RP1 said:
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

OTS

Btw, the Millennium Gun has more operational life under it's belt than the Bushmaster44 on the LPD/LCS/DDS-1000.

TomS said:
SpudmanWP said:
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.
30mm is established where? They are still testing it on the LCS, the AAAV is a no-go, and there are a few on some support ships (not in the CWIS role). If the Mk44 is a viable CWIS gun, then why do the LPDs have RAM?
 
The 30mm was fielded on all the LPD-17s. Those are not "support ships"; they're asked to right into the heart of littoral defenses. While it's still in testing somewhat on LCS, (LCS-1 did make a westPac deployment with the 30mm guns), the support infrastructure and training pipeline is fully established

You keep saying it's going to serve as a CIWS. It isn't. It's a close-in gun system (CIGS) for surface and anti-helicopter/UAV defense, not a CIWS for anti-missile defense. DDG-1000 isn't using them as a CIWS (nor was it using the 57mm as such). It is relying on ESSM and countermeasures for missile defense.
 
sferrin said:
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.

Let's take a ship with a dramatically reduced RCS and bolt a couple of radar reflectors and highly detectable emitters on top. That's what a Phalanx would be on DDG-1000 -- a giant "shoot me" sign with a flashing strobe light, just in case someone missed it.

Again, CIGS is not CIWS. They don't have the same roles at all.

The system I'd want to consider for these ships is a RAM launcher, but even that is a big enough corner reflector that it may screw up their real missile defenses, which is ESSM plus countermeasures.
 
though some RCS reduction is applied to the 30mm, it would still be sitting exposed and increase the RCS of the ship over the originally planned 57mm.
 
Make no mistake, I was not advocating the 35mm Millennium Gun instead of the 57mm, only the 30mm pop-gun.

You are right in saying CIGS is not CIWS, it's more. CIGS covers the same targets set as CIWS then adds surface targets.

btw, The previous video show clearly how ineffective the 30mm will be at swarms. If it can't hit a RHB coming straight for it, what chance does it have vs a massed amount of boats, UAVs, or god forbid a AShM?
 
Nope. The CIGS target set does not include anti-ship missiles.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
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.

Let's take a ship with a dramatically reduced RCS and bolt a couple of radar reflectors and highly detectable emitters on top. That's what a Phalanx would be on DDG-1000 -- a giant "shoot me" sign with a flashing strobe light, just in case someone missed it.

Again, CIGS is not CIWS. They don't have the same roles at all.

The system I'd want to consider for these ships is a RAM launcher, but even that is a big enough corner reflector that it may screw up their real missile defenses, which is ESSM plus countermeasures.

If you're fighting off swarms of boats (that don't have radars on them) I'm pretty even an infinitely small RCS wouldn't make a hill of beans difference.
 
sferrin said:
If you're fighting off swarms of boats (that don't have radars on them) I'm pretty even an infinitely small RCS wouldn't make a hill of beans difference.

The mounts don't magically disappear when there are missiles instead of boats to deal with.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
If you're fighting off swarms of boats (that don't have radars on them) I'm pretty even an infinitely small RCS wouldn't make a hill of beans difference.

The mounts don't magically disappear when there are missiles instead of boats to deal with.
No, they don't. But you'll be shooting ESSMs at those antiship missiles whether you had those mounts or not. If we'd kept hte 57mm mounts would they have been in stealthy turrets like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rldn9Hvzih4

Or merely dups of those on the LCS?
 
Found this tidbit in the latest DOT&E report

Replacement of an integrated Mk 110 57 mm close-in gun system with non-integrated Mk 46 30 mm guns

So not only are we only losing the hitting power, range, and versatility of the 57mm, but it's replacement will not be integrated into the ship-wide battle network.

Lovely


Another tidbit I found, guess it's only an advantage till you say it's not.

gzqPGGG.png
 
You guys are misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying the 30mm gun is superior to the 57mm, or to the 35mm Millennium. I'm a huge fan of Millenium, actually. If I was starting the fleet from scratch, it would be my choice in a heartbeat. However:

1) Selecting a new mount, a new gun, and especially a new caliber just to equip three ships is not a realistic option. However much we'd all like a better gun, the expense of new training, maintenance, and supply pipelines is just too much (it's bad enough that DDG-1000 has unique VLS, unique main guns, and unique propulsion systems...)

2) The secondary guns on DDG-1000 are not intended for anti-ship missile defense, and there's a reason the ship didn't have CIWS as originally designed. The Zumwalt was designed to be stealthy and rely on offboard decoys for a large portion of its anti-ship missile defense (after ESSM has its turn). The CIWS type guns being suggested have radar antennas (i.e., reflectors) right in the key frequencies for radar-guided anti-ship missiles. This isn't a big deal on most ships, which have lots of little reflectors anyway, but for a ship as clean as the Zumwalts, those RCS hot spots are a huge compromise of the ship's signature and thus its defenses against radar-guided missiles. To preserve the ship's RCS, the 57mm guns were going to need to be in those low-RCS houses with concealed barrels. The Mk 46 30mm mounts have at least somewhat reduced RCS thanks to their use on the LPD-17, another fairly clean reduced RCS design.
 
ok, I think the confusion (especially on my part) is that the definition of CIGS is not well defined (especially on the DDG-1000) and I have see videos and articles specifically highlighting the Mk100's AShM defensive capability with it's 6P ammo.
 
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-navys-newest-linux-powered-command-center-is-right-1682363296
 

Attachments

  • 10923497_851773874884493_604818110478130193_o.jpg
    10923497_851773874884493_604818110478130193_o.jpg
    268.8 KB · Views: 828
  • 10989254_851773908217823_7195715271900727959_o.jpg
    10989254_851773908217823_7195715271900727959_o.jpg
    196.1 KB · Views: 810
http://gcaptain.com/pentagon-ponders-canceling-last-zumwalt-destroyer/

[Raises eyebrow]
 
"SECNAV Mabus, Maine Delegation Back Third Zumwalt Construction"
By: Sam LaGrone
September 16, 2015 6:11 PM • Updated: September 17, 2015 8:16 AM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/09/16/secnav-mabus-maine-delegation-back-third-zumwalt-construction

PENTAGON — Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus and the Maine congressional delegation have thrown their support behind finishing the third Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer — one that the Department of Defense is studying canceling.

At issue is a Monday report from Bloomberg in which the the wire service reported the Office of the Secretary Defense’s (OSD) Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) would review canceling the third Zumwalt-class destroyer — Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002).

As reported by USNI News in July, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) is struggling to efficiently build both the three highly complex Zumwalts and a new crop of Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers (DDG-51s) at the Maine yard. Delays in the construction of lead ship Zumwalt (DDG-1000) have had, at least in part, a knock-on effect in building the new Burkes, setting construction of the first two planned ships back several months. Canceling Johnson, while not saving the Navy money, could free up capacity at the yard for other work, USNI News understands.

According to Bloomberg, the conversation occurred during an Aug. 25 Defense Acquisition Executive summary meeting that canceling Johnson would “be reviewed in the next few weeks.”

Sources confirmed the pending CAPE review to USNI News on Wednesday.

While the Navy confirmed the meeting, the service would not provide any details from the discussion.

“The internal discussions of this meeting are not publically releasable,” read a Monday statement provided to USNI News by a spokesman for the Navy’s Research, Development & Acquisition (RDA) office.

While OSD is reviewing the fate of Johnson, Mabus told Politico in an interview following the Aug. 25 meeting, the service was still committed to completing the $22.1 billion, three ship program.

“If you were going to make a decision to not all have all three, that decision should have been made a long time ago because now it’s probably as expensive to cancel as it is to build them, just because of the way contracts are written and the way that materials bought and infrastructure’s put in and some other stuff,” according to a partial transcript of the late August interview provided to USNI News.
“You won’t bring any money back into this building.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) issued a joint statement in response to the report throwing their support behind keeping Johnson.

“If Pentagon officials are contemplating the cancellation of this ship at the eleventh hour and when it is already more than 40 percent complete, it would be a policy and financial mistake that would weaken the Navy’s fleet, degrade the manufacturing industrial base upon which our country’s security depends, and would not save money at this stage due to cancellation and other contractual fees,” read the statement provided to USNI News on Wednesday.
“There is no workforce better positioned to build these ships than the talented, highly-skilled men and women of BIW who have a long history of designing, building, and supporting the most advanced ships in the world.”

Collins has long championed BIW and was instrumental in securing construction of the three ships at the yard following the Department of Defense’s truncation of the Zumwalt-class to three ships in 2009.

While Mabus and Collins are committed to a three-ship class, the path forward for BIW, the Navy and OSD on the Zumwalt programs is difficult to ascertain.

For its part, the Navy has been committed to maintaining a strong industrial base — seen as a national security asset — and has taken extensive steps to both preserve competition and provide business to as many U.S. naval yards as possible, as evidenced in the complicated deal it constructed to compete building the third America-class amphibious warship and a new class of fleet oilers.

Almost all of the money for the $22.1 billion program — about the cost of two Ford-class aircraft carriers or ten Burkes — has been authorized and cancelling Johnson will net the service a miniscule amount of money — if any.

However unless BIW, mired in an ongoing labor dispute with its shipyard workers, increases the efficiency in construction of all of its ship lines and drives down overall ship construction costs it would be at risk to winning new work.

In particular, BIW is a finalist to construct the U.S. Coast Guard’s 25-ship $10.5 billion Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC).

If the yard fails to secure the Coast Guard contract, BIW management has said 1,200 of its 5,700 employees will be let go.

“It’s a must-win for us,” BIW president Fred Harris told Mainebiz in January.

The following is the complete Sept. 16 joint statement from Sens. Collins and King.

“There are always challenges in building a first-of-its-class weapons system, whether it’s an aircraft, ship, or land combat vehicle, particularly one with the cutting-edge technologies of the Zumwalt. There is no workforce better positioned to build these ships than the talented, highly-skilled men and women of BIW who have a long history of designing, building, and supporting the most advanced ships in the world.

“Just last week, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said the Navy is committed to all three ships because of the capabilities they will bring to the fleet, and we take him at his word.

“If Pentagon officials are contemplating the cancellation of this ship at the eleventh hour and when it is already more than 40 percent complete, it would be a policy and financial mistake that would weaken the Navy’s fleet, degrade the manufacturing industrial base upon which our country’s security depends, and would not save money at this stage due to cancellation and other contractual fees.”
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/no-cuts-to-zumwalt-destroyer-do-the-math/
 
Underway and heading out for sea trials.
 

Attachments

  • DDG 1000 Sea Trials 1.jpg
    DDG 1000 Sea Trials 1.jpg
    73.4 KB · Views: 381
  • DDG Sea Trials 3.jpg
    DDG Sea Trials 3.jpg
    75.8 KB · Views: 364
  • DDG Sea Trials 4.jpg
    DDG Sea Trials 4.jpg
    92.5 KB · Views: 366
Here's hoping the Navy doesn't skimp on the pictures and video.
 
When did they decide to name DDG-1002 after LBJ? Can we officially conclude the Navy no longer gives a damn about naming conventions and will forever more just name ships after whatever politician is appropriate for the moment?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
When did they decide to name DDG-1002 after LBJ? Can we officially conclude the Navy no longer gives a damn about naming conventions and will forever more just name ships after whatever politician is appropriate for the moment?
2012. LBJ was a Navy vet, in fact he left Congress to serve during WW2, and he was at least elected President which is more than GRF had going for him. People get too upset about who gets what named after them.
 
Moose said:
LBJ was a Navy vet, in fact he left Congress to serve during WW2, and he was at least elected President which is more than GRF had going for him. People get too upset about who gets what named after them.

Johnson didn't actually leave Congress. He was called to active duty while still in Congress and served briefly overseas as an observer, then went back to Congress and became the head of a House Naval Affairs subcommittee on profiteering.

It would be nice if there was more of a coherent system of names, but I'm not losing sleep over it. That said, being a sailor on "the Johnson" is rife with opportunities for tasteless jokes. But then, what ship name ever isn't somehow turned into a bawdy joke?
 
TomS said:
That said, being a sailor on "the Johnson" is rife with opportunities for tasteless jokes. But then, what ship name ever isn't somehow turned into a bawdy joke?

Well we have "Growlers" on the USS Bush so. . . :eek:
 
Looks beautiful underway, IMO. Obviously not moving fast in that last video but look at how flat her wake is. Can't wait to see her at high speed sometime.
 
donnage99 said:
The ship's stealthiness works by making enemy think it's just CGI on screen.
haha, clever.

I have always considered this **cruiser** beautiful. shame it doesn't have the 57mm and also that they are only building 3. When will China or Russia start building anything even close?!?!
 
covert_shores said:
donnage99 said:
The ship's stealthiness works by making enemy think it's just CGI on screen.
haha, clever.

I have always considered this **cruiser** beautiful. shame it doesn't have the 57mm and also that they are only building 3. When will China or Russia start building anything even close?!?!

Looks like they didn't even install the replacement pop-guns (30mm Mk44 guns).
 
I was disappointed with their choice to replace the 57mm with a much inferior gun and no integration with the ship's main defensive system while giving the public some BS excuse. However, now thinking about it, I think they might looking toward installing laser based system, and it might be soon enough that they would do away with the 57mm to save money
 
sferrin said:
Looks like they didn't even install the replacement pop-guns (30mm Mk44 guns).

At this point, there are probably a bunch of smaller systems that aren't fitted yet. I think you can see some missing antenna arrays on the superstructure too. Par for the course for pre-commissioning trials.
 
donnage99 said:
I was disappointed with their choice to replace the 57mm with a much inferior gun and no integration with the ship's main defensive system while giving the public some BS excuse. However, now thinking about it, I think they might looking toward installing laser based system, and it might be soon enough that they would do away with the 57mm to save money

There has been some scuttlebutt on military blogs (*cough CDR Salamander cough*) that the 57mm gun is a wholly inadequate weapon. The weight of fire + accuracy is, according to these unverifiable statements, nowhere near comparable to a 76mm rapid fire gun.

If that is true, then it would explain a reason why the USN cut them from the DDG-1000.
A) DDG-1000 is more of a test-bed then a warship expected to continually deploy into hostile areas
B) If A is true and the statements about the 57mm gun are also true, then deleting them from the ship represents only a marginal decrease in ship combat power, which doesn't matter anyway.

Scratch the above, here is a source:

The Mark 110 57mm gun, “was nowhere near meeting the requirements,” said Capt. Jim Downey, program manager for the DDG 1000 Zumwalt class.

In fact, Downey said, the 57mm gun — selected years ago for the DDG 1000 as a close-in weapon and in service as the primary gun for the littoral combat ship and Coast Guard national security cutters — is overrated.

“They were significantly over-modeled on the lethality,” he said. “The results of the actual live test-fire data was that the round was not as effective as modeled.”


http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20141012/DEFREG02/310120010/Experts-Question-US-Navy-s-Decision-Swap-Out-DDG-1000-s-Secondary-Gun
 
donnage99 said:
I was disappointed with their choice to replace the 57mm with a much inferior gun and no integration with the ship's main defensive system while giving the public some BS excuse. However, now thinking about it, I think they might looking toward installing laser based system, and it might be soon enough that they would do away with the 57mm to save money

I'm not even going to try to get my hopes up there. (Though it does make sense.)
 
DrRansom said:
donnage99 said:
I was disappointed with their choice to replace the 57mm with a much inferior gun and no integration with the ship's main defensive system while giving the public some BS excuse. However, now thinking about it, I think they might looking toward installing laser based system, and it might be soon enough that they would do away with the 57mm to save money

There has been some scuttlebutt on military blogs (*cough CDR Salamander cough*) that the 57mm gun is a wholly inadequate weapon. The weight of fire + accuracy is, according to these unverifiable statements, nowhere near comparable to a 76mm rapid fire gun.

If that is true, then it would explain a reason why the USN cut them from the DDG-1000.
A) DDG-1000 is more of a test-bed then a warship expected to continually deploy into hostile areas
B) If A is true and the statements about the 57mm gun are also true, then deleting them from the ship represents only a marginal decrease in ship combat power, which doesn't matter anyway.

Scratch the above, here is a source:

The Mark 110 57mm gun, “was nowhere near meeting the requirements,” said Capt. Jim Downey, program manager for the DDG 1000 Zumwalt class.

In fact, Downey said, the 57mm gun — selected years ago for the DDG 1000 as a close-in weapon and in service as the primary gun for the littoral combat ship and Coast Guard national security cutters — is overrated.

“They were significantly over-modeled on the lethality,” he said. “The results of the actual live test-fire data was that the round was not as effective as modeled.”


http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20141012/DEFREG02/310120010/Experts-Question-US-Navy-s-Decision-Swap-Out-DDG-1000-s-Secondary-Gun

How about a pair of Millennium guns up there then? The clunkers they decided to put in their place leave. . .something to be desired:

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

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom