DDG(X) - Arleigh Burke Replacement

kqcke for you said:
Also every pound more of steel means more power for the same Speed which in the end means more fuel burned even if it may not be used. So a ship with 10% extra structure which they may never use but was there in case it was needed could cost each years millions of dollar in fuel cost allone.
Click to expand...
That's an extreme simplification of hydrodynamics that does not allways work out.
 
Also, they're going to have to pay a bunch in extra fuel costs just to meet electrical power needs anyway, the marginal operating cost of a larger ship needing more propulsion power is IMO pretty small.
 
On the other hand, would not DDGX use systems already developed? SPY-6, SLQ-32(7), mk41, the IPS from Zumwalt, etc?

Though the methodology clearly is off if they just went off hull size.
 
Josh_TN said:
On the other hand, would not DDGX use systems already developed? SPY-6, SLQ-32(7), mk41, the IPS from Zumwalt, etc?

Though the methodology clearly is off if they just went off hull size.
Click to expand...
It would take a lot Off things that are already developted tought some things are gonna be improved like the IPS (If i remember it right).
 
Josh_TN said:
On the other hand, would not DDGX use systems already developed? SPY-6, SLQ-32(7), mk41, the IPS from Zumwalt, etc?

Though the methodology clearly is off if they just went off hull size.
Click to expand...
It’s my understanding that just about everything except the powerplant can be directly lifted from the Zumwalts or Flight IIIs.
 
that_person said:
It’s my understanding that just about everything except the powerplant can be directly lifted from the Zumwalts or Flight IIIs.
Click to expand...
Wondering what you were thinking of that will be lifted from Zumwalt for the DDG(X), as don't think it will be any of be any the new systems specifically developed for the Zumwalt - AGS 155mm main guns, Mk 57 VLS cells, SPY-3 & SPY-4 Dual Band Radar, SQS-60 & 61 sonars or the combat system the Total Ship Computing Environment  (TSCE).
 
Cordy said:
Wondering what you were thinking of that will be lifted from Zumwalt for the DDG(X)
Click to expand...
The powerplant is expected to be a further evolution of Zumwalt’s IPS.
A lot of the automation stuff will probably get reused, the manpower shortages will only get worse with time.
The technologies to reduce the RCS and sonar profile will probably be reused too, although not quite as extreme.
 
Cordy said:
Wondering what you were thinking of that will be lifted from Zumwalt for the DDG(X), as don't think it will be any of be any the new systems specifically developed for the Zumwalt - AGS 155mm main guns, Mk 57 VLS cells, SPY-3 & SPY-4 Dual Band Radar, SQS-60 & 61 sonars or the combat system the Total Ship Computing Environment  (TSCE).
Click to expand...
  • AGS 155mm are likely dead, unfortunately. They're far heavier than the 5" Mk45 mounts so are not a good swap. And the guided, rocket-assisted shells are painfully expensive. Something like the OTO Vulcano shells are better. Still expensive, but not absurdly so. And obviously Excalibur N5s are an option.
  • Mk57s may still be usable (installed around the outside edge of the helo deck), but they're only 28" tubes and I think the hypersonics are 34". So it may end up as a redesigned Mk57 that has either 3x 34" cells instead of 4x 28" in close to the same footprint (~8" further intrusion into the center of the hull or widening each side by 8"), or a scaled up Mk57 that has 4x 34" tubes.
  • USNavy is going to SPY6 on everything, so the DBR is out.
  • Sonars are a possibility.
  • I think TSCE is out, since the Navy is going for SPY6 everywhere. IIRC that includes Aegis, so no need for TSCE.
  • I think the IPS will be based on the Zumwalt setup.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think TSCE is out, since the Navy is going for SPY6 everywhere. IIRC that includes Aegis, so no need for TSCE.
Click to expand...
TSCE is more than just a combat system. It's Total Ship Computing Environment. Since the Zumwalts are so heavily automated, TSCE handles literally everything related to ship functions. Assuming DDG(X) takes some of the automated equipment from the Zumwalts, I suspect parts of TSCE will likely go with it. Not the combat functions obviously.

Back when they were debating between an AEGIS Zumwalt Mod Repeat and the Flight III Burkes, they considered ripping out the combat portions of TSCE and mashing it with AEGIS. I sincerely hope they revive this concept.
 
kqcke for you said:
Also every pound more of steel means more power for the same Speed which in the end means more fuel burned even if it may not be used. So a ship with 10% extra structure which they may never use but was there in case it was needed could cost each years millions of dollar in fuel cost allone.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. Extra steel can buy waterline length, which to translates into less resistance and reduced power requirements for a given speed (to a point)
that_person said:
TSCE is more than just a combat system. It's Total Ship Computing Environment. Since the Zumwalts are so heavily automated, TSCE handles literally everything related to ship functions. Assuming DDG(X) takes some of the automated equipment from the Zumwalts, I suspect parts of TSCE will likely go with it. Not the combat functions obviously.

Back when they were debating between an AEGIS Zumwalt Mod Repeat and the Flight III Burkes, they considered ripping out the combat portions of TSCE and mashing it with AEGIS. I sincerely hope they revive this concept.
Click to expand...

They recently demonstrated a virtualized AEGIS install, suggesting the whole thing could be hosted on TSCE or similar hardware.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Mk57s may still be usable (installed around the outside edge of the helo deck), but they're only 28" tubes and I think the hypersonics are 34". So it may end up as a redesigned Mk57 that has either 3x 34" cells instead of 4x 28" in close to the same footprint (~8" further intrusion into the center of the hull or widening each side by 8"), or a scaled up Mk57 that has 4x 34" tubes
Click to expand...
The Hypersonics are 40 inchers. So baring pulling out the KEI tubes mod of the 57 launch system they need their own set up if not the VPM.

As is the 28 inch of the Mk57 will allow for better performance of a SM3 or a new land attack weapon. To say nothing of quad packing SM2s or Naval Pac3s. Last one be a biggy since a PAC3 4 pack is 25 inch a side.

To say nothing of the Ergonomics and like from freeing up the center line space.
Scott Kenny said:
USNavy is going to SPY6 on everything, so the DBR is out.
Click to expand...
The Navy does want an X band phase array. And they have payed for tge Spy3s already and know most of their kinks.

So I can see them using that radar or at least as the basis for a new X band set up. That with the Spy6 will give a solid all around performance.

Another thing they can likely pull is the new EWAR systems which give the Burkes Fulled Cheeks.
 
There's Future X-Band Radar to replace the SPQ-9B, but that appears to be a smaller rotating array, as for the staring phased arrays, AMDR-X is stillborn, and SPY-3 is an orphaned system limited to four ships.
 
that_person said:
TSCE is more than just a combat system. It's Total Ship Computing Environment. Since the Zumwalts are so heavily automated, TSCE handles literally everything related to ship functions. Assuming DDG(X) takes some of the automated equipment from the Zumwalts, I suspect parts of TSCE will likely go with it. Not the combat functions obviously.

Back when they were debating between an AEGIS Zumwalt Mod Repeat and the Flight III Burkes, they considered ripping out the combat portions of TSCE and mashing it with AEGIS. I sincerely hope they revive this concept.
Click to expand...
Never understood why the Navy funded Raytheon for the Zumwalt bespoke TSCE which understand integrated a new combat system with an Integrated Platform Management Systems (IPMS), sometimes referred to as a Machinery Control System of propulsion, electrical functions, auxiliaries etc., think Zumwalt is the only Navy ship with an integrated system, normally IPMS is a standalone sophisticated control system e.g. NG or L3Harris, which is totally separate from the Combat System e.g. Aegis, for naval ships and subs and now the newer IPMS includes battle damage control system / ship stability calculator, digital closed circuit television and condition-based equipment maintenance based on monitoring the equipment vibration level sensors built-in and with other specialized sensors that are integrated with the IPMS to provide continuous monitoring of ship equipment health instead of the old gen systems, Burke, based on replacing equipment by number of hours even if still perfectly functional.

The May 2019 GAO Weapons Systems Annual Assessment on Zumwalt under Software and Cybersecurity reported the TSCE is still continuing to deliver software builds that achieve some of the promised automation. Since the software is not as capable and does not enable as much automation as originally planned, among other things, the Navy has permanently added 31 sailors to the crew compared to initial estimates, increasing life-cycle costs.
 
TomS said:
Churchill

www.navsea.navy.mil

Virtualized Combat System Completes Critical Navy First

WASHINGTON — Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81) recently became the first ship running a fully virtualized Aegis Combat System to successfully intercept an air target with
www.navsea.navy.mil
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm surprised that the USN waited so long to look into virtual machine systems to deal with the hardware issues they ran into with the AEGIS ships. COTS hardware to replace the specific-built military hardware is a sound concept in theory...but only if your software can continue running on the replacement hardware. And that was one of the more critical issues that the Ticos ran into: as each ship was upgraded piecemeal, the physical architecture of the main control systems stopped being compatible across the fleet, given how much CPU hardware has changed in the past 20 years.

But using a virtual machine -- HyperX, Open VM, whatever flavor you wanted to run, hell maybe even repurposing DOSBox to run it -- means it doesn't matter what physical hardware you're running, as long as it can replicate the necessary environment virtually via software. And you don't have to worry about whether a software upgrade to the AEGIS software is going to have unforeseen "features" (aka bugs) show up...or worse, run the risk of an update bricking your system.
 
green.nova343 said:
To be honest, I'm surprised that the USN waited so long to look into virtual machine systems to deal with the hardware issues they ran into with the AEGIS ships. COTS hardware to replace the specific-built military hardware is a sound concept in theory...but only if your software can continue running on the replacement hardware. And that was one of the more critical issues that the Ticos ran into: as each ship was upgraded piecemeal, the physical architecture of the main control systems stopped being compatible across the fleet, given how much CPU hardware has changed in the past 20 years.

But using a virtual machine -- HyperX, Open VM, whatever flavor you wanted to run, hell maybe even repurposing DOSBox to run it -- means it doesn't matter what physical hardware you're running, as long as it can replicate the necessary environment virtually via software. And you don't have to worry about whether a software upgrade to the AEGIS software is going to have unforeseen "features" (aka bugs) show up...or worse, run the risk of an update bricking your system.
Click to expand...
Emulators have been absurdly resource-intensive for a long time. Emulating DOS on a Mac was a guaranteed way to slow the machine to a crawl.

I'm not sure if the emulators have gotten better written or if modern processors have so many embedded wait-states that being able to ignore the waits finally gives decent performance.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Emulators have been absurdly resource-intensive for a long time. Emulating DOS on a Mac was a guaranteed way to slow the machine to a crawl.

I'm not sure if the emulators have gotten better written or if modern processors have so many embedded wait-states that being able to ignore the waits finally gives decent performance.
Click to expand...

Probabl more of the latter. I bet an iPhone could emulate an 80s vintage Argis system.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Emulators have been absurdly resource-intensive for a long time. Emulating DOS on a Mac was a guaranteed way to slow the machine to a crawl.

I'm not sure if the emulators have gotten better written or if modern processors have so many embedded wait-states that being able to ignore the waits finally gives decent performance.
Click to expand...
While that is undoubtedly the case, we're talking about 1970s-era systems that a Rasberry Pi could probably put to shame.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, we're talking about the 2010s implementation of those systems.
Click to expand...

Never the less, nothing you could not simply throw commercial grade processor power at and be successful. Emulators are inefficient, but power doubles every couple years. And clearly the advantages of virtualizing with OTS hardware and upgrades being only a matter of software has huge advantages.
 
Josh_TN said:
Never the less, nothing you could not simply throw commercial grade processor power at and be successful. Emulators are inefficient, but power doubles every couple years. And clearly the advantages of virtualizing with OTS hardware and upgrades being only a matter of software has huge advantages.
Click to expand...
No argument there.
 
Is the above article/graphic up to date or is it a regurgitation of old information or has a decision been reached by N96 on the DDG(X) propulsion as it shows fitting an Integrated Power System (IPS) to IPES, why saying that as have mentioned previously Rear Adm. Fred Pyle Director of Surface Warfare (OPNAV N96) said in January '24 at the SNA on the DDG(X) the propulsion system for the new destroyer is not decided. “We want a plant that’s efficient, and less dependent on the logistics for us. We’re looking at all options, as we look at propulsion,” Pyle said.


https://news.usni.org/2024/01/10/na...burkes-and-ddgx-considering-propulsion-system
 
Cordy said:
Is the above article/graphic up to date or is it a regurgitation of old information or has a decision been reached by N96 on the DDG(X) propulsion as it shows fitting an Integrated Power System (IPS) to IPES, why saying that as have mentioned previously Rear Adm. Fred Pyle Director of Surface Warfare (OPNAV N96) said in January '24 at the SNA on the DDG(X) the propulsion system for the new destroyer is not decided. “We want a plant that’s efficient, and less dependent on the logistics for us. We’re looking at all options, as we look at propulsion,” Pyle said.


https://news.usni.org/2024/01/10/na...burkes-and-ddgx-considering-propulsion-system
Click to expand...

The Army Recognition story looks like it was just retreading all the old reports. Nothing especially new there.

It's unclear what they mean when they say the propulsion system is still undetermined. I think it's definitely going to be electric, but the debate may be what the specific prime movers and other elements are. MT30 or LM2500+ for starters, plus what additional generators (diesel like FFG-62 or turbines like DDG-1000 and DDG-51?)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom