DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

[Cordy]

Re. Lockheed Martin's Feb 17, 2023 $1.2 billion contract award by Navy and could be worth additional billion if all options are exercised for the Zumwalt launcher of the joint Navy/Army hypersonic boost glide CPS/LRHW missile. Lockheed saying they are more than a year into development of the launcher leading to test campaign in 2024. Navy have yet to award Lockheed a contract for the Virginia Blk V subs CPS launcher that will need additional integration and testing. and with 10 subs under contract and first delivery due in FY2025, looks like a classic case of concurrency and which thought after the Navy's disasterous experience with Ford's AAG,AWE and EMALS they had sworn off.

Of note the CPS launcher is soft launch using pressurized air to eject missile from its VLS cell not hot launch, the Russians for years have shown preference for soft launch whilst Navy with its Mk41 and Mk57 VLS cells have used hot launch.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/02/22/navys-hypersonic-launcher-is-headed-to-flight-testing-next-year

 

[Calphor]

Re. Lockheed Martin's Feb 17, 2023 $1.2 billion contract award by Navy and could be worth additional billion if all options are exercised for the Zumwalt launcher of the joint Navy/Army hypersonic boost glide CPS/LRHW missile. Lockheed saying they are more than a year into development of the launcher leading to test campaign in 2024. Navy have yet to award Lockheed a contract for the Virginia Blk V subs CPS launcher that will need additional integration and testing. and with 10 subs under contract and first delivery due in FY2025, looks like a classic case of concurrency and which thought after the Navy's disasterous experience with Ford's AAG,AWE and EMALS they had sworn off.

Of note the CPS launcher is soft launch using pressurized air to eject missile from its VLS cell not hot launch, the Russians for years have shown preference for soft launch whilst Navy with its Mk41 and Mk57 VLS cells have used hot launch.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/02/22/navys-hypersonic-launcher-is-headed-to-flight-testing-next-year

Just remember that the tubes being used for both Zumwalt and Virginia Blk V are derivatives of the both the Ohio SSGN and the follow-on Virginia Blk III large VLS. The Zumwalt/Block V CPS launchers will have some new technologies, but it is a “relatively” straight forward evolution to replace the Tomahawk launch cells with the large CPS cells. Also, keep in mind that the SSBN/SSGN/Block III are all soft (cold) launch systems, so the Navy has experience with soft launch that goes back the first SSBN.

 

[apparition13]

I've been thinking recently that the ideal arsenal ship would actually be a derivative of the Supply class AOE. They are compartmentalized and shock tested since they were built as warships not commercial ships, there is what looks to be about a 100m by 32m amidships section for a missile farm (that could comfortably fit 10 64 cell mk41s).

Use the weight allowance used for replenishment fuel and supplies for your missile farm, sensors, combat systems, guns, point defense systems, etc. Keep the three helicopter hangar.

Add engine power to raise the speed from 24 knots to 30. Their full load displacement is nearly 50 thousand tonnes. There is plenty of weight allowance to play with.

 

[Cordy]

Re. Lockheed Martin's Feb 17, 2023 $1.2 billion contract award by Navy and could be worth additional billion if all options are exercised for the Zumwalt launcher of the joint Navy/Army hypersonic boost glide CPS/LRHW missile. Lockheed saying they are more than a year into development of the launcher leading to test campaign in 2024. Navy have yet to award Lockheed a contract for the Virginia Blk V subs CPS launcher that will need additional integration and testing. and with 10 subs under contract and first delivery due in FY2025, looks like a classic case of concurrency and which thought after the Navy's disasterous experience with Ford's AAG,AWE and EMALS they had sworn off.

Of note the CPS launcher is soft launch using pressurized air to eject missile from its VLS cell not hot launch, the Russians for years have shown preference for soft launch whilst Navy with its Mk41 and Mk57 VLS cells have used hot launch.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/02/22/navys-hypersonic-launcher-is-headed-to-flight-testing-next-year

Just remember that the tubes being used for both Zumwalt and Virginia Blk V are derivatives of the both the Ohio SSGN and the follow-on Virginia Blk III large VLS. The Zumwalt/Block V CPS launchers will have some new technologies, but it is a “relatively” straight forward evolution to replace the Tomahawk launch cells with the large CPS cells. Also, keep in mind that the SSBN/SSGN/Block III are all soft (cold) launch systems, so the Navy has experience with soft launch that goes back the first SSBN.

Presume the Ohio SSGN tubes are the same as the Ohio SSBN Trident 88" tubes which use high pressure steam for underwater soft launch, now changing to high pressurized air so different tech.

 

[Calphor]

Re. Lockheed Martin's Feb 17, 2023 $1.2 billion contract award by Navy and could be worth additional billion if all options are exercised for the Zumwalt launcher of the joint Navy/Army hypersonic boost glide CPS/LRHW missile. Lockheed saying they are more than a year into development of the launcher leading to test campaign in 2024. Navy have yet to award Lockheed a contract for the Virginia Blk V subs CPS launcher that will need additional integration and testing. and with 10 subs under contract and first delivery due in FY2025, looks like a classic case of concurrency and which thought after the Navy's disasterous experience with Ford's AAG,AWE and EMALS they had sworn off.

Of note the CPS launcher is soft launch using pressurized air to eject missile from its VLS cell not hot launch, the Russians for years have shown preference for soft launch whilst Navy with its Mk41 and Mk57 VLS cells have used hot launch.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/02/22/navys-hypersonic-launcher-is-headed-to-flight-testing-next-year

Just remember that the tubes being used for both Zumwalt and Virginia Blk V are derivatives of the both the Ohio SSGN and the follow-on Virginia Blk III large VLS. The Zumwalt/Block V CPS launchers will have some new technologies, but it is a “relatively” straight forward evolution to replace the Tomahawk launch cells with the large CPS cells. Also, keep in mind that the SSBN/SSGN/Block III are all soft (cold) launch systems, so the Navy has experience with soft launch that goes back the first SSBN.

Presume the Ohio SSGN tubes are the same as the Ohio SSBN Trident 88" tubes which use high pressure steam for underwater soft launch, now changing to high pressurized air so different tech.

The outer mold line of the SSGN tubes is the same as the SSBN tubes, but the internal workings of the ejection mechanism for the SSGN tubes is different. I do not know what that is for the SSGN. Pneumatic ejection seems to bring its own set of challenges with all of the additional high pressure air and the associated plumbing that entails. Especially when you are talking about a missile that is nearly a meter in diameter.

 

[Moose]

Re. Lockheed Martin's Feb 17, 2023 $1.2 billion contract award by Navy and could be worth additional billion if all options are exercised for the Zumwalt launcher of the joint Navy/Army hypersonic boost glide CPS/LRHW missile. Lockheed saying they are more than a year into development of the launcher leading to test campaign in 2024. Navy have yet to award Lockheed a contract for the Virginia Blk V subs CPS launcher that will need additional integration and testing. and with 10 subs under contract and first delivery due in FY2025, looks like a classic case of concurrency and which thought after the Navy's disasterous experience with Ford's AAG,AWE and EMALS they had sworn off.

Of note the CPS launcher is soft launch using pressurized air to eject missile from its VLS cell not hot launch, the Russians for years have shown preference for soft launch whilst Navy with its Mk41 and Mk57 VLS cells have used hot launch.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/02/22/navys-hypersonic-launcher-is-headed-to-flight-testing-next-year

Just remember that the tubes being used for both Zumwalt and Virginia Blk V are derivatives of the both the Ohio SSGN and the follow-on Virginia Blk III large VLS. The Zumwalt/Block V CPS launchers will have some new technologies, but it is a “relatively” straight forward evolution to replace the Tomahawk launch cells with the large CPS cells. Also, keep in mind that the SSBN/SSGN/Block III are all soft (cold) launch systems, so the Navy has experience with soft launch that goes back the first SSBN.

Presume the Ohio SSGN tubes are the same as the Ohio SSBN Trident 88" tubes which use high pressure steam for underwater soft launch, now changing to high pressurized air so different tech.

I've not seen any official word that CPS will use "high pressurized air," which would be a unique system. The wording in official documents has been "cold-gas launched missile system." The existing cold-launch architecture the USN uses for SLBMS, and which was chosen for the KEI before that program's cancellation, uses a small rocket motor to flash-boil water into steam, which launches the missile. CPS on the submarines will almost certainly use such a system, so I don't know why they'd walk away from it now.

 

[Cordy]

Re. Lockheed Martin's Feb 17, 2023 $1.2 billion contract award by Navy and could be worth additional billion if all options are exercised for the Zumwalt launcher of the joint Navy/Army hypersonic boost glide CPS/LRHW missile. Lockheed saying they are more than a year into development of the launcher leading to test campaign in 2024. Navy have yet to award Lockheed a contract for the Virginia Blk V subs CPS launcher that will need additional integration and testing. and with 10 subs under contract and first delivery due in FY2025, looks like a classic case of concurrency and which thought after the Navy's disasterous experience with Ford's AAG,AWE and EMALS they had sworn off.

Of note the CPS launcher is soft launch using pressurized air to eject missile from its VLS cell not hot launch, the Russians for years have shown preference for soft launch whilst Navy with its Mk41 and Mk57 VLS cells have used hot launch.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/02/22/navys-hypersonic-launcher-is-headed-to-flight-testing-next-year

Just remember that the tubes being used for both Zumwalt and Virginia Blk V are derivatives of the both the Ohio SSGN and the follow-on Virginia Blk III large VLS. The Zumwalt/Block V CPS launchers will have some new technologies, but it is a “relatively” straight forward evolution to replace the Tomahawk launch cells with the large CPS cells. Also, keep in mind that the SSBN/SSGN/Block III are all soft (cold) launch systems, so the Navy has experience with soft launch that goes back the first SSBN.

Presume the Ohio SSGN tubes are the same as the Ohio SSBN Trident 88" tubes which use high pressure steam for underwater soft launch, now changing to high pressurized air so different tech.

I've not seen any official word that CPS will use "high pressurized air," which would be a unique system. The wording in official documents has been "cold-gas launched missile system." The existing cold-launch architecture the USN uses for SLBMS, and which was chosen for the KEI before that program's cancellation, uses a small rocket motor to flash-boil water into steam, which launches the missile. CPS on the submarines will almost certainly use such a system, so I don't know why they'd walk away from it now.

Megan Eckstein writing in Defense News
" In November, Vice Adm. Johnny Wolfe, the head of the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs office, said the ship-based launcher would require pressurized air to shoot the weapon out of the launcher to a great enough height to allow the missile to light off without torching the ship deck below it."

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/02/22/navys-hypersonic-launcher-is-headed-to-flight-testing-next-year

 

[Moose]

I'm familiar with the comments DefNews is referencing, Wolfe's words were more along the line of "essentially compressed air." I think he was over-simplifying the concept of cold-launch for reporters. An all-new compressed air system to launch a 16,000-lb missile with enough velocity to carry clear of the ship in the event of an no-start would be a big investment for 3 hulls, not to mention being bulky and potentially temperamental. Building off the existing architecture, or even adopting an enlarged version of another Navy's cold-launch system, would seem a lot more sensible.

 

[MihoshiK]

Hot launch is with running engines, cold launch is with compressed gas... But that gas can be hot. Just look at CAMM, which uses a pyrotechnic charge, or flipping SPRINT, which technically was cold launch, since the missile engine didn't ignite until out of the tube.

 

[Josh_TN]

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.

It would make far more sense to take a large auxillary platform in current production and fit lots of missiles to it. The ESBs (based on civilian Alaska class) or new John Lewis TAOs would give you a large, inexpensive fuel efficient hull to base a lot of long ranged offensive weapons on. For CPS, it could operate well outside DF-21 range while still ranging the Chinese mainland.


EDIT TO ADD: in addition to these platforms already being in production, the resulting ship also could blend into other civilian tanker traffic, medium range tanker for TAO and VLCC for the an MSB based platform. The former would have a speed advantage; the latter would have a huge tonnage advantage.

 

[Firefinder]

the resulting ship also could blend into other civilian tanker traffic,

90 percent sure that consider a warcrime and even if its not.

Is generally HEAVILY FROWNED ON cause now you just made all tankers open game in war.

There is a reason why the idea of a Q ship idea off.

 

[Josh_TN]

the resulting ship also could blend into other civilian tanker traffic,

90 percent sure that consider a warcrime and even if its not.

Is generally HEAVILY FROWNED ON cause now you just made all tankers open game in war.

There is a reason why the idea of a Q ship idea off.

Please explain why. If a ship physically looks like a civilian vessel but takes no aggressive action, what specifically is it doing that is a war crime? If it paints itself as a hospital ship I would agree. Otherwise, why?

EDIT TO ADD: I think some confusion here is that my intention was for it to look civilian upon cursory inspection-at a great distance visually or on a SAR/ISAR image. I was not attempting to imply it should fly a different flag or assume the identity of a specific civilian ship. Though now that you mention it, I wonder how AIS deceptions would be treated vis-à-vis the rules of war.

 

[Josh_TN]

To add to that point, I’m not sure that sinking opponents merchant traffic counts as a war crime either. If so, it seems highly doubtful that is a standard China will adopt.

 

[TomS]

the resulting ship also could blend into other civilian tanker traffic,

90 percent sure that consider a warcrime and even if its not.

Is generally HEAVILY FROWNED ON cause now you just made all tankers open game in war.

There is a reason why the idea of a Q ship idea off.

There is a difference between blending in and literally disguising yourself as a merchant ship. A ship could be painted haze grey and flying a US ensign but behave and look on radar like a merchant ship with no legal issues at all.

However, legally speaking even literally disguising your ship or troops as an enemy or neutral vessel is a legitimate ruse de guerre right up until you open fire. (Side note: Otto Skorzeny was acquitted of war crimes for the operation where his commandos dressed as US soldiers during the Ardennes offensive because they switched back to German uniforms before shooting.)

One reason Q ships didn't stay in use much after WW1 is that they were, perversely, too effective. They worked when subs had to surface and close to within gun range before attacking their targets (so-called cruiser rules). Once German subs figured out that Q ships and armed merchants in general was making that too dangerous to risk, they stopped bothering with cruiser rules and just started torpedoing ships, at which point Q ships became kind of pointless.

 

[Hood]

Merchant ships are likely to get hit anyway - enough of them got hit in the Black Sea in the crossfire in the early days. Not all anti-ship missiles are smart enough to know what they are homing onto.

 

[Josh_TN]

Merchant ships are likely to get hit anyway - enough of them got hit in the Black Sea in the crossfire in the early days. Not all anti-ship missiles are smart enough to know what they are homing onto.

It would be more accurate to say AShMs have no idea what they are hitting, with the exception of a couple of models that use IIR terminal guidance.

 

[TomS]

Merchant ships are likely to get hit anyway - enough of them got hit in the Black Sea in the crossfire in the early days. Not all anti-ship missiles are smart enough to know what they are homing onto.

It would be more accurate to say AShMs have no idea what they are hitting, with the exception of a couple of models that use IIR terminal guidance.

Or ESM sensors... Or MMW imaging radar seekers...

 

[Cordy]

Josh_TN

No. It seems likely USAF would have canceled it even if the last test was successful. USAF was turned off by the high price for a niche capability compared to HACM. ARRW was likely limited to static soft targets and B-52 launch for $30 million

From <https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/agm-183a-arrw.30639/page-13#post-590947>

So any chance the Army/Navy Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB), LRHW Dark Eagle /CPS will also be cancelled as was the Air Force HGB AGM-183A ARRW last week.

If Josh_TN correct would appear totally contradictory thinking by the Army Generals and Navy Admirals compared to the Air Force Generals re the joint LRHW Dark Eagle and the CPS missile which is an even much more expensive HGB, up to 2023 they had jointly spent $6.3 billion on the C-HGB R&D and expect another $billion or so R&D planned for FY2024 (yet to see the figures). Navy are budgeting for an initial procurement of 8 CPS missiles in FY2024 and with a total of 64 over next five years to FY2028 for a total of $3.6 billion whereas Army shows no indication of when procurement will commence.

CRS report March 31, 2023 - The U.S. Army’s Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW)

March 2023 LRHW Test Scrubbed and Possible Delay in FY2023 Fielding According to a March 10, 2023 Inside Defense article, “DOD Scrubs Key Hypersonic Weapons Test, Adding Risk to Army FY-23 Fielding Plans” On March 5, the Defense Department was preparing to execute Joint Flight Campaign-2 featuring the Army version of the prototype weapon launched at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, FL, when the countdown was halted ... As a result of pre-flight checks during that event, the test did not occur. The article further suggests “The test is at least six months behind schedule, consuming precious little margin in an effort to field a first prototype Army unit by the end of this year.” It is not known if or when the March 5, 2023 LRHW test might be rescheduled or if DOD or the Army will schedule additional LRHW flight tests as part of Joint Flight Campaign-2.

DOD Inspector General Evaluation of LRHW and Navy Conventional Prompt Strike On August 8, 2022, the DOD Inspector General (IG) informed the Army and Navy that it would initiate an evaluation “to determine whether the Army Long Range Hypersonic Weapon and the Navy Conventional Prompt Strike Program Offices are meeting their weapons systems development and fielding timelines and milestones.” It is not known when the DOD IG evaluation will be completed and available for congressional review.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11991

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/navy-seeks-3-6-billion-over-5-years-for-64-hypersonic-conventional-prompt-strike-rounds/

 

[Josh_TN]

The US Army and USN are all in on LRHW/CPS. They consider it a core capability and were willing to cut a lot of corners to get it into service - eg, adopting the SWERVE glider, consolidating on a sub launched AUR even for Army use, etc. The big difference here is that there is no other solution being developed, where as the USAF has matured a boosted scramjet option that is a lot smaller and cheaper. That won't freely translate to a sea level launchable hypersonic, so the boost glide will go into production come hell or high water.

In the long run, I think we might see whatever comes out of the HALO project modified for surface launch. HALO will need to be a 15'/4.6m length weapon to be compatible with carrier weapon elevators and it will have to be F-18/35 compatible, so it will have to be much more compact than HACM (F-15 compatible with no hard length limit). Whatever comes out of that process might well be adaptable to being shot out of a Mk41 with Mk72 booster, which would open it up for use on USN ships and the Army's new MRC batteries that currently are slated to fire SM-6 and tomahawk. But that would be something that occurred in the mid 2030's, if at all.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

This document briefly discusses some Zumwalt-derivatives investigated as part of the 2009 Radar/Hull Study which led to the Flight III Burkes.

 

[Moose]

This document briefly discusses some Zumwalt-derivatives investigated as part of the 2009 Radar/Hull Study which led to the Flight III Burkes.

I always loved that the Navy concepted a DDG-1000 variant with a 17-foot array in the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces study, and Bath showed the Navy it's concept for accommodating up to a 21-foot array, but the Radar/Hull study refused to consider a Zumwalt variant with an S-band array larger than 14-feet. That study was full of bad assumptions and fairly screamed that Roughed/Mullen had their thumbs on the scale, but that one is so brazen it's almost funny.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I always loved that the Navy concepted a DDG-1000 variant with a 17-foot array in the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces study, and Bath showed the Navy it's concept for accommodating up to a 21-foot array, but the Radar/Hull study refused to consider a Zumwalt variant with an S-band array larger than 14-feet. That study was full of bad assumptions and fairly screamed that Roughed/Mullen had their thumbs on the scale, but that one is so brazen it's almost funny.

Have you got any more information on the 17-foot array MAMDJF design, or the Bath 21-foot array concept?

 

[Moose]

I always loved that the Navy concepted a DDG-1000 variant with a 17-foot array in the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces study, and Bath showed the Navy it's concept for accommodating up to a 21-foot array, but the Radar/Hull study refused to consider a Zumwalt variant with an S-band array larger than 14-feet. That study was full of bad assumptions and fairly screamed that Roughed/Mullen had their thumbs on the scale, but that one is so brazen it's almost funny.

Have you got any more information on the 17-foot array MAMDJF design, or the Bath 21-foot array concept?

The MAMDJF planning concept and general CG(X) concepts of the time still just looked like a -1000 with the guns replaced by more missiles. The most noticable tweaks were to fit 4 arrays versus the DDG's 3...which didn't happen on all of them. The really large CG(x) concepts started coming on strong after the study pointed to the apparent need for a much larger ship. Bath's concept to fit four 21-ft arrays on a Zum's hull seems to have involved a serious redesign of the deckhouse, but I've not seen it.

Also on further reflection I think that might have been an 18-ft array rather than 17. I don't have that document to hand at the moment.

 

[that_person]

I always loved that the Navy concepted a DDG-1000 variant with a 17-foot array in the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces study, and Bath showed the Navy it's concept for accommodating up to a 21-foot array, but the Radar/Hull study refused to consider a Zumwalt variant with an S-band array larger than 14-feet. That study was full of bad assumptions and fairly screamed that Roughed/Mullen had their thumbs on the scale, but that one is so brazen it's almost funny.

Have you got any more information on the 17-foot array MAMDJF design, or the Bath 21-foot array concept?

The MAMDJF planning concept and general CG(X) concepts of the time still just looked like a -1000 with the guns replaced by more missiles. The most noticable tweaks were to fit 4 arrays versus the DDG's 3...which didn't happen on all of them. The really large CG(x) concepts started coming on strong after the study pointed to the apparent need for a much larger ship. Bath's concept to fit four 21-ft arrays on a Zum's hull seems to have involved a serious redesign of the deckhouse, but I've not seen it.

Also on further reflection I think that might have been an 18-ft array rather than 17. I don't have that document to hand at the moment.

Is there any chance I can convince you to try and get the MAMJDF document? It's been on my wishlist for a while.

 

[Cordy]

This document briefly discusses some Zumwalt-derivatives investigated as part of the 2009 Radar/Hull Study which led to the Flight III Burkes.

I always loved that the Navy concepted a DDG-1000 variant with a 17-foot array in the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces study, and Bath showed the Navy it's concept for accommodating up to a 21-foot array, but the Radar/Hull study refused to consider a Zumwalt variant with an S-band array larger than 14-feet. That study was full of bad assumptions and fairly screamed that Roughed/Mullen had their thumbs on the scale, but that one is so brazen it's almost funny.

Navy stated that radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture, so the Zumwalt 1,000t deck house being only three sided whereas the Burke deck house is four sided and so need to fit as you say 21 foot flat panel arrays to Zumwalt to have equivalent size radar to Burkes four 14 foot arrays. Think these would be much heavier than the planned Zumwalt SPY-3 and 4 radars and that raises the spectre of stability questions with the Zumwalt oddball tumblehome hull (the SPY-4 S-band VSR was never installed on the Zumwalt deck house).

One other massive disadvantage of Zumwalts is GAO reporting their procurement cost of the 3 ships as $5.3 million each whereas Burke Flight IIIs $2.2 billion (would not be surprised if the future DDG(X) is near similar in cost to the Zumwalts).

 

[TomS]

The Zumwalt unit cost is significantly impacted by the fact that they only bought three, so basically never got to anything like series production.

 

[Cordy]

The Zumwalt unit coat is significantly impacted by the fact that they only bought three, so basically never got to anything like series pro

Very tough ask to reduce the cost of Zumwalt by near 60% to meet that of the Burke, whilst also redesigning the ship for more VLS tubes and writing a few million lines of additional software code so the TSCE that runs the ship could have the IAMD capability added as with Aegis.

 

[that_person]

This document briefly discusses some Zumwalt-derivatives investigated as part of the 2009 Radar/Hull Study which led to the Flight III Burkes.

I always loved that the Navy concepted a DDG-1000 variant with a 17-foot array in the Maritime Air and Missile Defense of Joint Forces study, and Bath showed the Navy it's concept for accommodating up to a 21-foot array, but the Radar/Hull study refused to consider a Zumwalt variant with an S-band array larger than 14-feet. That study was full of bad assumptions and fairly screamed that Roughed/Mullen had their thumbs on the scale, but that one is so brazen it's almost funny.

Navy stated that radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture, so the Zumwalt 1,000t deck house being only three sided whereas the Burke deck house is four sided and so need to fit as you say 21 foot flat panel arrays to Zumwalt to have equivalent size radar to Burkes four 14 foot arrays. Think these would be much heavier than the planned Zumwalt SPY-3 and 4 radars and that raises the spectre of stability questions with the Zumwalt oddball tumblehome hull (the SPY-4 S-band VSR was never installed on the Zumwalt deck house).

One other massive disadvantage of Zumwalts is GAO reporting their procurement cost of the 3 ships as $5.3 million each whereas Burke Flight IIIs $2.2 billion (would not be surprised if the future DDG(X) is near similar in cost to the Zumwalts).

Most of Zumwalt’s cost comes from building a set of 9 incredibly advanced radars, and 6 entirely new guns, and scrapping the production lines the very next day. In series production, they’d be a lot cheaper. Adjusted for inflation, a Tico would cost $4.7 billion today.

 

[Cordy]

Zumwalt steaming to Ingalls Pascagoula MS shipyard from San Diego for its conversion by taking out its AGS 155 mm guns and replacing them with four VLS 87" tubes for the unproven hypersonic CPS missiles, Zumwalt had a casualty and had to return San Diego (Zumwalt had a casualty/broke down on its original transfer from east cost to west coast in the Panama Canal and hit the wall).
The CPS is a hypersonic glide body missile as was the Air Force AGM-183A ARRW, which was cancelled after numerous test failures, not a good omen for the CPS and is another classic case of the Navy taking a high concurrency risk.

https://news.usni.org/2023/07/31/us...-shift-hypersonic-missile-upgrade#more-104673

 

[Firefinder]

The CPS is a hypersonic glide body missile as was the Air Force AGM-183A ARRW, which was cancelled after numerous test failures, not a good omen for the CPS and is another classic case of the Navy taking a high concurrency risk.

https://news.usni.org/2023/07/31/us...-shift-hypersonic-missile-upgrade#more-104673

Totally wrong missile boss.

The CPS is the same weapon as the Army Dark Eagle Hypersonic Weapon.

Which is in low rate issue to units already and the development is still going along smoothly. With a success 3000 mile test flights this past February

The 183 is a completely different weapon system.

As you been told several times.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The abortive AGM-183 ARRW used the Tactical Glide Body, the only other system which shares that payload is DARPA's OpFires.

The US Navy's Conventional Prompt Strike and Army's Long Range Hypersonic Weapon are identical, and use the same Common Hypersonic Glide Body. There was an Airforce project, the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon, which shared the same payload, but was cancelled in favour of ARRW, which has now inturn been cancelled in favour of HACM.

 

[Cordy]

Totally wrong missile boss.

The CPS is the same weapon as the Army Dark Eagle Hypersonic Weapon.

Which is in low rate issue to units already and the development is still going along smoothly. With a success 3000 mile test flights this past February

The 183 is a completely different weapon system.

As you been told several times.

Just to clarify both the Navy/ Army CPS/LRHW and the Air Force AGM-183A ARRW are same type of design of hypersonic missile that use a very powerful booster rocket to achieve its hypersonic speed and then its just an unpowered glide vehicle warhead that can maneuver and glide at hypersonic speed until it enters the lower atmosphere where expect the speed will drop off markedly to max of Mach 5 or lower, otherwise expect it to burn up due the increasing thicker atmospheric air resistance unless spending an absolute fortune to develop new heat resistant materials.
Have seen pics of the Iskander-M nose cone which looks about 2" thick, and the Getty image of the hypersonic Iskander-M impacting which is not glowing red/white hot so presumption not at hypersonic speed of Mach 5+, though does looks charred from travelling at hypersonic speed previously and cooled off.
PS Think a laser would have to be very powerful and take time to have a chance of burning though 2" of heat resistant steel.

 

[Firefinder]

Just to clarify both the Navy/ Army CPS/LRHW and the Air Force AGM-183A ARRW are same type of design of hypersonic missile that use a very powerful booster rocket to achieve its hypersonic speed and then its just an unpowered glide vehicle warhead that can maneuver and glide at hypersonic speed until it enters the lower atmosphere where expect the speed will drop off markedly to max of Mach 5 or lower, otherwise expect it to burn up due the increasing thicker atmospheric air resistance unless spending an absolute fortune to develop new heat resistant materials.

Yes they are the same type.

In the Same way that the Aim120 and the Meteor are radar guided air to air missiles

But they not the same system. They are utterly two different programs, with the AGM183 being a failed one.

The CPS Dark Eagle is the successful ones. Its in service and been shown to work fairly well outside of some hiccups.

 

[Forest Green]

Totally wrong missile boss.

The CPS is the same weapon as the Army Dark Eagle Hypersonic Weapon.

Which is in low rate issue to units already and the development is still going along smoothly. With a success 3000 mile test flights this past February

The 183 is a completely different weapon system.

As you been told several times.

3000 mile?

 

[Forest Green]

PS Think a laser would have to be very powerful and take time to have a chance of burning though 2" of heat resistant steel.

In CW format yes, but if you could charge up the population inversion with gain temporarily removed and then release a second worth CW energy in a short nanosecond pulse, then it might go through quite fast.

 

[TomS]

Totally wrong missile boss.

The CPS is the same weapon as the Army Dark Eagle Hypersonic Weapon.

Which is in low rate issue to units already and the development is still going along smoothly. With a success 3000 mile test flights this past February

Wiki has kind of a misleading paragraph there. They talk about "deploying" LRHW over 3000 miles from McChord to Cape Canaveral. That's not a test flight, that's the deployment of the battery cross-country from Washington to Florida, where they took part in a simulation exercise.

LRHW has not done an end-to-end test of the whole weapon system. They scrubbed one back in March and haven't reflown it as far as I can tell.

Army and Navy Cancelled March Hypersonic Test Due to Battery Failure - USNI News

The Army and Navy scrubbed their latest hypersonic test flight due to a battery failure during a pre-launch check, the Navy’s top officer for strategic programs said Friday. Vice Adm. Johnny Wolfe told the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee the test from the Cape Canaveral Space...

news.usni.org

U.S. Army Ready For Another LRHW Test Attempt | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Army is set to test its Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon in the near future.

aviationweek.com

 

[Josh_TN]

There hasn't been an end to end test of CPS/LRHW. The glider has been tested several times on surrogate boosters and I believe the 2017 test ran 2200 miles in under 30 minutes, though I can't find a source for that now and that wouldn't be representative of the production weapon in any case. For what it is worth, the US Army states the range is 1750 miles, although that range is suspiciously specific for a weapon that trades speed for range over most of its flightpath. It also is conspicuously the approximate range from Guam to Taiwan without reaching to the Chinese mainland.

 

[Cordy]

The CPS Dark Eagle is the successful ones. Its in service and been shown to work fairly well outside of some hiccups.

It's not in service with the Navy, the Justification Book, Weapons Procurement, Navy shows it as a new start with first 8 to be procured in FY2024 which begins this October, budgeted at $341.4 million, $43 million each.

 

[TomS]

It's not in service with the Navy, the Justification Book, Weapons Procurement, Navy shows it as a new start with first 8 to be procured in FY2024 which begins this October, budgeted at $341.4 million, $43 million each.

Flight test from a DDG-1000 is supposed to be 2025 sometime. Not holding my breath on that.

 

[aonestudio]

USS Zumwalt Arrives in Mississippi for Hypersonic Weapon Installation - USNI News

Guided-missile destroyer USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) arrived in Mississippi on Saturday to begin a two-year process to install hypersonic missile tubes, USNI News has learned. “USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) arrived in Pascagoula, Miss., today to enter a modernization period and receive technology upgrades...

news.usni.org