

As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

 

[Cordy]

I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.

As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.

 

[TomS]

THe switch to MF/HF sonar wasn't a deemphasis on ASW overall for DD-21/DD(X), it was a change in the expected ASW operating environment. They thought they were going to be working in shallow near-shore waters were LF hull sonar is a terrible idea. Then the design got caught, again, by the changing operating environment and LF was back in favor. But it was also supposed to have stuff like a bistatic active/passive towed array and flank arrays like an SSN (also victims of the budget).

 

[totallyaverage]

I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.

As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.

I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.

 

[Firefinder]

I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.

As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.

I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.

Especailly when you consider that after taking in all the costs of restarting...

Basically all the production of stuff that the burkes need, like the MK41, and finding replacement for the parts that they couldn't restart...

I am will to bet ANYTHING that the Flight 3s program more then the Zumwalt do at this point.

 

[isayyo2]

I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.

As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.

I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.

Could you go more into that last bit? I've never read about an additional procurement of Kidd's but it sounds fascinating, they certainly had a leg up with their helicopter hangers and perceived commonality with the Tico's and Spurances.

 

[totallyaverage]

I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.

As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.

I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.

Could you go more into that last bit? I've never read about an additional procurement of Kidd's but it sounds fascinating, they certainly had a leg up with their helicopter hangers and perceived commonality with the Tico's and Spurances.

Friedman's destroyers goes into it a little bit. DDG-51 was purchased for $1.1bn in FY86, or $2.612 in today's money. The four Kidds were purchased collectively for $1.35bn in FY79, $338mm per, or $1.182bn per hull today. So 220% the cost of DDG-993, which is not far different from the 235% premium paid for DDG-1000 over a Burke IIA. I recall reading some congressional hearings that actually discuss procuring additional Kidds, but I do not have that on hand and it would be a massive pain to find again.

You have to remember that the Burkes, and Aegis as a whole, were treated very much like the Zumwalt class is today. Too big, to complicated, too expensive, and not actually performing any better than the ships they were replacing was a common argument amongst the reformer crowd in the 80s. I'm sure you've heard the claim that NTU was better than Aegis. Which it was...in the 80s, when Aegis was still rocking the UYK-7, not the UYK-43 that NTU was using. But long term, Aegis was far better in the ways that actually mattered, particularly against low altitude threats or against intense jamming, which the SPY-1 was all but immune to back in the day, at least against the common less complex threats. But that doesn't matter to reformers, the dollar signs and superficial specifications are what matter. You can see this today with Zumwalt, when people complain about it having only 80 VLS cells, instead of looking at the actual meaningful improvements in power and growth margin as well as stealth.

But with Zumwalt, the reformers won, which has led to catastrophic consequences for the class and Navy surface combatants as a whole. Which has led to us restarting production of a hull that is fundamentally obsolete in ways that cannot be rectified without completely redesigning the class, no idea how to replace the Ticos, and the Navy scrambling to find any excuse as for why the Zumwalt hull doesn't fulfill what they need.

 

[isayyo2]

I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.

As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.

I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.

Could you go more into that last bit? I've never read about an additional procurement of Kidd's but it sounds fascinating, they certainly had a leg up with their helicopter hangers and perceived commonality with the Tico's and Spurances.

Friedman's destroyers goes into it a little bit. DDG-51 was purchased for $1.1bn in FY86, or $2.612 in today's money. The four Kidds were purchased collectively for $1.35bn in FY79, $338mm per, or $1.182bn per hull today. So 220% the cost of DDG-51, which is not far different from the 235% premium paid for DDG-1000 over a Burke IIA. I recall reading some congressional hearings that actually discuss procuring additional Kidds, but I do not have that on hand and it would be a massive pain to find again.

You have to remember that the Burkes, and Aegis as a whole, were treated very much like the Zumwalt class is today. Too big, to complicated, too expensive, and not actually performing any better than the ships they were replacing was a common argument amongst the reformer crowd in the 80s. I'm sure you've heard the claim that NTU was better than Aegis. Which it was...in the 80s, when Aegis was still rocking the UYK-7, not the UYK-43 that NTU was using. But long term, Aegis was far better in the ways that actually mattered, particularly against low altitude threats or against intense jamming, which the SPY-1 was all but immune to back in the day, at least against the common less complex threats. But that doesn't matter to reformers, the dollar signs and superficial specifications are what matter. You can see this today with Zumwalt, when people complain about it having only 80 VLS cells, instead of looking at the actual meaningful improvements in power and growth margin as well as stealth.

But with Zumwalt, the reformers won, which has led to catastrophic consequences for the class and Navy surface combatants as a whole. Which has led to us restarting production of a hull that is fundamentally obsolete in ways that cannot be rectified without completely redesigning the class, no idea how to replace the Ticos, and the Navy scrambling to find any excuse as for why the Zumwalt hull doesn't fulfill what they need.

Thanks for typing all out that, I am in total agreeance with you. How do you feel about the Large Surface Combatant program? Could a stretched Burke fit the bill, or must the Navy reinvent the wheel again?

 

[uk 75]

The Spruance class started life as a destroyer with two variants, one for ASW and one for Air Defence. (for what produced the Spruances go here

Project DX - Shipbucket

The ASW ones were built to try and replace the various Gearing and Sumner FRAMs after the dismal Knox class.
Air Defence throughout the 70s to 90 rested in the Adams class destroyers (everything else had been redesignated as Cruisers, though Destroyer Leaders really)
The Kidds were based on the original AD Spruance. They were 4 ships ordered by the Shah but taken over by the USN after the 1979 Revolution in Iran.
The threat from Soviet air and missile power justified more AEGIS ships so Burke was ordered.
Had the Cold War ended 5 years earlier they might never have been built and the USN would consist of Ticos and Spruances.

 

[totallyaverage]

I'd argue Zumwalts are fairly pointless.

As events are bearing out, they were an excellent design with a flawed gestation.
Note that they were designed to replace Spruances as premier ASW ships with a secondary land attack role for the early 2000s security environment.

Would note Sprucans sonar was the low frequency SQS-53 an earlier variant of the SQS-53 fitted to Burke.

Zumwalts were not designed as Navy's premier ASW ship if you believe CNO Adm Roughhead who testified in 2008 before Congress one of the reasons why Zumwalt was to be cancelled was because it did not have a low frequency sonar suitable for blue seas but only fitted with the mid and high frequency sonars for littoral seas / coastal waters. The admiral gave the main reason for cancellation of Zumwalt was that correcting its air defense shortcomings would add $billions.

I can guarantee that designing a whole new radar, redesigning half the Burke hull, and still having to design a cruiser replacement will end up costing significantly more than continuing and improving the Zumwalt class. Truncating the class was a move akin to cutting the Burkes in favor of more Kidds, which was advocated for in the 80s.

Could you go more into that last bit? I've never read about an additional procurement of Kidd's but it sounds fascinating, they certainly had a leg up with their helicopter hangers and perceived commonality with the Tico's and Spurances.

Friedman's destroyers goes into it a little bit. DDG-51 was purchased for $1.1bn in FY86, or $2.612 in today's money. The four Kidds were purchased collectively for $1.35bn in FY79, $338mm per, or $1.182bn per hull today. So 220% the cost of DDG-51, which is not far different from the 235% premium paid for DDG-1000 over a Burke IIA. I recall reading some congressional hearings that actually discuss procuring additional Kidds, but I do not have that on hand and it would be a massive pain to find again.

You have to remember that the Burkes, and Aegis as a whole, were treated very much like the Zumwalt class is today. Too big, to complicated, too expensive, and not actually performing any better than the ships they were replacing was a common argument amongst the reformer crowd in the 80s. I'm sure you've heard the claim that NTU was better than Aegis. Which it was...in the 80s, when Aegis was still rocking the UYK-7, not the UYK-43 that NTU was using. But long term, Aegis was far better in the ways that actually mattered, particularly against low altitude threats or against intense jamming, which the SPY-1 was all but immune to back in the day, at least against the common less complex threats. But that doesn't matter to reformers, the dollar signs and superficial specifications are what matter. You can see this today with Zumwalt, when people complain about it having only 80 VLS cells, instead of looking at the actual meaningful improvements in power and growth margin as well as stealth.

