DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

[NeilChapman]

And in case of a serious conflict, what would most of the 90 USN Aegis ships and 20 other Pacific country's ships be doing, other than hanging out in the Pacific?

Loosely

30 would be in maintenance
30 would be at some point in training
18 would be deployed in the Pacific
12 would be assisting in securing US interests everywhere else in the world.

That's a whole lot less than 90.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensetech.org/2017/03/07/report-navy-base-stealthy-zumwalt-destroyers-south-korea/?ESRC=deftech.sm

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/04/28/navy_begins_weapons_tech_activation_of_uss_zumwalt_292586.html

 

[fredymac]

On board the Zumwalt but no views of the CIC or missile hatches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PaDQmda03M

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-stealthy-zumwalt-class-destoyer-americas-new-21713

 

[sferrin]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-stealthy-zumwalt-class-destoyer-americas-new-21713

Should be the Tico replacement. It's the only class that can realistically field railguns and DEWs.

 

[Airplane]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-stealthy-zumwalt-class-destoyer-americas-new-21713

Should be the Tico replacement. It's the only class that can realistically field railguns and DEWs.

Are you defending this money pit masquerading as a destroyer? This and LCS have set the USN back 20 years by virtue of what we could have and should have built.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Are you defending this money pit masquerading as a destroyer? This and LCS have set the USN back 20 years by virtue of what we could have and should have built.

LCS I'd agree with but DDG-1000? I'm not completely sold on the hull design but it has a lot of power capacity and other improvements we need for new destroyers/cruisers and would have been quite impressive on its own if so many items hadn't been cut over the years.

The 155mm AGS may not have been a bad idea if we were going to have it on 30+ ships as originally envisioned.

 

[sferrin]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-stealthy-zumwalt-class-destoyer-americas-new-21713

Should be the Tico replacement. It's the only class that can realistically field railguns and DEWs.

Are you defending this money pit masquerading as a destroyer? This and LCS have set the USN back 20 years by virtue of what we could have and should have built.

Not sure what you've been smoking but aside from LCS you couldn't be more wrong. The ship itself is exactly what is needed. The way the USN has mishandled the program is why it's where it is today. That's what happens when you kick the can down the road for over a decade and then half-ass it. I know it's fashionable to bash the Zumwalt because it looks funny but it's far FAR more prepared for the future than the Burkes. The Burke Flight III is like the "Silent Hornet"- a desperate attempt to keep an already dated design relevant. Easily one of the USN's stupider decisions (almost as bad as sinking the entire Spruance class, VLS and all).

 

[Triton]

"How the Navy’s Zumwalt-Class Destroyers Ran Aground"
by Mike Fredenburg December 19, 2016 4:00 AM

Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443165/zumwalt-class-navy-stealth-destroyer-program-failure

 

[sferrin]

"How the Navy’s Zumwalt-Class Destroyers Ran Aground"
by Mike Fredenburg December 19, 2016 4:00 AM

Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443165/zumwalt-class-navy-stealth-destroyer-program-failure

"Adding insult to injury, absolutely no one has been held accountable for this budget-busting debacle."

Clearly the pinnacle of objectivity. The article is pretty much an extended rant against, well, everything.

"As we look across a range of big-budget defense programs, such as the CH-53K helicopter, the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Osprey tilt-rotor program, the F-22, the F-35, etc., we see this pattern repeated over and over and over again. Not only is there zero accountability, but this behavior is rewarded. Indeed, in today’s military, successfully expanding a program beyond its initial budget is viewed highly favorably in terms of rank advancement, as well as being valued by defense contractors looking to hire “team players” who can effectively wield influence with their former colleagues on their behalf. It should go without saying that whistle-blowers are not considered “team players” by senior military commanders and the defense-contractor executives who increasingly happen to be former senior military commanders."

The fact remains, the Zumwalt design is the one that should be going forward, not yet another version of a design already showing it's age and ill-equipped for the future.

 

[Triton]

"How the Navy’s Zumwalt-Class Destroyers Ran Aground"
by Mike Fredenburg December 19, 2016 4:00 AM

Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443165/zumwalt-class-navy-stealth-destroyer-program-failure

"Adding insult to injury, absolutely no one has been held accountable for this budget-busting debacle."

