US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Matheus S said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have given you two specific examples of newer ship designs, the Zumwalt with its 70 cells, and the MKS 180, with its 64 cells despite having 11,000 tons, that navies are no longer hamming as much VLS cells into their ships, likely in exchange for more livable space within the ship. The stress sailors live within the cramped confines of a ship in several months of extended deployment is real. Note that the Constellation class, which is nearly the size of a 052D, only has 32 cells VLS, and there are anecdotal reports that the 052D isn't the most comfortable ship to live for extended periods either.

The increase of space within the future DDG isn't just due for the needed increase of living space, but also for the cooling of the electronics. You point out the SPY-6 on the Flight III, however, the text shows a potentially larger SPY-6 with up to 57 RMAs, up from the 37 RMAs on the Flight III. Considering that a considerable amount of the displacement and weight gain on the Flight III is due to the needed cooling for these radars, I am going to assume that the a larger SPY-6 would have even greater cooling requirements.

Then you have the IEPS system. This isn't exactly the most space efficient of propulsion. You are going to need large electric motors and even backup battery supply. Considering that you are planning to have lasers, and that along with the larger variant of the SPY-6, you are looking towards larger generators.

At the same time you also want larger hangers for helicopters, greater range endurance which means a larger fuel capacity, and on and on.
 
Suetham

Suetham

Senior Member
Registered Member
Tam said:
I have given you two specific examples of newer ship designs, the Zumwalt with its 70 cells, and the MKS 180, with its 64 cells despite having 11,000 tons, that navies are no longer hamming as much VLS cells into their ships, likely in exchange for more livable space within the ship. The stress sailors live within the cramped confines of a ship in several months of extended deployment is real.
Click to expand...
Speaking specifically of the US Navy, the previous planning was to develop the CG(X) which would have 256 silos, the development project would be based on the Zumwalt to replace the Ticonderoga class cruisers and would have a total displacement between 20,000 to 25,000 tons. The planning has changed, budgetary issues have weighed on the project, other developments have taken place, the geopolitical landscape has changed since 2010. This resulted in the evolution of the AB to the Flight III class, probably the class that will be the final version of the development of the American destroyers based on the ABs.

The DDG(X) that aims to replace the Ticonderoga cruise ships, I will repeat again, the ships of this class act as coordinators of the air defense of the CSG, the demand for VLS in ships that act in this role is fundamentally requested, so the US Navy want a number of 96 silos or more.
Tam said:
Note that the Constellation class, which is nearly the size of a 052D, only has 32 cells VLS, and there are anecdotal reports that the 052D isn't the most comfortable ship to live for extended periods either.
Click to expand...
You are making the wrong comparisons with the Constellation class. The design of this class is by FREEM, so the structural changes have to be evaluated carefully so as not to compromise the hull, there is not much room for maneuver for the US Navy to want to increase the number of cells wanting to match a destroyer or a cruiser.

To make the correct comparisons, we have to evaluate with other ships that act in the same role, such as the Type 45 that will be replaced by the Type 83, the project concept has not yet been disclosed, but sources indicate that the number of VLS will be greater than than the previous class. From a BAES perspective, it would obviously be a good option, so it's no surprise that they're talking about it, and for good reason. Long-range SAMs are big and you need a few of them to defend against massive attacks that an enemy might mount against you. Also, as demonstrated by the recent announcement that the Type 45 will have CAMM integrated in the coming years, you need close range weapons in number to deal with close range threats.
Tam said:
Then you have the IEPS system. This isn't exactly the most space efficient of propulsion. You are going to need large electric motors and even backup battery supply. Considering that you are planning to have lasers, and that along with the larger variant of the SPY-6, you are looking towards larger generators.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?

The IEPS system and storage system more than compensates for the elimination of many mechanical axes and transmitters from a ship's propulsion system. Also, it depends a lot on what we're considering. Depending on the energy storage system that will be adopted, it may eventually reduce the size of the IPS plant. It becomes very clear that consideration will be given to the most cost-effective way of organizing the ship's living space.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Matheus S said:
Speaking specifically of the US Navy, the previous planning was to develop the CG(X) which would have 256 silos, the development project would be based on the Zumwalt to replace the Ticonderoga class cruisers and would have a total displacement between 20,000 to 25,000 tons. The planning has changed, budgetary issues have weighed on the project, other developments have taken place, the geopolitical landscape has changed since 2010. This resulted in the evolution of the AB to the Flight III class, probably the class that will be the final version of the development of the American destroyers based on the ABs.

The DDG(X) that aims to replace the Ticonderoga cruise ships, I will repeat again, the ships of this class act as coordinators of the air defense of the CSG, the demand for VLS in ships that act in this role is fundamentally requested, so the US Navy want a number of 96 silos or more.

You are making the wrong comparisons with the Constellation class. The design of this class is by FREEM, so the structural changes have to be evaluated carefully so as not to compromise the hull, there is not much room for maneuver for the US Navy to want to increase the number of cells wanting to match a destroyer or a cruiser.

To make the correct comparisons, we have to evaluate with other ships that act in the same role, such as the Type 45 that will be replaced by the Type 83, the project concept has not yet been disclosed, but sources indicate that the number of VLS will be greater than than the previous class. From a BAES perspective, it would obviously be a good option, so it's no surprise that they're talking about it, and for good reason. Long-range SAMs are big and you need a few of them to defend against massive attacks that an enemy might mount against you. Also, as demonstrated by the recent announcement that the Type 45 will have CAMM integrated in the coming years, you need close range weapons in number to deal with close range threats.


Are you sure about that?

The IEPS system and storage system more than compensates for the elimination of many mechanical axes and transmitters from a ship's propulsion system. Also, it depends a lot on what we're considering. Depending on the energy storage system that will be adopted, it may eventually reduce the size of the IPS plant. It becomes very clear that consideration will be given to the most cost-effective way of organizing the ship's living space.
Click to expand...

Comparisons with the FREMM class is still valid, because it is representative of the overall direction of Western navies. They are not emphasizing number of VLS as they used to, but increased livability and crew comfort on their ships necessary for expeditions.

IEPS would require larger generators, plus electric motors and batteries, both of which are size intensive. They do not eliminate gearboxes if you chose the option to use a hybrid setup where the electric motor system would fail and you want to use your gas turbines to power the propeller as a backup.
 
A

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Tam said:
Comparisons with the FREMM class is still valid, because it is representative of the overall direction of Western navies. They are not emphasizing number of VLS as they used to, but increased livability and crew comfort on their ships necessary for expeditions.

IEPS would require larger generators, plus electric motors and batteries, both of which are size intensive. They do not eliminate gearboxes if you chose the option to use a hybrid setup where the electric motor system would fail and you want to use your gas turbines to power the propeller as a backup.
Click to expand...
The IEPS will need gearbox between the electrical motor and screw as well.

Without gearbox it needs extreme mass .

Example a 16MW gearboxless Azipod, weight 157 000 kg, a Mi-28 helicopter with 16 MW powerplant ,gearbox AND the helicopter itself weight 28 200 kg .
 
Mr T

Mr T

Senior Member
Tam said:
Comparisons with the FREMM class is still valid, because it is representative of the overall direction of Western navies. They are not emphasizing number of VLS as they used to, but increased livability and crew comfort on their ships necessary for expeditions.
Click to expand...
Recently most NATO countries (putting the US aside) have not had ships with large numbers of VLS cells. If you look at FREMM, most of the ships being replaced had quite limited anti-air capabilities. If you want to be pedantic, yes some of the older ships had more missiles aboard. However, the Aster missiles are far more sophisticated to the point where you can expect to launch one for a successful intercept, whereas the previous doctine was to need to launch two.

FREMM was also designed quite some time ago. If they were designing a 6,000t+frigate now with just 16 VLS cells (and no quad-packing) they'd be really foolish.

In contrast you can see designs of ships like the Type 26, which are replacing the Type 23's 32 Sea Ceptor cells with 48. That doesn't include the 24 cells from the Mk41 launcher. The Type 31 will have far fewer cells, but it's a significantly smaller ship.

The Type 45's number of VLS cells was also relatively large for the Royal Navy, given it had replaced the Type 42. We're now going to add 24 Sea Ceptor cells to those. I wouldn't be surprised if the Type 83 has more VLS space.

Increased crew comfort is certainly a part of new ship design, but it's not the only thing that's changing.
 
Suetham

Suetham

Senior Member
Registered Member
The new Biden administration's new requested naval force structure document has shrunk the numbers of virtually all of the Trump administration's ships.
ma.JPG

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Suetham

Suetham

Senior Member
Registered Member
Matheus S said:
The new Biden administration's new requested naval force structure document has shrunk the numbers of virtually all of the Trump administration's ships.
View attachment 81551

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
I suggest that you read the part of the ship acquisition cost program, starting on page 95.

Reporting the case in brief words: The US Navy wants to buy the ship for a higher pre-defined price, this price would be the unit cost of the fixed ship throughout the entire program, so the US Navy will end up paying more for each ship purchased.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Mr T said:
Recently most NATO countries (putting the US aside) have not had ships with large numbers of VLS cells. If you look at FREMM, most of the ships being replaced had quite limited anti-air capabilities. If you want to be pedantic, yes some of the older ships had more missiles aboard. However, the Aster missiles are far more sophisticated to the point where you can expect to launch one for a successful intercept, whereas the previous doctine was to need to launch two.

FREMM was also designed quite some time ago. If they were designing a 6,000t+frigate now with just 16 VLS cells (and no quad-packing) they'd be really foolish.

In contrast you can see designs of ships like the Type 26, which are replacing the Type 23's 32 Sea Ceptor cells with 48. That doesn't include the 24 cells from the Mk41 launcher. The Type 31 will have far fewer cells, but it's a significantly smaller ship.

The Type 45's number of VLS cells was also relatively large for the Royal Navy, given it had replaced the Type 42. We're now going to add 24 Sea Ceptor cells to those. I wouldn't be surprised if the Type 83 has more VLS space.

Increased crew comfort is certainly a part of new ship design, but it's not the only thing that's changing.
Click to expand...

The fact that you accepted FREMM's basic premise, means you either bought this premise, or this premise already aligns with what you already have. FREMM as in Constellation class will have 32 VLS. That's for a 7000 ton ship.

Sea Ceptor cells should not be considered in the same category as Mk. 41, as each cell is only meant to carry a small shorter ranged missile. This is much like a Mk. 56 should not be considered in the same grouping as the Mk. 41, since a Mk. 56 only carries a single ESSM. 48 Sea Ceptor cells should only be considered 12 cells.

Type 31 is a significantly smaller ship... Its not. The winning proposal is based on the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate which is at 6,600 tons. The IH is also one of the most potentially well equipped frigates in the world, with 32 Mk. 41, up to 16 slant ASM canisters and on top of that, 24 Mk. 56 VLS.

Perhaps you need to take a close look at Italy's new 10,000 ton+ DDX destroyer.

download (2).jpeg
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
SlothmanAllen said:
F-117 and F-35 now have the strange metallic coating first spotted on the F-22.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Well they are hinting at this having something to do with reducing infrared signature.

1642983425712.png

Not only against attack by newer heat seeking missiles but also detection? Anyway I forget the Chinese sourced docs and links that mention this new hypersonic heat seeking missile technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top