But with Zumwalt, the reformers won, which has led to catastrophic consequences for the class and Navy surface combatants as a whole. Which has led to us restarting production of a hull that is fundamentally obsolete in ways that cannot be rectified without completely redesigning the class, no idea how to replace the Ticos, and the Navy scrambling to find any excuse as for why the Zumwalt hull doesn't fulfill what they need.

Thanks for typing all out that, I am in total agreeance with you. How do you feel about the Large Surface Combatant program? Could a stretched Burke fit the bill, or must the Navy reinvent the wheel again?

Not confident unfortunately. The Navy has completely failed to articulate a plan, and from an external point of view the program appears completely rudderless. Which is a program attribute that leads to Congress slapping cuts before the program really began, despite the Navy listing the desperate need for almost two decades.

A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

The Zumwalt hull can perform either of these functions with far less effort, at least in theory. Though re-sourcing production for the IPS and propulsion may be problematic...this was an issue on the Burke restart, with getting production of the reduction gear taking some wrangling. I can only imagine it will be worse on the much more complicated Zumwalt plant, the tooling to reproduce those components may no longer exist. If that were the case, they would need new tooling or to design new components, both of which are expensive. They would also need to figure out if it would be better to go with the original composite deckhouse or the cheaper DDG-1002 steel one. Composite would require constructing a new facility to build it, since HII closed it down after the Navy made the switch.

The other problem is that the Zumwalt hull is built in a completely different manner, with smaller numbers of larger modules compared to the Burkes. Reconfiguring the yard to build Burkes again was a near-death experience for Bath, and I'm not sure they would want to go through that again.

 

[Cordy]

totallyaverage said:

A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

Stretched Burke, CRS reported back in 2009 on various possible options with info provided by Navy

Flight IIA base length 96 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 1 - 12' ext 128 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 2 - 30' ext 160 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 3 - <56' ext 192 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 4 - 56' ext 256 Mk 41 VLS cells

From memory remember maximum Burke hull plug length possible ~66', not saying a preferred option as Burkes original design dates back to the late 1980's and as totallyaverage said dense ship making expensive to maintain, but it would be possible basis for the DDG(X). IPS is not a mandatory requirement for possible future electric power for DEW, certainly preferable but a quick and dirty and cheaper solution would be an additional GTG.

 

[Firefinder]

totallyaverage said:

A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

Stretched Burke, CRS reported back in 2009 on various possible options with info provided by Navy

Flight IIA base length 96 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 1 - 12' ext 128 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 2 - 30' ext 160 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 3 - <56' ext 192 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 4 - 56' ext 256 Mk 41 VLS cells

From memory remember maximum Burke hull plug length possible ~66', not saying a preferred option as Burkes original design dates back to the late 1980's and as totallyaverage said dense ship making expensive to maintain, but it would be possible basis for the DDG(X). IPS is not a mandatory requirement for possible future electric power for DEW, certainly preferable but a quick and dirty and cheaper solution would be an additional GTG.

And still be basically kicking the can down the road. Even with the added GTG it still does not solve the crewing issues, infact INCREASE IT, nor will it allow for a Bigger radar like the Navy wants cause the Burkes hull cant support it.

Wow you got a bigger missile load, big deal, we cant afford to LOAD THEM. And they cant carry the newer larger missiles any how.

It have the same issues as the Viriginia Class Cruisers did in the 90s. Too expansive, crew heavy, and limited for what they bring.

 

[Cordy]

totallyaverage said:

A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

Stretched Burke, CRS reported back in 2009 on various possible options with info provided by Navy

Flight IIA base length 96 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 1 - 12' ext 128 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 2 - 30' ext 160 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 3 - <56' ext 192 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 4 - 56' ext 256 Mk 41 VLS cells

From memory remember maximum Burke hull plug length possible ~66', not saying a preferred option as Burkes original design dates back to the late 1980's and as totallyaverage said dense ship making expensive to maintain, but it would be possible basis for the DDG(X). IPS is not a mandatory requirement for possible future electric power for DEW, certainly preferable but a quick and dirty and cheaper solution would be an additional GTG.

