kwaigonegin
Colonel
I need to prequalify my above statement by assuming they continue building more Zumwalts after LBJ
US Navy DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class
- Thread starter Scratch
- Start date
I need to prequalify my above statement by assuming they continue building more Zumwalts after LBJ
Brumby
Major
I agree that the Zumwalts are not Burke replacement given the prevailing status. Flight III is however a stop gap pending a new class and given budgetary constrain and production of Flight III will be extended to its limitation. We know the AMDR is not the optimal design and was downsized. It is sufficient in meeting current threats but not future ones. The immediate workaround is the use of off board sensors but that is unproven and highly suspect in my view in a contested environment. The downside with the Flight III is that there is not much room to accommodate future upgrade path.
An air centric Zumwalt is the obvious answer. To be used to replace the Ticos.
The hull design and most of the systems are already designed.
It has the room for all of the new toys.
It would help pay/rationalize the R&D costs.
The production line is open and hot.
Hopefully some folks with the know how, the foresight...and most of all, the will...will come into office after 2016 and make this very logical decision.
If it is a Trump, or Cruz, or Rubio, or even Fiorina...that would be very possible.
otherwise, if it is the DNC (Hillary) or even GOPe...not so likely.
Time will tell.
If US navy need a fire support ship, why not just build a stealthy ship with four large guns and skip all those fancy sensors? Those aren't needed in a fire support role. If they need a Tico replacement, why put two large guns that take up valuable space and quite useless in the open ocean?
Brumby
Major
Intuitively I agree with the concept of an air centric Zumwalt as a replacement of the Tico in terms of fit and in addressing a capability gap once the remaining SLEP Tico's are decommissioned. In particular if they can get the cost down to $2.5 Billion to $2.8 Billion that would be an attractive proposition given a Flight III cost around $2.0 Billion (I think). However I don't get a sense that such a proposition has any traction within USN leadership, at least I haven't seen such an idea being floated in any of the long term navy plans.
Additionally, an air centric Zumwalt (lite) could logically be a replacement for the Flight III.
Last edited:
An air defense centric Zumwalt hull was the original plan for the CG(X) if I recall (alongside a few larger 20+k ton "cruisers")... but the USN seems like it's abandoned that idea years ago.
I'm not sure if this proposal will resurface post 2016 even if GOP enters govt, and even if the president orders such a ship to be built, they'll probably have to scrap Burke Flight III, rework CG(X) to fit AMDR, and/or possibly reduce plans for other procurement that could include F-35C, UCLASS, or the Ohio replacement project...
It would surprise a lot of people what a popular president and congress, who enjoy support and who turn the economy around can accomplish. IMHO, that is entirely feasible in which case none of those programs would suffer, even while building the CGX.
In such a case you would find new leadership at the USN who did both give it traction and have the stomach for it.
IMHO, in any case the USN will continue with an Fight III as an interim for perhaps 12 vessels even if such a change occurred.
While doing so, they could scale the AMDR back to where it was supposed to be for the Zumwalt, or even complete the DBR as they intended to begin with.
Some of these programs were cancelled after a lot of R&D and progress had been made and were more political decisions than anything else.
I remember the B-1A being cancelled and then being brought back and built as the B-1B.
I remember four old battlewagons being refurbished and put to good use for a decade or more.
All it requires is the political will of people who gain brad support by the public.
We shall have to wait and see if such a thing occurs. If not, then these technology developed and put to good use on the Zumwalts will find its way into the future vessels...and I know for a fact that General Atomics has developed a program for a 127mm rail gun that could be used by the Burkes. Again, whether any of them get it or not is another question and will depend on the same types of things.
Jeff pls, have you more infos for armament sure ESSM, Asroc, Tomahawk and MK-57 can get SM-2/6, SM-3 fit in also but not ABM then no armed with, remains a question AEGIS or not ?
Sure very diffifult to sunk, displacement 15000 t... and PVLS, VLS in 4 locations.
Sure very diffifult to sunk, displacement 15000 t... and PVLS, VLS in 4 locations.
Well, Forb, originally they wanted to go with the DBR on these vessels (I still wish they had). but they decided to shift Raytheon's X-band AN/SPY-3 MFR radar, with an S band functionality mode programmed into it.
The active-array SPY-3 X-Band Multi-Function Radar (MFR) offers really good medium to high altitude performance, and the system's pencil beam gives it very strong capabilities to focus on individual targets. It also provides very good horizon search capability. But the programmable S-Band mode lessens its volume search capability. This means while it has some volume air search capability, it is not optimized for it and must rely on the program mode to make it happen.
It is my understanding that the new SPY-3 MFR for the Zumwalt class will be AEGIS compatible, but its underlying architecture is the Total Ship Computing Environment (TSCE) Infrastructure. So through CEC it will play with AEGIS directly, though it itself is not AEGIS.
This is of course why the BMD mission is out of the question for the Zumwalt because the US Navy has invested in AEGIS alone for that capability an was not going to spend additional monies to make a TSCE BMD capability.
The Navy believes that this system will be adequate for the Zumwalt's and it saved cost.
In addition to its other capabilities (like superior detection at certain distances) is also provides excellent anti-jamming capabilities particularly when used in conjunction with tCooperative Engagement (CEC). The Zumwalts are going to have the CEC capability, although it is not clear whether the 1st in class, USS Zumwalt went to sea with it yet.
Originally, the Raytheon SPY-3 X-Band radar, without the S-band "mode" functionality, was to be combined with the new, powerful Lockheed Martin AN/SPY-4 S-Band to create the Dual Band Radar (DBR) for the Zumwalts. The AN/SPY-4 was going to be the high powered, fully capable S-Band provider. Now only the Ford class will have the DBR.
This means that the Zumwalt will not really be strong at long range, volume air defense...but they will be quite capable at local area defense. To me, this realistically means out to the range of the ESSM (about 30 miles). I am sure whatever directors they use for the ESSMs will be part of the integrated deck house structure above the bridge.
Although the Mk-57 can accommodate Standard Missiles...at this point I highly doubt that the Zumwalts will carry any standard missiles at all. I do not think the capability has been programmed into the TSCE system.
So, I am updating my US Navy 21st century site and AEGES Vessel site accordingly for the Zumwalt.
Anyhow...that is a mouth full and kind of rambling, but that is my understanding at this point.
.
Last edited: