DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

[TomS]

There is an amazing amount of open space in this ship. Given the cost amd volume issues with the Burke Flight IIIs, the Navy must be seriously wondering if sticking with the DDG-1000 might not have been a better move long term.

 

[sferrin]

There is an amazing amount of open space in this ship. Given the cost amd volume issues with the Burke Flight IIIs, the Navy must be seriously wondering if sticking with the DDG-1000 might not have been a better move long term.

When it comes time to replace the Ticos I'll bet they look at that hull REAL hard. (And then moan about how it's costs have exploded, mystified as to how it happened.) I thought the well-deck and amount of hangar space was interesting. I think the USN hasn't done a real good job of selling this hull. When railguns and DEWs come online in the coming years the Zumwalts will be the only surface combatants ready for them. They make me think about the Spruance class when it first came out. Big giant ship with little in the way of weapons. Then they got a pair of Phalanx, a VLS system, Harpoon cannisters. . . They were excellent ships by the time the Navy decided to use them for target practice.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/08/all-three-zumwalt-class-destroyers-assigned-to-pacific-carter.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2016/04/10/how-stealthy-navys-new-destroyer-needs-reflectors/82865356/

 

[TomS]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/08/all-three-zumwalt-class-destroyers-assigned-to-pacific-carter.html

No shock here -- a class of three ships with a large number of unique systems to support, were never going to be based in more than one homeport.

 

[covert_shores]

Anyone know the dimensions and weight limitations of the stern boat launch system? Looks big in the internal photos. Wondering if it can handle more than just the obvious RIBs.

 

[TomS]

The 11-meter RHIBs are 3.2 meters wide, and about 8 tons. By the looks of it that's about the max size that would fit. I would hope they could fit the CUSV unmanned vehicle as well.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/05/16/us-navy-poised-to-take-ownership-of-its-largest-destroyer.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/inside-americas-lethal-new-stealth-destroyer-16306

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21

 

[fredymac]

2nd in class Christened.

 

[seruriermarshal]

Launching of MICHAEL MONSOOR (DDG 1001) from drydock to pierside.

;D

 

[marauder2048]

DDG-1000 Presentation from Surface Navy Association 2016 (disregard the date on the opening slide)

Slide 6 seems to support TomS supposition that they had enough RCS margin above the threshold requirement to tolerate the steel superstructure.

 

[marauder2048]

Preso continued:

 

[TomS]

That Requirements (Threshold/Objective) slide has been around for a while, which makes for some interesting trend analysis. I can't pull the slides out as images, but this 2011 brief has RCS being noticeably closer to threshold than the more recent version. Meaning that despite the various antenna and superstructure changes that were supposedly hurting the signature, RCS may have actually gotten better over the last four years.

http://www.portengineerprogram.org/Conference_Presentations/2011/DDG1000_Program_Overview.pdf

 

[sferrin]

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SNA_DDG1000_DistroA_SNA_BRIEF_0142016.pdf

I hope they're smart enough to go back to this hull for the Ticonderoga replacement. (Though with some real guns instead of those lousy pop guns on top of the hanger.) One thing I do wonder about though is why they went with the cell size they did with the Mk57 VLS. It's not big enough for multiple SM-2s, nor are they ever likely to produce weapons that would maximize the use of the cell volume considering the now low numbers of cells deployed. ???

 

[TomS]

They were future-proofing for CG-21, which was a major design driver when DD-21 started.

 

[Moose]

Pretty cool to see that image of the pVLS detonation test aftermath, even in low-rez form.

 

[fredymac]

I think this is the test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vRzGC3XFnA

 

[totoro]

One would expect that future systems would use mk57 cell size better. Like new cruise missiles, larger in diameter due to shaping and applied RA material. Or anti-ship variants of same missile. Or even super/hypersonic antiship missiles if needed. Or new missiles to replace both essm and sm-2/6. Something that could quad pack in mk57 could have 50% greater envelope than said missles. Or a smaller variant of ASROC that can be quadpacked?

Of course, all this may take a few more decades.

 

[sferrin]

One would expect that future systems would use mk57 cell size better. Like new cruise missiles, larger in diameter due to shaping and applied RA material. Or anti-ship variants of same missile. Or even super/hypersonic antiship missiles if needed. Or new missiles to replace both essm and sm-2/6. Something that could quad pack in mk57 could have 50% greater envelope than said missles. Or a smaller variant of ASROC that can be quadpacked?

Of course, all this may take a few more decades.

Given that any such missiles wouldn't be able to fit in the Mk41 VLS that's almost a non-starter. If the Ticonderogas were replace with a ship based on the Zumwalt hull, or any new hull incorporated the Mk57 VLS that might be a different matter. I can't believe the Flight III Burkes aren't getting any of those cells but I'd guess that's at least part of the reason why.

 

[sferrin]

They were future-proofing for CG-21, which was a major design driver when DD-21 started.

Right but you'd think they'd have at least made them big enough to hold 2 SM-2s rather than take such a large hit in loadout. As it is a Zumwalt can't even carry what a Burke does.

 

[TomS]

They were future-proofing for CG-21, which was a major design driver when DD-21 started.

Right but you'd think they'd have at least made them big enough to hold 2 SM-2s rather than take such a large hit in loadout. As it is a Zumwalt can't even carry what a Burke does.

The initial DD-21 designs had 128 cells -- the shrink didn't hit until after the PVLS cell size was settled.

Dual-pack for SM-2 was considered a possibility, and I think it might have happened if they'd built more than three ships. There was talk of dual-pack even in the Mk 41 envelope, but you have to radically rethink the missile -- no strakes, no tail fins, etc. With the extra space in the Mk 57, it would be a lot easier.

The size may also have been influenced by NSFS plans. Congress was talking about an "Advanced Land Attack missile" for DD-21. The clear preference from the Navy was for something similar to NTACMS, but that was a very tight squeeze in a Mk 41 cell.

 

[bring_it_on]

Integrate the PAC-3MSE with VLC and pack 2 of those in using it as a short-medium range interceptor for higher end threats that the ESSM can't deal with.

 

[sferrin]

Dual-pack for SM-2 was considered a possibility, and I think it might have happened if they'd built more than three ships. There was talk of dual-pack even in the Mk 41 envelope, but you have to radically rethink the missile -- no strakes, no tail fins, etc. With the extra space in the Mk 57, it would be a lot easier.

In a Mk57 and no fins? Possibly:



In a Mk41? Nope:

The size may also have been influenced by NSFS plans. Congress was talking about an "Advanced Land Attack missile" for DD-21. The clear preference from the Navy was for something similar to NTACMS, but that was a very tight squeeze in a Mk 41 cell.

It's a tight squeeze in a Mk57. No way in a Mk41 (shown):

 

[sferrin]

Integrate the PAC-3MSE with VLC and pack 2 of those in using it as a short-medium range interceptor for higher end threats that the ESSM can't deal with.

A regular PAC-3 can fit in the same diameter cell an ESSM can. You might be able to quad-pack MSE in a Mk57. (You could certainly dual-pack THAAD in one of those cells.)

 

[bring_it_on]

Integrate the PAC-3MSE with VLC and pack 2 of those in using it as a short-medium range interceptor for higher end threats that the ESSM can't deal with.

A regular PAC-3 can fit in the same diameter cell an ESSM can. You might be able to quad-pack MSE in a Mk57. (You could certainly dual-pack THAAD in one of those cells.)

Aren't the MK57 cells the same dimensions as the 41? Here's what Lockheed has claimed on the MK41s from IHS:

Patriot fire units are slanted and the MSE launcher for the Medium Extended Air Defence System (MEADS) was canted marginally from vertical - for safety reasons - but a naval version would need to be fired vertically to fit into legacy launch cells and deck architecture, and provide all-round coverage. However, Barry McCullough, vice president of international business development for Aegis programmes said that the company proved the MSE's basic fit in a Mk.41 vertical launch system cell and its vertical launch capability in a launcher at Aberdeen Proving Ground.
Trotsky acknowledged that "there is a small amount of integration work required to get the missile into a vertical launch cell, but you can get two MSE in each launch canister". The missile's solid fuel configuration should also ease its integration into the shipboard environment.

THAAD would be a natural fit for an evolution of the AEGIS system if the ballistic missile threat continues to remain serious and gets longer ranges, challenges with the navy picking it up aside. With a dual packed MSE arrangement you could substitute some of the long range interceptors with 2 shorter ranged ones, keeping the SM2's/6's for AAW and create capacity for offensive capability. A good option to have since systems are already developed, and have a pretty decent planned production run once international orders are factored in. I think a lot will depend on how good the ESSM Block II gets against future threats. Having said that, I don't think the DDG-1000 is going to be gearing up for THAAD like missions, I think they'll stick to interceptors that can do both the AAW and BMD mission for now and for the future.

 

[sferrin]

Aren't the MK57 cells the same dimensions as the 41? Here's what Lockheed has claimed on the MK41s from IHS:

Nope, the Mk41 is smaller. It's still big enough to hold 2 MSEs (or four regular PAC-3s or ESSMs) though. You could probably fit four MSEs in a Mk57 cell.

 

[bring_it_on]

If you can indeed pack 4 MSE's per one SM6 that may just be a trade that is worth looking into if it frees up cells for TLAM's, LRASM"s and whatever future offensive missile they wish to develop. SM6 will still be the long range weapon and have secondary anti surface capability but you'll just have less of them.

 

[sferrin]

If you can indeed pack 4 MSE's per one SM6 that may just be a trade that is worth looking into if it frees up cells for TLAM's, LRASM"s and whatever future offensive missile they wish to develop. SM6 will still be the long range weapon and have secondary anti surface capability but you'll just have less of them.

You can't trade 4 MSEs for one SM-6 in a Mk41 cell.

 

[TomS]

Your drawings don't tell the whole story there.

In November 1996, Lockheed actually test flew an ATACMS from a Mk41 VLS at the Desert Ship facility at White Sands. IIRC, it used a Mk72 booster repurposed from SM-2 Block IV. The canister was obviously not a standard one -- LM had developed a special thin-wall design that I believe would also have been used in the dual-pack SM-2 concept.

 

[sferrin]

Your drawings don't tell the whole story there.

In November 1996, Lockheed actually test flew an ATACMS from a Mk41 VLS at the Desert Ship facility at White Sands. IIRC, it used a Mk72 booster repurposed from SM-2 Block IV. The canister was obviously not a standard one -- LM had developed a special thin-wall design that I believe would also have been used in the dual-pack SM-2 concept.

Sounds like it wasn't actually an ATACMS either. (Or was a normal ATACMS mounted on the front end of an Mk72 booster?)

 

[bring_it_on]

You can't trade 4 MSEs for one SM-6 in a Mk41 cell.

I meant on the DDG-1000.

 

[TomS]

Your drawings don't tell the whole story there.

In November 1996, Lockheed actually test flew an ATACMS from a Mk41 VLS at the Desert Ship facility at White Sands. IIRC, it used a Mk72 booster repurposed from SM-2 Block IV. The canister was obviously not a standard one -- LM had developed a special thin-wall design that I believe would also have been used in the dual-pack SM-2 concept.

Sounds like it wasn't actually an ATACMS either. (Or was a normal ATACMS mounted on the front end of an Mk72 booster?)

The latter. That combination of ATACMS + Mk72 is what was offered for the interim land attack missile program ultimately won by Land Attack Standard Missile.

 

[sferrin]

Your drawings don't tell the whole story there.

In November 1996, Lockheed actually test flew an ATACMS from a Mk41 VLS at the Desert Ship facility at White Sands. IIRC, it used a Mk72 booster repurposed from SM-2 Block IV. The canister was obviously not a standard one -- LM had developed a special thin-wall design that I believe would also have been used in the dual-pack SM-2 concept.

Sounds like it wasn't actually an ATACMS either. (Or was a normal ATACMS mounted on the front end of an Mk72 booster?)

The latter. That combination of ATACMS + Mk72 is what was offered for the interim land attack missile program ultimately won by Land Attack Standard Missile.

That's actually fairly amusing in a perverse sort of way. They pick SM-4 over a purpose-built land attack missile, that's already proving it's effectiveness, almost purely on cost. Then they cancel it due to lack of effectiveness, leaving the USN with nothing. Sounds about right.

 

[TomS]

Yeah, it was a real head-scratcher at the time. The interim ATACMS solution required more development effort (Booster integration and canister both needed work to refine) while LASM was almost entirely off the shelf, so that made sense as an interim solution. But not proceeding with LASM at all was weird. They could have recycled old SM-2MR airframes, warheads, and motors -- the only new stuff needed was the guidance package and fuzing (and maybe a new nosecone for better aerodynamics). It should have been amazingly cheap.

There was a bunch of politics at play, as usual. I think there was a feeling that if they could field an interim NSFS capability (LASM + ERGM) on the existing fleet, they might lose the specialized ship (DD-21) and associated systems (ALAM + AGS). Which basically happened anyway...

 

[sferrin]

Yeah, it was a real head-scratcher at the time. The interim ATACMS solution required more development effort (Booster integration and canister both needed work to refine) while LASM was almost entirely off the shelf, so that made sense as an interim solution. But not proceeding with LASM at all was weird. They could have recycled old SM-2MR airframes, warheads, and motors -- the only new stuff needed was the guidance package and fuzing (and maybe a new nosecone for better aerodynamics). It should have been amazingly cheap.

There was a bunch of politics at play, as usual. I think there was a feeling that if they could field an interim NSFS capability (LASM + ERGM) on the existing fleet, they might lose the specialized ship (DD-21) and associated systems (ALAM + AGS). Which basically happened anyway...

Sad thing is they could be using SM-4s as antiship missiles.

 

[marauder2048]

So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

 

[sferrin]

So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

Would have needed new launchers; much larger, on the centerline, and maybe needing a deckhouse to create enough depth.

(2:50) (Don't know if this just some artist's impression or if any factual information went into it.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6px496s_rQ

 

[TomS]

So how were they planning on accommodating KEI?

In a very large VLS that would replace the Advanced Gun System. You can see it in the attached painting.