And still be basically kicking the can down the road. Even with the added GTG it still does not solve the crewing issues, infact INCREASE IT, nor will it allow for a Bigger radar like the Navy wants cause the Burkes hull cant support it.

Wow you got a bigger missile load, big deal, we cant afford to LOAD THEM. And they cant carry the newer larger missiles any how.

It have the same issues as the Viriginia Class Cruisers did in the 90s. Too expansive, crew heavy, and limited for what they bring.

Navy bigger radar requirement, would note that AMDR, now the SPY-6, estimated as 30 times more sensitive than SPY-1 was the largest Navy could fit on an upgraded Burke IIA, the Flight III, they went with that option due to budget constraints. Raytheon claims the new SPY-6 with its GaN silicon under testing has exceeded expectations and achieved 100 times sensitivity, so talk of Navy needing larger radar for its BMD mission has died.

Probability of DDG(X) fitting large missiles, hypersonic, think low due to the high cost, if they do it will be in penny packet numbers, mentioned previously above there is a question mark if Congress will even fund the large Army/Navy hypersonic missile for Virginia Block V's to partially replace the four Ohio Tomahawk SSGN's, let alone the DDG(X). At moment Ticos, Burkes and Ohio SSGN have total of ~10,000 VLS cells and use the 1980's era land attack Tomahawks and at ~$1.5 million each, so 'cheap', but Navy needs new gen missile for land attack and the Army/Navy hypersonic looks unaffordable in big numbers, a big problem for the Navy needing an affordable replacement for the Tomahawk..

As said new Burke flight variant also not my preferred option either for DDG(X) but it would be an option, think would gain Congressional funding, Congress substantially cut Navy development funding for the DDG(X) in FY2021 NDAA.

 

[MihoshiK]

totallyaverage said:

A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

Stretched Burke, CRS reported back in 2009 on various possible options with info provided by Navy

Flight IIA base length 96 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 1 - 12' ext 128 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 2 - 30' ext 160 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 3 - <56' ext 192 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 4 - 56' ext 256 Mk 41 VLS cells

From memory remember maximum Burke hull plug length possible ~66', not saying a preferred option as Burkes original design dates back to the late 1980's and as totallyaverage said dense ship making expensive to maintain, but it would be possible basis for the DDG(X). IPS is not a mandatory requirement for possible future electric power for DEW, certainly preferable but a quick and dirty and cheaper solution would be an additional GTG.

And still be basically kicking the can down the road. Even with the added GTG it still does not solve the crewing issues, infact INCREASE IT, nor will it allow for a Bigger radar like the Navy wants cause the Burkes hull cant support it.

Wow you got a bigger missile load, big deal, we cant afford to LOAD THEM. And they cant carry the newer larger missiles any how.

It have the same issues as the Viriginia Class Cruisers did in the 90s. Too expansive, crew heavy, and limited for what they bring.

Navy bigger radar requirement, would note that AMDR, now the SPY-6, estimated as 30 times more sensitive than SPY-1 was the largest Navy could fit on an upgraded Burke IIA, the Flight III, they went with that option due to budget constraints. Raytheon claims the new SPY-6 with its GaN silicon under testing has exceeded expectations and achieved 100 times sensitivity, so talk of Navy needing larger radar for its BMD mission has died.

Probability of DDG(X) fitting large missiles, hypersonic, think low due to the high cost, if they do it will be in penny packet numbers, mentioned previously above there is a question mark if Congress will even fund the large Army/Navy hypersonic missile for Virginia Block V's to partially replace the four Ohio Tomahawk SSGN's, let alone the DDG(X). At moment Ticos, Burkes and Ohio SSGN have total of ~10,000 VLS cells and use the 1980's era land attack Tomahawks and at ~$1.5 million each, so 'cheap', but Navy needs new gen missile for land attack and the Army/Navy hypersonic looks unaffordable in big numbers, a big problem for the Navy needing an affordable replacement for the Tomahawk..

As said new Burke flight variant also not my preferred option either for DDG(X) but it would be an option, think would gain Congressional funding, Congress substantially cut Navy development funding for the DDG(X) in FY2021 NDAA.

Yes, because the Navy seems to be unable to actually articulate correctly what they want in DDG(X).

