There's a need for China to build Zumwalt type radar evading style destroyers.

L

leibowitz

Junior Member
Jeff Head said:
Take out the "heavily contested" part, and you can make a case for it in numerous cases. Korea, Lebannon, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I (where it was used as a feint), etc.

Of course, that does not mean in the future it will not be heavily contested. The US was not really prepared for World War II in this regard, and had to build the capability up. In any major Pacific or even Mediteranean war, or European...no doubt it could happen again.
Click to expand...

Right, but the current global strategy of the US leaves less and less room for marine expeditionary missions. Put more simply, there's less of a need to land on beaches against nations with substantial anti-shipping missiles now.

The only case in which I could see the Zumwalt being useful would be a knife fight in the close confines of the Persian Gulf, where the Iranians could employ short-range radars and AShMs to risk USN assets. But otherwise, the Zumwalt is a case of overspending, I think. If the USN wants to make a ship stealthy, it should focus on the large ships who would be the natural targets of long-range weapons, like AAWs and carriers.
 
L

leibowitz

Junior Member
As for China needing to build Zumwalts or not, it boils down to whether China wants to engage in "naval CQC" against an adversary in the littoral waters of the South China Sea or East China Sea. If not, China should be focusing on other naval technologies.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Jeff Head said:
Well, the San Antonio class have stealth features built into them, but admittedly the Americas and Wasps are much less so...though there will be very signifcant EW and decoying going on around any ARG that is at war. It will not be an easy task at all to identify and differentiate them.

But the idea is that even though an agressor may know the whereabouts of the overaall ARG, they would not know of the exact location or whaereabouts of the Zumwalt (which will provide significant defense to the ARG) and would thus present an agressor force at a distinct disadvantage. They will not throw a lot of missiles and aircraft at a fishing boat until they are sure it is not a fishing boat...and with all the EW, and with numerous LCVPs and LCACs in the water...which one would they attack?

The Zumwalt's are designed to be with the ARG and give close fire support, and ranged fire support (as they move inland) to the Marine forces making their air assault aand amphibious landings. That is their principle function.

They can also perform vary capably in both the AAW and the ASW role for the ARG as well, freeing up the Burkes & others to range further afield along various threat axis to interdict potential threats.
Click to expand...
When you write aggressor, do you mean defender? Better use a "neutral" term like enemy.
 
H

hmmwv

Junior Member
Considering China's fetish of everything American I'm pretty sure it's already on the drawing board somewhere deep in 701st or 708th instutite's basement. When and whether it will become a reality will be anyone's guess.
 
Mysterre

Mysterre

Banned Idiot
hmmwv said:
Considering China's fetish of everything American I'm pretty sure it's already on the drawing board somewhere deep in 701st or 708th instutite's basement. When and whether it will become a reality will be anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
Or they learned from the American mistake and/or they have no requirement for this type of vessel.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
hmmwv said:
Considering China's fetish of everything American I'm pretty sure it's already on the drawing board somewhere deep in 701st or 708th instutite's basement. When and whether it will become a reality will be anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
Making a design for a ship/aircraft/weapon similar to that of someone else is a good way of learning the advantages and limits of the thing. You would do that, initially in limited detail, without yet considering producing it yourself, if you have sufficient engineers.
And of course it will be on computer screens, not drawing boards.
 
T

TyroneG

Banned Idiot
Let me post this question, a ZumWalt shaped destroyer with PAR against an regular Aegis destroyer, one on one, which one will win?

It doesn't have to be limted to littoral.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
TyroneG said:
Let me post this question, a ZumWalt shaped destroyer with PAR against an regular Aegis destroyer, one on one, which one will win?

It doesn't have to be limted to littoral.
Click to expand...

Is this meant to demonstrate that a stealthy surface combatant is inherently superior to a "legacy" shaped destroyer like Burke? Because surface combatants will rarely find themselves in a position in a one on one encounter with an opposing surface combatant – they operate in conjunction with other ships, which may offer better ways to strike at opposing naval ships such as carrier borne fighters.

Not to mention countless other factors which makes such a situation not only unlikely, but not very useful in trying to justify the inherent superiority of one type of hull over another.
 
H

hmmwv

Junior Member
TyroneG said:
Let me post this question, a ZumWalt shaped destroyer with PAR against an regular Aegis destroyer, one on one, which one will win?

It doesn't have to be limted to littoral.
Click to expand...

Well those alien spaceships are fully radar stealth yet they got served by a Burke. :p

On a serious note, if the ships are fighting one on one without external sensors, AKA Battleship style. Then the shapes of Zumwalt will definitely delay detection by the Burke, its small RCS will also make countermeasures that more effective.
 
MwRYum

MwRYum

Major
Before China ever progress to something like the DDG-1000, first their main workhorse of the fleet have to be at Flight III Arleigh Burke class level - tonnage, firepower, automation, powerplants, everything. 052D is hardly at Flight I level.

Besides, this is the exact honey trap US buried USSR into - "arms race". China has the need to bolster its capabilities and technologies to make up the 30-years gap, but have to wary from taking a wrong step into arms race with the US.

The global austerity in economy gives invaluable opportunity for China to catch up, but not rush for the moon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top