US Navy DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class

Jeff Head · Dec 6, 2017

Jura said:
... and this is the problem, because the USN is not just loosing money (OK they'll throw away even more for 26 LCS etc.), it's also loosing the slots for building destroyers which would work, and I don't mean "eventually" or "ultimately" work, what I mean are new Burkes

the USN has readiness issue, and has numbers issue; the USN should get real or it'll effectively keep shrinking

as for the Zumwalts, you might want to read the USNI News Yesterday at 7:51 AM

they're looking for "cost-effective plan" how to actually use them now!! since they don't have money for bullets, don't have bigger missiles for Mk57 VLS etc.

the brass of course spinning the situation into success:
“What’s exciting about this [is] we’re starting to create a repository of knowledge that we can use to reiterate as we need to go along,”

Jura, I am verty aware of the Zumwalts and their shortcomings.

Most of those have been proejected on them by politicians and political appointees.

But the design of the ship, and its capabilites and technology are still good and if new people can get into those ships with clear militrary minds, they can be VERY effective aand earth skaking. And set the basis and stage for future classes of ships that are built in numbers.

I am hoping and praying that happens.

As I say, their design, the technology they do have, and the otential technology that can be mated with their design and their power plant are simply amazing...we just have to do it.

In order to do so...we have to drain the swamp and get some actual, realistic and capable and experienced military people back in a position to do the things that need to be done.

In the meant time, we keep building Burkes and gett to the Flight III and build 20 or so of them.

FORBIN · Dec 6, 2017

Jeff Head said:
Jura, I am verty aware of the Zumwalts and their shortcomings.

Most of those have been proejected on them by politicians and political appointees.

But the design of the ship, and its capabilites and technology are still good and if new people can get into those ships with clear militrary minds, they can be VERY effective aand earth skaking. And set the basis and stage for future classes of ships that are built in numbers.

I am hoping and praying that happens.

As I say, their design, the technology they do have, and the otential technology that can be mated with their design and their power plant are simply amazing...we just have to do it.

In order to do so...we have to drain the swamp and get some actual, realistic and capable and experienced military people back in a position to do the things that need to be done.

In the meant time, we keep building Burkes and gett to the Flight III and build 20 or so of them.

Especialy the hull can serve for a futur CG(X) for 2030 - 35 replacing the last 11 Ticonderoga, the first 11 by Burke Flight IIa/III but infact Flight III with its more powerful and very good SPY-6(V) AMDR make completely sense this Burke variants effectively replace first Ticos and the radar make possible to exploit the very long range of the SM-6 240 km sure but i see up to 460 -500 ?
I think logic Ticonderoga and Burke Flight III are armed in priority with SM-6.

In more with AGM-158C replacing in fact Tomahawk retired Burke get a 2nd very long stick good missile chepaer USAF buy AGM-158 for only 500000 $ unit
Only weakness no supersonic ( initialy planned ) and never Western countries except Taiwan and soon Japan with ASM-3 have build such missiles i hope a Perseus i ike this idea to replace with British MM-40 and Harpoons.

Waiting new CG don't forget Burke are in fact with almost 10000 t and 96 - 98 missiles more close than a CG than a DDG if you compare with a true DDG by ex 052D which very good but Burke have + 33 % of missiles and mainly much more capable for ASW with 2 very good MH-60R vs only one Z-9C small or Ka-28 clearly less good and maybe there the 055 with later 2 Z-18F provide a change... but very few Z-18F build and not sure have a also good submerged sonar than MH-60R renowned excellent FLASH sonar.

I have now commissionning dates approxm. for first DDG 124 - 126, 2023 and 2024

Ultra · Dec 7, 2017

Is it just me or I am having deja-vu all over again?

All the below systems are employing what's called "spiral development" and they are all spiraling out of control !!

F-35 - too many to mention.....
Gerald R. Ford-class CVN
Zumwalt-Class

THAAD

All of them have weapons or sub-systems that are NOT THERE, untested technologies... host of problems not solved in design but yet went to delivery....and all of them are spiraling out of budget control.

Also from Forbes:
How To Waste $100 Billion: Weapons That Didn't Work Out

"The Army has been the biggest offender in recent times, probably because it was awash in money appropriated for fighting ground wars in Asia. It walked away from a mobile cannon called Crusader in 2002 after spending $2 billion on developing it because Army leaders decided it was too heavy to fit with their plans for a more mobile force. Eight years later it canceled a potential successor system after spending $1.2 billion. In 2004 it killed the Comanche next-generation "armed reconnaissance" helicopter, squandering $7 billion in sunk costs, then a few years later it canceled the proposed replacement -- incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in additional losses. It also has moved to terminate both of its next-generation air defense systems because threats "didn't evolve as expected," and now seems to be getting cold feet about its second try at buying a plane that can identify hostile radio emitters on the battlefield.

