DDG1000 Zumwalt class - CANCELLED

[Hanse]

If the Zumwalt-class is being axed, with perhaps only two ships being built, does that mean that we are looking at a land attack variant of the Arleigh Burke-class with a railgun? Flight III Arleigh Burke-class? Or more Flight IIA ships after DDG-112? Could the Arleigh Burke even support the requirements of a rail gun?

Does anyone believe that this will revive interest in the Arsenal ship? Wasn't the designation MRN-01?

Or do you think that they are going to pull the Iowa-class ships out of the museums and upgrade them and return them to the active list?

I love it when the General Accoutability Office gets involved with cutting-edge technology projects.

The Burkes don't have all the electrical gear specifically designed with those uses in mind for the DDG-1000.

 

[Just call me Ray]

Didn't I already mention in this thread the idea of putting an MLRS on a ship? I cannot be the first person to have thought of this. So why hasn't anyone done it? Is there some sort of unwritten rule in the Constitution, or some secret Commandment passed down onto Moses that went something to the effect of "Thou shallt not put thy rocket battery from thou Army onto thy vessel of thy Navy"?

 

[collins355]

Chinese don't have a problem with doing it!

 

[Triton]

Didn't I already mention in this thread the idea of putting an MLRS on a ship? I cannot be the first person to have thought of this. So why hasn't anyone done it? Is there some sort of unwritten rule in the Constitution, or some secret Commandment passed down onto Moses that went something to the effect of "Thou shallt not put thy rocket battery from thou Army onto thy vessel of thy Navy"?

Would the MLRS need to be modified/redesigned so that it would be robust enough for duty at sea? Would it not get damaged/destroyed by immersion in salt water due to heavy seas? I am thinking they couldn't just take it off the tracked vehicle and weld it onto ship.

 

[Just call me Ray]

Didn't I already mention in this thread the idea of putting an MLRS on a ship? I cannot be the first person to have thought of this. So why hasn't anyone done it? Is there some sort of unwritten rule in the Constitution, or some secret Commandment passed down onto Moses that went something to the effect of "Thou shallt not put thy rocket battery from thou Army onto thy vessel of thy Navy"?

Would the MLRS need to be modified/redesigned so that it would be robust enough for duty at sea? Would it not get damaged/destroyed by immersion in salt water due to heavy seas? I am thinking they couldn't just take it off the tracked vehicle and weld it onto ship.

Probably not, but it can't be that hard. Sealed rocket launchers are done all the time - box launchers, open-arm launchers, VLS tubes, you name it. The only fundamental difference is that these rockets don't have guidance seekers on them and you're putting them on a rotating turntable (i.e., a turret) so you can point and shoot at a specific direction. Plus, since there's no recoil, there's fewer moving parts to protect from corrosion, and even the Army MLRS launchers seal their missiles up pretty good (remember, it's pretty dusty in Afghanistan and Iraq).

I mean, heck, the picture collins355 posted pretty much just shows Chinese rocket trucks stuck on what looks like a container ship. Crude as hell but it gets the job done.

 

[Hanse]

Didn't I already mention in this thread the idea of putting an MLRS on a ship? I cannot be the first person to have thought of this. So why hasn't anyone done it? Is there some sort of unwritten rule in the Constitution, or some secret Commandment passed down onto Moses that went something to the effect of "Thou shallt not put thy rocket battery from thou Army onto thy vessel of thy Navy"?

Lockheed had that idea on their site several years back. Four rockets per cell.

 

[Hanse]

DDG1000 was and is a complete waste of time and money, that is why it is dying. The ArleigH Burke class is more than adequate and the sooner the nail is put in the DDG1000 coffin the better.

It's not adequate actually. The design is essentially filled up, apparently the Flight IIA ships don't have the excess power or cooling capacity for ballistic missile defense. They aren't upgradable for larger guns such as the AGS, and if you're designing for littoral combat missions, you want at least two guns for reliability (in case one jams).

[quote author=sferrin]
They did it so they could buy the "cheaper" Virginia's (which are, ironically, just as expensive as the Sealwolfs were.) In this case "cheaper" meant in quality and performance, not price.

You miss the point, AGS is not necessary and its absurd price is part of what pushed the DDG1000 beyond the bounds of affordability, please explain why the USN.USMC needs a 155mm uber gun that takes up huge hull volume and that has to be designed from scratch when it already has 12 fleet carriers, tomahawk firing destroyers and submarines and attack helos launched from amphibious ships?
Virginias are supposed to be far more capable in the littorals than the Seawolfs and I highly doubt that you are using inflation adjusted numbers to compare the price.

[/quote]



Not sure who said what here but I think the AGS is a total waste of money. The money would have been better spent on railgun research IMO. As for the Seawolf / Virginia cost comparision, no I didn't take inflation into account. On the other hand did you see the surface "quality" of the latest Virginia they commissioned? Looked like it was finished by a bunch of drunk "migrant" workers.

 

[Just call me Ray]

On the other hand did you see the surface "quality" of the latest Virginia they commissioned? Looked like it was finished by a bunch of drunk "migrant" workers.

USS New Hampshire?

 

[Hanse]

Yeah. Once you take the brown paper bag off . . .

 

[Hanse]

And we can expect more of this once the government demands use of "unhirables due to lack of basic skills" on government projects. You watch.

 

[pathology_doc]

I had always thought that the ground-breaking ships in any era - the ones which had incorporated all the brand-new techno-goodies together at last - were the ones whose predecessors had incorporated and proved said goodies separately first.

Alternatively: "The best is the enemy of good enough." You may as well build WW2 gun cruisers, fill the aft deck with VLS, put three CIWS on each side, and have two or three triple six-inch up front to do the shoreline-smashing.

 

[donnage99]

looks like Raytheon won't give up without a fight
ZumwaltFacts.info

 

[flateric]

three couple-page pdfs and a picture looks a little bit humble reason to buy five billion bucks per hull ships in current economics position. should go and grab all these beautiful renderings before it will go to shades...

 

[Hanse]

What beautiful renderings? All I saw were a couple text PDFs. ???

 

[flateric]

From other DD(X) sities I mean.

 

[Hanse]

From other DD(X) sities I mean.

Oh. I think I got 'em all. ;D

 

[Pioneer]

I mean, heck, the picture collins355 posted pretty much just shows Chinese rocket trucks stuck on what looks like a container ship. Crude as hell but it gets the job done.

I don’t know about many other military services around the world – but in the Australian Army, we have been always been taught ‘keep it simple stupid’
Know this may just be a compromise for the lack of real defence budget, but more often than not its works.
Working with the U.S military for so many years, I think is partly the modern United State military down fall.
For their gear always seems to be
Over cost
Over complicated
= Limited numbers

Regards
Pioneer

 

[donnage99]

I mean, heck, the picture collins355 posted pretty much just shows Chinese rocket trucks stuck on what looks like a container ship. Crude as hell but it gets the job done.

I don’t know about many other military services around the world – but in the Australian Army, we have been always been taught ‘keep it simple stupid’
Know this may just be a compromise for the lack of real defence budget, but more often than not its works.
Working with the U.S military for so many years, I think is partly the modern United State military down fall.
For their gear always seems to be
Over cost
Over complicated
= Limited numbers

Regards
Pioneer

It's the price you have to pay to be the pioneer.

 

[Woody]

The problem is:-

Western political systems have become so totally controlled by business. Without the threat of Soviets taking their game away, the only point in persuing government contracts is to extract profit.

Projects that take forever to complete, get cancelled or just produce crap are best at this, especially if you or your associates are guaranteed more contracts to fix the junk you produce. Going on about shiny new technology or how things are different today just makes it easier to excuse to the suckers (public).

My favorite's are the ARH-70 - near doubling the estimated cost ($8 million increased to $14 million per copy) to put an existing engine into a Jetranger. Or the US presidential helicopter - an EH-101 with a different radio and comfy seats ($6 million increasing to $11 million per copy and counting...).

Unfortunately this not a solely US problem. Let's not forget the Eurofighter's 30 year development and still 10 years away (my estimate) from getting it's intended missile. (about the same time as from the Wright Flyer to the supersonic Bell X1).

Next I predict the US army replacing all armoured vehicles with advanced 70's Ford Pintos and spending 15 years and $20 billion to intergrate them into the "network-centric battlespace" (sticking a laptop in the glove box). Oops - make that Broncos and that sounds possible!

The saddest thing about all this (legalised?) corruption, is that it actually makes the tax cattle (middle class) ask for more fascism eg. wellfare forced-labour-gangs, victimising immigrants etc.
They (the business lobby) need the unemployed to make you grateful/insecure/smug about your slavery, and ask for more - ha ha.

With Obama's election campain the most expensive corporately funded in history and his cabinnet the most Walstreet/CJR/Trilateral Commission orientated, expect more of the same.

Back to the Zumwalt: except against opponents without proper submarines or airforce, I can't really see the point in a surface navy. Except for supply vessels and coast guard (and maybe mobile airfields), all the rest are dinosaurs and the HMS Dreadnought (never fired a shot in anger) analogy couldn't be more apt.

Bring on the UAV launching land attack/air defence submarine!

Cheers, Woody

 

[donnage99]

Rising cost and lengthening project does not help you at all. The sooner the project hits mass production, the better for the company's employees to get jobs and profit/stocks of the company to really rise. The less cost overrun the project gets, the more units the company will be able to produce, maintaining long term profit/employee and not getting your facilities shut down. This is not to account for the danger of cancellation, or cancellation from other projects to save that project if it is deemed more important.