US Navy DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Lets be realistic , Zumwalt (and any other modern ship , except large aircraft carriers ) is not designed to survive hits and to keep on fighting.

Modern surface naval combat would not be prolonged affair like in WW1 and WW2.
I cannot speak for the PLAN (though I imagine that they too try and design their ships to survive) but I can tell you that US Navy vessels are designed with the idea that they will probably take hits, particularly from SSMs, and survive and keep fighting.

The USS Stark was a small FFG and took two Exocet missile hits and survived. The USS Cole took a massive hit to the side from an boatload of high explosives which blew a hole in its side extending below the waterline, and she survived. In both cases there were systems onboard the ships that remained operational that would have allowed further defense of the ships if necessary, but the real tale was the design of the vessels and the damage control onboard that is exercised relentlessly...and which proved its mettle in both cases.

The entire PVLS structure on the Zumwalt has been designed not only to minimize damage to the missile magazine of the ship, but to provide a buffer and a ship borne reactive armor to the sides of the ship.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
For the geek in some of us...

the DDG 1000's heart and soul are a bunch of...

IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux :) and putting it in a ruggedized server room. Those ruggedized server rooms are called Electronic Modular Enclosures (EMEs), sixteen self-contained, mini data centers built by Raytheon.

f3H533J.jpg


FpZN1FU.png
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
USS Zumwalt preparing to be moved to dry dock for launching.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This was supposed to have taken place on Saturday, October 19th. It was supposed to occur without any major media fanfare, while the official Christneing will occur in the Spring. Still, I expect to see some photos of her launch, or after...and will continue to look for them.

And, in more news, for those interested, the Dual BAnd Radar situation for the Zumwalts has resolved into the following:

The Zumwalt will hit the water, having shifted to a single X-band SPY-3 MFR radar from Raytheon on launch, with an S band functionality mode programmed in. The new SPY-3 radar for the Zumwalts will be fully AEGIS compatible.

This leaves the true DPR (dual band radar) SPY-3 (Raytheon X band)/ SPY-4 (Lockheed MArtin S band) solution for the Ford Class carriers. Another dual band radar which is a little less powerful than the DBR, called the Advanced Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) is currntly being developed for the Flight III Burkes.

The AMDR will have a direct tie to and integration into AEGIS, as can be imagined for any new Burke.

Depending on it power and scalability, it is possible that once developed, a scaled AMDR could then retrofitted to the three Zumwalts, but that is not a sure thing. It is possible that the powervul SPY-3 X band radar with S band functionality will suffice for the Zumwalts
 
Last edited:

thunderchief

Senior Member
I cannot speak for the PLAN (though I imagine that they too try and design their ships to survive) but I can tell you that US Navy vessels are designed with the idea that they will probably take hits, particularly from SSMs, and survive and keep fighting.

The USS Stark was a small FFG and took two Exocet missile hits and survived. The USS Cole took a massive hit to the side from an boatload of high explosives which blew a hole in its side extending below the waterline, and she survived. In both cases there were systems onboard the ships that remained operational that would have allowed further defense of the ships if necessary, but the real tale was the design of the vessels and the damage control onboard that is exercised relentlessly...and which proved its mettle in both cases.

The entire PVLS structure on the Zumwalt has been designed not only to minimize damage to the missile magazine of the ship, but to provide a buffer and a ship borne reactive armor to the sides of the ship.

One small correction : USS Stark and USS Cole did survive their mishaps , hands down to damage control systems and procedures . But , they didn't continue to fight - they had to abandon their respective missions and go to repairs .

What would happen to Zumwalt-class vessel in similar circumstances ? Well , Zumwalt has larger displacement and probably better damage control , but also lots of sensitive equipment onboard . There is some Kevlar armor around ammo magazines (similar to Burke class ) , but nothing much more . So , in case of a missile hit there is a distinct possibility that damaged ship would not stay in "gun line" , especially if there is a possibility of repeated strike . Comparison between Zumwalt and WW2 battleships in this regard gives clear advantage to older ships . Unlike Zumwalt , they could endure few bomb or kamikaze strikes and yet continue to give ground support to troops .
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
Depending on it power and scalability, it is possible that once developed, a scaled AMDR could then retrofitted to the three Zumwalts, but that is not a sure thing. It is possible that the powervul SPY-3 X band radar with S band functionality will suffice for the Zumwalts

Everything will depend on integration of SM-2 , SM-3 and SM-6 on Zumwalt-class . Without those missiles you don't need long-range S-band radar , X-band is sufficent for ESSM and close-medium air defense . If the US Navy decides to proceed with Standards on Zumwalts , S-band would be nice addition for detecting targets as far as possible , and for BMD .
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
I cannot speak for the PLAN (though I imagine that they too try and design their ships to survive) but I can tell you that US Navy vessels are designed with the idea that they will probably take hits, particularly from SSMs, and survive and keep fighting.

The USS Stark was a small FFG and took two Exocet missile hits and survived. The USS Cole took a massive hit to the side from an boatload of high explosives which blew a hole in its side extending below the waterline, and she survived. In both cases there were systems onboard the ships that remained operational that would have allowed further defense of the ships if necessary, but the real tale was the design of the vessels and the damage control onboard that is exercised relentlessly...and which proved its mettle in both cases.

The entire PVLS structure on the Zumwalt has been designed not only to minimize damage to the missile magazine of the ship, but to provide a buffer and a ship borne reactive armor to the sides of the ship.

Jeff, actually one of the Exocet failed to detonate which would've caused even more damage maybe even catastrophic depending on the point of contact. Kudos to the crew for damage control and no doubt their efforts saved the ship however she was probably not combat capable after that with heavy listing to the port side.

As always in warfare luck plays a role. Luck favored both sides in this case. The exocet should not have penetrated the Starks air defense system but for some reason the chaff did not deploy and the Phalanx went out to lunch! Luck also favored the Stark because one of the exocet did not exploded.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jeff, actually one of the Exocet failed to detonate which would've caused even more damage maybe even catastrophic depending on the point of contact. Kudos to the crew for damage control and no doubt their efforts saved the ship however she was probably not combat capable after that with heavy listing to the port side.
The Stark was informed of the aircraft, a Mirage F1, by the local E-2 Sentry when it was 200 miles out. As it got close, the Stark picked it up and tracked it herself. The Stark identified itself twice to the aircraft, and asked the aircraft to identify itself. The Iraqi aircraft never did and then launched, unopposed, from 20 miles out and then later from 15 miles.

For whatever reasons the standard missile system and other defensive systems were offline...which I view as inexcusable. They were never brought up to combat status during the flight of the two missiles.

Anyhow, those two missiles got a free pass.

And you are exactly right. The first Exocet missile struck and did not explode. It hit 10ft above the waterline on the port side near the bridge. Its remaining fuel did ignite and the resulting impact and fire caused significant damage to the ship, causing a fire in the mail room that spread into the Combat Center.

Moments later the second missile struck, also on the port side, and did detonate, blowing a 10 ft x 15 ft hole in the side of the vessel above the waterline there.

The Captain, Captain Glenn R. Brindel, ordered the ship to flood the starboard side to produce a list and keep the large hole well above the water line. It did not list as a result of the hit. The Charles Adams Class Destroyer, USS Waddell, came to the Stark's assistance and escorted the Stark as is made its way, under its own power, to Bahrain. She arrived there the next day and underwent temporary repairs from a US Destroyer tender before returning to the states.

Although her standard missile system was knocked out for the duration, she was able to get her main gun and her CIWS operating. In addition, her Helicopter was also still operational. Despite not having her main defensive battery, she did have combat self defense capability as she retired.

Her crew (which suffered a total of 37 dead and 21 injured out of 176) performed heroically. The ship was designed for warfare and to take hits. It is not known if the 1st missile detonating would have sunk the ship. Since it too hit well above the waterline, there is a a very good chance it would not have, though it certainly would have caused more damage.

So, I view its survival as principally based on the crew's damage control, and the design of the vessel itself foremost. Followed by the fact that the 1st missile did not detonate.

After returning to the States and after the inquiry, Captain Brindel was relieved of command and duty and retired. The Tactical Action Officer, a Lieutenant, resigned from the Navy. The Stark was fully repaired and returned to service.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
...just read Zumwalt been compared to Obamacare.
Not even close, either in total costs over the next 35 years, or in potential negative impact to the nation. But, it is kind of funny. Nice try though.

...anyway, here is another study of Zumwalt's stability issue.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Interesting study...but I believe the individual in question went into that study with some pretty strong pre-conceptions. But he also makes strong points.

Fact is, the US Navy has also performed numerous extensive studies and has made a number of changes/improvements to address many of the known, historical issues with the hull form.

I believe they are going to be successful and mazximize the positive characteristics (ie. far less wake and turbulence, far less acoutsic signature, wave piercing, etc.), while also trying to significantly minimize the negatives (pitching in following seas, tendancy for water to come up high in tight turns, etc.).

Time will tell.

As it is, the vessels are rapidly making way. Zumwalt will soon be launched and outfitting then into trials. DDG-1001 is well under construction, with very large sections already fabricated and on the ways. Number three has started construction.
 
Top