Clearly the pinnacle of objectivity. The article is pretty much an extended rant against, well, everything.

"As we look across a range of big-budget defense programs, such as the CH-53K helicopter, the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Osprey tilt-rotor program, the F-22, the F-35, etc., we see this pattern repeated over and over and over again. Not only is there zero accountability, but this behavior is rewarded. Indeed, in today’s military, successfully expanding a program beyond its initial budget is viewed highly favorably in terms of rank advancement, as well as being valued by defense contractors looking to hire “team players” who can effectively wield influence with their former colleagues on their behalf. It should go without saying that whistle-blowers are not considered “team players” by senior military commanders and the defense-contractor executives who increasingly happen to be former senior military commanders."

The fact remains, the Zumwalt design is the one that should be going forward, not yet another version of a design already showing it's age and ill-equipped for the future.

I thought that you would be distracted by that assertion and then ignore all the other points made in the article. The seaworthiness of the tumblehome hull is still in dispute, the need for stealth is still in dispute, the need for ship-based landing fire support is still in dispute, the claims of reduced operating costs and reduced crew size have not been studied and are in still dispute. Yet you claim that the Zumwalt-class design is the one that should be going forward. It seems that the only reason to proceed with the Zumwalt-class design is the presence of the 78 megawatt array of four gas-turbine generators that could potentially power rail guns and directed-energy weapons.

 

[sferrin]

I thought that you would be distracted by that assertion and then ignore all the other points made in the article.

No reason it should go unmentioned. On the contrary it speaks volumes to the author's lack of objectivity, not to mention complete ignorance of prior first-of-class issues in other ships.

The seaworthiness of the tumblehome hull is still in dispute

It passed it's sea trials so no, it's not in dispute.

the need for stealth is still in dispute,

By who? The USN?

the need for ship-based landing fire support is still in dispute

So why does the Flight III Burke have a 5" gun? Why is the USN working on railguns? (That only the Zumwalts are equipped to handle BTW.)

the claims of reduced operating costs and reduced crew size have not been studied and are in still dispute.

Again, by who? The USN?

Yet you claim that the Zumwalt-class design is the one that should be going forward. It seems that the only reason to proceed with the Zumwalt-class design is the presence of the 78 megawatt array of four gas-turbine generators that could potentially power rail guns and directed-energy weapons.

LOL! You say that like you're talking about the color of paint. Add to that obvious, very important detail, the larger hanger/flight deck, larger Mk57 PLS, more room for future upgrades, lower RCS, ability to field larger radar arrays, etc. etc. etc.

Lastly, the catch-all, "it's in dispute" is meaningless as the same could be said of virtually any detail of any piece of equipment. "The optimum caliber of rifle round is in dispute, therefore they all are in dispute, and they all suck". See how that works? What matters is WHO is disputing it.

 

[bring_it_on]

I thought that you would be distracted by that assertion and then ignore all the other points made in the article. The seaworthiness of the tumblehome hull is still in dispute, the need for stealth is still in dispute, the need for ship-based landing fire support is still in dispute, the claims of reduced operating costs and reduced crew size have not been studied and are in still dispute. Yet you claim that the Zumwalt-class design is the one that should be going forward. It seems that the only reason to proceed with the Zumwalt-class design is the presence of the 78 megawatt array of four gas-turbine generators that could potentially power rail guns and directed-energy weapons.

Look at this way. A sub-optimal 3 class program comes in at 200% of the Unit Total Program procurement cost of the DDG-51 FIII (Using FY 2020 purchase for the -51 as the baseline). Now what if you could get this down to say 125-130% would spending the extra 25-30% be worth it? In return for this cost you get a more future proof vessel that can carry a more powerful radar and can be modified to actually optimally carry some of the technology that the Navy is developing. This would obviously require shaving a $1+ Billion of the unit cost of the Zumwalt but if you were to buy 2 a year say for a 20-30 ship production run this may well be possible.

 

[FighterJock]

Any idea if the Zumwalt will be allowed for export? Being full of high technology and stealth, one would think that the US Navy would put similar conditions that the US Air Force put on the F-22.

 

[bring_it_on]

I don't think its up for export but it is now the right time to begin to define a DDG-1000 based vessel as a potential future surface combatant and how to modify the design and get its cost down for a larger production batch to be acquired in the future.

 

[Arjen]

Any idea if the Zumwalt will be allowed for export?

Destroyer construction is an area where nations have irreconcilable differences about what's advisable or affordable. I doubt there would be any takers.

 

[sferrin]

Look at this way. A sub-optimal 3 class program comes in at 200% of the Unit Total Program procurement cost of the DDG-51 FIII (Using FY 2020 purchase for the -51 as the baseline). Now what if you could get this down to say 125-130% would spending the extra 25-30% be worth it? In return for this cost you get a more future proof vessel that can carry a more powerful radar and can be modified to actually optimally carry some of the technology that the Navy is developing. This would obviously require shaving a $1+ Billion of the unit cost of the Zumwalt but if you were to buy 2 a year say for a 20-30 ship production run this may well be possible.

And that's not even the entire argument. We're STILL going to need something better than the Flight III Burkes to replace the Ticonderogas. So add in THAT class as well, it's development problems (they'll have them because new hull, propulsion, etc. etc.). THAT'S the real question. Going whole hog with the Zumwalt hull for the future will end up looking like a bargain.

 

[bring_it_on]

Fully agree with that. What was a very high risk new start program for the DDG program actually becomes a relatively low risk program for the future surface combatant family which will replace future cruisers and possibly destroyers. It actually begins to make sense given much of the costly systems would be quite mature and proven.

 

[TomS]

Any idea if the Zumwalt will be allowed for export? Being full of high technology and stealth, one would think that the US Navy would put similar conditions that the US Air Force put on the F-22.

Can you think of another Navy in the market for a ~15,000-ton surface combatant?

 

[fredymac]

The history of the SSN21 program may be a model for a de-costing revision to the DDG1000. You will get something that looks similar and keeps essential elements (ie, the 80MW electrical generation) but removes high cost factors elsewhere.

However, some programmatic and political factors are always at play that adds significant cost burden. Congress needs to accept multi year block buys to allow contractors to amortize production costs, the Navy needs to shut down late term design changes and defer them to mid life overhauls, and unions need to accept elimination of "work rules" in order to preserve jobs versus project cancellation. Of course all this goes out the window when someone 3D prints a destroyer hull.

 

[bring_it_on]

The DDG-1002 shaved 35% form the DDG-1000 cost due the learning curve efficiencies and changes to the design. Now imagine if we ordered a couple a year for a sizable production. Granted that you would not get to DDG-51 FIII levels, but it also a more future proof design. At the very least you can look into the design as a basis of the 20-25 cruisers that the Navy will need to buy.

The total procurement cost for DDG 1000 includes $3.8B for DDG 1000, $2.8B for DDG 1001, and $2.4B for DDG 1002. The balance of the procurement costs include $3.8B for Non-recurring Engineering (NRE) and $0.4B for post-delivery and outfitting, totaling $13.2B. The SCN End Cost funding is requested for DDG 1000, 1001 and 1002 shipbuilding completion, HM&E activation and associated program support. The request for additional funding is directly related to the delivery of DDG 1000 and estimates to complete DDG 1001 and 1002.

https://news.usni.org/2016/04/06/navy-requires-450-million-more-to-complete-zumwalt-class-due-to-shipyard-performance

 

[skyblue]

The history of the SSN21 program may be a model for a de-costing revision to the DDG1000. You will get something that looks similar and keeps essential elements (ie, the 80MW electrical generation) but removes high cost factors elsewhere.

What parts of the Zumwalt design could get trimmed? AGS would certainly be swapped out for more VLS modules or railguns.

 

[fredymac]

What parts of the Zumwalt design could get trimmed? AGS would certainly be swapped out for more VLS modules or railguns.

Without a cost roll up from a BOM (bill of materials), it would be guesswork to identify specific elements. However, some things such as the AGS and the radar suite (taking advantage of developments paid through other projects) are obvious candidates.

I have no idea if the PVLS costs more than a standard system or how much the added automation contributes. Basically, anything is open to re-examination including ship size.

There are also examples like the C-17 and F-18E where design revisions were introduced specifically to remove cost from major structural elements without affecting performance.

 

[Moose]

There are also examples like the C-17 and F-18E where design revisions were introduced specifically to remove cost from major structural elements without affecting performance.

Or the enhanced bow on Virginia Block III, which was done both to drive down costs and enhanced the boat's capabilities.

 

[marauder2048]

And that's not even the entire argument. We're STILL going to need something better than the Flight III Burkes to replace the Ticonderogas. So add in THAT class as well, it's development problems (they'll have them because new hull, propulsion, etc. etc.). THAT'S the real question. Going whole hog with the Zumwalt hull for the future will end up looking like a bargain.

Recall, the Navy premised the viability of the "marginally adequate" SPY-6 + DDG 51 restart on the availability of offboard cueing
from either a persistent satellite constellation (remember PTSS?) or BMD ships. If the Navy gets serious about the latter
HII has shown how they could evolve their BMD ship concept into something resembling a credible CG(X) contender.

 

[sferrin]

Basically, anything is open to re-examination including ship size.

Well now you're talking about an entirely new ship, which is what we're trying to avoid.

 

[fredymac]

Basically, anything is open to re-examination including ship size.

Well now you're talking about an entirely new ship, which is what we're trying to avoid.

As the Virginia class is not as big or capable as the Seawolf, it may be that a version of the Zumwalt that can make it to series production may wind up being trimmed down in size. It would be nice if the current version could be re-engineered for lower production costs but that would require some serious reductions in build labor.

 

[sferrin]

Basically, anything is open to re-examination including ship size.

Well now you're talking about an entirely new ship, which is what we're trying to avoid.

As the Virginia class is not as big or capable as the Seawolf, it may be that a version of the Zumwalt that can make it to series production may wind up being trimmed down in size. It would be nice if the current version could be re-engineered for lower production costs but that would require some serious reductions in build labor.

Except that size is one of the big things Zumwalt has going for it. It has a larger flight deck and has the room to support bigger/more cells & radar arrays. (And hull size is a small portion of the overall cost anyway.)

 

[TomS]

Basically, anything is open to re-examination including ship size.

Well now you're talking about an entirely new ship, which is what we're trying to avoid.

As the Virginia class is not as big or capable as the Seawolf, it may be that a version of the Zumwalt that can make it to series production may wind up being trimmed down in size. It would be nice if the current version could be re-engineered for lower production costs but that would require some serious reductions in build labor.

DDG-1000 was already cut down sharply from the original design.

 

[marauder2048]

Basically, anything is open to re-examination including ship size.

Well now you're talking about an entirely new ship, which is what we're trying to avoid.

As the Virginia class is not as big or capable as the Seawolf, it may be that a version of the Zumwalt that can make it to series production may wind up being trimmed down in size. It would be nice if the current version could be re-engineered for lower production costs but that would require some serious reductions in build labor.

Except that size is one of the big things Zumwalt has going for it. It has a larger flight deck and has the room to support bigger/more cells & radar arrays. (And hull size is a small portion of the overall cost anyway.)

And it was deliberately sized to reduce outfit density.

 

[sferrin]

Basically, anything is open to re-examination including ship size.

Well now you're talking about an entirely new ship, which is what we're trying to avoid.

As the Virginia class is not as big or capable as the Seawolf, it may be that a version of the Zumwalt that can make it to series production may wind up being trimmed down in size. It would be nice if the current version could be re-engineered for lower production costs but that would require some serious reductions in build labor.

Except that size is one of the big things Zumwalt has going for it. It has a larger flight deck and has the room to support bigger/more cells & radar arrays. (And hull size is a small portion of the overall cost anyway.)

And it was deliberately sized to reduce outfit density.

And Burkes are so jammed for space as it is, even the Flight III has 38 fewer cells than equivalent Japanese and South Korean ships, has fewer CIWS systems, and not even any room for Harpoon missile canisters.

 

[fredymac]

The DDG 1000 project was cancelled due to political opposition to the price tag. As usual, political opposition can be contrived to produce just this result (ie, complain about prices to reduce unit buys which increases proportional R&D burdens per unit leading back to more reductions etc etc).

Given the project history to date, attempting to resurrect the program without redressing the underlying cost structure will probably lack high level advocacy within the Navy hierarchy. If ship design flows down from concepts of fleet architecture, the growing embrace of networked warfighting and distributed lethality provides some variables you can add to the technical trade space.

A lower cost (and probably smaller) design would offload magazine depth to third parties tied into the network. Distributed lethality essentially redefines the “arsenal ship” concept to one where every ship is potentially someone else’s deep magazine. This is partially offset by adding weapons to ship types currently unused for this purpose. No single ship (other than a carrier) would have the organic firepower to be a fleet unto itself but the fleet as a whole would be stronger. The use of the F-35 and F-22 comes to mind when directing either aircraft or even remote launched missiles against targets. Getting a new design into series production is a big step and would pave the way for later growth versions which might restore the original specifications underwritten by an active fabrication base.

 

[sferrin]

The DDG 1000 project was cancelled due to political opposition to the price tag. As usual, political opposition can be contrived to produce just this result (ie, complain about prices to reduce unit buys which increases proportional R&D burdens per unit leading back to more reductions etc etc).

Given the project history to date, attempting to resurrect the program without redressing the underlying cost structure will probably lack high level advocacy within the Navy hierarchy.

They need to market it better, and get Congress to see further down the road than the next election. Putting the Zumwalts into series production, and using them for the Ticoderoga replacement, will be cheaper in the long run than a completely new class possessing equal capability. As for "distributed lethality" you still need shooters and sensors, and the Zumwalts are the only ships that can carry the MK57 or larger cells for the weapons that will be needed going forward.

 

[Triton]

Just something to ponder while we are discussing capability...


"When It Comes to the Navy, Size Matters"
by Bryan McGrath
August 03, 2017

Source:
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/08/03/when_it_comes_to_the_navy_size_matters_111958.html

...The Navy is largely unconstrained by political boundaries, which is of course, the central idea behind “freedom of the seas,” a concept that is essential to both the security and prosperity of the United States and all other trading nations. This critical peacetime role is overwhelmingly associated with being there, which is a function of numbers (capacity); numbers to carry out presence where it is desired, numbers to account for the great distances that our fleet must travel to be where desired, and numbers to account for the maintenance necessary to ensure the ships last for their programmed service lives....

 

[marauder2048]

.
This critical peacetime role is overwhelmingly associated with being there, which is a function of numbers (capacity);

And staying there (with something more than 5-inch guns and a shallow magazine of TACTOMs) in a world where
non-state actors employ anti-ship missiles..

 

[sferrin]

.
This critical peacetime role is overwhelmingly associated with being there, which is a function of numbers (capacity);

And staying there (with something more than 5-inch guns and a shallow magazine of TACTOMs) in a world where
non-state actors employ anti-ship missiles..

A small combatant, or even a Flight III Burke, won't last very long compared to a Zumwalt with better radars, bigger missiles, DEWs, and railguns. And if you have to send multiple ships just to stay safe you've just lost your numbers game AND you still won't be able to influence things as much as one Zumwalt.

 

[Airplane]

.
This critical peacetime role is overwhelmingly associated with being there, which is a function of numbers (capacity);

And staying there (with something more than 5-inch guns and a shallow magazine of TACTOMs) in a world where
non-state actors employ anti-ship missiles..

And DDG1000 has no CIW system... no phalanx and no rolling airframe missiles.

 

[sferrin]

.
This critical peacetime role is overwhelmingly associated with being there, which is a function of numbers (capacity);

And staying there (with something more than 5-inch guns and a shallow magazine of TACTOMs) in a world where
non-state actors employ anti-ship missiles..

And DDG1000 has no CIW system... no phalanx and no rolling airframe missiles.

Clearly it would be unpossible to fit them with such.

 

[TomS]

Adding either would have consequences for the ship's signature. Potentially serious ones -- a CIWS is nice a corner reflector right in ASuM seeker frequencies. A RAM launcher isn't that much better. DDG-1000 was based around ESSM and signature reduction to make soft-kill terminal defenses effective. Nulka replaces Phalanx, in effect. If you decide you need hard-kill terminal defenses, you'd be better off with VL RAM Block II, stowed in something like ExLS, to preserve the signatures.

And if we can wean the fleet off of Phalanx, that would be great. Phalanx was a good interim defense (decades ago), but a hard-kill defense that only makes intercepts so close in that supersonic missiles may still shotgun the target with fragments isn't a great long-term solution. There's a reason the USN started RAM basically in parallel with Phalanx; the tragedy is that Phalanx has survived so long.