You're proposing keeping on faffing about with an overloaded hull that would require major design work to make longer, and will still struggle to fit in all the power future systems will require.

Meanwhile the basis for a DDG(X) is right there. We're not saying that Zumwalt should be used 1:1, but the hull shape, the systems, the power, all of that works. And by all accounts works pretty darn well.

Take the basic hull and power systems, and build up from that.

 

[sferrin]

totallyaverage said:

A stretched Burke really cannot fit what the Navy is asking for, which is a ship with a lot of space and power for future upgrades. The Burke hull is the antitheses of this, having been criticized before the first ship was even laid down for poor growth margin. To build an Integrated Power System, like what is demanded on LSC, would require fundamental redesign to the entire ship, to the point you have a new class, and have probably just made it more difficult to design by constraining the work to an existing hullform. There is also the issue of fitting very large hypersonic weapons such as IR-CPS, which is a large, nine meter long missile that would be very difficult to fit within the existing Burke stability margin.

Stretched Burke, CRS reported back in 2009 on various possible options with info provided by Navy

Flight IIA base length 96 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 1 - 12' ext 128 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 2 - 30' ext 160 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 3 - <56' ext 192 Mk41 VLS cells
Option 4 - 56' ext 256 Mk 41 VLS cells

From memory remember maximum Burke hull plug length possible ~66', not saying a preferred option as Burkes original design dates back to the late 1980's and as totallyaverage said dense ship making expensive to maintain, but it would be possible basis for the DDG(X). IPS is not a mandatory requirement for possible future electric power for DEW, certainly preferable but a quick and dirty and cheaper solution would be an additional GTG.

And still be basically kicking the can down the road. Even with the added GTG it still does not solve the crewing issues, infact INCREASE IT, nor will it allow for a Bigger radar like the Navy wants cause the Burkes hull cant support it.

Wow you got a bigger missile load, big deal, we cant afford to LOAD THEM. And they cant carry the newer larger missiles any how.

It have the same issues as the Viriginia Class Cruisers did in the 90s. Too expansive, crew heavy, and limited for what they bring.

Navy bigger radar requirement, would note that AMDR, now the SPY-6, estimated as 30 times more sensitive than SPY-1 was the largest Navy could fit on an upgraded Burke IIA, the Flight III, they went with that option due to budget constraints. Raytheon claims the new SPY-6 with its GaN silicon under testing has exceeded expectations and achieved 100 times sensitivity, so talk of Navy needing larger radar for its BMD mission has died.

Probability of DDG(X) fitting large missiles, hypersonic, think low due to the high cost, if they do it will be in penny packet numbers, mentioned previously above there is a question mark if Congress will even fund the large Army/Navy hypersonic missile for Virginia Block V's to partially replace the four Ohio Tomahawk SSGN's, let alone the DDG(X). At moment Ticos, Burkes and Ohio SSGN have total of ~10,000 VLS cells and use the 1980's era land attack Tomahawks and at ~$1.5 million each, so 'cheap', but Navy needs new gen missile for land attack and the Army/Navy hypersonic looks unaffordable in big numbers, a big problem for the Navy needing an affordable replacement for the Tomahawk..

As said new Burke flight variant also not my preferred option either for DDG(X) but it would be an option, think would gain Congressional funding, Congress substantially cut Navy development funding for the DDG(X) in FY2021 NDAA.

Yes, because the Navy seems to be unable to actually articulate correctly what they want in DDG(X).

You're proposing keeping on faffing about with an overloaded hull that would require major design work to make longer, and will still struggle to fit in all the power future systems will require.

Meanwhile the basis for a DDG(X) is right there. We're not saying that Zumwalt should be used 1:1, but the hull shape, the systems, the power, all of that works. And by all accounts works pretty darn well.

Take the basic hull and power systems, and build up from that.

That was the original plan. That they're wasting so much time and money d**king around is almost criminal.

 

[Cordy]

MihoshiK said

Yes, because the Navy seems to be unable to actually articulate correctly what they want in DDG(X).

You're proposing keeping on faffing about with an overloaded hull that would require major design work to make longer, and will still struggle to fit in all the power future systems will require.

Meanwhile the basis for a DDG(X) is right there. We're not saying that Zumwalt should be used 1:1, but the hull shape, the systems, the power, all of that works. And by all accounts works pretty darn well.

Take the basic hull and power systems, and build up from that.

I'm not fan of the Burke as basis for DDG(X), as have said twice above it would not be my preference for the DDG(X), but it is a possibility, certainly a better option than the Zumwalt which wouldn't touch with a barge pole as it would cost more than double price of Burke, think i'm in good company with Norman Friedman who was also not a fan of Zumwalt

Burkes propulsion all GT which are gas guzzling except when operating at 90% + rpm and the driver for the Burke HED system to backfit and now cancelled, what did surprise me was the Navy did say Zumwalt GT IPS used more fuel than Burkes!, what ships operating in Pacific need is range and so not operationally dependent on oilers.

 

[Moose]

The Drive on the drive to put hypersonics on the Zs.

Navy Wants Triple-Packed Hypersonic Missile Modules On Its Stealthy Zumwalt Destroyers

The modules are too large for the ship's existing vertical launch cells, so they would likely take the place of its all but abandoned deck guns.

www.thedrive.com

 

[bobbymike]

Zumwalt Destroyer Will Control Unmanned Ships, Aircraft in Upcoming Fleet Battle Problem - USNI News

The Navy will get a first glimpse of what future operations could look like, when a Zumwalt-class destroyer manages long-range surveillance and fires by manned and unmanned platforms in an upcoming exercise in the Pacific. U.S. Pacific Fleet will host its most complex exercise to date involving...

news.usni.org

 

[Grey Havoc]

What should become of the Zumwalt class? The US Navy has some big ideas.

The Navy is looking at the possibility of designing a new hypersonic missile launcher to install as a payload module on its three stealth destroyers.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

Navy Destroyers Sport Large Satcom Domes On Their Flight Decks For Big Drone Exercise

The stealth destroyer USS Michael Monsoor will act as a command and control hub for manned and unmanned assets during the experiment off California.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Moose]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1386075510212546567

View: https://twitter.com/CavasShips/status/1386075510212546567

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/oo52zy

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/oo52zy/5184_x_3456_uss_zumwalt_passes_fort_popham_at_the/

 

[Grey Havoc]

Navy wants to see big uptick in Zumwalt-class destroyer operations over the next year

2022 will be a big year for the Zumwalt-class destroyer program, as first-in-class Zumwalt and sister ship Michael Monsoor continue finding their place in the fleet — and perhaps make a debut at a major naval exercise.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Foo Fighter]

What should become of the Zumwalt class? The US Navy has some big ideas.

The Navy is looking at the possibility of designing a new hypersonic missile launcher to install as a payload module on its three stealth destroyers.

www.defensenews.com

They just have to build more of them.

 

[Moose]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1429570964216504320

View: https://twitter.com/WarshipCam/status/1429570964216504320?s=19

 

[bobbymike]

Last Zumwalt Destroyer Completes Builder's Trials - Breaking Defense

The Navy has been eyeing the Zumwalt-class ships as a platform for hypersonic weapons.

breakingdefense.com

 

[jsport]

Navy wants to see big uptick in Zumwalt-class destroyer operations over the next year

2022 will be a big year for the Zumwalt-class destroyer program, as first-in-class Zumwalt and sister ship Michael Monsoor continue finding their place in the fleet — and perhaps make a debut at a major naval exercise.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Foo Fighter]

Last Zumwalt Destroyer Completes Builder's Trials - Breaking Defense

The Navy has been eyeing the Zumwalt-class ships as a platform for hypersonic weapons.

breakingdefense.com

That should free up some space to make some more then.

 

[Firefinder]

Welp looks like the Navy is going for the Refitting for the Hypersonics.

Latest Details on Hypersonic Missile Integration Aboard Zumwalt-class Destroyers - Naval News

The U.S. Navy plans to field the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) Hypersonic missile aboard its three Zumwalt-class destroyers. The missiles are set to take the place of the inactivated 155mm Advanced Gun Turrets aboard USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000), USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) and USS Lyndon B...

www.navalnews.com

Looking like they are going to Dry dock them around 2024.

 

[stealthflanker]

It's kinda sad story for the AGS's

 

[bring_it_on]

Fitting IR-CPS is much more useful than the AGS given what the Navy needs, and its future force mix given that it is still developing the LSC. The three Zumwalt class surface ships, and the submarines will be the IR-CPS platforms of choice and between these this should be more than enough to cover the limited IR-CPS inventory. SM-6 1B and whatever comes out of DARPA's TBG program will make up the other aspect of the Navy's hypersonic offensive capability but those will be much shorter ranged systems and a naval TBG is a more medium-far term capability given the investments Navy is currently priortizing..

 

[Moose]

Good questions by NavalNews, though I would have tried to squeeze in an enquiry about whether SPY-6 is also on the menu for the 2024 refit.

It's kinda sad story for the AGS's

In a way, yes. The guns themselves, by all accounts, function and most of facepalm-inducing aspects of AGS come from high-level decision-making blunders rather than technical fault. A lot of good work done by good people ultimately for naught.

 

[TomS]

Good questions by NavalNews, though I would have tried to squeeze in an enquiry about whether SPY-6 is also on the menu for the 2024 refit.

It's kinda sad story for the AGS's

In a way, yes. The guns themselves, by all accounts, function and most of facepalm-inducing aspects of AGS come from high-level decision-making blunders rather than technical fault. A lot of good work done by good people ultimately for naught.

The Navy's acquisition of guided gun rounds has been such a shocking Charlie Foxtrot for decades -- ever since Deadeye was cancelled, really.

Here's hoping that ALaMO bucks the trend.

 

[MihoshiK]

Good questions by NavalNews, though I would have tried to squeeze in an enquiry about whether SPY-6 is also on the menu for the 2024 refit.

It's kinda sad story for the AGS's

In a way, yes. The guns themselves, by all accounts, function and most of facepalm-inducing aspects of AGS come from high-level decision-making blunders rather than technical fault. A lot of good work done by good people ultimately for naught.

The Navy's acquisition of guided gun rounds has been such a shocking Charlie Foxtrot for decades -- ever since Deadeye was cancelled, really.

Here's hoping that ALaMO bucks the trend.

The biggest problem that AGS has is that there's only six gun units in the fleet. That makes procuring rounds so shockingly expensive. If the original plans for the Zumwalt production had gone through, you'd see the munition costs drop by an order of magnitude, because there would be a production line opened for them.
As it stands right now each round is basically artisanal made by hand.

Guns work fine, ammo works fine, but if you can't get economies of scale....

All in all getting rid of AGS and putting hypersonics in their place so that the fleet can get some operational experience with those is probably the wisest move.

 

[jsport]

Good questions by NavalNews, though I would have tried to squeeze in an enquiry about whether SPY-6 is also on the menu for the 2024 refit.

It's kinda sad story for the AGS's

In a way, yes. The guns themselves, by all accounts, function and most of facepalm-inducing aspects of AGS come from high-level decision-making blunders rather than technical fault. A lot of good work done by good people ultimately for naught.

The Navy's acquisition of guided gun rounds has been such a shocking Charlie Foxtrot for decades -- ever since Deadeye was cancelled, really.

Here's hoping that ALaMO bucks the trend.

The biggest problem that AGS has is that there's only six gun units in the fleet. That makes procuring rounds so shockingly expensive. If the original plans for the Zumwalt production had gone through, you'd see the munition costs drop by an order of magnitude, because there would be a production line opened for them.
As it stands right now each round is basically artisanal made by hand.

Guns work fine, ammo works fine, but if you can't get economies of scale....

All in all getting rid of AGS and putting hypersonics in their place so that the fleet can get some operational experience with those is probably the wisest move.

Thank you for bringing up the Navy's lack of focus on an infrastucture which support something like AGS. This is more proof the technical decision making culture of the Navy has been broken for long time.

PS: Hypersonics, of any decent range, are too large for any decent size magazine, even on a DDG(X) IMHO.

 

[TomS]

The biggest problem that AGS has is that there's only six gun units in the fleet

That's one problem with LRLAP. But what explains Deadeye, ERGM, BTERM, ANSR, HVP, Excalibur N5, etc? All intended for 127mm guns. All either failed or abandoned.