The Army's biggest budgetary mis-step was a family of networked air and ground vehicles collectively called the Future Combat

System. Although prime contractor Boeing managed to keep the program on schedule and on budget through a series of restructures, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates decided in 2009 that the project wasn't ready for prime-time and canceled it after a staggering $19 billion had already been spent. Bloomberg Business News subsequently reported that the service had wasted $32 billion on doomed weapons projects since 1995."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This Zumwalt class will be a dud.
They will make 5 at most, then scrap the rest. It will sail a few times like an expensive glass yacht, and never see combat.

Jeff Head · Dec 8, 2017

Ultra said:
Is it just me or I am having deja-vu all over again?

All the below systems are employing what's called "spiral development" and they are all spiraling out of control !!

F-35 - too many to mention.....
Gerald R. Ford-class CVN
Zumwalt-Class

THAAD

All of them have weapons or sub-systems that are NOT THERE, untested technologies... host of problems not solved in design but yet went to delivery....and all of them are spiraling out of budget control.

Also from Forbes:
How To Waste $100 Billion: Weapons That Didn't Work Out

"The Army has been the biggest offender in recent times, probably because it was awash in money appropriated for fighting ground wars in Asia. It walked away from a mobile cannon called Crusader in 2002 after spending $2 billion on developing it because Army leaders decided it was too heavy to fit with their plans for a more mobile force. Eight years later it canceled a potential successor system after spending $1.2 billion. In 2004 it killed the Comanche next-generation "armed reconnaissance" helicopter, squandering $7 billion in sunk costs, then a few years later it canceled the proposed replacement -- incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in additional losses. It also has moved to terminate both of its next-generation air defense systems because threats "didn't evolve as expected," and now seems to be getting cold feet about its second try at buying a plane that can identify hostile radio emitters on the battlefield.

The Army's biggest budgetary mis-step was a family of networked air and ground vehicles collectively called the Future Combat

System. Although prime contractor Boeing managed to keep the program on schedule and on budget through a series of restructures, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates decided in 2009 that the project wasn't ready for prime-time and canceled it after a staggering $19 billion had already been spent. Bloomberg Business News subsequently reported that the service had wasted $32 billion on doomed weapons projects since 1995."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This Zumwalt class will be a dud.
They will make 5 at most, then scrap the rest. It will sail a few times like an expensive glass yacht, and never see combat.

Time will tell.

But do not count on your toughts that they are duds.

The ZUmwalts have been turned into a shadow of what they should be by eight years of a very liberal, socialistic administration and their party which sucessfully ultiatley lobbied to cut them down to just three units

But those three units are going to be ground breakers and they will establish future actions because of the technology they are bringing to the fore.

...and the US Navy will ultimately equip them to be warfighters and will use them is needed.

The F-35 speaks for itself. The costs have come down just like they said they would. This week Israel announced IOC for its first squadron of aircraft.

The US will build 2400-2500 of them for its own use and they will be the pre-eminant 5th generation strike fighter in the world with our allies buyng near or over 1,000 more.

The Ford carriers will be the new generation carrieres that will establish the ground breaking technology for carriers that others wil desire nut not be able to afford...except for potetnially China whom I believe will seek to immulate many of the cutting edge designs and technologies in the Ford class.

The LCS are a disappointment...but it the plan to uparm them goes through and if they also build the 20+ actual FFGs, that damage wll be mitigated

There is no other Navy on earth that has the equipment or the operational experience that the US has.

it is the force to be reckoned with...or for our allies, to work with...and to immulate. And many nations like Japan, Korea, and numerous European nations have molded their navies around being able to work with and support the US Navy. We see that happening in a big way with the Royal Navy right now even as they downsize.

So...I reckon the negativity you express will prove out over the long term to simply not be accurate.

But, as i say, tme will tell..

Jura The idiot · Dec 8, 2017

Analyst: With ballooning costs for a smaller Navy, can it really afford 355 ships?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"If Congress and the military don’t correct course, they could face a readiness and force structure “death spiral,” where increasing costs and over-committed forces could cause the military to collapse under its own weight." is what I meant with:
Wednesday at 7:48 AM

Jura said:
...

the USN has readiness issue, and has numbers issue; the USN should get real or it'll effectively keep shrinking

...

and now I add the USN should stop kidding itself with "an RCS of a fishing boat", railguns or lasers while it can't afford to procure bigger missiles for Mk57 etc., and while the USN is loosing money for LCS PORK Jul 10, 2017

Jura said:
Jul 1, 2017

... details emerging:

"On May 23, the U.S. Navy rolled out its 2018 budget request that included one littoral combat ship, or LCS. The logic was that since Congress had given the Navy three in fiscal year 2017, an additional one would keep both builders — Wisconsin-based Marinette Marine and Alabama-based Austal USA — afloat.

But inside the White House, alarm bells went off in some sectors. Peter Navarro, the head of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade and industrial policy office, was looking at information indicating one ship could trigger layoffs at both shipyards. Those concerns were shared by senior Trump aides Rick Dearborn and Stephen Miller — both old hands of long-time Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions — and together they lobbied and prevailed upon Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to add a second ship to the request."

Life support: The Navy's struggle to define a LCS bare minimum
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

goes on below due to size limit

anyway here's the article I linked on top:

The Navy wants 355 ships but budget trends raise questions about whether it could even afford to operate and maintain a fleet of that size, an influential defense budget analyst said Thursday.

Since 1997, the cost of operating and maintaining a shrinking fleet has skyrocketed, said Todd Harrison, a budget guru with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

A new report co-authored by CSIS researcher Seamus Daniels that analyzes the 2018 budget submission shows that between the peak defense budget year, 1987, and 1997, the number of ships declined by 40 percent and the budget fell by about 35 percent. But between 1997 and 2015, the size of the fleet shrank another 20 percent, but the base budget grew by nearly 50 percent.

“So now the Navy wants to grow to 355 ships, that puts the Navy roughly at the level it was in FY-97, and the question is: is that affordable?” Harrison said in a round-table with reporters. “Even once we acquire all the platforms, can we afford to operate and sustain them given these trends? Especially if these trends continue, the operations and support costs are going to eat the budget alive.”

Harrison’s report outlined a similar concern for the other services. For example, the Army’s 2018 budget request would put funding levels for the service back at 1992 levels, but for a force that’s 24 percent smaller than it was at the end of the Cold War.

Harrison puts the blame on rising personnel costs and a ballooning operations and maintenance budget. O&M, in addition to maintaining hardware and paying for deployments, also pays for civilian workers in shipyards and maintenance depots, and for military health-care costs that are notoriously hard to contain.

Maintaining old equipment still in use after 16 years of war is becoming more and more expensive, and the kicker is that the equipment that’s coming online is even more expensive to maintain and operate than the old equipment it’s replacing.

Harrison said he’s waiting for more details on how the administration plans to pay for growing the force when their forthcoming defense strategy documents are released, though he concurred with testimony from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis that it will likely take between 3 and 5 percent growth over inflation to grown and sustain the force Trump said he wants.

“It’s one thing to campaign on 355 ships, 540,000 in the active Army and 1,200 active fighters in the Air Force — I think they are going to have to flesh that out more,” he said.

Death spiral

If Congress and the military don’t correct course, they could face a readiness and force structure “death spiral,” where increasing costs and over-committed forces could cause the military to collapse under its own weight.

“What happens is you have higher operations and sustainment costs in your force, and that then means you can only afford a smaller force,” he explained.

“And when you have a smaller force and you have the same operational demands that means a higher operations tempo and more stress on your forces. Which then drives your operations and sustainment costs even higher, which then leads you to reduce the size of your force even more, which can get you into a death spiral.”

Harrison pointed to the recent collisions in 7th Fleet as anecdotal evidence that over-commitment was already having a real impact on the force.

“If you’re reading between the lines in these reports that have come out about these accidents, clearly they didn’t have the proper training to operate their equipment,” he said “Why didn’t they have the proper training? It looks like it was because of the op-tempo.

“They were out to sea, doing real-world operations so much that they didn’t dedicate enough time for training. And there is evidence of that across all our services.”

The military will have to either find significant savings through more efficient spending (which has been tried and has failed repeatedly) or cut back on global commitments stressing the force, Harrison said.

Jura The idiot · Dec 8, 2017

just the last paragraph here:

What's most frustrating it that it's impossible that the Navy wasn't aware of these issues and this type of potential outcome as it rabidly stripped missions and capabilities from the the class during its development cycle, keeping the program roughly on track, but making it increasingly less relevant in the process. It was a conscious and avoidable decision as we have highlighted in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and now we will have to wait and see if these ships can win what will be a bloody fiscal battle to keep them in play.

from the article I now noticed which is The Navy Is Changing Its Plans for its Dumbed-Down Zumwalts and Their Ammoless Guns
December 5, 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Jura The idiot · Dec 9, 2017

Jeff Head said:
Jura, I am verty aware of the Zumwalts and their shortcomings.

...

... Equipment Failure Cuts Short Stealthy Destroyer Sea Trials
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The second
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
being built for the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
cut short its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
because an equipment failure prevented testing of propulsion and electrical systems under full power, officials said Friday.

The problem during builder trials was discovered Tuesday, a day after the future USS Michael Monsoor left Bath Iron Works, the Navy said.

The Monsoor returned to the shipyard under its own power Thursday and will return to sea after the problem is fixed, the Navy said. The repairs are not expected to impact the ship's delivery in March.

