DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

How so? It's supposed to be stealthy so that alone will be a pretty big determinant of exactly how it looks.
 
Underway, it looks like it's upside down. Functional design doesn't mean it can't be double ugly.
 
...and who says an abomination can't be beautiful?

Sea Skimmer, would it be reasonable to assume that the limitations on accuracy for small control-surfaced guided rounds could someday be compensated for by better processing power on the round itself and improved integration of airflow/inertial sensors? I take it that stability is the major problem (especially as higher control surface deflections will be needed to have an effect)?
 
Evil Flower said:
What an abomination of a design.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the old battleship guys from the 30s and 40s would think the same of today's boxy designs.
 
sferrin said:
I'm sure the old battleship guys from the 30s and 40s would think the same of today's boxy designs.
Click to expand...
No, I mean, I think most of the "stealthy" designs today still look kind of nice from the perspective of being a military ship, like LCS-2, that UK FCS design, the Visby corvette etc but the DDG-1000 just is plain ugly. It literally looks like someone placed a shoebox on top of a clothing iron and called it a ship. The least they could've done was make a taller pyramid-style mast on it like the Russians have done for ages. It'd probably have solved most of the interference problems they had with the current design.
 
Evil Flower said:
sferrin said:
I'm sure the old battleship guys from the 30s and 40s would think the same of today's boxy designs.
Click to expand...
No, I mean, I think most of the "stealthy" designs today still look kind of nice from the perspective of being a military ship, like LCS-2, that UK FCS design, the Visby corvette etc but the DDG-1000 just is plain ugly. It literally looks like someone placed a shoebox on top of a clothing iron and called it a ship. The least they could've done was make a taller pyramid-style mast on it like the Russians have done for ages. It'd probably have solved most of the interference problems they had with the current design.
Click to expand...

Those ships are no where near being stealthy, just reduced RCS. The DDG-1000 would be the one with the lowest RCS, due to the "ugly" design that it has. Sorry but beauty is not a requirement that justify tax payers money.
 
Zumwalt is just beautiful in its ugliness, I say
 
flateric said:
Zumwalt is just beautiful in its ugliness, I say
Click to expand...

Should the Arleigh Burke class or the Kirov class then be considered stunningly beautiful head-turners to the Zumwalt class? DDG-1000 is first and foremost a warship.

I just have to laugh when the discussion turns to the aesthetics of a particular design. Certainly form has to follow function. I cannot think of anything more worthless than a handsome or proper-looking ship that has poor sea-keeping or poor performance. Aesthetics in vehicle design are a matter of taste. U.S.S. Zumwalt isn't a consumer product like an automobile in which looks matter. No one is refusing to buy because it is just the wrong color.
 
Various pics from my harddisk:
 

Attachments

  • ddg100001.jpg
    ddg100001.jpg
    38.8 KB · Views: 1,061
  • DDG_1000.jpg
    DDG_1000.jpg
    191.9 KB · Views: 1,122
  • DDG_1000_2.jpg
    DDG_1000_2.jpg
    185.5 KB · Views: 1,086
  • DDG_1000_3.jpg
    DDG_1000_3.jpg
    38.7 KB · Views: 1,009
  • hty10.jpg
    hty10.jpg
    133.2 KB · Views: 957
  • zumwalt.jpg
    zumwalt.jpg
    364.5 KB · Views: 340
Deckhouse installed. http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=797

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61bexVwMaeU
 
donnage99 said:
Evil Flower said:
sferrin said:
I'm sure the old battleship guys from the 30s and 40s would think the same of today's boxy designs.
Click to expand...
No, I mean, I think most of the "stealthy" designs today still look kind of nice from the perspective of being a military ship, like LCS-2, that UK FCS design, the Visby corvette etc but the DDG-1000 just is plain ugly. It literally looks like someone placed a shoebox on top of a clothing iron and called it a ship. The least they could've done was make a taller pyramid-style mast on it like the Russians have done for ages. It'd probably have solved most of the interference problems they had with the current design.
Click to expand...

Those ships are no where near being stealthy, just reduced RCS. The DDG-1000 would be the one with the lowest RCS, due to the "ugly" design that it has. Sorry but beauty is not a requirement that justify tax payers money.
Click to expand...

It is not just RCS measures on some of the other boats.
The German F-125, Visby, et al all feature, to a lesser or greater degree, infrastructure that reduces their infra-red and acoustic signatures, on top of their RCS.
The Valour Class, on top of RCS reductions, has an infra red signature 75% less than previous vessels of its size when they entered service in 2006.
 
Why is it that the ddg-1000 is significantly larger than the arleigh burke class yet carries less verticle cells for missiles? Why is it so large then? Just to carry its 2 cannons?
 
donnage99 said:
Why is it that the ddg-1000 is significantly larger than the arleigh burke class yet carries less verticle cells for missiles? Why is it so large then? Just to carry its 2 cannons?
Click to expand...

Bigger cells, bigger flight deck.
 
The two 155mm guns dominate the forward part of the ship and thus reduce available space within the design for VLS cells; if something like AGS-Lite or the 5" in a low RCS mount had been used, with just a single mount, more calls could have been carried.

sferrin is right though, the Mk57 is larger than Mk41, the type does have a larger helo deck and it also has the ability to take on considerable amounts of water ballast to lower the free-board and thus further reduce the ships RCS.
 
JFC Fuller said:
also has the ability to take on considerable amounts of water ballast to lower the free-board and thus further reduce the ships RCS.
Click to expand...

Huh, I'd never heard that before. I recall pictures of one of the various DD/X concepts with a very low freeboard and just thought that design was that way all the time.
 
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/destroyer-zumwalts-christening-delayed/
 
Chris Cavas at Defense News posted a heck of a gallery over on the Intercepts blog:
2560243-3090224509-DDG10.jpg
 
The prospective captain of U.S.S. Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is James Kirk.

Source:
http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg1000/Pages/bio1.aspx#.UnFEpRA4mKI
 
"Zumwalt’s hull and composite deckhouse – a marvel of engineering and know-how – mated perfectly. Ship systems, which have been lab-tested more vigorously than any other, have fired up on or before schedule. [/size]Take away the fleet-number disruptions, and the Zumwalt has been one of the few successful shipbuilding programs for cost and schedule over the past few years. And with all of the new technologies featured for the ship, that’s saying something. [/size][/size]Given the track record with some other new-class ships (aka LCS), it says a lot.[/size]"
[/size]
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:0b1cb4af-d191-491b-b0f6-05e1304df298


Can't really agreed more. The ddg-1000 is the most ground breaking ship program in the fleet yet it delivered on time and on schedule (some of the components were even ahead of schedule). The program management team should get a reward for this.
 
She'd maybe do better in the looks dept - with a bit of tarting up?

Like this..

http://www.modelshipmaster.com/products/submarines/nautilus%20(1).JPG

Or this..

http://www.retronaut.com/2010/07/dazzle-ships-1914-1918/
 
Well, James Kirk got the skipper's seat on board the newly commissioned USS Zumwalt.

http://news.usni.org/2014/04/11/interview-zumwalt-commander-capt-james-kirk

He wasn't asked 'bout his ambition to pick up the Enterprise when she rads-up..
 
A question to you guys: some time ago I read that the redesign of the Burkes for the Flight III required so much work and so many changes (much more power generation capacity, and much more cooling plant, for example) that the cost saving over the Zumwalts was greatly reduced.

If that's true, the Zumwalts might be better value for money in the long run, especially since their hybrid power plant produces vastly more electrical power, making them far more suitable for conversion in due course to carry railguns and high-powered laser weapons.

Comments?
 
The problem isn't so much solely about the cost of the ddg-1000. It's just changing requirements really. The stealth and the guns are for marine support and littoral combat. However, new chinese military capabilities are pushing the navy out further to sea, so the navy is returning to a blue water battle group with emphasis on bmd (it's china now, not persian gulf anymore).

But that's just the chinese part, there's also the russia factor, which is the new START treaty - it puts a limitation on bmd capabilities on new warships - and since ddg-1000 is classified as new warship but flight III isn't, you can see how and why it went down the way it did.
 
donnage99 said:
But that's just the chinese part, there's also the russia factor, which is the new START treaty - it puts a limitation on bmd capabilities on new warships - and since ddg-1000 is classified as new warship but flight III isn't, you can see how and why it went down the way it did.
Click to expand...

