US Navy DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class

^ I think it's ridiculous how they never even considered installing a couple of RAM launchers on DDG-1000... They could be quite easily modified to be low visibility/stealthy too.

I'm at a loss to understand why the USN thought it would be a good idea from the onset to develop a 14,000 ton, multibillion dollar "destroyer" with no close in anti air capability.

I don't think any major surface combatant built since the falkland's in any respectable navy has been equipped without some form of anti air ciws, and the few that have been built without ciws (like Type 45s initially) were highly controversial and had the problem quickly rectified. Yet I don't think I've heard any USN concerns that the future of this ship class involves no ciws.

the most recent on the gun swap:

Bltizo said:

^ I think it's ridiculous how they never even considered installing a couple of RAM launchers on DDG-1000... They could be quite easily modified to be low visibility/stealthy too.

I'm at a loss to understand why the USN thought it would be a good idea from the onset to develop a 14,000 ton, multibillion dollar "destroyer" with no close in anti air capability.

Click to expand...

Well, initially they felt that the Mk 110 57 mm with its programmable projectiles and capabilities in the AAW arena would suffice, along with several of the PVLM cells equipped with ESSM I am sure.

But despite that, for the time being I tend to agree with you.

However, installing one or two of the smaller caliber Rail Guns, or the Naval Lasers will provide an enhanced and awesome CIWS capability in the future...so maybe they were already counting on that.

As it stands, the 30mm decision is a retrograde as far as I am concerned.

These three ships will however ulimately benefit from the emerging Laser and Rail Gun Technologies and once those are deployed and adequately tested and developed, the issue will, in all likelihood, go away.

Jeff Head said:

As I said, once the decision was made, the Program Manager was going to get in line.

...

Click to expand...

he for example ruled out the weight as a reason for the gun swap:

“That is absurd, the fact that we changed the guns for weights,” he said in a September interview. “The weight had zero, absolutely, 100 percent nothing to do with the decision on the guns.”

Click to expand...

according to

the article makes also an interesting point by asking:

So if the 57mm gun doesn’t cut it, why keep it on the LCS?

Click to expand...

Jura said:

he for example ruled out the weight as a reason for the gun swap:

according to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the article makes also an interesting point by asking:

Click to expand...

Sorry, Jura...lots of maneuvering going on.

Of course weight had something to do with it. So did cost. All considerations were reviewed carefully in coming to a decision. To say otherwise would be to admit that a program manager was not doing his/her complete job.

I believe they redefined the design consideration parameters so the 30mm gun would perform and be chosen due to the real reasons.

The rather strong denial sounds more like it hit a nerve to me.

As I say, the 57mm Mk 110 specs speak for themselves. It fires faster. It has a longer range. It has more hitting power. Its ammunition can be programmed and tailored to different missions.

The 30mm gun is lighter and costs less. Those are the only operational specs where it is stronger.

Now, they may be having problems with the 57mm gun...but it is also installed on many, many vessels, including all of the US Coast Guard National Defense Cutters, all of the LCS, and on foreign nation's vessels

No...IMHO, there's a lot more going on behind the scenes with respect to cost, weight, and probably other considerations than meets the eye...and that they are not willing to admit or talk about.

Jeff Head said:

Well, initially they felt that the Mk 110 57 mm with its programmable projectiles and capabilities in the AAW arena would suffice, along with several of the PVLM cells equipped with ESSM I am sure.

But despite that, for the time being I tend to agree with you.

However, installing one or two of the smaller caliber Rail Guns, or the Naval Lasers will provide an enhanced and awesome CIWS capability in the future...so maybe they were already counting on that.

As it stands, the 30mm decision is a retrograde as far as I am concerned.

These three ships will however ulimately benefit from the emerging Laser and Rail Gun Technologies and once those are deployed and adequately tested and developed, the issue will, in all likelihood, go away.

Click to expand...

Even if they are banking on laser and rail gun ciws, it will take years until after DDG1000 is commissioned for a viable weapon of that type to be developed, let alone be ready for fit.

Yet they're still unwilling to install a couple of proven and effective ciws??? It makes no sense to me no matter what way I look at it.

Bltizo said:

Even if they are banking on laser and rail gun ciws, it will take years until after DDG1000 is commissioned for a viable weapon of that type to be developed, let alone be ready for fit.

Yet they're still unwilling to install a couple of proven and effective ciws??? It makes no sense to me no matter what way I look at it.

Click to expand...

I can't argue with that.

I expect ultimately it will be resolved and in the mean time, for anti-missile defense, they will rely on the ESSM and other escorting vessels.

I have read for Pacific Fleet i presume homeported to San Diego, really no surprising...

Navy Matters doesn't like the Zumwalt either

Wood Composite Superstructure...hum

It's almost guaranteed that the first Zumwalt will go to the Pacific Fleet