The first-in-class Zumwalt experienced propulsion problems with seawater leaking into the system that have been repaired.

The Monsoor's problem was electrical in nature, with the loss of an induction coil causing the failure of another system. The shipbuilder decided it would be more efficient to make the fix at the yard.

The third and final ship in the class is the Lyndon B. Johnson. It's also under construction at Bath Iron Works.

Jura The idiot · Dec 10, 2017

Yesterday at 6:04 PM

Jura said:
... Equipment Failure Cuts Short Stealthy Destroyer Sea Trials
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

through

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
"On Tuesday, the DDG 1001, the future USS Michael Monsoor, “experienced an equipment failure to a harmonic filter after loss of an induction coil, impacting the ship’s ability to test propulsion and electrical systems at full power,” Colleen E. O’Rourke, spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command, said Friday in an email to the Bangor Daily News."

Jura The idiot · Dec 10, 2017

Tuesday at 7:51 AM

Jura said:
I facepalmed several times while now reading
New Requirements for DDG-1000 Focus on Surface Strike
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

transformational game changing revolutionary concurrency product = 20+b ~~trash~~ unprecedented success

things got better with this French connection:

Dans cette optique, et des rares mots prononcés au sujet de cette nouvelle hypothèse d'emploi opérationnel, c'est presque la description exacte de la manière dont pu être engagées les frégates La Fayette dans des exercices nationaux ou multinationaux : tirant parti de leur furtivité intrinsèque, jouant sur l'effet de surprise, une frégate de cette classe simulait le lancement d'une salve de missiles anti-navires sur une force navale découvrant trop tard que le si faible écho sur le radar dissimulait une frégate. Les Zumwalt pourraient prétendre à remplir le même rôle, en avant d'une force navale, déplaçant 13 000 tonnes de plus qu'une FLF pour la même mission.

"From this perspective, and the few words spoken about this new operational use hypothesis, it is almost the exact description of how the La Fayette frigates were engaged in national or multinational exercises: taking advantage of their stealth Intrinsic, playing on the effect of surprise, a frigate of this class simulated the launch of a salvo of anti-ship missiles on a naval force discovering too late that the low echo on the radar concealed a frigate. The Zumwalt could claim to fulfill the same role, ahead of a naval force, moving 13,000 tons more than an FLF for the same mission."
Les Zumwalt, pièces maîtresses de trois SAC à dominante anti-navires ?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LOL!

Jura The idiot · Dec 12, 2017

Dec 5, 2017

Jura said:
I facepalmed several times while now reading
New Requirements for DDG-1000 Focus on Surface Strike
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

transformational game changing revolutionary concurrency product = 20+b ~~trash~~ unprecedented success

now facepalmed again: "The Navy is working to change the mission of the planned $23-billion three-ship class from a land-attack platform that would support troops ashore to a surface-strike platform to conduct stealthy anti-surface warfare."
Electrical Problems Shorten Second Zumwalt-class Destroyer’s Builders Trials
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Problems with the complex electrical system on the second-in-class Zumwalt destroyer ended builders trails early and forced the ship to return to the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipyard in Maine, according to a statement from Naval Sea Systems Command.
According to NAVSEA, a harmonic filter aboard Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) failed one day after the ship left the yard on Dec. 4. The ship returned to the yard on Dec. 5.

Harmonic filters are used in complex electrical systems to prevent unintended power fluctuations from damaging sensitive equipment.

The loss of the filter prevented the ship from running its complicated electric drive system at full power as part of the testing that was intended to be carried out during the trials.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
first reported the trials were abbreviated due to a mechanical issue last week.

NAVSEA said the delay in sea trials would not affect Monsoor’s expected March 2018 delivery.

The heart of the Zumwalt-class is a complex electric grid that’s powered by two Rolls Royce MT-30 gas turbines and two Rolls Royce MT-5 auxiliary gas turbines. The Integrated Power System can generate more than 75 megawatts of power and drive a complex electrical grid that powers the ship’s systems and massive electric motors to move the ship in the water. The amount of electricity generated and routed on the Zumwalt-class is unprecedented in any other non-nuclear surface ship.

USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) was delayed in delivering to the Navy in 2016 after a series of complex tests into the electrical system took longer than expected. While underway from Maine to its new homeport at Naval Station San Diego, Calif., Zumwalt suffered several delays due to unpredicted problems in its IPS system that were corrected earlier this year.

The Navy is working to change the mission of the planned $23-billion three-ship class from a land-attack platform that would support troops ashore to a surface-strike platform to conduct stealthy anti-surface warfare.

US Navy DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class

Jeff Head

General

FORBIN

Lieutenant General

Ultra

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General

Jura The idiot

General

Jura The idiot

General

Jura The idiot

General

Jura The idiot

General

Jura The idiot

General

Jura The idiot

General