DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

[Scott Kenny]

I would not consider that deployment to indicative of a 7th fleet CSG during hostilities. The only reasons to disperse are 1) to complicate opponent scouting / targeting 2). ASW and 3). nuclear weapons. Those may or may not be relevant in the Pacific theater: overhead surveillance is likely ubiquitous, submarines likely are thin on the ground at the range the USN could reasonably strike PLAN assets (~1000 miles), and tactical nuclear escalation may seem unlikely, at least initially. In fact, pre conflict, it can be assumed all units are continuously tracked, so dense packing of surface units with an ABM capability (and likely ASAT capability by extension) seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The challenge is those DF21 YJ21 AShBMs. As reported on this forum, any bunching up in a wargame is extremely dangerous.

In any case, I wouldn’t assume the Fords formation typical: I thought it was relatively unheard of for the SAM boss to be more than 3000 yards from the CV, and I think it often acts as the plane guard as a result. But I never was the service so my info is generally third hand.

That's what I thought, too, and yet the Ford was miles away from any other ship in all those satellite photos.

 

[yeetmahboi]

DF21 YJ21 AShBMs

FTFY.
DF21 is actually borderlining a legacy asset in PLARF and is being phased out by DF26. YJ21 on the other hand is a newer variant and I think will be the mainstay of PLAN shipborne BMs for the near future.

Biconical gliders are much easier to intercept comparing to depressed wedge gliders. PAC-3 already did that against HERA in the mid 2000s or so, and it was essentially Pershing II.

The real problem is the hundreds of batteries worth of IRBMs and HGV-tipped missiles in PLARF service that can target Guam plus another thousand or so supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles.

 

[Scott Kenny]

FTFY.

Thanks!

DF21 is actually borderlining a legacy asset in PLARF and is being phased out by DF26. YJ21 on the other hand is a newer variant and I think will be the mainstay of PLAN shipborne BMs for the near future.

Biconical gliders are much easier to intercept comparing to depressed wedge gliders. PAC-3 already did that against HERA in the mid 2000s or so, and it was essentially Pershing II.

The real problem is the hundreds of batteries worth of IRBMs and HGV-tipped missiles in PLARF service that can target Guam plus another thousand or so supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles.

As big as HGVs are, I'm not sure how many missiles have HGVs versus standard ballistic tips. There's reasons to want both, after all. Look at how big the Russian Avangard HGV is. The same missile that can launch 10 ballistic RVs with dozens of penetration aids can only carry a couple Avangards.

 

[kqcke for you]

Thanks!


As big as HGVs are, I'm not sure how many missiles have HGVs versus standard ballistic tips. There's reasons to want both, after all. Look at how big the Russian Avangard HGV is. The same missile that can launch 10 ballistic RVs with dozens of penetration aids can only carry a couple Avangards.

Well Avangard is supposed to weight 2t and i think only worth for the big Satan and SARMAT. As they can Take with no problem more than 10.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Well Avangard is supposed to weight 2t and i think only worth for the big Satan and SARMAT. As they can Take with no problem more than 10.

Most RVs, even for a 500kt warhead, are under 500kg. I think the 475kt Mk5 on the Trident 2 is only about 275kg, but that's a very compact warhead.

And I know the Russians can do the math necessary to make a compact warhead, they're probably the best pure mathematicians on Earth.

 

[kqcke for you]

Most RVs, even for a 500kt warhead, are under 500kg. I think the 475kt Mk5 on the Trident 2 is only about 275kg, but that's a very compact warhead.

And I know the Russians can do the math necessary to make a compact warhead, they're probably the best pure mathematicians on Earth.

Yeah. SARMAT could Take 24 Avangard or 186 MK.5. But then again your limited on warheads so making heavier with more capabilitys makes sense.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah. SARMAT could Take 24 Avangard or 186 MK.5. But then again your limited on warheads so making heavier with more capabilitys makes sense.

SARMAT has a 50 ton throw weight?!?

 

[kqcke for you]

SARMAT has a 50 ton throw weight?!?

48t. But then again range could be reduced with that armament. Afterall SARMAT is 208.1t heavy. More than 3 Times heavier than Trident 2. 5,89 Times the weight of minutemann 3

 

[bobbymike]

48t. But then again range could be reduced with that armament. Afterall SARMAT is 208.1t heavy. More than 3 Times heavier than Trident 2. 5,89 Times the weight of minutemann 3

Could you post your source for that? I’m getting 10t payload everywhere I’m reading.

 

[Josh_TN]

Well Avangard is supposed to weight 2t and i think only worth for the big Satan and SARMAT. As they can Take with no problem more than 10.

Weight wise maybe, but volume wise would you be able to fit them? I believe all Avangard currently are mounted singly on SS-19 Stiletos.

 

[kqcke for you]

Weight wise maybe, but volume wise would you be able to fit them? I believe all Avangard currently are mounted singly on SS-19 Stiletos.

Yes theoretical weight wise. Only SS-19 carry them and even that are (i think) Like 8 or so. Not Like they say anything about it as its mostly the same old Shit over and over again.

 

[kqcke for you]

Could you post your source for that? I’m getting 10t payload everywhere I’m reading.

Let me look for it so it may take some time

 

[Josh_TN]

The challenge is those DF21 YJ21 AShBMs. As reported on this forum, any bunching up in a wargame is extremely dangerous.

Bunching up might be marginally more dangerous for the escorts, but it probably greatly reduces the threat to a high value unit (generally a CV). More defensive firepower and countermeasures are concentrated and more actual valid targets are presented to systems that likely have little ability to ID targets by themselves. I could see CSGs bunching up for the opening of a conflict and only spreading out once local persistent ISR assets (surface vessels, HALE, etc) were removed. Tactics will be driven by the threat. Early pacific war, fleet carriers tended to operate separately to decrease their chances of detection. Later in the war, defensive firepower increased to the point that bunching up was more practical. Future formations will be determined by relative risks of detection and the relative capability of the defense.

 

[kqcke for you]

Let me look for it so it may take some time

Also i max have to say the 48t are a guess from myself from the Statement that 24 can be carried Ala 2t for Avangard. So i correct my Standpoint to in theorie it can carry 24 Avangard glide vehicles which thanks to there Said 2t weight is 48t.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Bunching up might be marginally more dangerous for the escorts, but it probably greatly reduces the threat to a high value unit (generally a CV).

It greatly increases the threat to the HVU/CV, because it reveals its position, both in terms of revealing the position of the CSG, and the position of the carrier within the CSG's formation.

More defensive firepower and countermeasures are concentrated and more actual valid targets are presented to systems that likely have little ability to ID targets by themselves. I could see CSGs bunching up for the opening of a conflict and only spreading out once local persistent ISR assets (surface vessels, HALE, etc) were removed.

I expect the complete opposite to happen, for the exact same reasons you cite below. Once persistent ISR assets are gone, and stocks of DF-26s, YJ-21s & YJ-18s have been run-down, I expect the CVN and it's escorts could be closer together (it may even be desirable to reveal the carrier's position to bait limited-size attacks that the CSG's defences can defeat, to further run-down the enemy's PGM stocks).

Tactics will be driven by the threat. Early pacific war, fleet carriers tended to operate separately to decrease their chances of detection. Later in the war, defensive firepower increased to the point that bunching up was more practical. Future formations will be determined by relative risks of detection and the relative capability of the defense.

 

[Josh_TN]

It greatly increases the threat to the HVU/CV, because it reveals its position, both in terms of revealing the position of the CSG, and the position of the carrier within the CSG's formation.



I expect the complete opposite to happen, for the exact same reasons you cite below. Once persistent ISR assets are gone, and stocks of DF-26s, YJ-21s & YJ-18s have been run-down, I expect the CVN and it's escorts could be closer together (it may even be desirable to reveal the carrier's position to bait limited-size attacks that the CSG's defences can defeat, to further run-down the enemy's PGM stocks).

If the location of a CV is obvious, which to me seems more likely than not (especially at the beginning of a conflict), dispersal serves little purpose. We can likely presume that at the start of a conflict, the CV is detected and tracked by aircraft or surface ships that are following it. Furthermore, PRC satellite constellations (SAR, ESM, EO) are so prolific* it may or may not be possible to obscure the CVS position even after local snoopers have been removed. I don’t know how that game will play out but I assume formations will change based on the perceived threat, and if it is likely the CV can continue to be identified and tracked; dispersion doesn’t buy much.


*PRC satellite infrastructure has doubled in the last five years and only will continue to increase. There are now dozens each of SAR, NOSS, and EO/IR platforms. ECM may mitigate this or it may not; shear quantity seems to imply a direct ASAT effort would be ineffective even assuming the political cost was deemed acceptable.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

If the location of a CV is obvious, which to me seems more likely than not (especially at the beginning of a conflict), dispersal serves little purpose.

If the location of the CV is obvious, then either it's going to be sunk, or it is far out into the Central or West Pacific where it is beyond any Chinese means to attack it with the exception of SSNs.

 

[sferrin]

If the location of the CV is obvious, then either it's going to be sunk, or it is far out into the Central or West Pacific where it is beyond any Chinese means to attack it with the exception of SSNs.

Or it's not going to be sunk. It's not like the USN hasn't ever been faced with threats before. I just roll my eyes every time someone rolls out another proclamation that because a ship is in range it is doomed. Ships have been going into harm's way for centuries. Some get sunk. Some don't. That's war.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Or it's not going to be sunk. It's not like the USN hasn't ever been faced with threats before.

The USN response to such threats is to ideally not be detected in the first place.

I just roll my eyes every time someone rolls out another proclamation that because a ship is in range it is doomed.

If a ship is in range and has been detected, then it will very likely be sunk.

Ships have been going into harm's way for centuries. Some get sunk. Some don't. That's war.

You don't want to throw your CVNs away on day one though, in the same way that Britain didn't send the Grand Fleet inshore to do a close blockade and get it picked apart by submarines and mines in 1914. Taking risks in war and suffering losses is not the same as being suicidal.

 

[sferrin]

You don't want to throw your CVNs away on day one though, in the same way that Britain didn't send the Grand Fleet inshore to do a close blockade and get it picked apart by submarines and mines in 1914. Taking risks in war and suffering lossesis not the same as being suicidal.

So what you're saying is it's no different than any other time in history.

 

[Kat Tsun]

So what you're saying is it's no different than any other time in history.

The USN's historic record is to be sunk near completely during the open salvos of any major military adventure originating in WESTPAC. I doubt it will be any different this time around, but losing two carriers is survivable in a very marginal sense, as long as no others are lost.

 

[sferrin]

 

[Scott Kenny]

View attachment 728271

Shame to see those going, but at least one needs to be a big VLS block. We can argue as to whether to replace the second AGS with a 5" turret or another block of VLS.

 

[Moose]

Shame to see those going, but at least one needs to be a big VLS block. We can argue as to whether to replace the second AGS with a 5" turret or another block of VLS.

The signals have been mixed at times, but it seems both are being pulled on all 3 DDGs. 4 large VLS tubes based on the Virginia Payload Tube are going in.

 

[Firefinder]

Which assuming they can similar to the VPM.

Means 3 hypersonics, or 6 Tomahawks depending on the load. So 12 and 24 each.

Which isnt too shabby when you add the 80 pvls.

Just need to stick in the Spy6 in the Spy3( or was the 4) anyways the big radar in the big radar spot, rewrite the operating system to play nice with Aegis and it be a solid A2A murder bote.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The signals have been mixed at times, but it seems both are being pulled on all 3 DDGs. 4 large VLS tubes based on the Virginia Payload Tube are going in.

So, 3x 32+" tubes or 6x 21" each (since I think the Mk57 cells can take a 27" SM3Blk2a).

Just need to stick in the Spy6 in the Spy3( or was the 4) anyways the big radar in the big radar spot, rewrite the operating system to play nice with Aegis and it be a solid A2A murder bote.

That's the problem, Aegis, even virtualized, doesn't seem to like the TSCE.

So I suspect that the Zumwalts will remain as land attack monsters with a little bit of carrying big BMD stuff for other boats to guide.

 

[sferrin]

Which assuming they can similar to the VPM.

Means 3 hypersonics, or 6 Tomahawks depending on the load. So 12 and 24 each.

Which isnt too shabby when you add the 80 pvls.

Just need to stick in the Spy6 in the Spy3( or was the 4) anyways the big radar in the big radar spot, rewrite the operating system to play nice with Aegis and it be a solid A2A murder bote.

And put the damn Mk110s on the hangar and some helicopters, UAVs, etc. Then some 30 watt bulb will say, "hey, we should have used these to replace the Ticonderogas".

 

[Josh_TN]

Their current set up is enough for self defense. Give them as many CPS as the hull sans guns can fit and call it a day. They would not have to be anywhere near an enemy coast to use them; the threat to them is marginal.

 

[4decaa]

Assuming a satellite pass could detect a Zumwalt, what is the reason for fully speccing into stealth if you're easily monitored by any military or perhaps even commercial sattelite...?

Would launching missiles against a Zumwalt be harder? I don't really see the benefit over the compromise here...

 

[sferrin]

Assuming a satellite pass could detect a Zumwalt, what is the reason for fully speccing into stealth if you're easily monitored by any military or perhaps even commercial sattelite...?

Would launching missiles against a Zumwalt be harder? I don't really see the benefit over the compromise here...

Sorry, what?

 

[Firefinder]

Assuming a satellite pass could detect a Zumwalt, what is the reason for fully speccing into stealth if you're easily monitored by any military or perhaps even commercial sattelite...?

Would launching missiles against a Zumwalt be harder? I don't really see the benefit over the compromise here...

Thats because you dont know enough of how to use stealthing to see the many upsides.

It makes the job of sub brick intelligence of a Missile seeker harder.

If the missile can not see where you are, it can not hit you.

Doesn't matter if you can get the gross area, that what the Sats can do at best and you can dodge those, if you can not nail down exactly were the Zumwalt is when the missile is in its attack Phase?

That missile be a complete waste money.

The Zumwalts Stealth is spec against the Fine Targeting sensors which you need to achieve a hit. Does not matter if you know its in a certain 1x1km Grid Square if you can not find its 160 by 24 meter space of that square it is currently IN.

Unless you using a Nuke a miss by 5 meters is as useful as missing by 50 kilometers.

Outright useless.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Assuming a satellite pass could detect a Zumwalt, what is the reason for fully speccing into stealth if you're easily monitored by any military or perhaps even commercial sattelite...?

Would launching missiles against a Zumwalt be harder? I don't really see the benefit over the compromise here...

Soft-kill countermeasures are more effective when the target they are defending has a significantly reduced radar and IR signature.

That is of course ignoring the fact that successfully maintaining the outer layers of the survivability onion means you will be less likely to be attacked in the first place.

 

[4decaa]

Sorry, what?

View attachment 728276

View attachment 728277

Perhaps it would have been better to include the picture of the B-2 captured flying on google maps. In my comment, I meant satellite detection during combat operations, not while in port.

Thats because you dont know enough of how to use stealthing to see the many upsides.

It makes the job of sub brick intelligence of a Missile seeker harder.

If the missile can not see where you are, it can not hit you.

Doesn't matter if you can get the gross area, that what the Sats can do at best and you can dodge those, if you can not nail down exactly were the Zumwalt is when the missile is in its attack Phase?

That missile be a complete waste money.

The Zumwalts Stealth is spec against the Fine Targeting sensors which you need to achieve a hit. Does not matter if you know its in a certain 1x1km Grid Square if you can not find its 160 by 24 meter space of that square it is currently IN.

Unless you using a Nuke a miss by 5 meters is as useful as missing by 50 kilometers.

Outright useless.

Okay, so something like LRASM or whatever cruise missiles which are long range and targeted with on-board equipment would have a far harder time to track, which makes sense.

Thanks for the clarifications guys

 

[Josh_TN]

I think it would be fair to point out that Zumwalt was designed before the PRC had such an extensive network of remote sensing satellites as well. The number of Chinese government satellites in orbit has increased 500% + since the PRC created a separate military space arm in 2015. It put 200 satellites in orbit in 2022 and 200 more in 2023, with around half of those being remote sensing of some kind or another (many of them nominally are not military satellites but for all intents and purposes they are). Zumwalt's stealth characteristics probably still make countermeasures more effective however. Low RCS ships are far less about avoiding detection - that is impossible - and more about reducing the return such that you might pass for a significantly smaller ship. Failing that, reducing the return still means that ECM or decoys are going to be much more effective against missiles that use radar, which for the PLAN is still most of them. But I suspect no one will design a future major surface combatant with the Zumwalt's emphasis on radar signature reduction ever again, mostly because in the future I think most missiles will have IIR or dual mode seekers and directed energy jammers/weapons are probably an easier fix than an exotic design like the Zoomies.

 

[SK2]

And now with those tubes, and in-compatibility with Aegis system, the Zumwalt is slowing turning to Arsenal Ship

 

[Forest Green]

Which assuming they can similar to the VPM.

Means 3 hypersonics, or 6 Tomahawks depending on the load. So 12 and 24 each.

7 Tomahawks per VPM.

U.S. Navy's Virginia Class Submarines To Get 76% More Firepower - Naval News

Quantity has a quality all of its own. And when the quality relates to U.S. Navy missiles, having more of them is inevitably a massive increase in capabilities. The latest Block V Virginia Class submarine will greatly increase the number of missiles which can be carried. In effect this will make...

www.navalnews.com

Virginia Payload Module to Give Subs More Firepower

Virginia Payload Module to Give Subs More Firepower

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

So, 3x 32+" tubes or 6x 21" each (since I think the Mk57 cells can take a 27" SM3Blk2a).

3x34.5", 7x21". SM-3 Blk IIA is 21", IIB was to be 27" but was not to be. There may be a IIB but it will likely retain 21", maybe 22" but the booster company thinks they can squeeze more fuel in now.

U.S. Navy Tests Hypersonic Rocket Motor with Thrust-Vectoring System - Naval News

The U.S. Navy, in conjunction with the U.S. Army, are developing a Hypersonic missile called the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) Hypersonic missile for the U.S. Navy and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) for the U.S. Army. Both missiles will carry the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (CHGB)...

www.navalnews.com

 

[Kat Tsun]

Would launching missiles against a Zumwalt be harder?

In theory. In practice...enh.

Against certain classes of anti-ship cruise missile, like the Silkworm/Termit, and its associated radar complexes, it would be more difficult to acquire the Zumwalt firing from BLOS than a "conventional" ship like a Arleigh Burke, Ticonderoga, or Spruance firing WLOS of a shoreline. This was the whole purpose of the ship. The Swedish Visby has a similar capability for stealth, but of course was much sooner into service, and it wouldn't be able to fire BLOS if it wanted to (short of RBS-15 anyway).

These classes of older anti-ship missile are rapidly being replaced by guidance systems that the Zumwalt has little passive measures to protect against (infrared and radar combinations, mainly) and by targeting systems that make use of orbital spotting that the Zumwalt also has little capability to protect against. I suppose it could shoot down the satellites, at least at one point, perhaps.

Zumwalt was very much built with Operation Desert Storm in mind, with the expectation that radar guidance from shore and airborne surface search systems (maritime patrol bombers [Tu-142] and JSTARS analogues) would be the primary detection threat and probable guidance threat. This has been somewhat blown up by the huge expansion of small sat constellations, like the Finnish ICEYE, and eventual deployment of orbital hyper-spectral imaging systems which will see a Zumwalt just as easily as a Burke or a Visby.

It will still make better use of SRBOC and Nulka than a Burke, I guess, but that's about it. Radar detection of wakes won't care. Neither will your typical hyperspectral imaging which will just discern the compositions of the paint of the Zumwalt class for each individual warship or more esoteric forms of imaging reconnaissance that make even clouds unsafe.

It has a massive powerplant though, so in theory it can use futuristic defense systems like lasers, if those ever work or whatever. It being gigantic also means it represents the present upper limit of a future destroyer class, like if the U.S. ever decides to build the equivalent of a Sejong the Great or Maya but even bigger.

At the end of the day, it's a ship that came about 20 years too late to be relevant, and without its guns or big radar, it's also kinda useless. The Lockheed DDX was probably smarter if only because it was more conventional in design.

I don't really see the benefit over the compromise here...

Neither did the U.S. Navy.

And now with those tubes, and in-compatibility with Aegis system, the Zumwalt is slowing turning to Arsenal Ship

The hard part will be filling those cells, though. The USN has a strong need for missiles not magazine depth.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

It should be noted that Zumwalt also has a significant amount of IR signature reduction, it should certainly be much less vulnerable to being acquired by anti-ship missiles with combined radar and IR guidance than any other existing surface combatant.

 

[TomS]

And now with those tubes, and in-compatibility with Aegis system, the Zumwalt is slowing turning to Arsenal Ship

ArShip was still a totally different concept, a floating remote magazine with hundreds of missiles and no on-board targeting capability of its own aside from limited self-defense. How much self-defense varied, but never beyond SSDS -- the images with SPY-1 or similar radars and battleship hull numbers were contractor inventions, not program reality..

 

[sferrin]

And now with those tubes, and in-compatibility with Aegis system, the Zumwalt is slowing turning to Arsenal Ship

Why, because it has sloped sides? Arsenal ship couldn't fight back and was basically a self-propelled barge.