DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

[Foo Fighter]

Whoopee cushions? Some form of the 5.2" probably, give it a gun worth having at the very least but those turrets will likely remain.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/12/ddg-1000-our-mark-of-shame.html

 

[sferrin]

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/12/ddg-1000-our-mark-of-shame.html

Ye Gods. I've seen more intelligence in a Tumblr comments section.

 

[bring_it_on]

I don't think Sal is completely wrong there. Zumwalt is a class that has a lot of potential but one that has been underserved by the Navy and the Congress, and given the money it was given we couldn't invest in any other meaningful ship class during the same time. The gun seems to be going nowhere for a lack of ammo, the radar was neutered, and it doesn't have the capability to replace a cruiser (which it isn't). Hopefully, this becomes a future carrier of hypersonic weapons and more offensive capability in general and perhaps we look to modify these things with a larger Directed Energy Weapon or the railgun in the medium term. Back from the LCS and DDG-1000, we are still looking for a capable frigate and still have a need to find a new cruiser. Hopefully the zumwalt can be the basis of a highly capable large-surface-combatant or at minimum it gets a chance to heavily influence the new ship.

 

[sferrin]

I don't think Sal is completely wrong there. Zumwalt is a class that has a lot of potential but one that has been underserved by the Navy and the Congress, and given the money it was given we couldn't invest in any other meaningful ship class during the same time. The gun seems to be going nowhere for a lack of ammo, the radar was neutered, and it doesn't have the capability to replace a cruiser (which it isn't).

It's barely usable thanks to the poor way in which the USN has handled the program. (Stretching it out so long that the world changed didn't help.) But it DOES have the capability to form the basis of the Ticonderoga replacement - which was the plan all along. Sadly all most people can see is, "OMG no gunz, no ammo, white elephant, burn it to the ground and bury the ashes".

 

[bring_it_on]

I agree with its potential. But from an ex operator's perspective (which Sal provides) that doesn't mean much in terms of having hulls in the water with a desired capability that can replace large surface combatants that actually do require replacement. Fact still is that the Navy and Congress have dragged their feet and not made the requisite changes at the required speed to support the Zumwalt. The third ship is nearly complete and the Navy is still figuring out what to do with the ship and seems to be interested in removing the guns, adding new air defense missiles and figuring out a more missile based offensive role. A proper IAMD variant of the DDG-1000 requires considerable changes and I don't see it getting them given the political fallout of pumping yet more money even before the first operational patrol.

Meanwhile we do not have a Tico replacement and we do not have a new mass produced DDG forcing the Navy to restart DDG-51 production and insert a Flight III which is not really a ship for the future but just a band-aid for the short-medium term. If you are an operationally minded commentator you'd look at the dollar amount pumped into the Zumwalt and LCS and wonder what the heck did we get in terms of capability at the tip of the spear though obviously it isn't as black and white given the institutional inertia and politics which cannot be ignored unfortunately. The fact still is that the Navy is now having to choose a new Frigate and a new large combatant. We are essentially starting clean and hoping to have an operational frigate by mid 2020s and an operational LSC by 2030.

Another indicator of the institutional rot in the Navy is the fact that we are buying a foreign weapon as a Harpoon alternative because the richest and largest Navy never invested to recapitalize and modernize that capability. Same with the Frigate choices that we have to make. The only saving grace being the LRASM which owes its existence to the USAF's investment but even there, the Navy is buying peanuts and walked away from the B variant at the first sight of risk. It would be fascinating to see whether the Navy has the chops to stay the course on the IRCPGS or it runs away at the first sight of trouble which is normal with high-tech weapon programs. The Navy bet big on CVN-21, LCS and DDG-1000 and everything else was on hold as we went through these programs. Besides the Ford Class carrier which we will hopefully begin to buy at a faster rate and which will serve for 50+ years the other two haven't really brought forward a heck of a lot of capability to the Navy. While the reasons are related to the Navy's management, and politics I don't think the operator cares much about that distinction.

 

[sferrin]

I agree with its potential. But from an ex operator's perspective (which Sal provides) that doesn't mean much in terms of having hulls in the water with a desired capability that can replace large surface combatants that actually do require replacement.

Except that it's far closer to something that COULD replace the Ticos than anything else. People need to stop focusing on what it is right now and think about what it could be.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Zumwalt can't really be anything else. It is done as far as the ship class is concerned as there will not be a DDG-1003. As far as how we can leverage the design on a new cruiser replacement, that is obviously a possibility but again, not something that can get underway on an operational patrol till at least 2030 and in the meantime we still have not fully hammered out how we will be utilizing the 3 ships of the current class and how we will be modifying them to serve that role.

 

[sferrin]

The Zumwalt can't really be anything else. It is done as far as the ship class is concerned as there will not be a DDG-1003. As far as how we can leverage the design on a new cruiser replacement, that is obviously a possibility but again, not something that can get underway on an operational patrol till at least 2030 and in the meantime we still have not fully hammered out how we will be utilizing the 3 ships of the current class and how we will be modifying them to serve that role.

I'm not talking about modifying the current three ships into a cruiser. I'm talking about using the hull and machinery for the basis of the cruiser. As for how to use the current three, finish developing the ammunition for the gun and use them like Burkes, albeit superior ones. And put the damn guns back on top of the hangar.

 

[bring_it_on]

I get what you are trying to say, and I am too advocating for that. However, to the original point, the fact still holds that the Navy is left with 3 DDG-1000 class ships and has yet to fully define their roles and perform any necessary modifications to serve that well. Meanwhile, the Navy has had to restart DDG-51 production and launch a new Frigate program. The LSC won't hit the water until mid next decade and is really a 2030's capability. This after tens of Billions invested on the Zumwalt class, and the LCS. While we have invested in lots of future tech on the former we don't really have a lot to show for it NOW or in the near term in terms of overall fleet capability. There is plenty of blame to go around in the Navy and with the politicos but if you look at this from an operator's perspective you have pretty good reason to be dissapointed.

 

[jsport]

In the 2030 timeframe multi-sensor guided hypersonic cruise missiles will be a dime a dozen. Destroyers are not large enough to carry significant numbers of large weapons systems to have "game winning effects" at a any significant distance. In short they offer nothing but coral bait or a bullet stopper for carriers. A recent USN Strategy doc stays there is such as concept as the Large Unmanned Surface Vessel (LUSV). That sounds like a good bullet stopper for carriers. Sailors don't need to be sacrificed for inevitable swarms on carriers. A mini-unmanned arsenal ship to defend carriers is needed.

127mm or even 155mm are way to small for navies of the 2030s. Small surface threats are autocannon problems.

PS: BIO can us identify IRCPGS?

 

[bring_it_on]

*Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike..

 

[jsport]

*Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike..

Thank you BIO

Another system requiring a large ship in order to carry enough to render a significant land and air effect ie Anti-Area Denial/Anti-Access.

PS Glade to see it is likely a INF violation

 

[marauder2048]

Meanwhile, the Navy has had to restart DDG-51 production

The justification for which was premised on claims subsequently shown to be spurious.

 

[bring_it_on]

Right and we can go on and on about this as I mentioned in my original post on this, from an operator's perspective this is where the Navy and the fleet currently stands.

 

[marauder2048]

from an operator's perspective this is where the Navy and the fleet currently stands.

And my point is that it was that sort of mentality that resulted in the short sighted decision to truncate the line in the first place.

 

[bring_it_on]

We are in agreement that truncating the class was a terrible decision and that we should have iterated and improved and morphed the design to fit different and evolving needs.

 

[marauder2048]

I'm even suggesting that even the current operational assessment of the class is unduly pessimistic.

 

[jsport]

The newest Russian missiles aren't even the problem the old stuff fast enough to require standoff and larger ships.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/breaker-battleships-5-anti-ship-missiles-could-kill-any-navy-29017
Club (3M-54E1 anti-ship variant)

"An anti-ship missile used by the Russian Navy, Club is actually a family of weapons sharing the same airframe. It is a versatile weapons system with variants capable of anti-ship (3M-54E1), land attack, and anti-submarine missions. Club has been exported to Algeria, China, and India.

There are four versions. Club-S is designed to be launched from 533mm torpedo tubes, a standard diameter for submarines worldwide. Club-N is designed to be launched from surface ships, Club M is launched from land, and Club K is fired from camouflaged shipping containers.

Club has a solid-fueled first stage , which clears the missile of the launcher and boosts it to cruising altitude. After the first stage burns out, the missile’s turbofan engine kicks in. The latest anti-ship version, 3M-54E1, is directed to the target by an active radar seeker, GLONASS global positioning system targeting, and internal navigation systems. The 3M-54E1’s warhead weighs 881 pounds.

Technically a cruise missile, 3M-54E1 typically cruises at 0.8 Mach at an altitude of 10-15 meters. Some versions accelerate to 2.9 Mach supersonic flight during the terminal stage shorten the reaction time of enemy anti-missile defenses.

The maximum range of the 3M-54E1 is 300 kilometers, or 186 miles. It’s surely a coincidence that the missile’s range is the maximum allowable for cruise missiles under the Missile Technology Control Regime. MCTR is a nonproliferation agreement designed to limit the range of nuclear-capable missiles, to which Russia is a signatory.

Developer Concern Morinformsystem-Agat JSC caused a stir in 2010 when it announced Club K, a version that is camouflaged as a standard 40-foot shipping t container. The launcher, which can be carried by container ship, flatbed train car or truck, carries four missiles. It was never fully explained why any legitimate military would want weapon system camouflaged as a staple of global commerce. The launcher sparked fears that rogue states such as Iran (which subsequently announced interest) and terrorists could use it to hide missiles in plain sight. "

 

[TomcatViP]

I would suggest the USN should try to sell them to the Egyptian navy. It worked for France at least... [/joke]

 

[TinWing]

The Zumwalt can't really be anything else. It is done as far as the ship class is concerned as there will not be a DDG-1003. As far as how we can leverage the design on a new cruiser replacement, that is obviously a possibility but again, not something that can get underway on an operational patrol till at least 2030 and in the meantime we still have not fully hammered out how we will be utilizing the 3 ships of the current class and how we will be modifying them to serve that role.

I'm not talking about modifying the current three ships into a cruiser. I'm talking about using the hull and machinery for the basis of the cruiser. As for how to use the current three, finish developing the ammunition for the gun and use them like Burkes, albeit superior ones. And put the damn guns back on top of the hangar.

The problem is that the Zumwalts aren't operationally interchangeable with the Burkes. Not in terms of role, not in terms of weapons systems, not in terms of machinery.

As far as the hull, you're severely volume limited for something the size of a Cleveland class cruiser.

As far as the machinery, it's largely non-standard by current USN practices. Sure, your LCS has the MT30, albeit in direct drive form. You don't see them being deployed either.

 

[bring_it_on]

A great picture of MICHAEL MONSOOR transiting the Panama Canal enroute the Pacific Ocean and San Diego.
Courtesy of Tom Welch - http://www.monsoorcommissioning.org/monsoor-transits-panama-canal/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P9OypSfIq8&t=84s

Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001), British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08), and Tide-class replenishment tanker Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Tidespring (A136) conduct a photo exercise, Nov. 11.

As for how to use the current three, finish developing the ammunition for the gun.....

I highly doubt the Navy will consider re-starting the program on acquiring the existing round for the 3 ships. That decision has been made. I think they should explore the HVP for the future and perhaps buy an interim solution if it is determined that the HVP with the associated changes to the round or the ship will take a while longer. The guns on the three ships aren't going anywhere and all three of them will be deployed in the Pacific so we need the Navy has to get the system to work using an affordable but future proof solution which the HVP is.

 

[Foo Fighter]

What, if any, are the problems with re purposing the class as a cruiser with duties around the carrier groups?

 

[TomS]

What, if any, are the problems with re purposing the class as a cruiser with duties around the carrier groups?

Well, for starters, they don't have facilities or people for the air warfare commander (AW) role, which is what cruisers do in carrier groups. With the down-sized radar suite, I'm not sure they have the sensor capability either, and they definitely don't have the theater missile defense capabilities (no SM-3).

 

[sferrin]

But if they can make a Spruance into a Ticonderoga. . . (Granted, they didn't convert Spruance hulls to Ticos. Buuut the Zumwalt was designed to be the cruiser hull up front so it should be fairly straightforward to develop them into the cruiser class.)

 

[bring_it_on]

What, if any, are the problems with re purposing the class as a cruiser with duties around the carrier groups?

As Sfferin has mentioned there are already designs and proposals for a cruiser based on this family since this was the plan since its inception. There is a distinction here in reconfiguring the class to support a future cruiser mission vs reconfiguring the the 3 Zumwalt class ships. The latter will likely not happen and the Navy is moving towards more of an offensive role for these vessels. The former can definitely happen as cruiser concepts based on broadly the same design have been presented on a number of occasions. At the end it comes down to $$.

As a baseline, the Navy wants Aegis BL 10, AMDR and a missions systems closely aligned with the Flight III DDG. A modified zumwalt can accommodate that while providing for the possibility of a larger radar, larger and more vertical launch cells and more power and thermals for DEW/EMRG etc.

 

[marauder2048]

and they definitely don't have the theater missile defense capabilities (no SM-3).

Wasn't the surface navy trying to get out of the TMD role?

In any event, getting Standard Missile on the same dual-band datalink path as ESSM Block II is
reasonably straight-forward.

 

[TomS]

But if they can make a Spruance into a Ticonderoga. . . (Granted, they didn't convert Spruance hulls to Ticos. Buuut the Zumwalt was designed to be the cruiser hull up front so it should be fairly straightforward to develop them into the cruiser class.)

Oh, absolutely, using the hull as the basis for a cruiser -- not that hard. Converting the existing units to the cruiser mission -- much harder.

 

[TomS]

and they definitely don't have the theater missile defense capabilities (no SM-3).

Wasn't the surface navy trying to get out of the TMD role?

They're trying to get out of the role of defending fixed land targets. But forces afloat are clearly going to need TMD capabilities as well, for their own self-protection.

In any event, getting Standard Missile on the same dual-band datalink path as ESSM Block II is
reasonably straight-forward.

I believe DDG-1000 is already an SM-2 and may become an SM-6 shooter. But doesn't SM-3 entail a whole lot more connectivity to the rest of the TMD architecture, and a very different combat system software build?

 

[Foo Fighter]

I meant using the hull form and machinery rather than the three current ships.

 

[TomS]

I meant using the hull form and machinery rather than the three current ships.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, the hull could absolutely be adapted to the cruiser role. That was the intention from the outset of the program.

 

[marauder2048]

and they definitely don't have the theater missile defense capabilities (no SM-3).

Wasn't the surface navy trying to get out of the TMD role?

They're trying to get out of the role of defending fixed land targets. But forces afloat are clearly going to need TMD capabilities as well, for their own self-protection.

It wasn't clear that that would be midcourse though that's arguably a very good place to hit ASBMs.

But doesn't SM-3 entail a whole lot more connectivity to the rest of the TMD architecture, and a very different combat system software build?

Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.

 

[sferrin]

Yep. The whole point of CEC is to enable more ships to contribute shooters to the network. A shame they were so eager to sink all the VLS-equipped Spruances.

 

[bring_it_on]

Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.

Have you come across any plans to backfit SPY-6 or even EASRs on the Zumwalt class? I don't know where but I seem to remember seeing a video where a Navy officer was talking about these radars and how scaled variants would be back fitted on ships and seem to recall a reference to the DDG-1000 (along the smaller SPY-6's for the DDG-51IIAs).

 

[Moose]

Possibly not if the DDG-1000 is just a remote shooter, uplink/downlink relay node.

Have you come across any plans to backfit SPY-6 or even EASRs on the Zumwalt class? I don't know where but I seem to remember seeing a video where a Navy officer was talking about these radars and how scaled variants would be back fitted on ships and seem to recall a reference to the DDG-1000 (along the smaller SPY-6's for the DDG-51IIAs).

I don't have anything I can link at hand, but it's on the table. I believe Bath thinks a 3-panel SPY-6 would safely be workable, but there's also the opportunity to adapt the EASR or DDG Back-fit panels to the Zs. It would be a sizable refit and is not currently a program of record, but if a big refit is planned for something like replacing AGS I would expect a push to get the ships their S-band panels.

 

[bring_it_on]

Thanks Moose! A three panel SPY-6 derivative would be an upgrade over the planned analog SPY-4 and definitely makes a lot of sense in the long term especially if we're going to be putting SM-6 and its future variants on the ship. Was the SPY-4 a 12 foot antennal or larger?

 

[Moose]

Thanks Moose! A three panel SPY-6 derivative would be an upgrade over the planned analog SPY-4 and definitely makes a lot of sense in the long term especially if we're going to be putting SM-6 and its future variants on the ship. Was the SPY-4 a 12 foot antennal or larger?

SPY-4 on DDG-1000 was listed at 160x152" but I think the aperture was right about 12 foot. Bath and the Navy have said in the past that the Zs can take a 14' panel without "substantial modifications" to the deckhouse, though the Navy of today might not believe it anymore.

 

[bring_it_on]

I think the 24 RMA variant of the AMDR would be more suited and likely cheaper to buy and integrate. Let's see if the Navy shares more information on its plans for the Zumwalt later this year but at the very least they should develop a roadmap to get the HVP integrated with the AGS, integrate the VL LRASM, and look to add the sensor thereby providing better capability when the SM-6 comes aboard. Long term they should plan on CPGS integration and develop plans to retrofit the railgun on at least one of the vessels.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Never mind.

 

[shivering]

"The U.S. Navy's Titanium “Tin Can”

How the sea service transformed destroyers, its most common warship and once among the cheapest, into Frankenships"


https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/01/the-u-s-navys-titanium-tin-can/