They already have the specs needed to build a VLS capable of boxing hypersonic missiles. If I'm not mistaken, about 20 LRHW/CPS will be delivered this year to the US Army (operational in 2023) and the US Navy (testing phase).
Last edited:
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
So, the LRHW is simply a medium range ballisitc missile, and the reason why the USA left the INF treatry.
The name of it is only for propaganda purposes, it is nothing else just a Pershing III .
It is too big and bulky for ships. Maybe SSBNs could carry it.
No. LRHW/CPS is an HGV. Its glide path is >50% of the total path to impact with the target. The 3 Zumwalt class ships will have the ability to carry out hypersonic missile launches until 2025. As for the SSNs, the established term of the operational capacity is until 2028.
Yes, the LRHW is a Pershing with a diferent RV.
Dimensions more similar for the Pershing than for the Zircon.
It is not air breathing, due to that it is big and heavy.
Yumwalt probably could carry it on the place of the main guns, there is plenty of space for it , but it is too big for Virginia or Burke.
If the ship is using its increased size for say, better liveability for the crew on long journeys, more stores, more cooling equipment for the radar, more electronics and computing back end, and for some other things, yes, a ship would sacrifice VLS for other things. After all, the Zumwalt despite its displacement, only has 70 VLS. If you look at the upcoming German MKS 180 surface combatant, that would displace 10,000 or even 11,000 tons, yet it only has 64 VLS and half of them will use ESSM, not in quads, but in singles.
It has no technology that will not have been tested on previous ships. The radars will be from the DDG-51 FIII family of GaN radars. Electric propulsion tested on the Zumwalt and the frigate Constellation. It is a natural evolution of the future great combatants of the US Navy.
In the NAVSEA file it says that 32 silos can be exchanged for 12 larger silos to fit the hypersonic missiles, it doesn't say there are 32 cells ahead. For now there is a lot of speculation about the total number of silos. The US Navy has already said it wants at least the same 96 silos as the Arleigh Burkes.
One possibility is that the forward silo group may have 64 silos and the midship group
among the chimneys, another 64, totaling 128 silos, the same number as a “Ticonderoga” that, due to 2 built-in cranes for remunication on the high seas, resulted in the loss of 6 silos.
.
All that you say doesn't make any sense when analyzing the ship's displacement and the total combat capability of the DD(X). Everything indicates that it will displace more than a “Ticonderoga” and “Arleigh Burke III”, both in the range of 9600 tons loaded, however, less than a “Zumwalt” of about 15,000 loaded, it is speculated something in the range of 12,000 to 13,000 tons loaded. The future DDG, if it actually follows the specifications presented, will have a displacement of about 13,000 tons also due to the greater inclusion of steel in the construction, but, there will not be a significant increase in armament, the number of silos should be between 96 and 128 and a second main cannon will be exchanged for other guns and stuff like that.
Looks like an oil spill to me.
I wonder how the performance of stealth platforms are when like that. Or if they are dirty or covered in water.
90% is human error. Even the most experienced engineers and workers cannot avoid mistakes.
And the same thing can be repeated for Russia and China. It seems that Robot and Al are not mature enough, to solve these problems.
Supposedly B-2 was spotted by British radar after rainwater compromised its stealth paint.