That begs the question why is Congress currently funding ~184,000 Marines (1940 number ~28,000) would the money be better spent on increasing size of the fleet?
DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers
- Thread starter Demon Lord Razgriz
- Start date
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 12,846
Because the Marines can and do perform other missions than throwing human wave assaults at beachheads.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,904
- Reaction score
- 10,998
If we had to retake Taiwan you either do an amphibious assault or an air assault (effectively the same thing). Or we just let them keep it. Is there a fourth option I'm missing?
Firefinder
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 5 October 2019
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 1,700
Let the Army Airborne have fun.
But make no mistake.
If we ever EVER have to do a contested landing...
It be after we paste the landing zone with enough missiles, rockets and aircraft ordnance of all types that any resistances will be piecemeal.
That attack will be immediately follow up by a literal WAVE of troops with the idea that they have enough numbers and momentum to to overrun the remain resistance and get into defensive positions before enemy reinforcements can arrive.
By the time the Enemy does show up in force they have the Tow Arty and SPGs up and ready basically making NGFS redundant.
Which is a big thing.
In 1940s you were looking at 75mm packgun as being the biggest gun unit can expect to have with them during a landing and they were limited to direct fire. While being limited in Ammo until they are establish by which point the big guns are up and ready as well. So Gun Fire support from Ships WAS NEEDED. Naval Gunfire was often the only Artillery support or big gun support on the beachs able to do anything.
Nowadays the 155mm Paladin can keep up with the Abrams coming off the landing Craft and can do long range fires with nothing but a grid from the Fisters as soon as they are on the sand. And have a better then zero chance of surviving as well thanks to APS. Also has a bigger gun then on a ship as well.
Basically Tech has reach the point where you can do stuff with a fucking truck that took an ENTIRE BATTLESHIP to do in the past with all that implies.
Siege warfare has been shown to be incredibly effective thought the centuries.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
At this moment the enemy would start to hit the landing zone with ballistics and hypersonics, and drones and long-range rocket artillery. I'm not sure the wave of troops would fare any better than defenders.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
I kinda doubt that US would be able to muster enough troops and transport capabilities to retook Taiwan BEFORE Chinese would turn the island into the bastion. Not to mention that such attack would be a direct and unprovoked aggression against Chinese territory (I remind you, that US do not recognize Taiwan).
Firefinder
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 5 October 2019
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 1,700
Thus is why the Army is looking into all the CRAM type gear while both the Patriots and Standards are getting upgrades to handle hypersonics. Especially considering the Army is quickly equiping many vehicles with lasers strong enough to take out drones and most rockets while they are still at repetitively harmless range.
Throw in the fact that the US Military is large enough to do the old Tactic of.
Look right hit with left.
Basically the Defenders have a wide front that they have to stop any attack while the Attacker has to only get a small needle through a hole in the armor and defend long enough that they are basically in a foothold situation. By which point it becames nearly impossible to push out the attackers without a major push that draws forces away from other aways, which will allow those to be attack. This been true since forever.
This is mind you extremely simplifed version of tactics that literally have more words than this Forum allows per post. The Military, everywhere, has terabytes of data from all the plans counterplans counter-counterplans etc for this.
And either way...
Its is going to be a fucking blood bath. Might not be as bad as say...
Any WW2 assaults, the number differences alone prevent that, but far worse then any modern attack in recent history. Think what the Expects was saying before Desert Storm. Something on the order of a few thousand dead or so a day ircc.
A Tentative Fleet Plan
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 9 April 2018
- Messages
- 1,163
- Reaction score
- 2,586
Does anyone have any images and detailed information on the original Gold Team and Blue Team DD(X)/DD-21 designs, beyond the paintings and low-poly CGI renders?
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 12,846
Although, as I look back, it turns out that the US acknowledged DF-21D as an operational antiship ballistic missile system in 2010. SO maybe someone was concerned before that...
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 12,846
Found some stuff from the old Gold Team website via the Wayback Machine: Probably not what you're looking for, but it might help
Gold Team: https://web.archive.org/web/20011021120429/http://www.dd21goldteam.com/downloads.htm
I'm wondering if I still have any of the brochures from back then. Probably not but I'll try to take a look sometime when the
A Tentative Fleet Plan
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 9 April 2018
- Messages
- 1,163
- Reaction score
- 2,586
Thanks
I'll admit I was thinking more about the design below, with VLS cells between the deckhouse and the edge of the hull.
- Joined
- 4 July 2010
- Messages
- 2,405
- Reaction score
- 2,730
Thats from DD-21, before it was cut down in displacement substantially. Notice that the fligjt deck is even larger than the Z's huge deck.
Firefinder
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 5 October 2019
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 1,700
Jeeze how many missiles were they planing?
A full 120 or double for 160?
Also Im guessing that the hanger guns are the cut 57mm as well?
- Joined
- 4 July 2010
- Messages
- 2,405
- Reaction score
- 2,730
128 was the max, I believe they didn't have many (if any) alongside the flight deck at that time. I think those guns may be the 40mm that were just penciled in at the time, the mk110 didn't happen until years later. Obviously not visible here, though you can see some signs in the deckhouse, are the 4 full-size turbines DD-21 was to have, instead of the 2 big and 2 small that the Zs use. 120-140MW would sure come in handy in the laser age.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 12,846
Correct. SC-21 had allowed up to 256 cells but that was never in budget.
At this stage, the design was something like 689 feet long (I just trawled back through my old Usenet posts from when the teams announced their designs.) After downselect, they had to trim it to 610 feet, and one way to do that was to relocate the midships VLS aft alongside the flight deck and reduce it in numbers (down to a total of 80). One side effect was that the superstructure could go full width, which I think increased the arrangeable volume and improved the signature.
Yeah, the close-in guns at this point were 40mm Trinity but rapidly became 57mm just to avoid adopting yet another caliber. (Blue Team had proposed 3x30mm, which was a bit prescient.)
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,117
- Reaction score
- 4,840
Navy's problems with the Zumwalt may be hurting its hypersonic weapon efforts - Breaking Defense
The Pentagon's top weapons tester says the service has "limited flight test opportunities" to support putting a hypersonic weapon onboard the Zumwalt class.
- Joined
- 4 July 2010
- Messages
- 2,405
- Reaction score
- 2,730
I find this author's conclusions all wrong.Navy's problems with the Zumwalt may be hurting its hypersonic weapon efforts - Breaking Defense
The Pentagon's top weapons tester says the service has "limited flight test opportunities" to support putting a hypersonic weapon onboard the Zumwalt class.breakingdefense.com
This is DOT&E complaining that the test program's limited scope and duration create risk for integrating CPS on the Zs, not that the limited number of Zs is dragging down the CPS program.
Raises the question to help fund the 12? hypersonic CPS missiles per Zumwalt for total of 36 do you think its a good trade off by the Navy plan to decommission 11 Ticos with total 1,342 Mk41 VLS cells in 2022/23/24 saving the necessary expense of refurbishment.I find this author's conclusions all wrong.Navy's problems with the Zumwalt may be hurting its hypersonic weapon efforts - Breaking Defense
The Pentagon's top weapons tester says the service has "limited flight test opportunities" to support putting a hypersonic weapon onboard the Zumwalt class.
This is DOT&E complaining that the test program's limited scope and duration create risk for integrating CPS on the Zs, not that the limited number of Zs is dragging down the CPS program.
The Navy Hypersonic CPS program is estimated at $21.5 billion for a total of 200 missiles by 2040 to be used by the 3 Zumwalts and the Virginia Block Vs. (the cost of the Block V boats $3.45 billion with its VPM for a 12 CPS ~$.5 billion higher than Block IV boats).
