DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

Neither the 57mm or the 127mm have antecedents in the Army or the USMC. Talk about no economies of scale. The above programs should have been joint in the first place as the SLRC should be.
 
TomS said:
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.
Click to expand...
We could go back even further with Project Gunfighters sabot, and later the Mk 71's Paveway round!
 
jsport said:
PS: Hypersonics, of any decent range, are too large for any decent size magazine, even on a DDG(X) IMHO.
Click to expand...

IMO, with a minimum range measured in hundreds of miles, there is no need to even base CPS on a major combatant platform. It should just be put into a dedicated version of an auxiliary class already in production (the new oilers or the new expeditionary bases). It could hit targets in China while steaming circles around Guam. Or on the far side of Japan.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
jsport said:
PS: Hypersonics, of any decent range, are too large for any decent size magazine, even on a DDG(X) IMHO.
Click to expand...

IMO, with a minimum range measured in hundreds of miles, there is no need to even base CPS on a major combatant platform. It should just be put into a dedicated version of an auxiliary class already in production (the new oilers or the new expeditionary bases). It could hit targets in China while steaming circles around Guam. Or on the far side of Japan.
Click to expand...
How about no? Any ship with these onboard is going to be a high priority target and should be able to defend itself.
 
MihoshiK said:
jsport said:
www.naval-technology.com

US Navy to equip Constellation-class frigates with 57mm Mk 110 guns

The US Navy has decided to equip its new Constellation class frigates with the fully automatic 57mm Mk 110 naval guns.
www.naval-technology.com www.naval-technology.com
Click to expand...
Wrong thread?

Unless I'm totally missing a link to the Zumwalts?
Click to expand...
Only a 57mm guided rd is being proposed as any type of upgrade for the USN guns at this time unless some can inform. guided 57mm Raytheon or BAE etc. Autocannons dont count.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
jsport said:
PS: Hypersonics, of any decent range, are too large for any decent size magazine, even on a DDG(X) IMHO.
Click to expand...

IMO, with a minimum range measured in hundreds of miles, there is no need to even base CPS on a major combatant platform. It should just be put into a dedicated version of an auxiliary class already in production (the new oilers or the new expeditionary bases). It could hit targets in China while steaming circles around Guam. Or on the far side of Japan.
Click to expand...
How about no? Any ship with these onboard is going to be a high priority target and should be able to defend itself.
Click to expand...

A large hull of that type has ample room and lower cost of owner And operation. If it needs to be defended, give it an escort appropriate to the threat level. It’s an intermediate ranged weapon; it doesn’t need to be near a threat and probably can’t fire at a target within several hundred miles. If it was outside Tokyo bay and is still under threat, I’m pretty sure the war is lost anyway.

If you put CPS on an escort you’re going to tear through tonnage and volume, or else defensive weapon cells, super fast. A Burke design for instance likely wouldn’t be able to be modified. Zoomies are going to sacrifice pretty much everything forward of the bridge for a dozen missiles. Is every DDGX going t have to use that amount of space for that installation?

LSUV might make sense, but we’re back to undefended platform.
 
Want alot of them on ships cheaply? Containerize them and requisition some commercial container ships.
 
I don't think LRHW will have enough standoff range to guarantee safety for its launch platform anymore than Tomahawk did in the 1980s, especially when you realise that many important targets will be well inland within China meaning any launch platform will have to get much closer than the full range of LRHW would potentially allow.

Given the range of Chinese weapon systems, everything based in and around the first island chain is vulnerable and than includes the Japanese archipelago. If you want invulnerability, you probably want something like the Conventional Trident Modification which could at least deliver a payload of 3000lbs to a target 4000 nautical miles away, which would at least provide enough sea-room to make the job of any Chinese SSN operating in the Pacific much harder.
 
Range isn't everything, you still need very good ISR to find and target ships that far out. Even a CBG is not easy to find at those ranges, much less lone cruisers and especially disguised merchants.
 
My point is that these weapons require a much different level of volume and weight (apparently 16,000lbs each sans launcher) and you are going to waste a lot of volume and freeboard crushing that into an escort. The range of the weapon is stated to be 1750 miles by the army (I assume that is a very rough number); the launch platform could be well past the first island chain and still strike hundreds of miles inland. Maybe the platform needs defending, maybe it doesn’t, maybe it operates with a CSG, maybe it doesn’t. But it makes sense to me to separate this offensive capability out from the escort screen rather than shoehorn it into ships that are already already taxed by their mission requirements.
 
Desertfox said:
Want alot of them on ships cheaply? Containerize them and requisition some commercial container ships.
Click to expand...
Unless we're going to "requisition" at gunpoint, there's a shortage of US-flagged hulls on hand with Pacific legs. Unless we go back to subsidizing more commercial construction in the US and recreate a US Transpac carrier to run them.
 
