055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[latenlazy]

The integrated power ssytem will add significant flexibility and effectiveness to these vessels, or any vessels.

IF you want railguns, an integrated power system is probably absolutely necessary, given how much current draw railguns would need.

 

[kwaigonegin]

The point is simple, like the Type 055 is going to represent a leap forward in design and technologies for the PLAN, the Zumwalt represents the same thing for the US.

Yes, the AGS is something that a Type 055 and others will not add...but the AGS is a stepping stone on the Zumwalt for something much more powerful and much more applicable to naval warfare (as opposed to just land attack) and that is the Rail Gun technology already being field tested and that is intended to be placed on these ships. That weapon will allow for missile defense, land attack, and naval warfare...all in one.

The PVS is innovative and represents a very direct path towards having VLS capability that is simply more survivable.

The integrated power ssytem will add significant flexibility and effectiveness to these vessels, or any vessels.

All of these, and the other technologies that are being built into the Zumwalt are technologies that will ultimately find their way into other nation's vessels. They give us significant technological issues and application to talk about that can be applicable to the Type 055 and any other new design.

That's the point.



While there are only three being built at present. There is continual talk about building more, either for the current role or others and making use of the hull form and platform.

As they get out there and preform, we shall see if any of that becomes reality.

In any case, the technologies being presented and then put to sea, will provide a threshold for future vessels as well, whether they use this hull form of not...so it will be far from any kind of "abortive side path."

Much more a harbinger for the future.

I agree. While the DDG 1000 may only consist of three units and they are a legitimate class in their own right she and her sisters will however also indirectly be some sort of a test bed and prototype vessels for future naval technologies. While the tumbledome hull may or may not be the standard for future hull designs, what is likely is the PVLS and the AGS.
I am almost certain those two types of weapon system are here to stay and will remain the standard for future USN destroyers and or cruisers.
As a matter a fact sometime in the future I forsee the comeback of battleships of years past except instead of 14 or 16 inchers they will carry rail guns. Imagine an Iowa class type ship but with stealth shaping, quad rail guns, laser CIWS and PVLS! that would be one heck of a formidable opponent and an incredible offensive weapons system. You park that sucker a few dozen nautical miles off the coast of a developing country and everyone will make like a church mouse!!!

After the advent of the cruise missiles and to a certain extent the SSBN even the most knowledgeble naval analysts at that time were quite fast to discount carriers and predicted their quick demise! So much for that prediction!!
Regardless whatever class that comes after the AB will most certainly incorporate these technologies into their weapon systems. Same with laser CIWS and rail gun although those will be a lil bit further down the road.

 

[Blitzo]

I agree. While the DDG 1000 may only consist of three units and they are a legitimate class in their own right she and her sisters will however also indirectly be some sort of a test bed and prototype vessels for future naval technologies. While the tumbledome hull may or may not be the standard for future hull designs, what is likely is the PVLS and the AGS.
I am almost certain those two types of weapon system are here to stay and will remain the standard for future USN destroyers and or cruisers.

On the contrary, the Flight III burke by the sounds of it will not include either PVLS or AGS.

AGS as it is is far too large for a burke hull (and the USN seems intent on keeping the burke hull relatively unmodified from flight iia), and while AGS lite may feature on it, it is still a proposal at this stage

On the other hand, PVLS is designed for placement on a ship's periphery (funny that lol), and while they can certainly be fit on a burke's centreline ala Mk-41, the Mk-57 is also a much larger module, and fitting it in place of Mk-41 will result in loss of effective missile tubes.

As a matter a fact sometime in the future I forsee the comeback of battleships of years past except instead of 14 or 16 inchers they will carry rail guns. Imagine an Iowa class type ship but with stealth shaping, quad rail guns, laser CIWS and PVLS! that would be one heck of a formidable opponent and an incredible offensive weapons system. You park that sucker a few dozen nautical miles off the coast of a developing country and everyone will make like a church mouse!!!

That will be many, many decades down the line, if such a situation ever emerges.

Fact is, at the moment the USN is only building three zumwalts, and only that trio at this stage will have both the power, the space, and the hull to use both AGS and Mk-57, whereas the next generation of US combatant, the Flight III burke, seems ill equipped for such a fit. Maybe the USN will yet make significant modifications to the hull allowing for such weapons fits, but it looks unlikely at this stage.

If I were the USN, I'd scrap the Flight III burke entirely and put off procuring new destroyers for a few years (they have quite a large number of burkes and ticos around anyway) and use that spare monies to develop a ground up new hull with space to accommodate relevant new systems, from AMDR, to IEPS, and yes, AGS too if viable.
But the USN has too many commitments around the world, and too many high end surface combatants with too few mid and low tier ships to make up the shortfall.

The USN needs an 054A of their own, or better, a new generation "OHP" type ship, which isn't LCS.

It is bizarre to me why the USN commits to such disparate opposites for its near term surface combatant fleet, with an emphasis on massive and highly capable cruisers and destroyers, while equipping a third of its fleet with the 3000 ton LCS that's about as heavily armed as a corvette, while forgoing the 4000-5000 ton frigate weight altogether!

A 32 cell Mk-41 VLS, 5 inch gun and phalanx and Mk-38 equipped frigate with dual helo hangars and a good ASW suite, on a semi stealthy hull, would have been a far better investment than pumping out dozens upon dozens of burkes, and now the planned 50 or so LCS. It would be for anything from CVBG escort, to piracy patrol, while being cheap and numerous enough to engage in ASW because it's not a super high end ship whose loss will cost the taxpayers over a billion dollars.

After the advent of the cruise missiles and to a certain extent the SSBN even the most knowledgeble naval analysts at that time were quite fast to discount carriers and predicted their quick demise! So much for that prediction!!

To be fair, we still haven't had a real scenario to test the survivability of a carrier, as most of the US's opponents have been vastly under developed third world militaries. Let's hope they never have to test it against a real opponent.

 

[kwaigonegin]

On the contrary, the Flight III burke by the sounds of it will not include either PVLS or AGS.

I said AFTER the AB class.

To be fair, we still haven't had a real scenario to test the survivability of a carrier, as most of the US's opponents have been vastly under developed third world militaries. Let's hope they never have to test it against a real opponent.

I'm basing my opinion not on survivability but rather the continuation of active carrier building in pretty much any navy that can afford it these days. I was merely pointing out that the carrier doomsayers of the past were wrong in predicting their demise.

 

[Blitzo]

I said AFTER the AB class.

Apologies, although in my defence, you only mention the "after" part in the end of the post.


But even considering that, the statement is somewhat void, because the USN has looked at procuring AB Flight III and even possibly Flight IV vessels up till the middle of the century... by which point AGS and PVLS production lines will have almost certainly been padlocked shut.

Who knows. Maybe USN will try to shoehorn AGS and PVLS into flight iii burke at one stage, to keep their investment paying off a little more.

 

[Blitzo]

Zumwalt's CIC

Features the same "three screens to a table" configuration as the European FREMM, and even type 45. It also looks very COTS, in contrast to previous generations of more bulky consoles.

PLAN's 054A and 052B/C CICs looked relatively on par with equivalent US and European CICs of the era, as we can see below (or at least their consoles do), but is less sleek and definitely less roomy than newer ones.

I'd expect them to have made some advancements with the second batch of 052C and 052D, possibly using the same "larger screen" dual consoles inside 056's CIC

I'd hope 055, being supposedly a much larger ship, will have a more ergonomic and starship enterprise like feel, similar to modern european and USN ships.

 

[chuck731]

I'd hope 055, being supposedly a much larger ship, will have a more ergonomic and starship enterprise like feel, similar to modern european and USN ships.

Hope not, once you look past the swoopiness and bling, you'd see all versions of star ship enterprise had atrocious ergonomics. The bridge of the enterprise is good as neither a bridge nor an combat information center, and seem custom made to thread all decisions through the captain and yet jam the captain behind situation awareness bottleneck.

 

[Jeff Head]

Zumwalt's CIC

.

Had not seen this pic.

That's a GREAT pic and represents decades of US Naval development of an effective CIC for its major surface combatants.

Now, Kwaig asked on another thread about the lack of openings for anchors and mooring. I am not 100% sure, but I believe the anchors drop from towards the bottom of the hull and are pulled up into anchor rooms there. Have to check that out and verify though.

The cleats and other mooring equipment are all retractable.

My biggest concern with the Zumwalt class, and this goes to the point about learning from what others are doing, is the manning.

130 crew members seems very small for this vessel. I understand it is because it is highly automated. My concerns stems from combat. If they take some significant hits and casualties, will they have enough brute force manpower to do the necessary damage control while still fighting the ship?

130 just seems way too small for a vessel this size to me, especially in a combat situation.

Automation is great. Redundancy in power is great...and they have designed a very impressive integrated power system with several redundant busses running the length of the ship on both starboard and port sides, which can all take all the load if necessary, and with four separate power zones which are all isolated. But still, when missiles or gun fire come crashing in, heck, they can pass entirely through the ship, even with the PVLS being designed to absorb hits.

You just cannot become too dependent on all the wiz-bang and bling. It takes people to fix damage. It takes people to fight a ship. So as impressed as I am with the vessels (and I am) I am still concerned about the manning.

 

[i.e.]

Hey My desk at home/work is 3 screens too
all 24 inches.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...

That's a GREAT pic and represents decades of US Naval development of an effective CIC for its major surface combatants.
...

Having asked a dumb question about F22 Raptor recently, maybe I'll ridiculize myself some more : There will be no CIC on the Zumwalt class destroyers (and these ships will be controlled from the bridge and ship's mission center) according to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!