DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

[Moose]

I strongly believe that if the ddg-1000 proves itself in the coming years, reopening the line will be possible.

F3's limitations make it more likely, if Zumwalt proves a good sailor, that a further small number are built without AGS (more VLS cells or railgun instead) and with AMDR. Hope for good sea trials and an end to Sequestration.

 

[Triton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDJi6oLbjI4&list=UU1w6pDb9Bgu5WeFI3pJ5iAg&feature=share&index=5

 

[Triton]

Published on Apr 24, 2014

Navy to Christen DDG 1000 in Honor of Historic Leader

http://youtu.be/tYf10ecAeiw

 

[Triton]

Published on Nov 5, 2013

On October 28, 2013, the first of three new-generation stealth destroyers, the ZUMWALT (DDG 1000), was launched at Bath Iron Works shipyard in Maine.

Here is a timelapse video of showing DDG 1000's transition from drydock and float-off on the Kennebec River.

Video courtesy Bath Iron Works/U.S. Navy

http://youtu.be/moSkXCUJHjY

 

[Triton]

http://youtu.be/yJ3eUUJokfk

 

[Triton]

http://youtu.be/XHe-sHFD5ak

 

[F-14D]

I strongly believe that if the ddg-1000 proves itself in the coming years, reopening the line will be possible.

A lot would depend on how long since the previous ones were in production. One thing that made restarting the Burkes practical is that we were still building them when the decision was made.

 

[bring_it_on]

When is the production set to wind up?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.special-ops.org/video-take-inside-look-awesome-new-stealth-destroyer/

Look at 40s railgun against what looks like a simulated missile nosecone?

 

[Jemiba]

Just a silly question: Why the Zumwalt is classified as a destroyer ? Bigger than the last US CGN
and intended for autonomous missions, so not fulfilling the classical escort role of a destroyer either,
I can only assume budgetary reasons.

 

[TomS]

Fundamentally, the only distinction between cruisers and destroyers in the USN is that cruisers have space for a squadron staff.

 

[Triton]

Perhaps the Zumwalt-class should have been named for a river and designated LFRG for Inshore (Littoral) Fire Support (LFR) and Guided missile (G) because of the emphasis on Naval Gun Fire Support. The next number in sequence is 537.

 

[Jemiba]

Designations do not reflect the mission of a ship anymore, ok, but it would at least be logical
to show their importance for the fleet to the taxpayer, who probably knows better the cost of
a ship, than its task. And "cruiser" probably still sounds better, than "destroyer".
But ok, the biggest ships of the Empire were "Stardestroyers", not "Starcruisers", maybe
the logic of nowadays naval designations works this way ... :

 

[Moose]

The Republic and Rebellion used "cruiser" for their ships.


The cynical response to the classification controversy is that since the fleet-wide reclassification resulting from the "Cruiser Gap," all the classifications exist purely for "marketing" purposes: to get the Congress to buy the ships the Navy wants. Congress was receptive to buying Destroyers, so they're called Destroyers. It's a bit like JHSV, they're not Joint anymore but take the J off and you might ruffle the wrong feathers on the Hill so the J stays.

 

[bobbymike]

Some interesting slides for the DDG-1000

Look at the excess power available compared to a Burke.

http://www.navytimes.com/interactive/article/20140928/NEWS04/309280027/Meet-Zumwalt-Navy-s-stealth-destroyer-will-go-sea-next-spring

 

[stealthflanker]

Some interesting slides for the DDG-1000

Look at the excess power available compared to a Burke.

http://www.navytimes.com/interactive/article/20140928/NEWS04/309280027/Meet-Zumwalt-Navy-s-stealth-destroyer-will-go-sea-next-spring

cool, should be for future electromagnetic gun growth i guess.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ie/2014/08/the-big-ship-down-guns.html


http://www.defensenews.com/interactive/article/20140928/DEFREG02/309280017/Meet-Zumwalt-US-Navy-s-Stealth-Destroyer-Will-Go-Sea-Next-Spring

 

[Dragon029]

In regards to the downsizing of the guns, I imagine then that in order for them to have been found as more effective, they must be more reliable and (due to the caliber) able to fight for longer with a larger ammunition reserve?

 

[SpudmanWP]

They are move effective.. at saving money.

However, I would imagine that the 57mm has a better upgrade path. Imagine Laser-Guided rounds from the 57mm taking out UAVs, boats, small planes, helos, etc out to 15km.

 

[TomS]

It's interesting. Bath's original (losing) Blue Team DD-21 proposal (attached) had three 30mm turrets -- two aft on the hangar and one up in the bow. The winning Gold Team design originally had two 40mm guns on the hangar. Those were soon replaced with 57mm guns for commonality with LCS and the Coast Guard. And now we're back to two 30mm guns. Oy vey...

 

[sferrin]

Hmmm

this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4U3Y6g4rvs

or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rldn9Hvzih4

I know which I'd pick. :'(

edit: if you have to go small (light):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFp0l7irJDE#t=59

 

[SpudmanWP]

Yeah, the Millennium Gun was my choice to replace the 30mm pea shooters on the LCS too.

 

[DrRansom]

Spudman - nice design.

Does the Millennium gun fire AHEAD rounds? That would be a nice CIWS and anti-small boat weapon...

 

[SpudmanWP]

Yes it does

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oerlikon_Millennium_35_mm_Naval_Revolver_Gun_System

I think it has a dual feed system too.

 

[donnage99]

Can anyone come up with a reason why 30mm can be more "capable" having shorter range, less flexibility in term of ammo, shorter blast, and slower rate of fire? I'm not very knowledgable bout gun systems?
Thanks

 

[Creative]

IMO it's just a cost cutting measure. Parts and ammo are shared with the LCSandLPD-17s.

 

[sferrin]

Can anyone come up with a reason why 30mm can be more "capable" having shorter range, less flexibility in term of ammo, shorter blast, and slower rate of fire? I'm not very knowledgable bout gun systems?
Thanks

It's not, in any way. I just wish they hadn't started behaving like our politicians and telling blatant falsehoods expecting people to believe them. Why couldn't they just say, "we did it to save money" or "we did it because the design is top heavy"?

 

[donnage99]

It's not, in any way. I just wish they hadn't started behaving like our politicians and telling blatant falsehoods expecting people to believe them. Why couldn't they just say, "we did it to save money" or "we did it because the design is top heavy"?

Having read the article again, I have to say I'm getting the impression of "I know you guys done the evaluation of which gun system to put on the ship, but this is what I really want so you guys gonna go back and do the evaluation again until you come to the conclusion I want because I'm your boss."

 

[Moose]

Can anyone come up with a reason why 30mm can be more "capable" having shorter range, less flexibility in term of ammo, shorter blast, and slower rate of fire? I'm not very knowledgable bout gun systems?
Thanks

More ammunition and dual-feed loading are not nothing, but in general I agree cost and weight were probably the real drivers here. Similar to how the cut from 7-9 DDG-1000s down to 2-3 was justified on on all sorts of questionable grounds when really it was a cost decision.

 

[donnage99]

Some further info into why the change of the gun system
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141012/DEFREG02/310120010/Experts-Question-US-Navy-s-Decision-Swap-Out-DDG-1000-s-Secondary-Gun

 

[Moose]

Now that's interesting. The way he's talking, and the lack of a BAE media counter-offensive so far, is making it sound like the Mk110 has performance shortfalls compared to what was expected. Could be a smokescreen, but worth keeping an eye on.

 

[sferrin]

Still. . . they could have gone with this instead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiMMZ8RzeIg

 

[RP1]

Although I remain somewhat sceptical over the broader accuracy of any official pronouncements regarding DDG-1000 (they will be correct word-for-word, at the time released, however), it is not impossible to imagine that the 30mm would be more preferable for certain scenarios than the 57mm, I'm specifically thinking about multiple small boats approaching from a wide range of directions. Although the 57mm is undoubtedly more capable at mashing up a single boat, it may become overwhelmed at a lower number of threats than the smaller calibre weapon. And that comment about RPG range being about a mile annoys me. Offhand I think RPG-7 rounds self destruct at about half that.


Regarding the Millennium gun - it's an above deck mount which would require sailors to expose themselves to enemy fire whilst reloading, and limits the number of engagements. It would require additional upperdeck equipment to allow personnel to reload, which has been avoided in the interests of reduced RCS. There are also issues with it's actual lethality against boat targets - it makes a lot of holes but it's not certain that they will be lethal - remember that it's original target set was fast moving missiles and aircraft, whose own KE is a weapon to be used against them.


RP1

 

[SpudmanWP]

The Millennium Gun has an "optional" external mount. It can be mounted just like a traditional turret with its ammunition handling facilities under armor. It also has a MUCH higher rate of fire which would give it a much better CWIS capability over the 30mm pop gun they are going with.

 

[TomS]

At the cost of introducting yet another caliber and the associated ammunition, parts, and training pipelines.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Not if they use it fleet wide instead of that pathetic 30mm pop-gun.

Then they could add it to the Bradley

And on the AAAV

And use it for CRAM

etc

etc

Point being that going from a 57mm round to a 30mm one as your ONLY CWIS & close in defensive gun for a destroyer sized ship is embarrassing.

 

[sferrin]

Not if they use it fleet wide instead of that pathetic 30mm pop-gun.

Then they could add it to the Bradley

And on the AAAV

And use it for CRAM

etc

etc

Point being that going from a 57mm round to a 30mm one as your ONLY CWIS & close in defensive gun for a destroyer sized ship is embarrassing.

And it's not even a good one. We're not talking Goalkeepers here.

 

[RP1]

It can be mounted just like a traditional turret with its ammunition handling facilities under armor.

Off the shelf or advertineering? There's enough risk in DDG-1000 as it is without trying buying something new-and-shiny-and-totally-de-risked-honest-guv to add on to it.


RP1

 

[TomS]

Not if they use it fleet wide instead of that pathetic 30mm pop-gun.

Then they could add it to the Bradley

And on the AAAV

And use it for CRAM

etc

etc

Point being that going from a 57mm round to a 30mm one as your ONLY CWIS & close in defensive gun for a destroyer sized ship is embarrassing.

OK, so we're heading back to fantasy fleets territory again. Look, for various reasons that made sense at the time, 30mm is established in the fleet. Tearing it out and starting over with 35mm (and pushing it into other services) is not a realistic option.

 

[sferrin]

OK, so we're heading back to fantasy fleets territory again. Look, for various reasons that made sense at the time, 30mm is established in the fleet. Tearing it out and starting over with 35mm (and pushing it into other services) is not a realistic option.

Okay great. Why not go with Goalkeeper? Hell, even throwing a couple Phalanx up there would be better. Have you seen those 30mm pop guns in action? Not something to write home about for sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4U3Y6g4rvs

*pop* *pop* miss miss, . . .*pop*. . . .miss etc.