I wonder where this rumor started. New START has no restrictions on ship-based missile defense. The only thing it says about missile defense is that you can't base BMD interceptors in old SLBM or ICBM silos, and vice versa (unless the conversion was done before the treaty was signed -- to grandfather the five GMD silos at Vandenberg).

You can read the treaty text yourself: http://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/c44126.htm
 
Tony Williams said:
A question to you guys: some time ago I read that the redesign of the Burkes for the Flight III required so much work and so many changes (much more power generation capacity, and much more cooling plant, for example) that the cost saving over the Zumwalts was greatly reduced.
Click to expand...
The present Burke Flight III designs have upgrades that are massively scaled back from the initial concept, so some of the cost advantage should have been restored. For example they have abandoned the idea of fitting an IPS into the hull and are making do with larger conventional generators. At the expense of capability, of course.
Tony Williams said:
If that's true, the Zumwalts might be better value for money in the long run, especially since their hybrid power plant produces vastly more electrical power, making them far more suitable for conversion in due course to carry railguns and high-powered laser weapons.

Comments?
Click to expand...
Yes the Integrated Power System makes it much easier to "plug in" something like Railgun. The reduction from 64 to 32mj for the IOC railgun and some battery/capacitor magic may allow F3 to eventually use it with some compromises, at least that claim has been made. It looks fairly likely that all 3 DDG-1000s will be converted over to railguns at some point, barring unforeseen technical challenges, but that still maxes the fleet out at 6 fully operational rails. The JHSV demonstration is intriguing to me, I could see a future where the GA truck-mounted system (for example) becomes a roll-on/roll-off package for arming a ship that has a vehicle deck (and/or LCS-style module space). Less ideal but potentially more economical solution to put more rails at sea.


I'm not sure how close a megawatt-class laser realistically is to the fleet, the early weapons will be much less powerful, but it would require an IPS as well. At least I don't see how F3 realistically handles the load.


The place F3 still comes up very short versus Zumwalt is when looking at the next 30+ years of upgrades. Ships get tinkered with all the time, every refit something new tends to get added. A brand new design, the DDG-1000 has lots of margin for future upgrades without compromising the basic design or giving up something else. In fact it has outstanding potential for a radar upgrade since half the Dual Band Radar suite, the Volume Search Radar, was deleted but the space reserved for it in the deckhouse is still there. F3 by comparison is stretching a 30-year-old design to the limit already, further upgrades may require a lot more trade-offs.
 
Not to mention that missile tubes on ddg-1000 can accommodate larger missiles - giving potential to house more capable BMD missiles in the future (currently, sm-3 can only provide limited BMD given its size, larger missiles are inevitable). I think there's a level of dishonesty involving the navy here - they claimed that ddg-1000 is ill suited for BMD even to go as far as saying they can't fire SM-2. However, older documents from the navy and its contractor repeatedly stated that ddg-1000 is designed from the get go with the ability to fire SM-2. SM-3 probably needs some re-wiring but if you really think about it, on a larger picture, redesigning the Burke may prove as equally costly if not costlier than upgrading ddg-1000 to BMD capable standard, given that Burke hull has been "layered" so many times over the past decades as part of its upgrades, making it an extremely complex hull despite being old in comparison to a "clean" hull like ddg-1000 with alot of growth margin and designed from the get go to be much more adaptable to upgrades.


I strongly believe that if the ddg-1000 proves itself in the coming years, reopening the line will be possible.
 
TomS said:
I wonder where this rumor started. New START has no restrictions on ship-based missile defense. The only thing it says about missile defense is that you can't base BMD interceptors in old SLBM or ICBM silos, and vice versa (unless the conversion was done before the treaty was signed -- to grandfather the five GMD silos at Vandenberg).

You can read the treaty text yourself: http://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/c44126.htm
Click to expand...


I read it from an aviationweek article quite long ago if I remember correctly. Thanks for the correction then.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom