DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

[sferrin]

Essentially, they hate having an orphan system with a unique support and training pipeline, its own unique weapon inventory, and no obvious upgrade path.

If only there was a role these could be used for.

 

[Cordy]

Essentially, they hate having an orphan system with a unique support and training pipeline, its own unique weapon inventory, and no obvious upgrade path.

If only there was a role these could be used for.

Would not be surprised if the cost SPY-3, development, testing and production plus its special missiles ~$1 billion,? Zumwalt total R&D quoted as $12 billion by the GAO (would like to see a breakdown of the R&D), now will have the additional cost of the de-installation of the SPY-3 from deck house, installation and cost of the different size SPY-6(V)3s plus the necessary engineering and software integration to make it compatible with the TSCE CMS. Why are the Navy not also replacing the orphan TSCE with Aegis as well as SPY-3 if Navy "hate having unique support and training pipeline, its own unique weapon inventory, and no obvious upgrade path", so what is so special with SPY-3 that it needs replacing, pure speculation its root problems unsolvable - the Thales Nederland APAR X-band radar had no problems with the operating the semi-active ESSMs.

No end in site to money being spent on the Zumwalt's, just big black holes, the Drive quotes an unbelievable $9.1 billion per ship with R&D vs Burkes $2 to 2.1 billion per ship.

 

[Firefinder]

You need to remember what the SPY3 was design for.

That is horizon pop up defense. It a short range radar design for looking into seaclutter and to guided missiles.

That it, that all it was design to do.

The SPY4 was the long range area search radar ment to do the spotting tracking of targets. It had the need power, sensitivity, and computer processing to do that.

When they cut the SPY4 from the Zumwalts for costs they had to reprogram the short range SPY3 radar for the SPY4 long range area work.

Which puts a metric fuckton of stress on the system that was not ment to handle it. And it shows in its performance which apperantly is noticeable lower then the SPY1. The fact the SPY3 is a X band system is a large part of that reason.

Throw in the fact that all of 4 ships, 1 Fords and 3 Zumwalts, are getting it?

Eyeah can see why the navy will want to pull it. Imaging that the Ford Spy3/4 will be pulled in her next refit as well.

IMO I say keep it, and slap the SPY6 in the spot the Spy4 was to go, and revert the SPY3 back to its og job. While having the SPY3 become the new director system for the fleet since the 6 lacks that ability due to the dropping of the X band part.

 

[TomS]

There is also an OPSEC element. If you see a SPY-3, you know it's one of four ships. If you see a SPY-6, it could (eventually) be one of dozens of ships.

 

[Cordy]

You need to remember what the SPY3 was design for.

That is horizon pop up defense. It a short range radar design for looking into seaclutter and to guided missiles.

That it, that all it was design to do.

The SPY4 was the long range area search radar ment to do the spotting tracking of targets. It had the need power, sensitivity, and computer processing to do that.

When they cut the SPY4 from the Zumwalts for costs they had to reprogram the short range SPY3 radar for the SPY4 long range area work.

Which puts a metric fuckton of stress on the system that was not ment to handle it. And it shows in its performance which apperantly is noticeable lower then the SPY1. The fact the SPY3 is a X band system is a large part of that reason.

Throw in the fact that all of 4 ships, 1 Fords and 3 Zumwalts, are getting it?

Eyeah can see why the navy will want to pull it. Imaging that the Ford Spy3/4 will be pulled in her next refit as well.

IMO I say keep it, and slap the SPY6 in the spot the Spy4 was to go, and revert the SPY3 back to its og job. While having the SPY3 become the new director system for the fleet since the 6 lacks that ability due to the dropping of the X band part.

Would guess SPY-3 range approx 150 miles? which have seen claimed for the similar X-band APAR radar. The Navy cancelled the SPY-4 VSR in 2010 after Zumwalt breached Nunn-McCurdy cost limit they claimed SPY-3 with additional software modifications for VSR more than adequate for any Zumwalt mission. Now the Navy doing about face and changing their story by replacing SPY-3 by installing the longer range S-band SPY-6(V)3, question is why as ESSM and SM-2 do not require longer range radars as the Burkes with their long range SM-6 and SM-3 missiles, it maybe as you say the SPY-3 did not have capability to handle the additional VSR role.

PS X-band radars can be long range as demonstrated by the high power Raytheon AN/TPY-2 for THAAD, a big factor in its long range is the size of the antenna, 100 sq ft, which makes them very expensive due the very high number of the small X-band T/R modules required to populate the large antenna.

 

[Firefinder]

You need to remember what the SPY3 was design for.

That is horizon pop up defense. It a short range radar design for looking into seaclutter and to guided missiles.

That it, that all it was design to do.

The SPY4 was the long range area search radar ment to do the spotting tracking of targets. It had the need power, sensitivity, and computer processing to do that.

When they cut the SPY4 from the Zumwalts for costs they had to reprogram the short range SPY3 radar for the SPY4 long range area work.

Which puts a metric fuckton of stress on the system that was not ment to handle it. And it shows in its performance which apperantly is noticeable lower then the SPY1. The fact the SPY3 is a X band system is a large part of that reason.

Throw in the fact that all of 4 ships, 1 Fords and 3 Zumwalts, are getting it?

Eyeah can see why the navy will want to pull it. Imaging that the Ford Spy3/4 will be pulled in her next refit as well.

IMO I say keep it, and slap the SPY6 in the spot the Spy4 was to go, and revert the SPY3 back to its og job. While having the SPY3 become the new director system for the fleet since the 6 lacks that ability due to the dropping of the X band part.

Would guess SPY-3 range approx 150 miles? which have seen claimed for the similar X-band APAR radar. The Navy cancelled the SPY-4 VSR in 2010 after Zumwalt breached Nunn-McCurdy cost limit they claimed SPY-3 with additional software modifications for VSR more than adequate for any Zumwalt mission. Now the Navy doing about face and changing their story by replacing SPY-3 by installing the longer range S-band SPY-6(V)3, question is why as ESSM and SM-2 do not require longer range radars as the Burkes with their long range SM-6 and SM-3 missiles, it maybe as you say the SPY-3 did not have capability to handle the additional VSR role.

PS X-band radars can be long range as demonstrated by the high power Raytheon AN/TPY-2 for THAAD, a big factor in its long range is the size of the antenna, 100 sq ft, which makes them very expensive due the very high number of the small X-band T/R modules required to populate the large antenna.

Because back in 2012 when that decision was made the MISSION was to basically bumbling around off shore being a weapons platform.

So the short range was consider a alright trade off since there wasn't a another peer navy that wasn't allied with US worth a damn.

Now in 2022 the mission is to do actual peer to peer navy things against China.

Which the shorter range, 50 miles less then the Spy1 listing of 200 miles, is an actual handicap. Especially with the like of hypersonics in the game. Since you want longer to have more warning to give the OODA loop the most time to do its thing.

Its almost like the future is aways in motion making fools of what people guess. Especially when dealing with short sighted idiots that inhabitant the halls of paying for shit like this.

PS the TPY2 is larger then any warship radar. So the fact that that thing has long range is kinda moot when one face is bigger then six SPY3 faces combine.

 

[TomS]

Which the shorter range, 50 miles less then the Spy1 listing of 200 miles, is an actual handicap. Especially with the like of hypersonics in the game. Since you want longer to have more warning to give the OODA loop the most time to do its thing.

I'm especially thinking that once the CPS retrofit is done, you might well see the Zs operating as independent assets, rather than being part of a task force. If so, they will need their own self-defense capability against ASBMs. Hence SPY-6 and presumably SM-6.

 

[Cordy]

PS X-band radars can be long range as demonstrated by the high power Raytheon AN/TPY-2 for THAAD, a big factor in its long range is the size of the antenna, 100 sq ft, which makes them very expensive due the very high number of the small X-band T/R modules required to populate the large antenna.

PS the TPY2 is larger then any warship radar. So the fact that that thing has long range is kinda moot when one face is bigger then six SPY3 faces combine.

Would note the Burke Flt III SPY-6(V)1 that each of the four arrrys are near 50% larger than the single TPY-2 array, each SPY-6 array consists of 37 RMAs each 2'x2', giving total of 148 sq ft. The RMA contains 24 S-band T/M modules for total of 888 whereas the one third smaller TPY-2 array contains 25,000+ X-band T/R modules and as the T/R modules are one of the primary drivers of a radar’s cost makes them expensive.

X-band radars give superior medium to high altitude performance over S-band radars due to its shorter and higher definition waveband, giving rise to better range resolution and thus higher quality discrimination data and with its pencil beams give it an excellent ability to focus in on target for missile engagements, also a weak point of the S-band is that the radar signal bends slightly upwards at the horizon, so that low-incoming anti-ship missiles are not immediately detected whereas X-band does the opposite and being usually lighter can be mounted higher on the mast to further extend range at sea level. Its best if X and S band radars fitted together to make the most of their complimentary strengths as was the original plan for Zumwalt with the X-band SPY-3 and S-band SPY-4.

 

[BlackBat242]

Eyeah can see why the navy will want to pull it. Imaging that the Ford Spy3/4 will be pulled in her next refit as well.

Ford will keep her SPY-3 & SPY-4 systems (her 3-sided SPY-4 will be supported using parts from the systems removed from the Zumwalts).

Starting with CVN-79 JFK(II) SPY-6(V)3 (3-sides) will be fitted instead of SPY-4, and SPY-3 will also be fitted.

Note that the Flight IIA Burkes are to have their SPY-1Ds replaced with SPY-6(V)4s (4 sides) during refits.

SPY-3 is a narrow beam width, low altitude "horizon search" radar, while SPY-4 and SPY-6 are volume search radars.

 

[Firefinder]

Eyeah can see why the navy will want to pull it. Imaging that the Ford Spy3/4 will be pulled in her next refit as well.

Ford will keep her SPY-3 & SPY-4 systems (her 3-sided SPY-4 will be supported using parts from the systems removed from the Zumwalts).

Starting with CVN-79 JFK(II) SPY-6(V)3 (3-sides) will be fitted instead of SPY-4, and SPY-3 will also be fitted.

Note that the Flight IIA Burkes are to have their SPY-1Ds replaced with SPY-6(V)4s (4 sides) during refits.

SPY-3 is a narrow beam width, low altitude "horizon search" radar, while SPY-4 and SPY-6 are volume search radars.

Notice how I said till her next refit.

Which shouldn't be fkr another 20 odd yesrs from now.

Alot can change in that time, especially when it comess to notorious finicky and Part hungry gear that is radar.

Either the Ford or JFK takes a bad wave, or heaven forbid damage to the radars?

Or hell the navy may decide it be cheaper to unified radars with tge rest of the fleet that be using the SPY6?

Can easily see that changing.

Hell we have posts stating just that the Zumwalts will have the spy3 for life in this thread.

And here we are, talking bout the navy pulling them...

Nothing is set in stone with gear, especially when the replacement is so easily modified to fit.

 

[BlackBat242]

Eyeah can see why the navy will want to pull it. Imaging that the Ford Spy3/4 will be pulled in her next refit as well.

Ford will keep her SPY-3 & SPY-4 systems (her 3-sided SPY-4 will be supported using parts from the systems removed from the Zumwalts).

Starting with CVN-79 JFK(II) SPY-6(V)3 (3-sides) will be fitted instead of SPY-4, and SPY-3 will also be fitted.

Note that the Flight IIA Burkes are to have their SPY-1Ds replaced with SPY-6(V)4s (4 sides) during refits.

SPY-3 is a narrow beam width, low altitude "horizon search" radar, while SPY-4 and SPY-6 are volume search radars.

Notice how I said till her next refit.

Which shouldn't be fkr another 20 odd yesrs from now.

OK - Ford will undergo numerous refits* (USN use of the term) before her mid-life Complex OverHaul (the USN's official name for what the Brits call "mid-life refit"- which is how you apparently were using the term).

So I thought you meant the next time she gets worked on at all, while you meant "mid-life".

Again, two nations separated by a common language .



* Usually entering drydock every 4-5 years, with a 6-month or longer "alongside availability for maintenance" at least twice between drydockings.

 

[Cordy]

The Zumwalt radar suite was the outcome of the NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study and other studies for an X-band AESA-based radar considered optimal for shipboard self-defense (horizon search). The choice of X-band frequency provided favorable low-altitude propagation characteristics, narrow beam width for track accuracy, wide operating bandwidth and the ability to support target illumination for guided missile engagements. The SPY-3 radar was to be paired with an S-band SPY-4 solid state/AESA VSR radar, to form the Zumwalt Dual-Band Radar suite with common radar suite control, receiver-exciter, and radar signal-processing functions, as mentioned SPY-4 cancelled to save money though fitted to Ford

The follow on Radar/Hull Study for the future CG(X) which morphed into Burke Flt III came to the same conclusion which resulted in the preferred option for a new radar was a large S-band radar sized for simultaneous BMD and area air defense coupled with a smaller X-band radar sized for self-defense. The recommended radar, though scaled to a smaller size, would ultimately become SPY-6(V)1. AMDR was to be a suite of two radars, the AMDR-S (S-band) and AMDR-X (X-band), with a radar suite controller to coordinate the activities of the two radars as with Zumwalt. To date the Navy has never funded the new gen solid state/AESA AMDR-X relying on the old tech AN/SPQ-9B X-band radar, though on and off studies continue under the acronym FXR, Future X-band Radar

 

[aonestudio]

HII Wins Advanced Planning Contract for Zumwalt-class ships - Naval News

HII's Ingalls Shipbuilding division was awarded a $10.5 million contract for the modernization period planning of Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers, USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) and USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001).

www.navalnews.com

 

[Cordy]

Capt. Tyson Young of the PEO for the Zumwalt Integrated Combat System said at the American Society for Naval Engineers’ annual Combat Systems Symposium, 1-2 Feb
Quotes and a few thoughts

The Navy plans to perform a hypersonic missile test shot off guided-missile destroyer USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) in December 2025

Less than three years to go and as far as know Navy have yet to qualify the Trident variation VLS tube to launch the ~3,000 km Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile before ripping out the main guns and magazines installing them on ship

There are no less than five captains involved in making sure this happens”

Only five?

“We’re integrating an underwater weapons control system with [tactical support center] control in order to affect the data and message transfer to launch the missile,”

I'm lost as why the "underwater weapons control system" involved

We’re virtualizing both sets of control systems.

Which two systems

Navy issued HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding a $10.5 million contract to plan for the modernization period for Zumwalt and USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001)

Capt. made no mention for the estimated cost to modify the ships to install the four VLS tubes to launch the hypersonic missiles (Navy planning to upgrade 20 Burke Flt IIA's with SPY-6(V)4, SEWIP Blk3 and Aegis 10 for $17 billion) so don't think it will be cheap.

The service can field about 12 missiles aboard each Zumwalt-class destroyer

Three missiles per VLS tube

https://news.usni.org/2023/02/01/navy-planning-for-december-2025-hypersonic-missile-test-off-uss-zumwalt#more-100653

 

[Cordy]

Would not be surprised with HII and Lockheed the Zumwalt conversion costs will be approx. $1billion per ship to fire the very limited number of 12 hypersonic CPS missiles per ship for a grand total 36 of the three ships in class.

To me the whole CPS business case is a nonsense, brute force and critically the ability to sustain and replenish your firepower of missiles and shells etc over an extended period historically is what wins wars in the end and to me the token number of delivery systems for the CPS missiles or ability to manufacture them in anything like sufficient numbers fails to meet these criteria.

PS Understand the Virginia Blk 5s will add a few more launchers for the CPS missiles but not even matching the number of the retiring four Ohio SSGNs with ability to launch a total of 616 Tomahawks.

The Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a $1.1 billion initial contract to integrate hypersonic strike capability onto Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers//The contract, which could be worth as much as $2 billion if all options are exercised//Under this contract, prime contractor Lockheed Martin will provide launcher systems, weapon control, All Up Rounds (AURs), which are the integrated missile components, and platform integration support for this naval platform.

Lockheed awarded $1.1 billion contract for sea-based hypersonic strike | InsideDefense.com

The Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a $1.1 billion initial contract to integrate hypersonic strike capability onto Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers, according to a Friday announcement from the company.

insidedefense.com

 

[bobbymike]

Because they should be converting a retired LHAs to carry about 100 VLS cells and 300 hypersonic missiles. Some could also carry single CTMs with 10k range.

 

[sferrin]

HII Wins Advanced Planning Contract for Zumwalt-class ships - Naval News

HII's Ingalls Shipbuilding division was awarded a $10.5 million contract for the modernization period planning of Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers, USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) and USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001).

www.navalnews.com

Anybody know why they never mention DDG 1002 in these upgrades?

 

[TomS]

HII Wins Advanced Planning Contract for Zumwalt-class ships - Naval News

HII's Ingalls Shipbuilding division was awarded a $10.5 million contract for the modernization period planning of Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyers, USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) and USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001).

www.navalnews.com

Anybody know why they never mention DDG 1002 in these upgrades?

At a guess, the timing of her refit periods puts the work outside the FYDP?

 

[TomS]

Because they should be converting a retired LHAs to carry about 100 VLS cells and 300 hypersonic missiles. Some could also carry single CTMs with 10k range.

Bizarre idea. The LHAs were ancient, steam-driven monstrosities. The only intact one (Pelilau) is 8 years retired and probably overdue for scrapping or target practice.

 

[Moose]

DDG-1002 is already at HII having her combat system activated, but the planning and implementation of her upgrades will be different from her sisters' given that she's not yet operational and has some differences (all steel deckhouse). It may seem strange, but from a planning and procurement point of view her unique status means she won't automatically be included in contracts for the first two.

It is possible to find contract awards which confirm she's also getting CPS, like this one:

Contract Award: General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (Bath, Maine) - $19,683,882 - Defense Daily

General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, was awarded a $19,683,882 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-19-C-2322 for procurement of long-lead time material for the Large Missile Vertical Launch System launch module fabrication on DDG-1002. Work will be...

www.defensedaily.com

 

[sferrin]

DDG-1002 is already at HII having her combat system activated, but the planning and implementation of her upgrades will be different from her sisters' given that she's not yet operational and has some differences (all steel deckhouse). It may seem strange, but from a planning and procurement point of view her unique status means she won't automatically be included in contracts for the first two.

It is possible to find contract awards which confirm she's also getting CPS, like this one:

Contract Award: General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (Bath, Maine) - $19,683,882 - Defense Daily

General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, was awarded a $19,683,882 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-19-C-2322 for procurement of long-lead time material for the Large Missile Vertical Launch System launch module fabrication on DDG-1002. Work will be...

www.defensedaily.com

Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?

 

[Moose]

DDG-1002 is already at HII having her combat system activated, but the planning and implementation of her upgrades will be different from her sisters' given that she's not yet operational and has some differences (all steel deckhouse). It may seem strange, but from a planning and procurement point of view her unique status means she won't automatically be included in contracts for the first two.

It is possible to find contract awards which confirm she's also getting CPS, like this one:

Contract Award: General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (Bath, Maine) - $19,683,882 - Defense Daily

General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, was awarded a $19,683,882 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-19-C-2322 for procurement of long-lead time material for the Large Missile Vertical Launch System launch module fabrication on DDG-1002. Work will be...

www.defensedaily.com

Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?

Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.

 

[bobbymike]

Because they should be converting a retired LHAs to carry about 100 VLS cells and 300 hypersonic missiles. Some could also carry single CTMs with 10k range.

Bizarre idea. The LHAs were ancient, steam-driven monstrosities. The only intact one (Pelilau) is 8 years retired and probably overdue for scrapping or target practice.

WWII battleships, 8 year retired LHA I’m sure it’s possible.

My point being find something with a big flat deck to carry a lot of missiles, LHA, LPD, LHD whatever. Heck a couple CVNs as the Fords come online.

Or as Columbia deployed refurbish the youngest remaining Ohio’s.

 

[MihoshiK]

Because they should be converting a retired LHAs to carry about 100 VLS cells and 300 hypersonic missiles. Some could also carry single CTMs with 10k range.

Bizarre idea. The LHAs were ancient, steam-driven monstrosities. The only intact one (Pelilau) is 8 years retired and probably overdue for scrapping or target practice.

WWII battleships, 8 year retired LHA I’m sure it’s possible.

My point being find something with a big flat deck to carry a lot of missiles, LHA, LPD, LHD whatever. Heck a couple CVNs as the Fords come online.

Or as Columbia deployed refurbish the youngest remaining Ohio’s.

Bizarre idea. Putting all of your eggs in one ancient basket. And just because it has a flat deck does not mean you can actually put all of those missiles on her either.

Like, discounting the VLS and simply focussing on the missiles... You're proposing adding 2250 metric TONNES high up in the ship. After digging up several of it's decks to make the damn things fit anyhow.

And you want to do this to an old ship that the Navy probably doesn't have spare parts for any more, nor the specialists to run her.

And then you've spend hundreds of millions (or in the case of multiple ships billions) to have one missile barge. Money better spend on that large surface combatant that the navy wants... You know, the one that will be able to carry CPS right from the start.

I guess you don't want the USN to have nice things.

 

[Firefinder]

Honestly if the Navy is that hard up for missile cells.

Which it not.

It be cheaper and likely easier to use an active hull design as the base.

The CPS is bout 40 foot long from what I heard and from the size limits of both the VPM and M870 trailers.

The MK41 Strike installation is 35 foot tall.

Assuming the thing is cold launch, you could build tge Flight 2 with CPS slots in place of the hangers as a replacement of the Flight 1s. Or if they are too long make the things like the old Tomahawk Box Launchers that go inplace of the hanger...

Maybe refit one of the LCS types by doing similar to their Hanger slash mission bay. Toss in the UAV tech, the LUSV is another option, and you got basically the modern version of fireships.

Hell do one of these ideas in the attach pdf from this link.

Bringing Hypersonic Missiles to the Fleet: A Case Study Analysis - Naval News

In September, 2021, Sebastian I. Banuchi, Thomas M. Hughes, Cole Rice, and Thia N. Tank had a report published by the U.S. Navy’s Naval Postgraduate School titled: “Bringing hypersonic Missile Capability to the Fleet.” Their System Engineering Report essentially focused on how to transport...

www.navalnews.com

Park the launcher on to a LPD or EPF flight deck and fire them that way. Could probably do the same with the LCS as well....

There are so many better, cheaper, easier to maintain long term ways to do this then pulling out an 8 year decommissioned class that that served nearly 40 years straight its not funny.

 

[TomS]

Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?

Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.

At this point, you'd badly want to redesign a lot of the ship anyway, starting from the machinery plant and probably the combat system (TSCE seems like a bit of a dead end). And of course the radar.

 

[TomS]

There are so many better, cheaper, easier to maintain long term ways to do this then pulling out an 8 year decommissioned class that that served nearly 40 years straight its not funny.

A container ship always seemed like a better starting place. The lower cargo compartments on a mid-sized ship always seemed like a smarter place to put VLS than the hangar deck of an aviation ship.

You'd need to find one of the faster models and still do some hacking about to create acceptable damage control and stability, but it seems like a better approach. (Even assuming you did want a ship with hundreds of cells, which as you say is far from a given).

 

[sferrin]

Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?

Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.

At this point, you'd badly want to redesign a lot of the ship anyway, starting from the machinery plant and probably the combat system (TSCE seems like a bit of a dead end). And of course the radar.

I thought all that stuff was supposed to be bleeding edge?

 

[Cordy]

Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?

Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.

At this point, you'd badly want to redesign a lot of the ship anyway, starting from the machinery plant and probably the combat system (TSCE seems like a bit of a dead end). And of course the radar.

I thought all that stuff was supposed to be bleeding edge?

Why would anyone consider re-starting build of the disaster that was the Zumwalt, according to CBO figures the FLD was 65% larger than a Burke Flt III, but the payload (deadweight) was only 10% higher.

"Deadweight, or deadmass, is the difference between the load displacement up to the minimum permitted freeboard and the lightweight or light displacement. Lightweight is the weight of the hull and machinery, so the deadweight includes the weapons, fuel, water, crew and effects"

 

[Moose]

Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?

Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.

At this point, you'd badly want to redesign a lot of the ship anyway, starting from the machinery plant and probably the combat system (TSCE seems like a bit of a dead end). And of course the radar.

I thought all that stuff was supposed to be bleeding edge?

Computer technology moves fast, and the Dual Band Radar has been a let-down even in its pared-down "SPY-3 Only" fit to the Zs. while DDG(X) is often described as having the "same" integrated drive system as DDG-1000, at the very least updating the electric motors to present-day state of the art would both require development and pay off in terms of performance over the life of the ships.

The TSCE question is an interesting one, for everything that isn't the combat system it seems still relevant and I've not seen a good quality breakdown of how it performs on the hulls in service. Its problem on the combat system side is that it isn't Aegis, and was designed at a time when Aegis was a closed system. But the Navy is moving steadily in the direction of OA, COTS, and virtualization. If they get to the point where they can build an OA ship that uses TSCE, or something like it, to run the ship and a virtual Aegis system to do the fighting, is that desirable?

 

[bobbymike]

Because they should be converting a retired LHAs to carry about 100 VLS cells and 300 hypersonic missiles. Some could also carry single CTMs with 10k range.

Bizarre idea. The LHAs were ancient, steam-driven monstrosities. The only intact one (Pelilau) is 8 years retired and probably overdue for scrapping or target practice.

WWII battleships, 8 year retired LHA I’m sure it’s possible.

My point being find something with a big flat deck to carry a lot of missiles, LHA, LPD, LHD whatever. Heck a couple CVNs as the Fords come online.

Or as Columbia deployed refurbish the youngest remaining Ohio’s.

Bizarre idea. Putting all of your eggs in one ancient basket. And just because it has a flat deck does not mean you can actually put all of those missiles on her either.

Like, discounting the VLS and simply focussing on the missiles... You're proposing adding 2250 metric TONNES high up in the ship. After digging up several of it's decks to make the damn things fit anyhow.

And you want to do this to an old ship that the Navy probably doesn't have spare parts for any more, nor the specialists to run her.

And then you've spend hundreds of millions (or in the case of multiple ships billions) to have one missile barge. Money better spend on that large surface combatant that the navy wants... You know, the one that will be able to carry CPS right from the start.

I guess you don't want the USN to have nice things.

Missing the forest…….

Yes why I listed other options with a central idea of having the ability to carry a lot of strike missiles. Im concerned about the coming retirement of our SSGNs. I probably shouldn’t have discussed as a specific platform in my first post as my the idea was more about a concept. If there are better ways to accomplish this great I’m in.

Heck bring densepack blueprints out of mothballs but for IRBMs on Guam

 

[Firefinder]

Is it too late for this line to ever be extended?

Broadly speaking, it's as possible to revive as DDG-51 Restart was. Bath and HII could certainly do it from a shipyard point of view. The challenge would be with subcontractors who have moved on and can't jump right back in. It certainly wouldn't be free, just as Restart wasn't.

At this point, you'd badly want to redesign a lot of the ship anyway, starting from the machinery plant and probably the combat system (TSCE seems like a bit of a dead end). And of course the radar.

I thought all that stuff was supposed to be bleeding edge?

Why would anyone consider re-starting build of the disaster that was the Zumwalt, according to CBO figures the FLD was 65% larger than a Burke Flt III, but the payload (deadweight) was only 10% higher.

"Deadweight, or deadmass, is the difference between the load displacement up to the minimum permitted freeboard and the lightweight or light displacement. Lightweight is the weight of the hull and machinery, so the deadweight includes the weapons, fuel, water, crew and effects"

Because despite that the Zumwalts growth margins are far higher then anything out there without designing something new.

Alot of the so called deadweight is from having overbuilt auxiliary gear. Like heavier power lines for electric weapons like railguns and lasers. Over strength hull to take the mounting of such. Over power generators and engines to run everything, with the fuel tankage to make it want range, which is 6000 to the Burkes 4k at 20 knots.

Also so the navy doesn't have to tear the ship apart to refit it like the Burkes.

Alot of the minor stuff that they figure might need to be done in the future, like what Ive listed, has done on day 1 at the yard.

Resulting in a hull that is extremely easy to upgrade.

As seen by the hypersonic install.

You literally can not do that to a Burke without losing something major, like a VLS farm.

Cause as design tge Burke only had a 5 percent payload increase from the Spraunces despite being 70 percent larger. Losing a gun and 2000 miles in range, for roughly 32 more cells in comparision.

 

[TomS]

Why would anyone consider re-starting build of the disaster that was the Zumwalt, according to CBO figures the FLD was 65% larger than a Burke Flt III, but the payload (deadweight) was only 10% higher.

"Deadweight, or deadmass, is the difference between the load displacement up to the minimum permitted freeboard and the lightweight or light displacement. Lightweight is the weight of the hull and machinery, so the deadweight includes the weapons, fuel, water, crew and effects"

Deadweight here is only the variable payload -- fuel, expendable ammunition, stores, crew, and probably the helicopter. It doesn't include the actual fixed weight of weapons or combat systems, such as the VLS itself, the gun turrets, the ammunition handling system, radars, sonars, etc.

And I guarantee that the extra displacement of the ship is not a significant source of the actual cost. Put the same combat systems in a conventional hull and you may save some displacement, but probably not much cost, and you will sacrifice the ship's LO characteristics.

 

[Cordy]

Why would anyone consider re-starting build of the disaster that was the Zumwalt, according to CBO figures the FLD was 65% larger than a Burke Flt III, but the payload (deadweight) was only 10% higher.

"Deadweight, or deadmass, is the difference between the load displacement up to the minimum permitted freeboard and the lightweight or light displacement. Lightweight is the weight of the hull and machinery, so the deadweight includes the weapons, fuel, water, crew and effects"

Deadweight here is only the variable payload -- fuel, expendable ammunition, stores, crew, and probably the helicopter. It doesn't include the actual fixed weight of weapons or combat systems, such as the VLS itself, the gun turrets, the ammunition handling system, radars, sonars, etc.

And I guarantee that the extra displacement of the ship is not a significant source of the actual cost. Put the same combat systems in a conventional hull and you may save some displacement, but probably not much cost, and you will sacrifice the ship's LO characteristics.

Take your point that the weight of combat systems and sensors e.g. AGS of the Zumwalt maybe heavier than Burkes though the Buke has the heavier SPY-6, we don't know the figures for the weight of systems fitted to both ships to compare. but a ship with a 65% larger displacement, which if fitted with same systems would show a larger increase in deadweight than its increase of 65% of its FLD due the natural decrease in weight of its H,M&E as a proportion of total weight in a larger ship, doubt very much any reasonable estimate of increased weight of Zumwalts combat systems would account for such a large discrepancy. Suspicion falls on the Zumwalt oddball tumblehome hull design and the necessary systems in making it seaworthy in the name of LO compared to a standard hull and its IPS.
Reflected in the procurement cost of the Zumwalts at near $5 billion each compared to a Burke at $2 billion and agree on your point the larger displacement ships with standard hulls not a major driver of cost, "steel is cheap and air is free".

 

[sferrin]

And it has that big beautiful flight deck.

 

[TomS]

Suspicion falls on the Zumwalt oddball tumblehome hull design and the necessary systems in making it seaworthy in the name of LO compared to a standard hull and its IPS.

Yes? Of course the LO features contribute a lot to the displacement. Getting that very low RCS means ballasting to keep the max beam right at the waterline. I wouldn't say that's just making the ship marginally seaworthy. By most accounts the Zs are excellent sea boats, probably better than the Burkes. And the LO isn't a party trick to just ignore. For independent sailing strikers like the Zs with CPS, LO is a critical enabling capability.

 

[Cordy]

If you want beautiful the Navy would have better spending its $billions on Rodin sculptures or Rembrandt paintings

 

[Cordy]

Suspicion falls on the Zumwalt oddball tumblehome hull design and the necessary systems in making it seaworthy in the name of LO compared to a standard hull and its IPS.

Yes? Of course the LO features contribute a lot to the displacement. Getting that very low RCS means ballasting to keep the max beam right at the waterline. I wouldn't say that's just making the ship marginally seaworthy. By most accounts the Zs are excellent sea boats, probably better than the Burkes. And the LO isn't a party trick to just ignore. For independent sailing strikers like the Zs with CPS, LO is a critical enabling capability.

Do agree LO a very desirable feature in navy surface vessel, but Navy appear to have abandoned LO as a priority for Zumwalt, the pic of the current deckhouse shows some hard angle external perturbances now attached destroying its stealth, original design showed clean deckhouse, to emphasize how little priority the Navy has on LO with the last ship the Lyndon B Johnson they replaced the LO composite deckhouse with steel to save a few pennies.
Ingalls had built a special plant to build the Zumwalts composite deckhouse and after losing the contract have now shuttered the plant.

 

[sferrin]

That's from the LM site. If those four tubes, which can hold three missiles each, only take that much space, they could easily swap out the second gun for 64 Mk 41 cells, or put 32 cells at the FWD position and 8 or more of the larger cells at the aft position. the the Mk110s back on top of the hangar area, SPY-6 . . .

 

[Moose]

I've not seen anything official with the layout they've chosen, just statements which indicate they're removing both guns. We shall see.