US Navy DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class

Jeff Head said:

Holmes is entitled to his opinion...but there are naysayers born every day.

The Zumwalts will be a class of three. They will not be going into a situation where their unique capabilities will be waisted.

IOW, they will not be thrown into any kind of high threat, war at sea, or highly contested air space. They will be able to defend themselves, and will be good at that...but with only three units coming, they will also not take unneeded roisks with them unless the proverbial you-know-what has absolutely hit the fan and they are needed in roles they were not meant for.

As to the US not being able to garauntee dominaance in a war at sea or contested air space scenario...I think Holmes is also far too premature in that deduction.

Click to expand...

Yes, its all the rage to degrade the US Military capability, but then "fiction" has always been a hot seller? LOL

Jeff Head said:

Holmes is entitled to his opinion...but there are naysayers born every day.

The Zumwalts will be a class of three. They will not be going into a situation where their unique capabilities will be waisted.

IOW, they will not be thrown into any kind of high threat, war at sea, or highly contested air space. They will be able to defend themselves, and will be good at that...but with only three units coming, they will also not take unneeded roisks with them unless the proverbial you-know-what has absolutely hit the fan and they are needed in roles they were not meant for.

As to the US not being able to garauntee dominaance in a war at sea or contested air space scenario...I think Holmes is also far too premature in that deduction.

Click to expand...

I think the article is disproportionately wordy relative to substance but the one point that held out is the question of relevance and fit within current naval doctrine and concept of operations. In other words, the Zumwalt is searching for the meaning of its existence or at least that is what we are trying to understand. Spending $12 billion on a program for shore bombardment is probably a hard sell given the last time one was done I think goes back to the Vietnam war. It probably will be a capable vessel but what exactly is it built to do besides waiting to bombard some shore out there? It is not a cynical question but I think a lot of folks are probably asking the same question.

some of you know I'm a big fan of Naval Artillery

Brumby said:

... Spending $12 billion on a program for shore bombardment is probably a hard sell given the last time one was done I think goes back to the Vietnam war. ...

Click to expand...

On 16 August 2011, Liverpool was involved in the most intense shore-bombardment of the war. ... Liverpool fired 54 shells from her 4.5 inch gun at the convoy, destroying or severely damaging many of the vehicles.

Click to expand...

according to

On 8 February 1984, New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Shi'ite positions in the hills overlooking Beirut.

Click to expand...

according to

... Missouri fired 133 rounds during four shore bombardment missions as part of the amphibious landing feint against the Kuwaiti shore line the morning of 23 February [1991]

Click to expand...

according to

plus you may check

plus ... somebody will add more?

Brumby said:

a hard sell given the last time one was done I think goes back to the Vietnam war. It probably will be a capable vessel but what exactly is it built to do besides waiting to bombard some shore out there?

Click to expand...

You are incorrect.

The Vietnam War ended in the early to mid 70s. The Iowa class were modernized again in the 1980s and used several times thereafter for shore bombardment. In fact one of the reasons to get the AGS with its capabilities on DD-21 which became DDG-1000 was a desire for the type of long range naval bombardment that the US Navy has lacked since the Iowa class was mothballed again.

The Zumwalts are serious multi-role capable DDGs. Originally with upwards of 30 planned, there would be no doubt as to them filling many missions.

Now, with three, the program will provide bombardment and defense capabilities for ARGs...but they will also be an investment in terms of bringing forward new, critical technologies.

You will see the rail guns on these vessels in the relative near term, and the experience we gain from that will be invaluable. Perhaps the same for the naval laser...but the rail gun will be the more valuable of those two IMHO.

Jeff Head said:

You are incorrect.

The Vietnam War ended in the early to mid 70s. The Iowa class were modernized again in the 1980s and used several times thereafter for shore bombardment. In fact one of the reasons to get the AGS with its capabilities on DD-21 which became DDG-1000 was a desire for the type of long range naval bombardment that the US Navy has lacked since the Iowa class was mothballed again.

Click to expand...

I did think of the USS Iowa but a quick check didn't turn up anything from Wiki. Thanks for that.

Jeff Head said:

The Zumwalts are serious multi-role capable DDGs. Originally with upwards of 30 planned, there would be no doubt as to them filling many missions.

Now, with three, the program will provide bombardment and defense capabilities for ARGs...but they will also be an investment in terms of bringing forward new, critical technologies.

You will see the rail guns on these vessels in the relative near term, and the experience we gain from that will be invaluable. Perhaps the same for the naval laser...but the rail gun will be the more valuable of those two IMHO.

Click to expand...

I do agree that the three ships are technology platform and test beds for something into the future and the story is probably less defined until we see some tangible development leveraging off it. Shore bombardment I suspect is a convenient story but is probably not the main story. The rail gun and Zumwalt at a conceptual level is not a secret but how these two converge at a test level is not something I have seen actively discussed. Do you think we will see the rail gun development moving onto the Zumwalt once the ship is commissioned or is there still a disconnect between the two in terms of timing?

Brumby said:

The rail gun and Zumwalt at a conceptual level is not a secret but how these two converge at a test level is not something I have seen actively discussed. Do you think we will see the rail gun development moving onto the Zumwalt once the ship is commissioned or is there still a disconnect between the two in terms of timing?

Click to expand...

The issue is this:

They spent a LOT of money developing the AGS for the Zumwalt. Originally they thought they would have a goodly number of vessels at two guns per vessel. Now, they are going to have three and that means six guns...perhaps two or three more for spares, with no other platform in the foreseeable future.

I believe the rail gun is going to render the AGS largely obsolete...though there is a case to be made at first for HE, PGM, and AP, etc. rounds for the AGS over purely kinetic rounds for the rail gun...but then again there is nothing to keep them from developing all sorts of munitions for the rail gun either. And I believe they will.

The AGS will allow for longer range PGM, and will allow for strong anti-air capabilities.

So...yes, I believe the AGS will go onto the Zumwalts...and probably, if they have the power for it...a 127mm version for the Burkes as well.

When? Well we know that in 2016, they will place a working unit on one of the new Spearhead Class JHSV vessels, specifically, the USNS Millinocket (JHSV-3). My guess is that they will run live fire tests on that baby of all sorts over a year or more time and then they will come up with a schedule for implementation into the fleet.

I expect we will see the rail gun actually deployed in the early 2020s.

The Navy said the following about this early in 2014 when they announced the plan to implement the at sea tests:

US Navy said:

"The electromagnetic railgun represents an incredible new offensive capability for the U.S. Navy," said Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the Navy's chief engineer. "This capability will allow us to effectively counter a wide-range of threats at a relatively low cost, while keeping our ships and sailors safer by removing the need to carry as many high-explosive weapons."

"EM railgun technology will complement current weapons currently onboard surface combatants and offer a few specific advantages. Against specific threats, the cost per engagement is orders of magnitude less expensive than comparable missile engagements. The projectile itself is being designed to be common with some current powder guns, enabling the conservation of expensive missiles for use against more complex threats.

"Energetic weapons, such as EM railguns, are the future of naval combat," said Rear Adm. Matt Klunder, the chief of naval research. "The U.S. Navy is at the forefront of this game-changing technology."

"This demonstration is the latest in a series of technical maturation efforts designed to provide an operational railgun to the fleet. Since 2005, the Navy and its partners in industry and academia have been testing railgun technology at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va., and the Naval Research Lab where the service has a number of prototype systems.

The final operational system will be capable of launching guided, multi-mission projectiles to a range of 110 nautical miles against a wide range of threats. The series of tests are designed to capture lessons for incorporation into a future tactical design and will allow the Navy to best understand needed ship modifications before fully integrating the technology.

Click to expand...

So, at first, we will probably see one AGS and one Rail Gun. Coupled with the missiles aboard and the other weapons, this will allow for a great deal of flexibility.

But make no mistake, the Rail Gun is viewed as a game changer. It will ultimately be used against land targets of all sorts, anti-shipping duties, anti-air duties, etc. I suspect that even more uses will develop.

for example, developing a small caliber, say a 30mm or 35mm weapon mounted on blisters underneath a vessel could make for an effective, super-cavitating defensive weapon against torpedoes. You read it here first.

Actually, if you ever read my Dragons Fury: World War against America and the West, World War III novel...you read it there first ten years ago.

They actually have already begun preparing the Millinocket for installation. I am not sue how far along they are, but in July 2014 they had late prototype weapons out to the ship and have begun making the alterations necessary.

See:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

NavyReco reviewed this at Sea Air Space 2014 with BAE Systems:


...and another good video regarding the same:

recent news (this weekend):

I had not seen this excellent photo of the Zumwalt posted here on SD. It's probably one of the better overall pictures of her to date.

Brumby said:

I think the AGS gun has the potential to perform anti surface warfare but currently do not have that capability. It has been pointed out by others but the reason for this lack of capability is not discussed. A recent article on the AGS gun.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Ok, definitely BAE say AGS can attack ships later. First time i se a naval gun can' attack ships !

A remark, new Otobreda 127/64 can do the job at same range and defininety much cheaper


Seems also don't have torpedo launch tubes.

MK 57 can use SM-2 but i presume carry in general only ESSM. Also SM-3 but Zumwalt actually can' t use this missile.

I see well in its 80 cell's with its primarily land attack mission : about : 50 CM, and 30 with VL Asroc/ ESSM for them about 2/3 of it 80 missiles.