The Navy isn't decomming the Ticos to help fund hypersonics, the Navy is decomming Ticos because they're used up.Raises the question to help fund the 12? hypersonic CPS missiles per Zumwalt for total of 36 do you think its a good trade off by the Navy plan to decommission 11 Ticos with total 1,342 Mk41 VLS cells in 2022/23/24 saving the necessary expense of refurbishment.I find this author's conclusions all wrong.Navy's problems with the Zumwalt may be hurting its hypersonic weapon efforts - Breaking Defense
The Pentagon's top weapons tester says the service has "limited flight test opportunities" to support putting a hypersonic weapon onboard the Zumwalt class.
This is DOT&E complaining that the test program's limited scope and duration create risk for integrating CPS on the Zs, not that the limited number of Zs is dragging down the CPS program.
The Navy Hypersonic CPS program is estimated at $21.5 billion for a total of 200 missiles by 2040 to be used by the 3 Zumwalts and the Virginia Block Vs. (the cost of the Block V boats $3.45 billion with its VPM for a 12 CPS ~$.5 billion higher than Block IV boats).
There's only so much you can upgrade a ship, especially an already close to overweight hull like the Ticos have. And the Ticos are old. Most of those ships are just DONE.
The LAST one was build in 1994, 27 years ago. Most have more than 30 years of being worked hard. It's a rare deployment that doesn't see problems cropping up that require serious yard time to fix, like cracks in the tank deck.
People should stop thinking up daft reasons for the Ticos to be decommissioned and instead realize that, just like everything else, they have a useful life span, and for more and more units, they're simply at the end of it.
The Navy isn't decomming the Ticos to help fund hypersonics, the Navy is decomming Ticos because they're used up.Raises the question to help fund the 12? hypersonic CPS missiles per Zumwalt for total of 36 do you think its a good trade off by the Navy plan to decommission 11 Ticos with total 1,342 Mk41 VLS cells in 2022/23/24 saving the necessary expense of refurbishment.I find this author's conclusions all wrong.Navy's problems with the Zumwalt may be hurting its hypersonic weapon efforts - Breaking Defense
The Pentagon's top weapons tester says the service has "limited flight test opportunities" to support putting a hypersonic weapon onboard the Zumwalt class.
This is DOT&E complaining that the test program's limited scope and duration create risk for integrating CPS on the Zs, not that the limited number of Zs is dragging down the CPS program.
The Navy Hypersonic CPS program is estimated at $21.5 billion for a total of 200 missiles by 2040 to be used by the 3 Zumwalts and the Virginia Block Vs. (the cost of the Block V boats $3.45 billion with its VPM for a 12 CPS ~$.5 billion higher than Block IV boats).
There's only so much you can upgrade a ship, especially an already close to overweight hull like the Ticos have. And the Ticos are old. Most of those ships are just DONE.
The LAST one was build in 1994, 27 years ago. Most have more than 30 years of being worked hard. It's a rare deployment that doesn't see problems cropping up that require serious yard time to fix, like cracks in the tank deck.
People should stop thinking up daft reasons for the Ticos to be decommissioned and instead realize that, just like everything else, they have a useful life span, and for more and more units, they're simply at the end of it.
The Navy's in a bind due to the failure of the Navy to replace Tico class with the ill-fated CG(X) next-generation cruiser program, cancelled in 2010 due to the failure of the Zumwalt whose hull was to used for the CCG(X) and the DDG(X) not expected IOC until 2035?
NAVSEA in a memo on service lives lists 35 yrs for the Ticos not 30 years as the current CNO Gilday claims. The Navy has deferred Tico maintenance and now they are in degraded condition eg if they had maintained the tanks routinely they wouldn't have Lake Champlain tank top cracking that required her to return to port..
Congress agreed with Navy in 2015 on a 2-4-6 Tico modernization and life-extension program plan, 2 Ticos a year inducted into the modernization program, lasting no more than four years per ship and no more than six would be in the program at any given time. A small number were allowed to be put into reduced operating status until their induction in the program.
Navy now saying its all too difficult because Ticos are not unexpectedly in a poor material condition and in FY2020 budget request noted the Navy’s intention to cancel the planned Tico modernization and life-extension program. Not surprisingly the Ticos in their modernization program are running 175 to 200 % above estimated cost. The result will be fewer ships in Navy and a big drop in its firepower due to the all those Mk41 VLS tubes lost.
In 2017 Adm Moore said “Most of them have a planned service life of 30 to 35 years (the DDGs [destroyers] and CGs [guided missile cruisers] and the amphibs). We’re taking a pretty close look at what would it take to get them out another five, another 10 years, that shouldn’t be a problem from a technical perspective" isn't it just amazing how Admirals can totally change view.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 12,846
There is the Self-Defense Test Ship (now ex-Paul F. Foster, DD-964) which is used to test self-defense armament and a variety of other technology. Not ideal for testing hypersonic because she doesn't really have a place to put a MAC-equivalent launcher.
But I think you're still making the same mistake the article author did. The limitation is not the lack of platforms for testing, it's the number of test flights of the missile itself.
Last edited:
Technically possible doesn't mean desirable.The Navy isn't decomming the Ticos to help fund hypersonics, the Navy is decomming Ticos because they're used up.Raises the question to help fund the 12? hypersonic CPS missiles per Zumwalt for total of 36 do you think its a good trade off by the Navy plan to decommission 11 Ticos with total 1,342 Mk41 VLS cells in 2022/23/24 saving the necessary expense of refurbishment.I find this author's conclusions all wrong.Navy's problems with the Zumwalt may be hurting its hypersonic weapon efforts - Breaking Defense
The Pentagon's top weapons tester says the service has "limited flight test opportunities" to support putting a hypersonic weapon onboard the Zumwalt class.
This is DOT&E complaining that the test program's limited scope and duration create risk for integrating CPS on the Zs, not that the limited number of Zs is dragging down the CPS program.
The Navy Hypersonic CPS program is estimated at $21.5 billion for a total of 200 missiles by 2040 to be used by the 3 Zumwalts and the Virginia Block Vs. (the cost of the Block V boats $3.45 billion with its VPM for a 12 CPS ~$.5 billion higher than Block IV boats).
There's only so much you can upgrade a ship, especially an already close to overweight hull like the Ticos have. And the Ticos are old. Most of those ships are just DONE.
The LAST one was build in 1994, 27 years ago. Most have more than 30 years of being worked hard. It's a rare deployment that doesn't see problems cropping up that require serious yard time to fix, like cracks in the tank deck.
People should stop thinking up daft reasons for the Ticos to be decommissioned and instead realize that, just like everything else, they have a useful life span, and for more and more units, they're simply at the end of it.
The Navy's in a bind due to the failure of the Navy to replace Tico class with the ill-fated CG(X) next-generation cruiser program, cancelled in 2010 due to the failure of the Zumwalt whose hull was to used for the CCG(X) and the DDG(X) not expected IOC until 2035?
NAVSEA in a memo on service lives lists 35 yrs for the Ticos not 30 years as the current CNO Gilday claims. The Navy has deferred Tico maintenance and now they are in degraded condition eg if they had maintained the tanks routinely they wouldn't have Lake Champlain tank top cracking that required her to return to port..
Congress agreed with Navy in 2015 on a 2-4-6 Tico modernization and life-extension program plan, 2 Ticos a year inducted into the modernization program, lasting no more than four years per ship and no more than six would be in the program at any given time. A small number were allowed to be put into reduced operating status until their induction in the program.
Navy now saying its all too difficult because Ticos are not unexpectedly in a poor material condition and in FY2020 budget request noted the Navy’s intention to cancel the planned Tico modernization and life-extension program. Not surprisingly the Ticos in their modernization program are running 175 to 200 % above estimated cost. The result will be fewer ships in Navy and a big drop in its firepower due to the all those Mk41 VLS tubes lost.
In 2017 Adm Moore said “Most of them have a planned service life of 30 to 35 years (the DDGs [destroyers] and CGs [guided missile cruisers] and the amphibs). We’re taking a pretty close look at what would it take to get them out another five, another 10 years, that shouldn’t be a problem from a technical perspective" isn't it just amazing how Admirals can totally change view.
Two years later the Navy already wanted to can seven of the Ticos (Congress let them retire five), and right now the navy is pursuing FOUR major shipbuilding programs, a new Boomer, a new SSN, a Frigate, AND the Large Surface Combatant.
The Navy simply doesn't have the money to squeeze ten more years out of ships that will need costly overhauls after each deployment anyway, because at the end the hulls are old and seriously stressed.
Firefinder
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 5 October 2019
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 1,700
This is WAY over stating things.
Remember the Navy generally only has enough Missiles to full combat load slightly under 2 thirds of the fleet. Which is not that big of a deal since the last third should be in dock under going maintenance and such be empty of munitions for MANY safety reasons. The lost of the Tico VLS is actually an increase of fire power since more ships can have a full load.
Then you have the Burkes 3 coming on line once a year or so. They are a far better ships that only missing one thing compare to the Ticos.
That is the Combat Air Direction Center.
AKA the only reason why the Ticos are considered a cruiser.
The lost of that is a bigger issue in my eyes. Since it force the already overwork Carrier direction center to now do it.
Hopefully the Navy comes up with something for that. Even if its just rebuilding some Burkes hangers to be the CADC as an ad-hoce solution.
Oh and the Frigates are to be launching like next year as well so that will helps even out.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 12,846
Frigates probably not joining the fleet until about 2027...
U.S. Navy’s Constellation-Class: New Frigate to Start Construction This Year - Naval News
U.S. Navy provided updates on the Constellation-class Frigate program during the Surface Navy Association (SNA) 2022 Symposium.
www.navalnews.com
A Tentative Fleet Plan
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 9 April 2018
- Messages
- 1,163
- Reaction score
- 2,586
A pair of videos on the Advanced Gun System, which seem to show the original DD-21 Design.
View: https://youtu.be/pg1uHRVx8-I
View: https://youtu.be/ilwIhIwf5yI
apparition13
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 27 January 2017
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 960
Re. VGAS, has anyone seen any illustrations or models of DD-21 with VGAS rather than AGS? I'd like to know what those initial designs would have looked like.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 12,846
Early concept design showing AGS (VGAS) combined with a single trainable gun (probably a 5-inch Mk 45 with a low-RCS enclosure).
This would not have represented anything that was actually proposed by industry, since AGS became a trainable gun-launcher before the requirement went out to competition.
A few more images of this same model here:
apparition13
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 27 January 2017
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 960
That's frustratingly vague. I guess I had the timeline wrong. I thought the CG/DD-21 designs were being developed with VGAS, then Congress forced the switch to AGS and the designs changed. I'd also really like to see a plan view of that illustration. I can't really see where the VLS modules are supposed to go in relation to the helipad and hangar. It seems the concept was not as well developed as I thought it was.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 12,846
There was never more than a vague idea of a design until the Navy put DD-21 out to tender, which was actually a big part of the problem.
So, the Navy did the SC-021 COEA in 1995-1996. That came up with a huge range of possible designs (none developed past general arrangements). Some of these had either VGAS or just excess VLS that could be replaced by VGAS. But none actually became SC-21 (COEA Concept 3B1: Littoral Combatant was close but had 5-inch guns.)
There was a pause in SC-21 in 1996 while Borda pushed ArShip. After his suicide, SC-21 restarted and produced a new OPerational Requirements Document in 1997.
VGAS became AGS in mid to late 1998, largely under congressional pressure, IIRC.
In 1998, DoD (Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology Jacques Gansler) was pushing the Navy to adopt a new highly contractor-dependent design process (which became official in August 1998). In a departure from past practice, the Navy left even preliminary design to the contractors and only had a list of specified equipment and operational requirements for the contractors to meet. The DD-21 contractor teams started work in (I think) early 2000, with the goal of getting to a selection by April 2001.
So VGAS was dead before the shipbuilders had serious public thoughts about ship arrangements.
1635yankee
Recovering aeronautical engineer
- Joined
- 18 August 2020
- Messages
- 479
- Reaction score
- 608
1000 nm? That would be 1000 nanometers, so that's not likely to be a problem
More seriously, I tend to agree that reviving the 8 in MCLWG may have been better than the AGS. I also tend to think that the raison d'etre for installing the AGS onto a very expensive warship put the DDX into a position where it was, in many ways, a one-trick pony, far too focused on fire support. Yes, I realize that much of any navy's job is to project power ashore, but it's certainly not a navy's only job, and the DDX seems to be too focused on that one role.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 12,846
Without a guided round, an 8-inch MCLWG would have accomplished essentially the same portion of the USMC fire support requirements as a 5-inch Mk45. Which is to say, almost none.
But to complain that AGS made DD(X) a "one-trick pony" is to miss every other capability in the ship. Must have been another thread where I pointed out that if you look at the DD-21/DD(X) requirements, in almost every mission area, they are "Like a Spruance but better." The exceptions are ASuW, where they left out ASCMs (but then, so did a big portion of the DDG-51 fleet), and AAW, where they radically upped the requirement from "barely capable of self defense" to "very capable including some local area defense."
The Navy's mistake (OK, one of several) was not in over-specializing the design, it was in over-specializing the sales pitch. By calling the Zumwalts Land-Attack Destroyers, Navy leadership gave far too many people the idea that they couldn't do anything else. The earlier Power Projection Combatant might have been a better pitch. But they got hit by the Rumsfeld truck plus 9/11 and never figured out how to recover.
apparition13
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 27 January 2017
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 960
Mk-71 needed to be deployed on Spruance. Add 20 years of development and I can easily see a 8" guided ramjet round that could meet the USMC proposal. Stick one of those on a PPC or other COEA combatant (my favorite is the Aviation Cruiser) and AGS and VGAS are redundant.
Since Mk-71 was also capable of fitting in a 64-cell Mk41 space (see the modular Burke drawings) it wouldn't need a ship to be built around it like AGS did. You could stick one on one of the larger COEA designs, or CGBL, or even a Burke, though taking another page from the modular Brooke playbook I'd delete the hangars for a second 32 cell Mk41.
Since Mk-71 was also capable of fitting in a 64-cell Mk41 space (see the modular Burke drawings) it wouldn't need a ship to be built around it like AGS did. You could stick one on one of the larger COEA designs, or CGBL, or even a Burke, though taking another page from the modular Brooke playbook I'd delete the hangars for a second 32 cell Mk41.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 12,846
But does this seem very realistic? For starters, no one yet has fielded a ramjet artillery shell and there's nothing about MCLWG that would magically make that happen.
Assuming the USN deployed Mk 71 on the DD-963s, that's ~30 tubes at sea. Maybe you also get a tranche of DDG-51s with the 8-inch gun forward replacing the 5-inch gun and 32 VLS. (But only if you've demonstrated the value of the 8-inch gun. Maybe off Lebanon, in place of the battleship?). And hopefully you get the laser-guided projectile for them, but it's far from guaranteed. See Deadeye for one way that could play out instead.
But I don't see there being money or ability to develop a hyper-long-range ramjet shell when the Navy couldn't even do LRLAP right, which should have been much simpler.
The COEA ships were, frankly, weird. Especially the 3A series of giant cruisers. They never made much sense unless you were going to totally tear up the Navy's force structure and start over. And why you'd want a aviation cruiser with a dozen helicopters to also be standing inshore to deliver shore bombardment is unclear to me. (it makes about as much sense at the 5-inch guns on the LHA-1s)
Something in the range of 3B1 (Littoral Combatant) or 3C1 (Maritime Combatant) make a lot more sense to me as a ship to follow the DDG-51 into production and replace the Spruances. (And 3B1 is close to what they got, but with AGS instead of 5-inch guns, and much more stealth)
Any time you delete hangars from a modern escort, I think it's a mistake. Because the helo ends up being the most versatile asset on the ship.
Last edited:
apparition13
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 27 January 2017
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 960
Fifty years of development? Start with a naval copperhead. Later add base bleed, then rocket assist. Take the MM seeker from the Wasp missile to make an anti-ship shell. Maybe experiment with IR seekers from Sidewinders, or the radar seeker from the RAM to see if guided AA shells are useful. Work your way around to a ramjet. What the 8" gives you over the 5" shell is a lot more cross section area and volume to work with. I'm not saying you would field a fully functional ramjet by 1980, but perhaps after 30-40 years one might be in service by 2000-2010. It is a technological path not taken; who knows where it might be now if we had gone down it then.
Maybe, but if development starts during the Cold War, it might have had better funding early, so more momentum overall, and gone to completion by 2000 or so. Or not. Maybe it doesn't work at all.
I wouldn't. The CGH (I think that's the natural designation for the aviation cruiser) would be a carrier escort and battlefleet combatant, and if I could get a PPS and something like a more heavily armed Hyuga for about the same cost I'd take that instead. Littoral combat is way down on my list of naval missions.
Incidentaly, the PPC design was 28 feet longer and 500 tons lighter than Zumwalt, so htey are about the same size. However, because the PPC is basically a supersized Tico, I suspect it would have been much cheaper to build, so many more, perhaps even the full program, might have been built.
If you have a CGH or a Hyuga (which with more missile cells would be an actual Spruance replacement in the ASW role) you can afford to have some task force ships without Helicopters. Or keep the hangar, and carry less missiles. Or keep the hangar, and delete the 5" for more missiles. That's the thing about the modular Burke design, there are so many possible configurations.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 12,846
This seems to be very optimistic to me.
There was a fairly extensive program for cannon-launched guided projectiles in the early 1970s. In fact, the MCLWG on USS Hull fired 5 "Paveway" guided rounds against a ship target with good effect. So clearly, it was possible. But there were comparable 5-inch versions as well (including both laser and IR guided rounds). They all died out from the mid 1970s to early 1980s due to lack of funding and/or technological immaturity. I don't see how having the 8-inch MCLWG would make guided projectile programs more likely to succeed.
The steel isn't the cause of DD-21's cost issues. The Power Projection Ship has just as much expensive "stuff" in it as a DDG-1000, especially assuming you still tried to do things like field a new radar suite on the ship as they planned for DD-21.
A Tentative Fleet Plan
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 9 April 2018
- Messages
- 1,163
- Reaction score
- 2,586
It's worth pointing out that the radar arrays if the COEA designs were smaller than those intended for DD-21, and that they would likely have grown in size in the ships were intended to be realistically built, which would have, in turn, driven up ship size even more.
Firefinder
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 5 October 2019
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 1,700
A Tentative Fleet Plan
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 9 April 2018
- Messages
- 1,163
- Reaction score
- 2,586
The COEA designs, DD-21, DD(X), CG(X) and the Zumwalts were all originally intended to have separate S-Band and X-Band arrays, so the absolute minimum number of arrays was going to be 6. Even then, the COEA design's radars were much smaller than those intended for the later ships, and would have almost certainly grown as the designs were developed to become more realistic.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
Proposed 1980 Update of FRAM Gearing class Destroyers
- Started by Christopher Wang
- Replies: 7