US Navy DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class

Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
luhai said:
Actually the ship's design does throw back to late 19th century. DDG1000 does look like this french cruiser with the super structure replaced by an submarine conning tower.

Cruiser Le Dupuy de Lome
View attachment 7450

However, the peril of this design is that sea keeping is a problem in bad weather. Which why monitor and tumblehome hull are abandoned in the 20th century.

USS Monadnock
Uss_Monadnock_BM3.JPG
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answers gentlemen, would you care to elaborate on why the tumblehome hull is less sea worthy in weather? It is easy to sea why it is advantageous from a combat situation considering the L/O aspect? Cheers AFB
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Air Force Brat said:
Thanks for the answers gentlemen, would you care to elaborate on why the tumblehome hull is less sea worthy in weather? It is easy to sea why it is advantageous from a combat situation considering the L/O aspect? Cheers AFB
Click to expand...
AFB, the idea of the "new" tumblehome hull form is to use advanced ship modeling techniques to employ that form to gain notable and very desired advatages, while ensuring her sea keeping is very strong.

This "improved" tumblehome configuration, when combined with the wave piercing technology developed particularly for this hull form, ends up making the design as close to a submarine as a surface ship can get with a large part of the structure actually underwater. The ability to be "'wave-piercing," means that the designers have deliberately moved away from the buoyancy which tends to lift conventional hulls over waves. What they are trying to accomplish with this is to minimize ship motion over waves because that very motion presents radar with all sorts of opportunities to more easily detect the ship. In addition, they are desinging the form to minimize rolling motion as much as possible. As a result, it is a given that the design accepts the fact that waves will often break right over the ship's deck.

With all of that in mind, compared to the current destroyers, the Zumwalt-class will triple current naval surface fire coverage, including capability against anti-ship cruise missiles. It has a 50-fold radar cross section reduction compared to the tico cruisers and over 30-fold over the Burkes, it improves ARG defense 10-fold and has 10 times the operating area in shallow water regions against mines. As a result of its 155mm, extended range, rapid fire guns, it ends up filling an immediate and critical naval warfare gap, meeting validated Marine Corps fire support requirements.

Going to be a very innovative and interesting design...and I trust these folks who have done the design work to produce a cutting-edge design that will cause great havoc for any potential adversary.
 
Last edited:
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Jeff Head said:
AFB, the idea of the "new" tumblehome hull form is to use advsnced ship modeling techniques to employ that form to gain notable and very desired advatages, while ensuring her sea keeping is very strong.

This "improved" tumblehome configuration, when combined with the wave piercing technology developed particularly for this hull form, ends up making the design as close to a submarine as a surface ship can get with a large part of the structure actually underwater. The ability to be "'wave-piercing," means that the designers have deliberately moved away from the buoyancy which tends to lift conventional hulls over waves. What they are trying to accomplish with this is to minimize ship motion over waves because that very motion presents radar with all sorts of opportunities to more easily detect the ship. In addition, they are desinging the form to minimize rolling motion as much as possible. As a result, it is a given that the design accepts the fact that waves will often break right over the ship's deck.

With all of that in mind, compared to the current destroyers, the Zumwalt-class will triple current naval surface fire coverage, including capability against anti-ship cruise missiles. It has a 50-fold radar cross section reduction compared to the tico cruisers and over 30-fold over the BUrkes, it improves ARG defense 10-fold and has 10 times the operating area in shallow water regions against mines. As a result of its 155mm, extended range, rapid fire duns, it ends up filling an immediate and critical naval warfare gap, meeting validated Marine Corps fire support requirements.

Going to be a very innovative and interesting design...and I trust these folks who have done the design work to produce a cutting edge design that will cause great havoc for any potential adversary.
Click to expand...

So I would suppose you could button her up tight or as they used to say "batton down the hatches"? It certainly will cut down on available deck area, I believe I read the draft is 27 ft? This is the first totally "New" naval technology in several decades. This is a Nuke? is that correct or ? It will put the bad boys between a rock and the hard place! AFB
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Air Force Brat said:
So I would suppose you could button her up tight or as they used to say "batton down the hatches"? It certainly will cut down on available deck area, I believe I read the draft is 27 ft? This is the first totally "New" naval technology in several decades. This is a Nuke? is that correct or ? It will put the bad boys between a rock and the hard place! AFB
Click to expand...
Not a nuke.

She will be operating on an all-electric drive with an integrated power system (IPS) run by 2 Rolls-Royce MT30 Gas Turbines rated at 36MW each with 2 shafts.

They were orignally planning to use a Permanent Magnet Motor (PMM). But due to difficulties developing that brand new technology within the schedule, thye decided to use the backup proposal of an Advanced Induction Motors (AIM). AIM technology has a heavier motor, requires more space, requires a "separate controller" to meet noise requirements, and produces less voltage than the originally planned PMM System. But, the AIM is still much superior technology to current gas turbines and is available now for Zumwalts.
.
 
L

luhai

Banned Idiot
Air Force Brat said:
Thanks for the answers gentlemen, would you care to elaborate on why the tumblehome hull is less sea worthy in weather? It is easy to sea why it is advantageous from a combat situation considering the L/O aspect? Cheers AFB
Click to expand...

Well, because it is less stable hull type and it sets lower on the water. Thus can be sunk more easily when taking water. You can look at the extreme case of USS Monadnock, it is literately half way sunk when operating normally. Thus in rough seas as depicted in my first picture, it's quite a hair raising experience for the sailors.

Monadnock_%28BM3%29%2C_starboard_side%2C_in_Chinese_waters%2C_ca._1901_-_NARA_-_513018.jpg
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
luhai said:
Well, because it is less stable hull type and it sets lower on the water. Thus can be sunk more easily when taking water. You can look at the extreme case of USS Monadnock, it is literately half way sunk when operating normally. Thus in rough seas as depicted in my first picture, it's quite a hair raising experience for the sailors.

Monadnock_%28BM3%29%2C_starboard_side%2C_in_Chinese_waters%2C_ca._1901_-_NARA_-_513018.jpg
Click to expand...
The older tumblehome hulls did operate that way...this one will not.

It is a modern design upgraded and modernized with a hundred years of naval experience now behind it specifically to handle very well in rough sea states. Its main deck will set well above the water, and it will still pierce waves...which is it designed to do instead of riding over them, which increases its radar and infrared signature.

Comparing it to the hulls a hundred years old and expecting to be able to take advantage of those old weaknesses will be a faulty and dangerous presumption by any adversary to the hull design developed for the Zumwalts.
 
L

luhai

Banned Idiot
Jeff Head said:
The older tumblehome hulls did operate that way...this one will not.

It is a modern design upgraded and modernized with a hundred years of naval experience now behind it specifically to handle very well in rough sea states. Its main deck will set well above the water, and it will still pierce waves...which is it designed to do instead of riding over them, which increases its radar and infrared signature.

Comparing it to the hulls a hundred years old and expecting to be able to take advantage of those old weaknesses will be a faulty and dangerous presumption by any adversary to the hull design developed for the Zumwalts.
Click to expand...

Well, I was just answering the question asked by AFB. I'm sure Zumwalts will do fine, after all even the older tumblehome designs had their 40 years of glory in the 19th century. It's only the poor performance of Borodino class in the Russo-Japanese war (Sunk too easily after taking hits) did the design finally give away.

However, I still wonder the possibly of it as a submarine. Just imagine the possibilities of a sub simply shoots down the helicopter or ASW plane that's hot on its tail. This idea was less than halfheartedly implement in the Iranian Kilos, but it can be much more effectively implemented for a country with far better with resources. (PAR radar, real SAMs like standards or ESSM) That will be a revolution, as there is very few ways (another sub may be) to counter such a thing.

But if its just used to bombard land targets with 155mm shells and Tomahawks, there are much cheaper platforms to do this mission. (for example AB class Flight III)

Though this type of design do have nice lines and produce rather beautiful ships
h60250.jpg

U._S._Protected_Cruiser_Texas.jpg


Now they need to paint the ship white like the good old days and add a nice gold crest on the bow.
zumwalt-1a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
luhai said:
But if its just used to bombard land targets with 155mm shells and Tomahawks, there are much cheaper platforms to do this mission. (for example AB class Flight III)
Click to expand...
Actually the US will end up with both. The Zumwalt class is meant to replace the principle function of the battleships for heavy shore fire support for amphibious and air assaults near shore (within 75 miles or so), which is actually a much greater reach than the battleships...but it will also do a lot more, including area air defense, ASW work, and it will do it with a fraction of the radar cross section of the Burke design and will be able to oeprate in far more littoral areas when necessary while doing so. Therefore, in that role it will be far superior.

The Flight III Burkes are a bridge to the CGX, which the technology is not ready for, and with the Ticos coming up on the end of their service life, the US needed something to tie it over. If they build the Burke III to the South Korean Se Jong standard and use all US Missiles and launchers, then they will have all of the fire power of the Ticos...a more stable and longer life platform, and I still believe they may be able to fit one AGS on the forward deck. If not, then the newer caliber 127mm guns will work fine. Those vessels will excel in area defence and BMD, and will also be able to handle the war at sea, anti-surface role, ASW roles, as well as moderate gun support roles.

The intend 12-24 of them because they are not sure how quickly the newer technology envisioned for the CGX will be ready, like the PMM.

Two different roles and two different vessels.

And, with the requirements for heavy shore support of amphibious operations not being something at this point in history that is required on any kind of regular or mass scale, three should be fine (though I would prefer six)...and allow the US to have a CGX-like test platform to introduce the lasers and rail guns as they become availabe.
 
Last edited:
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Hey Jeff I noticed the DDG 1000 Zumalt don't have a bulb or bump where they house the sonar in the bow section. Where did they put it on this one? Oh and thanks for all your good answers.:)
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Equation said:
Hey Jeff I noticed the DDG 1000 Zumalt don't have a bulb or bump where they house the sonar in the bow section. Where did they put it on this one? Oh and thanks for all your good answers.:)
Click to expand...
As
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
states rgearding the planned ASW capabilities:

Integrated Undersea Warfare (IUSW) - The IUSW incorporates two types of sonar arrays in one automated system. The high frequency sonar provides in-stride mine avoidance capabilities, while the medium frequency sonar optimizes anti-submarine and torpedo defense operations. The use of sophisticated target algorithms better enables the Zumwalt Destroyer to engage enemy submarines and, at the same time, minimize crew headcount requirements. The sonar that will be required to achieve this goal includes the following:

Sonar - A dual-band sonar controlled by a highly automated computer system will be used to detect mines and submarines. The arrangemtn will be optimized for littoral Anti-submarine warfare and will include:.

- A hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar (AN/SQS-60)
- A hull-mounted high-frequency sonar (AN/SQS-61)
- A multi-function towed array sonar and handling system (AN/SQR-20)


So, there will be hull mounted sonars. They probably have not attached them yet...or they have come up with some new way of incorporating them into the hull that I am unaware of at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top