We apologise for the fault in the
subtitles. Those responsible have been
sacked.

We apologise again for the fault in the
subtitles. Those responsible for sacking
the people who have just been sacked,
have been sacked.
Click to expand...
The directors of the firm hired to
continue the credits after the other
people had been sacked, wish it to
be known that they have just been
sacked.

The credits have been completed
in an entirely different style at great
expense and at the last minute.
Click to expand...
 
To my point about range, if you were 800 miles off the west coast of Taiwan, 1750 would still have a range circle from Beijing to Hanoi. Just using that second city as way of establishing range; if the US sends any ordnance Vietnam’s way now a days it will probably be in cargo cases with bows on them.
 
donnage99 said:
The ship built entirely around a gun now is getting the gun replaced with non gun stuff. You cant make this stuff up
Click to expand...
IF that were true that would be something. Zumwalt wasn't "built entirely around a gun". The Zumwalt hull was to form the basis of the Ticonderoga replacement which would have swapped out at least one of the guns for more missiles.
 
Josh_TN said:
My point is that these weapons require a much different level of volume and weight (apparently 16,000lbs each sans launcher) and you are going to waste a lot of volume and freeboard crushing that into an escort. The range of the weapon is stated to be 1750 miles by the army (I assume that is a very rough number); the launch platform could be well past the first island chain and still strike hundreds of miles inland. Maybe the platform needs defending, maybe it doesn’t, maybe it operates with a CSG, maybe it doesn’t. But it makes sense to me to separate this offensive capability out from the escort screen rather than shoehorn it into ships that are already already taxed by their mission requirements.
Click to expand...
Hopefully they'll do something like this:

1635954169742.png
 
Fairly certain that the stated plan is to use modified 3-round MACs. Again, saving on unique engineering work by recycling kit from another effort rather than designing new hardware that might end up as a three-ship application.
 
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
 
TomS said:
Fairly certain that the stated plan is to use modified 3-round MACs. Again, saving on unique engineering work by recycling kit from another effort rather than designing new hardware that might end up as a three-ship application.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but I hope they at least make it modular.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Fairly certain that the stated plan is to use modified 3-round MACs. Again, saving on unique engineering work by recycling kit from another effort rather than designing new hardware that might end up as a three-ship application.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but I hope they at least make it modular.
Click to expand...
Wasn't AGS supposed to be modular? If that is the case surely it would be fairly simple to replace them each with a box-shaped module of the same dimensions containing a MAC or two (aside from concerns about top-weight, hull depth, and changes in weight distribution affecting trim).
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Fairly certain that the stated plan is to use modified 3-round MACs. Again, saving on unique engineering work by recycling kit from another effort rather than designing new hardware that might end up as a three-ship application.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but I hope they at least make it modular.
Click to expand...
Wasn't AGS supposed to be modular? If that is the case surely it would be fairly simple to replace them each with a box-shaped module of the same dimensions containing a MAC or two (aside from concerns about top-weight, hull depth, and changes in weight distribution affecting trim).
Click to expand...
Depends if the "box" the AGS sits in is deep enough.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
Click to expand...
USN cold-launch isn't done with a little compressed gas bottle, remember that it's designed for throwing missiles to the surface from a submerged submarine. They flash boil water into steam with an explosive charge, on a surface vessel these suckers will come out of the tubes fast. With some aero surfaces, either on CPS itself or the pusher plate, the guidance system should be able to steer it over the side pretty well in the event of booster no-start.
 
Moose said:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
Click to expand...
USN cold-launch isn't done with a little compressed gas bottle, remember that it's designed for throwing missiles to the surface from a submerged submarine. They flash boil water into steam with an explosive charge, on a surface vessel these suckers will come out of the tubes fast. With some aero surfaces, either on CPS itself or the pusher plate, the guidance system should be able to steer it over the side pretty well in the event of booster no-start.
Click to expand...
With no fins or TVC that might be difficult. ;) Not sure you'd want the added complexity of a "pusher plate".. (I assume you mean something like the SS-18 has?)
 
sferrin said:
Moose said:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
Click to expand...
USN cold-launch isn't done with a little compressed gas bottle, remember that it's designed for throwing missiles to the surface from a submerged submarine. They flash boil water into steam with an explosive charge, on a surface vessel these suckers will come out of the tubes fast. With some aero surfaces, either on CPS itself or the pusher plate, the guidance system should be able to steer it over the side pretty well in the event of booster no-start.
Click to expand...
With no fins or TVC that might be difficult. ;) Not sure you'd want the added complexity of a "pusher plate".. (I assume you mean something like the SS-18 has?)
Click to expand...
With cold-launch, you either need a piston to throw the missile or a base plate for the gas/steam to act against without giving your booster an enema. CPS is quite long, I doubt there's room for a piston underneath one in a VPM tube. A small plate would be workable.
 
Moose said:
sferrin said:
Moose said:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
Click to expand...
USN cold-launch isn't done with a little compressed gas bottle, remember that it's designed for throwing missiles to the surface from a submerged submarine. They flash boil water into steam with an explosive charge, on a surface vessel these suckers will come out of the tubes fast. With some aero surfaces, either on CPS itself or the pusher plate, the guidance system should be able to steer it over the side pretty well in the event of booster no-start.
Click to expand...
With no fins or TVC that might be difficult. ;) Not sure you'd want the added complexity of a "pusher plate".. (I assume you mean something like the SS-18 has?)
Click to expand...
With cold-launch, you either need a piston to throw the missile or a base plate for the gas/steam to act against without giving your booster an enema. CPS is quite long, I doubt there's room for a piston underneath one in a VPM tube. A small plate would be workable.
Click to expand...
Peacekeeper didn't have either. Not sure what S-300/400 uses. S-300V (and Sprint) use a powder charge.

Peacekeeper_missile.jpg

AchingSandyFishingcat-size_restricted.gif
 
sferrin said:
Moose said:
sferrin said:
Moose said:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
Click to expand...
USN cold-launch isn't done with a little compressed gas bottle, remember that it's designed for throwing missiles to the surface from a submerged submarine. They flash boil water into steam with an explosive charge, on a surface vessel these suckers will come out of the tubes fast. With some aero surfaces, either on CPS itself or the pusher plate, the guidance system should be able to steer it over the side pretty well in the event of booster no-start.
Click to expand...
With no fins or TVC that might be difficult. ;) Not sure you'd want the added complexity of a "pusher plate".. (I assume you mean something like the SS-18 has?)
Click to expand...
With cold-launch, you either need a piston to throw the missile or a base plate for the gas/steam to act against without giving your booster an enema. CPS is quite long, I doubt there's room for a piston underneath one in a VPM tube. A small plate would be workable.
Click to expand...
Peacekeeper didn't have either. Not sure what S-300/400 uses. S-300V (and Sprint) use a powder charge.

View attachment 667247

View attachment 667248
Click to expand...
Sprint's powder charge propelled a piston, the dramatic fireball was gas venting but the push came from the piston.
 
sferrin said:
donnage99 said:
The ship built entirely around a gun now is getting the gun replaced with non gun stuff. You cant make this stuff up
Click to expand...
IF that were true that would be something. Zumwalt wasn't "built entirely around a gun". The Zumwalt hull was to form the basis of the Ticonderoga replacement which would have swapped out at least one of the guns for more missiles.
Click to expand...
from what I remember, the cruiser replacement program settled with the Zumwalt hull for cost reason (which is good) not that the hull was formed as the basis for the cruiser. At the time, the navy formed 2 teams considering several options - 2 prevailing options were the zumwalt hull for cruiser and the san antonio hull for even more decked out BMD cruiser. Both were attractive because they utilize existing hulls or would-be existing hulls, cutting down on R&D
 
donnage99 said:
sferrin said:
donnage99 said:
The ship built entirely around a gun now is getting the gun replaced with non gun stuff. You cant make this stuff up
Click to expand...
IF that were true that would be something. Zumwalt wasn't "built entirely around a gun". The Zumwalt hull was to form the basis of the Ticonderoga replacement which would have swapped out at least one of the guns for more missiles.
Click to expand...
from what I remember, the cruiser replacement program settled with the Zumwalt hull for cost reason (which is good) not that the hull was formed as the basis for the cruiser. At the time, the navy formed 2 teams considering several options - 2 prevailing options were the zumwalt hull for cruiser and the san antonio hull for even more decked out BMD cruiser. Both were attractive because they utilize existing hulls or would-be existing hulls, cutting down on R&D
Click to expand...

The original SC-21 program envisaged both cruisers and destroyers using the same HM&E. LPD-17 derivatives really only came into consideration after SC-21/DD-21 had collapsed into DD(X) and it was obvious that there was not going to be a large production run leading into a CG(X).
 
Last edited:
The June 2021 GAO Weapon Systems Annual Assessment report quoted a unit cost of $9.072 billion each (dev and build) and an acquisition cycle time of 288 months/24 years.

Would not be surprised if by the time they rip out the two 155mm AGS guns and their very large associated automated magazines and install 12? VLS cells for the ~$100 million CPS hypersonic missile the three Zumwalt total unit cost might reach $10 billion each?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom