US Navy DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class

[SUB][/SUB]

Quon_Duixote said:

Pardon my ignorance, but is there a study somewhere on the utility of stealth for a destroyer the size of Zumwalt? I somehow fail to connect the dots here. No matter the reduction in RCS but one thing which puts the Zumwalt at a disadvantage is that it is a 14000+ ton behemoth which can be seen over the horizon by a small OPV with anti ship missiles. Now the question is can the Zumwalt hold its own against a fast moving littoral attack force including OPVs, FACs etc?

Click to expand...

The stealth is two fold.

1) Radar. An OPV or other warship relying on radar for over the horizon detection is not going to see a large return. Something more on the order of what you might exect from a small fishing vessel.

2) Infrared. An OPV or any other warship looking for a chachteristic IR return of a large vessel is also not going to see that either.

If a dangerous belligerent vessel gets close enough to lay eyeballs on the Zumwalt in the daylight at 10-12 miles (not likely to happen in the dark) because her deck house is sticking up over the horizon, then it is the Zumwalt itself that has fouled up by the numbers.

As to the 14,000+ ton displacement...well given the propulsion system, given the very heavy pair of AGS, given the larger and more bulky PVLS, given the larger hanger, and given the need for adequate ballast...not to mention that these ships have been built for 50 years worth of modernization in mind (like rail guns, lasers, etc), well 14,000 was necessary.

The tonnage alone does not negate the stealth.

Today I paged through a Czech military journal, didn't buy it but noticed what led me to:



Anybody cares to comment?

Jura said:

Today I paged through a Czech military journal, didn't buy it but noticed what led me to:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Anybody cares to comment?

Click to expand...

Well, I believe this is a mistake.

The reality is that they are saving weight and cost. but they are not gettng more capability.

The article says...

USNI said:

Following a 2012 review the Navy, “concluded that the MK46 was more effective than the MK110 CIGS,” according to NAVSEA.

“In addition to the increased capability...”

Click to expand...

Not so.

The 57mm Mk 110 fires at 220 rounds/minute to a range of 9 nautical miles.
The 30mm Mk 46 fires at 200 rounds/minute to a range of 2.17 nautical miles.

Clearly the 57mm gun is more capable. 20 round per minute faster and seven miles further range. But they are significantly lighter and less expensive.

I believe that the Zumnwalts will ultimately replace one or both of these weapons with a smaller caliber Rail-gun or perhaps combat Laser system at a later date in any case.

Jeff Head said:

...

Clearly the 57mm gun is more capable. 20 round per minute faster and seven miles further range. But they are significantly lighter and less expensive.

...

Click to expand...

yeah I did some additional searching, found the fancy Prefragmented Programmable Proximity
(described in: )
57 mm ammo cost something like $4000 per round, so if Mark 3 of

used them as the "120 ready rounds", it'd be half of million dollars load (which could be gone in a half of minute

anyway, cool video:
[video]http://www.military.com/video/guns/naval-guns/bofors-57mm-mk3-naval-gun-system/1095810321001/[/video]
(I liked most the test against "small surface targets" after 01:34)

Considering size and cost, IMHO Zumwalt is pretty much underarmed , especially in ASuW (I'm talking about current configuration, not future upgrades) . In a classical scenario : 1 destroyer vs 2 missile boats (4 ASMs each) , Zumwalt would be hard pressed to defend itself and at the same time could employ only Tactical Tomahawk against attackers (155 mm gun would be infective against small moving targets) . In ASW somewhat better but not impressive : no torpedoes and only one ASROC per cell - in real situation I don't think they would carry more then 10 . In AAW no Standards (so far), therefore Zumwalts would probably have to be escorted by Burke class in a more hostile environment.

thunderchief said:

In ASW somewhat better but not impressive : no torpedoes and only one ASROC per cell - in real situation I don't think they would carry more then 10 .

Click to expand...

Zumwalts will have ASW via their SH-60 helicopters.

Armament: Usually two 7.62mm machine guns mounted in the windows; can also be equipped with AGM-114 Hellfire or AGM-119 Penguin missiles, three Mk46 or Mk 50 torpedoes or additional .50-caliber machine guns mounted in the doors

bd popeye said:

Zumwalts will have ASW via their SH-60 helicopters.

Armament: Usually two 7.62mm machine guns mounted in the windows; can also be equipped with AGM-114 Hellfire or AGM-119 Penguin missiles, three Mk46 or Mk 50 torpedoes or additional .50-caliber machine guns mounted in the doors

Click to expand...

Yep, but looks like they would carry just one, compared to two on Burke-class , Italian FREMM class, or Soviet/Russian Udaloy-class . And all of those ships have smaller displacement .

thunderchief said:

Yep, but looks like they would carry just one, compared to two on Burke-class , Italian FREMM class, or Soviet/Russian Udaloy-class . And all of those ships have smaller displacement .

Click to expand...

Nope..you are incorrect according to the US Navy.

She can carry two SH-60s or one SH-60 plus three Scout helo UAVs.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

General Characteristics, Zumwalt class
Primary Function: DDG 1000
Builder: General Dynamics Bath Iron Works
Length: 610 ft
Beam: 80.7 ft
Displacement: 15,656 long tons
Speed: 30 kts
Crew: 158 (including air det)
Aircraft: (2) MH60R or (1) MH60R and (3) VTUAVs
Ships:
PCU Zumwalt (DDG 1000), Under construction
PCU Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001), Under construction
PCU Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG 1002), Under construction

Click to expand...

I have a great article on Zumwalt, but ... in a copy of a Polish naval journal ... I went through it again, based on it, I comment on some recent posts here:

- additional protection should be provided by "anti-torpedoes":

(you may enter "SSTD" into google-search window to get more links

- 220 rounds per minute is just some theoretical value for 2.25"/70 Mk 110, as: (now I was able to find the link to the text the Polish author likely used

says
"Ammunition comes up from the magazine via two hoists and goes into two 20-round cassettes mounted on a rail behind the gun. When filled, they move into position over the ready-use magazines and discharge their ammunition into them. There are also two intermediate 20-round cassettes. When the ready-use magazines are emptied, the gun barrel is moved up to its maximum elevation. The cassettes are then traversed over to the loading position and their rounds are transferred into the ready-use magazines. Reloading takes approximately 30 seconds from the time that the last round is fired from the ready-use magazines until the time that the gun is ready to fire again."

but I'm not saying this value isn't important!

EDIT
the barrel of 57 mm Mk 110 isn't water-cooled, so I doubt you'd want to be firing it for 60 seconds anyway

For its 155 mm gun :

Get a much lower rate of fire as 127 mm, 10 rds/mn against 20 for 127/54 and 40 127/62, much longer range 109 km / 24or 37 for land targets ofc.

But more accurate and in fact seems a shell would be three times more efficient thus offsetting the low rate of fire.

But now new shell for 127 mm have almost the same range.

Finaly interesting ? but originaly build for 30 ships and finaly 3...