DD(X) to be the DDG 1000 ‘Zumwalt’ class
07 Apr 2006
Navy Designates Next-Generation Zumwalt Destroyer
The Navy has announced that the first DD(X) destroyer will be designated DDG 1000. As the lead ship in the class, it will also be named in honor of former Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Elmo R. “Bud” Zumwalt, Jr.
For more information on Admiral Zumwalt, see the DefenseLINK release.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
The Zumwalt class fills an immediate and critical naval-warfare gap, meeting validated Marine Corps fire support requirements’ I think it would have been more accurate to say: ‘The Zumwalt class will attempt to offer less then adequate capabilities for the Marine Corps fire support requirements, which no one in the Navy gives a damn about anyway.’
April 7th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Steve: But what ships out there could possilby provide better fire support? [Murdoc ducks for cover]
April 7th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
DDX is more battle cruiser than like the tin cans of WW 2, in size and function, but pretty cool nonetheless!
April 7th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Naming any ship after Mr ‘Z’Gram, is a total waste. Naming a garbage dump after him is totally appropriate. I still remember the Zgram setting a limit on how long naval personnel could wait in line to buy stuff at ship’s stores. Time must have washed away his stupidity.
April 7th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Fellers, Yeah… ‘Z’ grams.. I swear he and Jimmy Carter graduated from the same school of micro-management. No detail was too minute for those clowns to not take an interest in. I got into a mild fracas one day at Bethesda Naval Hospital by suggesting that perhaps they could send a couple of their best proctologists over to the White House to take a look up the Presdents butt and see if they could locate his head….. The Corpsmen were near hysterical, but the Doc was less than amused:) I dunno.. I personally think this vessel has the same usefulness as the Osprey. We’ve got a couple of excellent 16′ gun platforms sitting in reserve that could be brought out, and beleive you me, no raghead speedboat would damage those heavies. What the Navy needs is monitors and patrol gunboats, riverine forces, not some cyber-yacht with guns. Respects, AW1 Tim
April 7th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
EVERYTHING is concealment with 16-inchers, mo!
April 8th, 2006 at 3:17 am
Sigh – the Marines are doomed. As a random nugget – Its a practical impossibility to make the DD(X) a stealth ship. An aircraft can have stealth because while a stealth craft can be detected by long wave length radar – long wave length radar lacks sufficent resolution to accurately track the plane. A couple of seconds of error means you miss the plane by quarter mile. Over the time of typical engagement, this positional error would render your missiles/guns ineffective. Conversely a couple of seconds error vs the DD(X) creates a positional error of 50 feet. Since a DD(X) is several hundred feet long, the resolution error is not significant enough to place the DD(X) out of the weapons engagement zone. Thus you can use long wavelength radar to guide the missile near the DD(X) so that the missile to self target the DD(X) via optical or IR recognition.
April 8th, 2006 at 4:53 am
Navy renames Zumwalt Class reuters 3 months from today In response to the ever upward cost spiral of the formerly named DDX class destroyer, the recently renamed Zumwalt Class destroyer has been renamed once again. The new class will now be called the ‘SuperPatriot’ class, and Republicans vowed to call anyone who questioned the 10 billion dollar price tag a traitor. Rejected from the revised naming list: ‘If Your Not With Us Your Against Us’ Class the ‘All American’ Class the ‘Spreading Democracy’ Class and the ‘Bush Legacy’ Class In honor of the new name, the first ship of the Class will name be named the Carl Rove in honor of all the lobbyists who made this ship possible.
April 8th, 2006 at 6:38 am
’sif it would be any different if the dhimmicrats were in power… It’d just be different pockets the kickbacks ended up in…
April 8th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Aren’t we getting 2 ships for the price of one? CG(X) is exactly the same as DD(X), sans the fire support. They both have same hull, same systems, except one carries more missils and the other carries 2 heavy cannons. Also, whats the obsession with 16′ers on the BB’s? This isnt WWII.
April 8th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Fellers, The desire to see the BB’s return has nothing to do with nostalgia and everything to do with both economics and efficiency. The Navy put out this bogus finacial study about how much more cost effective the DDX program was going to be, it had computers and fewer crew, etc. What they didn’t factor in was all of the design and tooling costs, the pre-planning and prte-production costs involved. The DDX program has already run close to a billion dollars and there isn’t a ship on the ways yet. Not one bit of steel has been cut. Meanwhile, 2 excellent BB’s are sitting idle in mothballs that could have been brought out, spruced up and manned for considerably less and already in the fleet. The purpose of naval offshore fire support is to provide H&I fires for Marine ashore, to cover the landings, assist in securing the beachhead and providing security fires against counter attacks. The only job of the Marines is to secure the beach and an initial strip of land, about 10 miles or so inland. Everything else is the job of the Army. Now, that doesn’t always work out that way, but that’s generally the plan. The 16′ guns of the BB’s have an effective range of 27nm. They could sit 7 miles offshore and still provide artillery support 20 miles inland. RAP rounds increase that to almost 40. Additional support comes from the 5′ twin mounts, and the Tomahawk cruise missles carried onboard. targeting comes from a variety of sources, including Predator drones, helos, FAC’s, sattelites, etc. These gun platforms are EXTREMELY accurate, as accurate as anything the Army currently has. Why then, with these platforms availble NOW, does the Navy want to gin up a whole new platform, and with a paltry gun system to boot. The DDX is nothing more than a works program for General Dynamics and Litton Industries and Bath Iron Works. It’s as useful as tits on a boar hog. The BB platform proved itself well in the last Gulf War. In fact, it’s got fewer miles on it, including service in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc, than some of the DD’s currently in the fleet. Nothing short of a Nuke is going to penetrate the hull side or the turret glacis, and no one has the tech yet to shoot down a 16′ shell in flight. Respects, AW1 Tim
April 8th, 2006 at 11:02 am
What is the obsession with 5-inchers? This isn’t the spanish-american war…
April 8th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
If fire support is the argument for these super expensive DDX’s- why not retrofit the guns onto the existing fleet? Why else do we need these ships?
April 8th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
maybe because those guns take up vast amounts of power that are provided by the electric drive is it just me, or do u people fail to remember that this is the 21st century? stealth is a must have, as the enemy wouldnt know where the fire support platform is (for those saying that ship stealth is a total waste, are u implying that the Sea Shadow and Arleigh Burke are failures? i think the navy knows more about these things than you) the DDX is also good cuz, unlike the BBs, it can be retrofitted with laser, microwave, or rail gun weaponry. anybody who says these will not come out is like saying the SR-71 will be a failure before it comes out, can anybody say MIRACL or THEL? and why the hell do we need 16 inch guns? those things didnt have guidance, im sure the shell size was a form of compromise. look, u guys seem to forget that a 6 inch shell can cause havoc with its guidance. look at falluja, when the army and marines needed air support, they rarely used 2000 pound bombs, and instead used 500 pound bombs, and the next form will be the 250 SDB. the size of the explosive does not matter anymore. besides, i would like to ask, are marines more than 27 miles from the shore of the iraqi gulf coast? well yea they are. so how do u get fire support from a BB with 27 mile range when u can get fire support with 100 mile range, and maybe even more. also, lets not forget that the AAAV is designed to travel 30 mph for 60 miles on water not only to get its marines to the shore quicker, but also to keep the amphib or transport ship at a good distance from some attack. the BBs are obsolete no matter how u look at them. a 16 inch shell in urban warfare is like a 2000 pound bomb. if ur firesquad is 100 feet away or so, and there is no air support of artillery, do u want a naval 16 inch shell taking the enemy or u out, or do u want a gps guided 6 inch shell? btw, the DDX is meant to provide even better support, situational awareness, and protection for a CBG. would a BB be able to provide that?
April 8th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Shipmate Livio, Before you start ragging on the posters, it might help if you stopped using text messaging format and started using real words. I stand by every word I posted. I spent my career in the Navy and can tell you that the primary Navy support mission for the Marines, is getting them ashore safely and supporting them until they can either support themselves or sufficient Army forces are placed ashore to relieve the Marines. That’s fact. The best gunfire support platform currently in the inventory is still the Iowa class battleship. In fact, it was designed for two missions. One was slugging it out with Japanese battleships and surviving, and two, providing long range gunfire support for landing operations. That area of supporting fire is normally considered to be 20 miles inland. After that, close air support is used, or the landing force’s own artillery. That Marines find themselves many miles from shore is also a fact, but no Naval gun system will support them at that distance, despite all the science fiction literature you’ve read. That’s what close air support is for, and it works damned well. The 16 has extremely accurate targeting. Accurate to within 10 meters at full distance. It’s also reassuring to have 9 rounds of that calibre on call if needs be. The point I’m making here is that, as I said, the DDX isn’t near what folks think it’ll be. I live right across the street from Bath Iron Works. I talk with their designers every day. I also talk with Navy personell who question just who, exactly, asked for this damned ship in the first place. No ship should be built because we can build it, or because we can add all these whizz-bang systems to it. It should be built because there is a valid and pressing need, either current or envisaged, and frankly, neither exist at present. respects, AW1 Tim
April 8th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Someone (I forget who) gave us a link in the comments of an earlier post to a feasability study of fitting the DD(X)’s new gun to existing ships (Destroyers) I think. It was perfectly feasable. It involved running the ship’s three generators to provide enough power, instead of two running and one on standby. It also involved beefing up some cabling and water pumps. They even showed how you could easily splice the structure into the hull and what it would cost. Yes, it’s possible to fit this miraculous DD(X) gun into an existing ship for testing and/or actual use. If it’s so wonderful why aren’t they doing it? (Or are they – and it’s classified? Hard to know that.)
April 8th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Dear Mr. AW1 Tim, despite what you said, i still do not see the point of keeping a BB. and before i go on, i would like to tell you that since i am 18 and really used to texting on the phone and currently enjoying a much earned spring break from senior year, i have every right to write this way :P. anyway, my argument focuses on things that people overlook. for one, the stealth of a DDX is a much needed factor. As i read before, the idea of a cargo plane carrying cruise missles was shelved because a future enemy would be capable of possesing a very long range ‘double digit’ SAM. what did congress have to say about this? they brought the fruitition of the B-3 to 2018 and not 2036 or whenever. what is the B-3? the next generation STEALTH bomber. for one thing, this shows that stealth is very much needed. so a huge BB that shows up on radar would attract a lot more attention than a DDX that appears like a baseball or even a basketball on radar. another thing, the BBs 16 inch shells are still way too much overkill. enemy forces are no longer in the open or we are no longer shelling islands and whole cities. precision targeting is a must, and if the air force is downsizing their weapon load from 2000 pound bombs to 500 and 250 pounders, dont u think it is because the men on the frontlines asked for that? as i said, wouldnt you agree that the 500 pound bomb was of much greater use in falluja than a 2000 pound bomb? by the time the DDX comes out, the guidance would be much better, and would provide just as accurate firing as a 250 to 5000 pound gps bomb. 16 inch shells are used for wide area firing. they have to be, considering they leave massive craters and large explosions. as i stated before, if u are TL of a fireteam, would u want you’re mean in jeopardy because u have to retreat to a safe enough position, or is you’re position ok because the blasting effects of the shell are not overkill. i can go on and on. it is a floating artillery peice, nothing else. saying we dont need a 155mm shell coming from a boat as firesupport 100 miles out is like saying we need to upgrade our own M109 and XM177 peices because the shells are too small. 155mm are just right, ask any army soldier or marine. i know i have as i live by a bunch of marines. while i may not experience in the military, i do listen to people’s thoughts, research a lot, visit coronado a lot, and play full spectrum warrior alot :P. best regards, livio
April 8th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
The backfit study on the AGS https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/3531/2/AGS+Conversion+Study.pdf The AGS gun is modular system. Virtually any ship with sufficent power. (1MW) can operate the system. Now for those who care a 1MW generator can fit in a standard container. (indeed there is nice market for ‘portable’ generators.) So with a little forsight you could make a AGS module for the LCS (complete with its own generator) and there you go. That said, the DD(X) is a dick wagging exercise. With the AGS being the main ‘objective’ reason for building the thing. Yet when congree decreed that they were not going write blank check for the ship, the first modification was to decrease the ammo supply from 600 rounds to 300 rounds. The AGS itself is a vaporware gun. Its claim to fame is its 100NM range use the LRLAP round. Lastest headline -$120M to Lockheed from BAE for Long-Range Naval Artillery Shells. Look into the artical and see the end product – more then a 100 rounds to be produced. Hmmm oh boy shells that cost just over a 1 million to produce. Lets load up with them. Its applied physics in action. In order to get extreme performance from a small shell you have to supply extreme sums of cash. (yes- I know once they go into full production the cost will fall. but they still will cost far more then what they are worth. You can retrofit a dumb bomb with a 25k kit. Even if you factor in flight time costs – the LRLAP round is not cost effective) The DD(X) is a ship without a mission. Yet it has everyone’s wish list on board so its a super ship. Its has stealth (besides the fact that stealth on a 800 foot ship is an exercise of futility) Its has a powerfull dual bank active radar. (negates the stealth but who cares) It has a powerfull activa sonar. (negates the sound masking systems, but who cares) It has an all composite superstructure for stealth & keeping the ship light. Sounds great, but now the ships damage control ability is compromised becasue you can’t really fix composite structures in the field. Fire control can be problematic depending on the composite and resin types. Resistance to damage is a contradiction in terms when applied to structures built to be light. For those who say that the DD(X) is needed because of the future (rail guns, microwave blah blah) This is a vapor ware arguement. Let buy X because in theory 20 years down the road we can install vaporware (insert name here) Backfitting newer systems in old machines has been going on forever. In theory you could backfit the AGS on to the USS Constitution. With the current tech advances (read moor’s law) I am willing to take the gamble that it might cost a bit more to upgrade a more capable ship then the DD(X)when these new gadgets come out.
April 8th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
I dont want to be harsh: But you guys are FLIPPIN ridiculous to ever consider pressing the BBs into service! 1. They are manpower intensive. 2. They have been proven obsolete in Naval Surface Warfare (See: World War II) 3. They are over 60 years old. 4. There is no manufacturing base to support them. (Gun liners, engine parts, etc.) 5. They are inherently easy to cripple. (See: USS Arizona, Bismarck, etc.) An enemy missile through the top deck can cause magazine detonations and 1000s of dead sailors. In missile combat they are essentially princesses on the battlefield requiring protection from a multitude of other assets. 6. There are only 2 remaining! Let’s face it. It seems to me people love the BB’s for ludicrous reasons. When was the last time the USMC ever performed a landing that the enemy tried to deny? Also, there is airpower to consider. A Carrier’s strike wing with todays hyperwar weapons can accurately and simultaneously knock out any enemy’s defense and military capabilities. Hell, a few F/A-18Es with JSOWs (with anti-armor submunitions) can take out an entire enemy tank division alone. With F-35C, F-35B, AH-1Zs, F/A-18E/Fs, the USMC and USN have a massively powerful air attack system that easily outranges a Battleship and is also useful in other areas. DD(X) points: 1. Manpower reduction. 2. Multi-role: Air Defense, Fire Support, ASW, Anti-ship. All in one package. 3. 20 DD(X)s can be in more places than two BBs. 4. Two ships for the price of one. DD(X) and CG(X) will both use the same hullform, missile systems, electric drives, sensor platforms. CG(X) will be larger and carry more missiles as well as lighter cannons for short range surface actions. DD(X) will carry the big guns for fire support. This is analogous to the F-22A/F-35 projects. The F-35 is far cheaper due to expertise and technology gained from the F-22A. I think thats it…
April 8th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
so who said that making a 800 foot ship stealth is impossible? and who said that the dual band radar is will negate stealth ‘does the Raptor’s active radar negate it’s stealth, NO!) and how the hell will the sonar negate the stealth, when seawolf and virginia class submarines have a similar sonar. and who said that the composite would be flimsy? last i heard, composites are stronger than steel. about the LRLAP round, who said it would be slow? i think it is quicker than communicating with an aircraft, establishing coordinates, wait for the aircraft, then wait for bomb. with a ship, point the piece, let it rip. so yea thats right, lets just back fit everything into existing ships. forget about any new ship, infact, why do u have nimitz carriers and ticonderoga cruisers and arleigh burke destroyers. i have an idea, why didnt we keep our good old ww2 ships and just retrofit everything. yeaa………cost effective u people lack vision sure it might not seem to work its what people said of the early northrop 1940s design of the now known B-2. and look at those foolish men designing a Mach 3.2 cruise aircraft called the sr-71, those people probably should not have had their vision because it was ‘proposterous’ let history decide what is right or not it always has
April 8th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Skrip is right, i didnt see his thing cuz i was too busy writing those too help the DDX
April 8th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Make love, not war. (:
April 8th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
I dont want to be harsh: But you guys are FLIPPIN ridiculous to ever consider pressing the B-52s into service! 1. They are manpower intensive. 2. They have been proven obsolete in High Altitude Strategic Nuclear Strike (See: Cold War) 3. They are about 50 years old. 4. There is a minimal manufacturing base to support them. (Wings, engines, etc.) 5. They are inherently easy to cripple. (See: Gary Power’s U2, etc.) An enemy missile through the fuselage can cause bomb detonations and several dead airmen. In missile combat they are essentially princesses of the skys requiring protection from a multitude of other assets. 6. There are only a couple of hundred remaining!
April 8th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Nicholas shoots…HE SCORES!!!! Seriously. Do I have to disable comments in any post that mentions DD(X) or battleships? LOL!
April 8th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
yea that argument works for the B-52 however, the B-52 is not supporting marines right in the beginning of combat with the threat of surface to surface sea skimming missles everywhere. atleast a stealth aircraft breaks the sam sites and air cover down. what about the BB, will it survive with all sorts of pop up surface threats in the very beggining of war? theres a reason why current doctrine is to use F-117, B-2, and F-22s until all air or surface threats are erased. i believe the navy would be wise to follow a similar suit.
April 8th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
everyone will always have both sides murdoch history will prove one side right lets wait and see
April 8th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Livio: There’s a long and storied history to the DD(X) vs. BB debate here on Murdoc Online. It’s usually fought with proper capitalizaion, complete sentences, and paragraph breaks, though…
April 8th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Well sorry, but I am doing my best to enjoy the break. lol And sorry for calling you Murdoch :P
April 8th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
No prob. Glad you stopped by. A couple of the regular DD(X) vs. BB ranters must be taking the weekend off, so a new ranter is very welcome. I’d hate for the spittle to not fly on a post where the DD(X) was mentioned.
April 8th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
I commented before on this issue in the last DD(X) rant, but I didn’t have time to keep commenting and only left 2. I have been coming to this site for atleast 2 years, albeit as a viewer. It’s a great place, hope you keep it up. :)
April 8th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
I think the bottom line is, sure the BBs are obsolete, but until someone can actually come up with something better that can sail *tomorrow* and actually deliver the goods… they’re it. It’s not that nobody could come up with a better ship than a 60 year old BB. It’s just that so far they don’t seem to have managed it. Even if the DD(X) lives up to all its promises I doubt it will replace 1/4 of a BB, and yet it will likely cost more to build than it will cost to revamp one of the old BBs and operate it for a few years at least.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
And I’m just trying to say that I think the days of large surface bombardments are over. In the next 6 years, when the first DD(X) is ready, I doubt the marines would need a BB platform. They didn’t need it during Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, I doubt they would need it for Iranian Freedom if it happens. All in all, the future is our best investment.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Were all the cruisers with big guns scapped already? Maybe they’d be a good compromise. (I get the feeling they’re all gone :().
April 8th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Fellers, Okay, one more time before my eyes start bleeding… The Navy’s financial comparison of the BB versus DDX was heavily slanted in favour of the DDX. One of the considerations was manpower levels. True enough, the DDX will have a significantly reduced crew. The monetary savings, however, are offset by longer watch periods, more duty cycles, and less efficiency in damage control and casualty situations. Having fewer men onboard means fewer men to fight fires, control flooding, make repairs underway, tend to crew casualties, etc. One advantage of a large crew was that when casualties were incurred, they were a smaller percentage of the crew, and the impact was thus lessened. Now, if you suffer just a few casualties, you have no one to replace them and efficiency goes down. Bad spiral there. The BB’s may be (and are, in fact) more than 60 years old, but that’s not a true indicator of their service life. They’ve got far fewer actual years at sea than some vessels currently in the fleet. they spent many years mothballed. The BB’s also had state of the art upgrades in electronics and comm systems, as well as Tomahawk box launchers, and CIWS gatling guns, as well as Sea Sparrow mounts added prior to the Gulf War. There’s also a helo deck aft. The vessels use the same bunker fuel as all current conventionally powered ships, although the Aegis use JP and jet turbines for main power plants. The DDX is an attempt to be all to everyone, and in that regard, it will fail. It does a lot of things, but none of them well. Sort of a ‘jack of all trades, yet master of none’. Everyone touts the ‘modular weapon system’. Cool. Neat. Been done before. That’s no reason to build a multi-million dollar vessel, however. The problem is that there is no current mission requirement for the DDX. None. Zip. It’s a scam to keep both the shipyards at Bath Maine and Pasquagula Mississippi up and running. Anyone bother to see who the player are there? Senator Trent Lott from Ms, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine. All biggies. All with lots of pull. Bath Iron Works is owned by General Dynamics, andf they have a sweetheart tax break with Maine to stay here. They are also the 2nd largest employer in the state, so there’s lots of incentive to keep production open. Litton Industries (Mississippi) is also a huge player in that state, and Senator Lott carries lots of sway and can also bring home the bacon to his constituents. I say again, aside from a jobs program, there is no clear mission for the DDX series. None. Respects, AW1 Tim
April 8th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Well, someone brought up a question over at Airborne Combat Engineer, which is this: Assuming we want to stop the genocide in Sudan, how would we achieve it logically? The poster was suggesting there’s no good way to fly troops in. No friendly airspace around it, nowhere to land. So my suggestion was to use the marines to secure a beachhead and airstrip and either float the rest in or fly them in after that. It seems like if that was going to happen, having a BB or two would be really handy. I also think a BB could be very useful in any conflict involving Iran, for various reasons. Seriously, why do you think such an effective weapon as shore bombardment is obsolete? It’s expensive and difficult to sustain the volume and power of fire a BB can deliver using aircraft for pulverising a target. It’s for when your targt Absolutely, Positively has to be Flattened Right Now. It sounds to me like you’re assuming the Marines will never have to perform an opposed amphibious assault ever again. I think that’s wishful thinking. You want all your bases to be covered, you never know what’s going to happen in the next conflict…
April 8th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Does that mean that my entire argument is null? No, infact I still think you’re wrong. :P I would like to reinstate my argument again. ‘Dear Mr. AW1 Tim, despite what you said, i still do not see the point of keeping a BB. and before i go on, i would like to tell you that since i am 18 and really used to texting on the phone and currently enjoying a much earned spring break from senior year, i have every right to write this way :P. anyway, my argument focuses on things that people overlook. for one, the stealth of a DDX is a much needed factor. As i read before, the idea of a cargo plane carrying cruise missles was shelved because a future enemy would be capable of possesing a very long range ‘double digit’ SAM. what did congress have to say about this? they brought the fruitition of the B-3 to 2018 and not 2036 or whenever. what is the B-3? the next generation STEALTH bomber. for one thing, this shows that stealth is very much needed. so a huge BB that shows up on radar would attract a lot more attention than a DDX that appears like a baseball or even a basketball on radar. another thing, the BBs 16 inch shells are still way too much overkill. enemy forces are no longer in the open or we are no longer shelling islands and whole cities. precision targeting is a must, and if the air force is downsizing their weapon load from 2000 pound bombs to 500 and 250 pounders, dont u think it is because the men on the frontlines asked for that? as i said, wouldnt you agree that the 500 pound bomb was of much greater use in falluja than a 2000 pound bomb? by the time the DDX comes out, the guidance would be much better, and would provide just as accurate firing as a 250 to 5000 pound gps bomb. 16 inch shells are used for wide area firing. they have to be, considering they leave massive craters and large explosions. as i stated before, if u are TL of a fireteam, would u want you’re mean in jeopardy because u have to retreat to a safe enough position, or is you’re position ok because the blasting effects of the shell are not overkill. i can go on and on. it is a floating artillery peice, nothing else. saying we dont need a 155mm shell coming from a boat as firesupport 100 miles out is like saying we need to upgrade our own M109 and XM177 peices because the shells are too small. 155mm are just right, ask any army soldier or marine. i know i have as i live by a bunch of marines. while i may not experience in the military, i do listen to people’s thoughts, research a lot, visit coronado a lot, and play full spectrum warrior alot :P. best regards, livio’ That said, it is true part of it is driven by money and jobs, but it is still a much better investment than a BB.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
WTF?!? Did this post suddenly turn into the DD(X) vs. BB bulletin board? This isn’t a chat room, you know. LOL! RE: Cruisers…ever since the deal to bring the USS Des Moines to Milwaukee fell through, I’ve been wondering about cruisers. That class featured rapid-fire 8′ guns and might be handy… I plan to do a post on the ship within a week or so if I can find time. In the meantime check this out: http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/000212.html
April 8th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
so who said that making a 800 foot ship stealth is impossible? …umm basic physics. Stealth works for planes becasue they are small and fast. Even then, Stealth works for shortwave radar not for longwave radar. and who said that the dual band radar is will negate stealth ‘does the Raptor’s active radar negate it’s stealth, NO!) … Standard Raptor tactics is for one plane to use its radar and data link to the others who ambush the target. Anycraft that is emitting radiation is detectable. … Dual band radar is a combination radar for wide search with the ability to target multiple objects. It is not the Raptors radar. and how the hell will the sonar negate the stealth, when seawolf and virginia class submarines have a similar sonar. … Yes they do, however in most instances they do not use the active sonar. Active sonar is beacon. and who said that the composite would be flimsy? last i heard, composites are stronger than steel. … Componsites are not flimsy, that said, composites in general tend to be harder, or stronger, but tend to be brittle. The issue raised is that field repair of composites in possible. Of course this ia an oversimplification. Steel is a remarkable materal who qualities in whole have not been matched. about the LRLAP round, who said it would be slow? … Basic ballistics. The Marine fire support requirement, requires that the flight time of the incomming round be less then a certain duration. The LRLAP round is a glide round. Meaning that it is shot high up and from there glides to the target. This is how they get around the physics of getting a small round a long distance. The LALARP a glide round, it is comparitively slow, thus it lacks the ability to penitrate hardened structures. Moreover, it has a relitively small warhead, so if you compare a LALARP round to a standard 155mm round, the 155mm round carries a greater payload. Bottomline – You make the ship to perform the mission. The B2 is a great bomber – you do not see it being use for air superiority. So if you are making a ship to be a land attack – then optimize it for land combat. Determine what your land attack requirement is, then design your ship to fullfill it. Not – as the Navy has done. State your ship requirements, then make up your land attack requirement to meet your ship design. Side note – Stealth on ships. You cannot make a ship ’stealthy’ if by that you mean the ability to operate in an enemy terriorty with impunity as the enemy sensors are unable to effectively target you. You can make a ship less observable – which in of itself is good thing. That said, you should make the primary defense of a ship be stealth. You end up making the ship a 1 hit wonder. As for retrofitting the BB to stealth. Did you know it is possible to make a BB dissapear from Radar/IR. All it takes is whole bunch of water hoses. You create basically a water wall around the ship.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
‘1. They are manpower intensive. 2. They have been proven obsolete in High Altitude Strategic Nuclear Strike (See: Cold War) 3. They are about 50 years old. 4. There is a minimal manufacturing base to support them. (Wings, engines, etc.) 5. They are inherently easy to cripple. (See: Gary Power’s U2, etc.) An enemy missile through the fuselage can cause bomb detonations and several dead airmen. In missile combat they are essentially princesses of the skys requiring protection from a multitude of other assets. 6. There are only a couple of hundred remaining!’ The B-52 however has global reach. Something the BB lacks. While there is minimal manufacturing to support them, there are a 1000 of them in AMARC that are used for parts. As for princesses in the sky… they can carry standoff cruise missiles. Not to mention a B-52 can hit anywhere within 36 hours. They have rapid deployment, spare parts, and adequate power projection.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Also, I though keeping America’s shipyards was a primary component for ship production. 90% of the time, the USN builds vessels it doesnt need just to keep buisiness open. DD(X) costs alot partly because of this. Shipyards need to offset costs, and when you build 1 ship per year, its going to be an expensive one. Thats why ships need to be built en masse, or not at all. We would get them cheaper because of this.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
There is nothing wrong with having a next generation destroyer. If the DD(X) is the best we can do for our blue water destroyer, so be it. The issue is putting a square peg in a round hole. If the Navy is not going to offer a valid close shore fire support vessel, they should just admit, not try say ship can do something its not able to. If the BBs are not the right ships the job, the DD(X) are a order of magnitude worse. Its like having F-16 takes over close air support from a A-10. It can be done, but its not going to be able to as good a job, for much more cost. If were not going to keep them around, then we need a valid replacement for the close fire support role. Saying the DD(X) is going meet the fire support requirement is like putting lipstick and a wedding ring on your dog.
April 8th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Someone above said a DD(X) wouldnt equal 1/4 of a BB. And that may be true. But the fact is, there will only be 2 BBs. But there will probably be 20 DD(X)s.
April 8th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Two DD(X)s provide firepower equivalent to an entire battalion of 155mm howitzers, consisting of three batteries of six guns each, and the accompanying 58 cargo trucks, 42 utility trucks, 28 cargo trailers, two wrecker trucks, five water trailers, two medical vehicles, and 640 personnel.’ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x-design.htm
April 9th, 2006 at 12:02 am
Spending 2 billion a pop to put a battlion worth of 5 inch firepower is a good deal. Especially when you have to get in sight of the shore to fire them- and expose yourself to threats that can rip you to shreads. Also, that level of firepower is not especially noteworthy in the scale of naval power. Consider the LSM (R) class for example. That had a lot of firepower on small hull- but it was cheap. Im a fan of the DD(X)- we need a next generation destroyer sooner or later. However, trying to pass it off as capable of the shore fire support mission is the wrong tool for the wrong job at the wrong price.
April 9th, 2006 at 12:09 am
AW1 Tim sums one aspect of it very well IMO- ‘What the Navy needs is monitors and patrol gunboats, riverine forces, not some cyber-yacht with guns.’
April 9th, 2006 at 12:27 am
No one has yet made a case where fire support is even neccessary yet… Explain to me where we’ll even need it in the first place? And why Naval airpower can’t fill the gap?
April 9th, 2006 at 12:31 am
Err… amphibious assault under fire. Airpower is necessary, but not sufficient.
April 9th, 2006 at 5:51 am
Two DD(X)s provide firepower equivalent to an entire battalion of 155mm howitzers, consisting of three batteries of six guns each, and the accompanying 58 cargo trucks, 42 utility trucks, 28 cargo trailers, two wrecker trucks, five water trailers, two medical vehicles, and 640 personnel.’ Sounds like a good deal until you look at the details. The equipment cost of the 1st armored division is about 5.251 billion or roughly the cost of the 1st DD(X) built. Not so good of a trade off is it.
April 9th, 2006 at 6:31 am
We’ll never have any more amphibious operations. That does away with the Marine Corps. And the Air Force can do anything the Navy can do nowadays, so that does away with the Navy.’ Truman’s Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson, to Admiral Richard L. Connally in 1949 … Never assume, never take press releases as statements of fact.
April 9th, 2006 at 7:21 am
James – that was before the Inchon assault right?
April 9th, 2006 at 11:09 am
1. This is the 51st comment on this post. 2. That’s insane. 3. Yes, that quote was before the Inchon landings, which were made in September 1950. 4. Besides that quote, there’s this: ‘I predict that large-scale amphibious operations will never occur again.’ General Omar N. Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff-House Armed Services Committee testimony, October 1949 5. I think we’ll all agree that Bradley wasn’t a complete fool, so let’s learn from the past and not get too hasty declaring that we won’t need amphibious landings or heavy shore fire. 6. Look at this pic. That Marine going over the seawall is probably thinking ‘I thought the F-in’ Air Force was supposed to be doing this shite…’ 7. That Marine, First Lieutenant Baldomero Lopez, was killed a few minutes after this photo was taken. I found that photo by accident, but I think it will make a good post. Will try to get one up within a day or two. UPDATE: I edited this slightly. I had mistakenly written that the quote was made BY Connally when, in fact, it was made TO Connally.
April 9th, 2006 at 11:30 am
While going through the gallery where I found that Marine pic, I came across these shots of the BBs: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/kowar/ships/ships.htm Plus, I didn’t know that the DD(X) prototype was tested in Korea! But here it is: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h97000/h97014.jpg I think that’s the reduced AGS magazine in the middle… ;]
April 9th, 2006 at 11:46 am
So where was the BB when that Marine was killed?
April 9th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Skrip: I didn’t say that a BB would have saved his life. I said let’s not get hasty about there not being the need for amphibious landings or heavy shore fire. Because you said no one ever made the case where we’d ever need it in the first place. Maybe if they had reactivated all the North Carolinas and South Dakotas there would have been more shore fire that saved US lives… Incidentally, what Navy planes were the best ground support birds throughout most of Korea? It must have been one of those fancy new-fangled jets? (For the record, I’m skeptical that reactivating the BBs really makes sense. For the cost, I think it would probably be worth it, but I’m not sure how much of that ‘worth’ is just ‘cool factor’. But, in any event, I do oppose taking them out of reserve unless we have something to fill the shore fire gap.)
April 9th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
The best Ground Support aircraft in Korea (according to North Koreans and Chinese) was F4Us. The problem with BBs is that the steam plants need serious work and cutting thru that armor to do it is expensive. You could cut the BBs manning to 1200 by not manning the 5’38s. I would preposition the two of them at Diego Garcia and use reservists to man them since the most usefull employment would be to keep SoH open. Otherwise, the steam plants do not have that much life left in them.
April 9th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
PS two BBs were off the coast of Inchon providing fire support…
April 9th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
As to the stealth issue for BBs. Who cares? The repair requirement for a hit on a BB, by a non-nuke modern ASCM, is to have 1st division get the paint brushes out. Most ASCMs do not have the penetration against a BBs armor.
April 9th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
My answer to Marine Gunfire Support Requirement is a class of 12 Monitors armed with 8′ artillery, MLRS and Sea Sparrow/CIWS. Convert Cargo Ships for the role by fitting them with surplus army weapons and fit them with Helo Support and Medical facilities.
April 9th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
The Navy does not have much if in the way of dedicated close air support aircraft anyway. Its all multi-role and precision strike oriented- the JSF and the F-18E/F. The next generation attack aircraft, the a-12 (’flying dorito’) was cancelled in the 1990s. The marines JSF is not exactly going offer a whole lot in that area area, especially at the amount they cost. There is no navalized A-10 that really offers serious close air support, that could offer short response times like naval close fire support. Even, then the loiter times of aircraft is going to be limited, and take a big hit in functioning in bad weather. Spending 2 billion on new blue-water destroyer is fine. But sending them on dangerous brown-water close fire support mission is asking for another USS cole, or worse. Keeping the BB around for a rainy day is smart. What would be even smarter the Navy getting serious about offering the marines close fire support. If they are not going stop pretending they are serious about it, the job- and the money should go the Marines.
April 9th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Those who say that we should keep the BB is like saying that we should have kept the F-86. This is a different era full of very different threats. Now to answer James, ’so who said that making a 800 foot ship stealth is impossible?’ …umm basic physics. Stealth works for planes becasue they are small and fast. Even then, Stealth works for shortwave radar not for longwave radar. L. How do you know that it doesn’t work for longwave radar? To the best of my knowledge, the Sea Shadow and Arleigh Burke were tested against long wave and short wave radar. You think the Navy would design a ship that’s stealth is useless? What form of physics states that stealth is limited to size? I do recall that an F-22A is said to be as small or maybe smaller than a marble on radar. Surely an 800 foot ship would be as large as a beachball then. ‘and who said that the dual band radar is will negate stealth ‘does the Raptor’s active radar negate it’s stealth, NO!)’ … Standard Raptor tactics is for one plane to use its radar and data link to the others who ambush the target. Anycraft that is emitting radiation is detectable. L. What kind of tactics are these? I think they are used by an AWACS and not a Raptor. Last I heard, Raptors are capable of going solo against enemy fighters. And any aircraft emitting radiation is detectable? Wow, maybe the B-2 is detectable considering it uses radar huh. … Dual band radar is a combination radar for wide search with the ability to target multiple objects. It is not the Raptors radar. L. That’s true, however two secure radar bands overlapping eachother are not easily detectable. ‘and how the hell will the sonar negate the stealth, when seawolf and virginia class submarines have a similar sonar.’ … Yes they do, however in most instances they do not use the active sonar. Active sonar is beacon. L. That’s true. However, you would think that the Navy has more experience in sonar than us? Just as a B-2 can use a nonradiating radar, a destroyer can use a non beaconing active sonar. ‘and who said that the composite would be flimsy? last i heard, composites are stronger than steel.’ … Componsites are not flimsy, that said, composites in general tend to be harder, or stronger, but tend to be brittle. The issue raised is that field repair of composites in possible. L. Why would there need to be field repairs of composites? Composites advance each year, I am sure they have a suitable one for a destroyer. Of course this ia an oversimplification. Steel is a remarkable materal who qualities in whole have not been matched. Yes steel has not been matched, however it has been blended with other materials to strengthen it. A mix of steel and composites works just fine. ‘about the LRLAP round, who said it would be slow?’ … Basic ballistics. The Marine fire support requirement, requires that the flight time of the incomming round be less then a certain duration. The LRLAP round is a glide round. Meaning that it is shot high up and from there glides to the target. This is how they get around the physics of getting a small round a long distance. L. Why does a glide round need to be shot up? Basic physics states that gravity brings any shot up projectile to within a small distance of it’s launcher unless it is exoatmospheric. I believe that a rocket attached to the LRLAP fired at a 50 degree angle can cover 100 miles in atleast 184 seconds, considering it travels at the speed of a bullet. (2866 fps) The LALARP a glide round, it is comparitively slow, thus it lacks the ability to penitrate hardened structures. Moreover, it has a relitively small warhead, so if you compare a LALARP round to a standard 155mm round, the 155mm round carries a greater payload. L. Kinetic energy at over 2000 mph should be enough. Bottomline – You make the ship to perform the mission. The B2 is a great bomber – you do not see it being use for air superiority. L. Maybe because it is designed as a bomber, where the DD(X) is designed as pretty much multi role fire support. The F-16 is a good example, as it does everything pretty well. So if you are making a ship to be a land attack – then optimize it for land combat. Determine what your land attack requirement is, then design your ship to fullfill it. Not – as the Navy has done. State your ship requirements, then make up your land attack requirement to meet your ship design. L. I believe that the gun is the major fire support platform, not the ship itself. You tell me if a 100 mile range is worse than a 27 mile range, regardless of shell size. Side note – Stealth on ships. You cannot make a ship ’stealthy’ if by that you mean the ability to operate in an enemy terriorty with impunity as the enemy sensors are unable to effectively target you. You can make a ship less observable – which in of itself is good thing. That said, you should make the primary defense of a ship be stealth. You end up making the ship a 1 hit wonder. L. Because Air Force stealth is a failure. As for retrofitting the BB to stealth. Did you know it is possible to make a BB dissapear from Radar/IR. All it takes is whole bunch of water hoses. You create basically a water wall around the ship. L. Because the enemy won’t be suspicious to a water works display moving around.
April 9th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Having a vessel dedicated just for NFS is stupid. In a day when everything needs to do everything, such a vessel is worthless. Especially if we never do an unopposed landing. Also, can someone tell me: With today’s aircraft and precision guided munitions, why would you ever need a BB or any Naval Fire Support vessel? I mean really? We can land a JDAM through a window, why do we ever need an ancient 16′ gun?
April 9th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
I keep thinking of my second DivO and a story he told. He was former enlisted and spent time on a tin can doing fire support off Vietnam. One day they were trying to knock out a pair of concrete pillboxed with their 5′ guns and wasted 100 rounds to no effect. New Jersey was coming down the coast and offered to help. They fired one round to get the range and it dropped between the pillboxed and collapsed both. One big crater caused by a ship beyond visual range. No weapon is ever truely obsolete.
April 9th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
A weapon can become obsolete when an alternative is found. Today we have precision bombing, Javelin missles, and thermobaric Hellfires and others. Look at Falluja, a well places SMAW could collapse a building. Imagine what thermobarics would do to pillboxes or bunkers. The day of 16 inch fire support is over, especially in an urban environment.
April 9th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
I suspect that the Iraqi Army troops that tried to surrender to the UAV, that was used for BB targeting on the Kuwaiti coast, would disagree with you about the effectiveness of 16′ guns compared to bombs. And wx does not ground BBs, only aircraft…
April 9th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
There is one reason why the BBs were decom’d. Cost. – Manning cost at 1500 crew each. – Cost of manufacture of new barrel sleaves for 16′ guns. – Cost of refurbishing the old steam plants (especially cutting thru that missile-proof armor to do it.) The more bells and whistles put on the DD(X), the more cost effective the BBs look. I read that the 16′ guns had an 11′ sabot round developed for it. Used guided sub-munitions. Rocket assist version had 160nm range (185 statute miles for the civilians).
April 9th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
The day of 16 inch fire support is over, especially in an urban environment.’ Ordance of equivlent and much higher weight is routinely used in hitting urban targes. Guided, ultra-long range gliding, and higher tech warheads don’t make 16 size less usefull- they make it more usefull. Consider the MRLS warheads, which have also found a niche even in OIF. As a side note, interesting early history of US 16 inchers. http://www.geocities.com/fort_tilden/16ingun.html
April 9th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
I found a much better site on the current 16 inch, with some great information on shells. A link down at the bottom has even more pictures. One I found very intersting was the Mark 23 nuclear projectile. This could be a very effective way to deliver a tactical nuclear projectile. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
April 9th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Yeah, but an aircraft can fly and drop that bomb more accurately and cheaper.
April 9th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
The accuracys would end up being about the same, because the part that makes them accurate- either GPS is or designator is not a funcion of the launching platform. As for cheaper, that is debatable. If your flying from landbases that are far away- the hidden cost is all that base support, as well as all the tankers you use along the way. If your in the same area, then you have to ground security for that base. Since we are talking about a fire support mission the aircraft are either coming from a long ways away, or from a carrier. Niether of those capabilites are cheap to maintain or to use. Granted there needs to be a carrier there anyway- but already has a lot demands on it. In invasion, most of its sorties are going to be taken up by air-defense missions and strategic targets– not tactical support to grunts. As i mentioned before- the navy doesnt even have any dedicated close air support aircraft anyway. Another disadvantage of using aircraft for support is the their ability to actually be there on time. If you want a fast response, then the aircraft must loiter, near a shore invasion. If not, the marins can expect a long delay in getting their support- if ever. The idea the marines can get there fire support from aircraft has been brought up before. Its true, some portion will, and no doubt should come from aircraft. The problem is both Navy and USAF aircraft are not focused on close air support. Both are focused on strategic targers and air superiority. This is on top the disadvantages of using the them for close airsupport. If we had escort carriers loaded with navalized A-10s, then the idea that aircraft could actually provide the mission would hold weight. There is not, and there is no plan to provide this either. the USNFA does a tremendous job debunking the DD(X) fire support capbilties in this PPT. I can only find the google cache of the text-version though- http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:AaW4XOv77kEJ:www.usnfsa.org/Articles/News/USNFSA.PDF+USNFSA.PDF&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
April 9th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
L. How do you know that it doesn’t work for longwave radar? To the best of my knowledge, the Sea Shadow and Arleigh Burke were tested against long wave and short wave radar. You think the Navy would design a ship that’s stealth is useless? What form of physics states that stealth is limited to size? I do recall that an F-22A is said to be as small or maybe smaller than a marble on radar. Surely an 800 foot ship would be as large as a beachball then. …The range at which radar can detect an object is related to the power transmitted by the radar set, the fidelity of the radar antenna, the wavelength of the radar signal, and the radar cross section (RCS) of the vehicle. At issue is the wavelength of the radar signal. Simply put, the reflectivity of a surface is related the wavelength of the radar beam. So that a surface angled vs short wavelength would not be as effective vs longwave lengths and vice versa. A vehical of any sort will have multiple RCS values dependent on the angle, wavelength, and beam strength, comparison between the vehcical and the radar set. When you design your vehical, you have to optimize the vehical’s RCS vs the expected frequency of the enemy radar. This means, your vehical will have different visibilty vs different radar sources. A simple way to view it would be camoflage. You would not wear winter camoflage in the jungle or vice versa. Now, only a few countries have working backscatter radars. Futhermore, backscatter radars, have reletively poor resolution – thus while they can detect stealth vehicals, they generally do not provide sufficent data to allow for weapon target locks. With respect to your beachball claim. That is simply nuts. Based on what the navy is stating about the RCS of the DD(X) [A 50 fold reduction of RCS from existing ships] you are looking at a RCS of a DD(X) to be in the 200M^2 range. Now 200M^2 for a ship is damn good. A B-52 in comparison is around 100M^2, but a Nimitz class is one the order of around 20K M^2.
April 9th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
L. That’s true. However, you would think that the Navy has more experience in sonar than us? Just as a B-2 can use a nonradiating radar, a destroyer can use a non beaconing active sonar. …??? At this point I advise you to ponder your statement. What does the term RADAR stand for and how would a nonradiating radar function?
April 9th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
James, do you know what it is for the iowa class?
April 10th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Overall an Iowa’s RCS is no par with the carriers. That said, an Iowa’s RCS has some surprising effects. Chiefly the the RCS of the turrets and primary superstructure create such a high return that it causes fits with target recognition systems. The net effect of this, is that radar guided missiles end up targeting two points on a BB, The primary gun turrets or the citidel. Which is actually a good thing as those two spots represent the toughest armor on the ship.
April 10th, 2006 at 11:55 am
There are a couple of things I don’t think have been mentioned (although with this size of post, it’s hard to tell). Amphibious landing: What about the difference in speed of todays landing craft in comparison with the craft of old? The reasons for needing a BB to fire onto a beach: To suppress enemies that are in bunkers and keep them underground. Other than that, targets of opportunity will have time to take cover due to the need to still walk rounds onto a target. What is the 1st shot accuracy of a DD(X)? (I can only presume it is very high) Therefore I guess that todays thinking is that a landing currently would be very fast. I would think that current mindset would be to engage all targets as and when they appear. Shore bombardment does little to a prepared enemy. Not knowing when and where the next round is coming or about to land is more effective in my mind. Even with aircraft you can see a bombing run about to occur. With a very accurate shell, the only warning is the sound of ‘incoming’. Engaging targets of opportunity has been given higher priority – hence all the UAV’s that are now in service. It seems to do effective damage, otherwise they would have stopped it (UAV’s are not cheap and neither is the bandwidth used to fly them)
April 10th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Another thing to look at is the surface bombarding of WW2. It did little to the prepared Japanese on their held islands, the Marines had to go in and take them out, without fire support. I do know what radar stands for James, yet if I do recall either the History Channel or Military Channel showcased the B-2, and one of the designers interviewed stated that in order to attack GPS designated targets, they needed a radar of some sorts. What he said was the only way they could make a radar that wasn’t radiating, was classified. Surely the Navy would gain insight on what the Air Force had, and develop a Naval version. And as I have stated before and will continue to state to those who say 16 inch shells are still needed in an urban war; look at the uses of 500 pound bombs vs 2000 pound bombs in Falluja, and you will see the discrepency. Fire teams are usually in close contact with the enemy, 16 inch shells are overkill. The Air Force believes so too about it’s weapons, hence part of the reason for the SDB. Kinetic energy can pack a punch you guys, especially at 2000 mph. Just look at the LOSAT or the new tank round being developed by ATK. No matter how you look at it, this is a much different era. Fire support at 1000 miles out is very much possible, as the LRLAP should atleast be capable of traveling at the speed of a bullet. Should it maintain it’s speed, 3 minutes is all it would need to reach it’s target. Just as fast as most air support.
April 10th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
*100 miles out
April 10th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
If I am wrong about the speed, then I will just put what is on Defense Tech. So at 830 mph, it would reach the target in 8.3 minutes, 2 minutes fast than when the B-1B bomber tried to attack Saddam 3 years ago. At 830 mph, it is still highly, highly capable of great kinetic energy. For reference, use the law of kinetic energy: KE = -+mass x velocity2 a 155 mm round (which is said to have an average mass of 47kg) fired at a speed of 830mph (which is roughly 380 or so m/s) would have an impact of over 3,114,752 joules. Think 3 times the impact of an A-10 round. If I messed up I am sorry, but I am focused right now on doing my Spring Break homework, the Vietnam War.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
that velocity2 means velocity squared, sorry.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
argh ok ok here is my final post for now. After looking at the Defense Tech thing, I will use it’s reference again. Instead of a 95 pound bomb, it is instead a 250 pound bomb. So; 62.5kg x 380 squared = 9,025,000 joules now it is almost 9 times the impact of an A-10 round. I will shut up now and get back on the Tet Offensive.
April 10th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
The need to take out hardened beach is all the more reason to have 16 inch availble. Using 500 pound bombs in urban warfare is also a reason for 16 inch shells. The reason is the longer range shells for a given gun, have smaller payloads and are generally more expensive. The longer range 16 inch shells could actually have 500 pound warhead. The longest range 6-inch shells are weak, even relative its normal shells. Which bring up another issue- only a fraction- on the order of few dozen of the DD(X) 5-inch shells are actually the longest range. When talkin about shell range compare apples to apples. The max range, and mass payload capacity are a funciton of the gun. The 6 inch with expensive long range guided shells can far- well a larger gun can go farther and hit harder with the same tech. The same goes for things like kinetic kill and AP shells- larger guns can hit harder. The DD(X) is needed because we need to next gen. destroyer either way. However, its nither eqipped nor wise to send it into a inshore brawl where its streanths are muted and its fire support capability is seriously flawed. Relatative to larger ships, it is cursed with low ammo capacity and weak shells. Brining it close to shore negates much of its stealth value- and renders it much more vulnerable to attacks, that it is ill eqipped to survive. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:AaW4XOv77kEJ:www.usnfsa.org/Articles/News/USNFSA.PDF+USNFSA.PDF&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
April 10th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
having a 250 (ie the 6 inch) pound round is much better than a 650 (ie the 16 inch) pound bomb. The higher kinetics could be a potential overkill as well. My main point is the Air Force is going for the SDB for a reason. It would have been a much more preffered weapon by some of the people I know. The marines I talk to (given they love to come down to the harbor and Downtown) state that the 2000 pound bombs were awesome to watch in Falluja, but they always put the fireteam in danger due to the close proximity and potential for their structures collapse when they took an adjacent building due to shockwave damage. The 500 pounders were a good improvement, yet they still wanted something that would take out the insurgents, yet still leave atleast some of the building or keep the fire team safe. When the DDX goes close to shore, I am sure it will be after the marines establish a large beachhead or atleast have heavy airsupport. THe 100 mile range means it can also start firing sooner when it is heading for a danger zone, rather than head even closer to shore. Large guns can hit harder, but that is because they were built to do just that. There is no more need for a surface bombardment, and besides, the Japanese held islands can prove a point that even days of shell bombardments do not do much damage to an encamped defender. Atleast the DDX would have longer range, more survivability, more missles, and better situational awareness than a BB. And saying that heavy armor is needed is like saying that 70 ton tanks will always be needed. Technology will always advance. Nanorobotics, Electromagnetics, Ceramic Mixtures, etc. can all displace the need of heavy armor. Compare the Stryker and the Bradley. The Stryker can do atleast 85 percent of what a Bradley can do. The only things it can’t is withstand a higher caliber round than a 12 mm, survive against some large explosives, and destroy a tank. Yet the MGS is being fielded, slat armor has improved it against rpgs probably better than the reactive armor, and there was that article of a Stryker that stood up to a 250 pound IED. Technology advances, and the past becomes obsolete.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
The currend Destroyer class seems to me to outclass anything afloat or in the planning anywhere. Same for the Ticonderoga Cruisers. Lets not try to reinvent the wheel here. Keep the basic destroyer and cruiser desings in production but make incremental improvements to them as new systems are available. Build a new variant of the CG hull, but as a flat topped support vessel with Container slots in the deck for VLS Barage missiles and 3 or 4 autoloading 8inch or 175mm guns. a small crew and put a phalanx on either end for self defense. Scrap that DDX sinkhole of a boondogle ! Everytime the pentagon goes for the GOLD with a do all state of the art / best of breed ship or plane , it invariably sinks billions into it before admitting failure.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
The currend Destroyer class seems to me to outclass anything afloat or in the planning anywhere. Same for the Ticonderoga Cruisers. Lets not try to reinvent the wheel here. Keep the basic destroyer and cruiser desings in production but make incremental improvements to them as new systems are available. Build a new variant of the CG hull, but as a flat topped support vessel with Container slots in the deck for VLS Barage missiles and 3 or 4 autoloading 8inch or 175mm guns. a small crew and put a phalanx on either end for self defense. Scrap that DDX sinkhole of a boondogle ! Everytime the pentagon goes for the GOLD with a do all state of the art / best of breed ship or plane , it invariably sinks billions into it before admitting failure.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
The currend Destroyer class seems to me to outclass anything afloat or in the planning anywhere. Same for the Ticonderoga Cruisers. Lets not try to reinvent the wheel here. Keep the basic destroyer and cruiser desings in production but make incremental improvements to them as new systems are available. Build a new variant of the CG hull, but as a flat topped support vessel with Container slots in the deck for VLS Barage missiles and 3 or 4 autoloading 8inch or 175mm guns. a small crew and put a phalanx on either end for self defense. Scrap that DDX sinkhole of a boondogle ! Everytime the pentagon goes for the GOLD with a do all state of the art / best of breed ship or plane , it invariably sinks billions into it before admitting failure.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
having a 250 (ie the 6 inch) pound round is much better than a 650 (ie the 16 inch) pound bomb.’ The size of the warhead can always be less but not more. The 16 inchers peak weight is over 2500 lbs. Long range 6 inch shells are not going to even manage 250 pounds. Long range 16 -inch guns could manage 250 pounds at a much farther range. The ultra long range DD(X) range rounds- are going to have tiny payloads even compared to regular 155 rounds. If this is usefull, 16 inch can deliver that at a much farther range. Aside from the the DD(X) is only going to have a couple dozen, if any of the most expensive longest range type. The BB can achive that range with a much more usefull payload- or much farther with the same weight of warhead. ‘When the DDX goes close to shore, I am sure it will be after the marines establish a large beachhead or atleast have heavy airsupport. ‘ No, the whole point is to provide and support the marines AS they attack make that large beachhead. Air support has been mentioned more than once- it also has numerous drawbacks. WHen you get close to shore, the usefullness of stealth and sensors take a big hit. The ability to take a hit, and dish out firpower. Sending in a expensive, poorly armored and armed is a total misuse. The DD(X) belongs out at see chasing subs, not taking hits for Anti-ship missiles 20 miles from shore.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Guys AW1 Tim has it correct. BB’s may be old but you can stand them just off (Lebanon) shore and fire away. The nav will never do it with the Billion Dollar TIN can. Stealth in water is a joke, can you say SUBMARIEN. I severed in the nav 82-88 when sea shadow was in trials and I tracked her. trick is for anyone who has used a tracking radar, stealth stands out like a sore thumb in sea clutter, surface noise, grass. Unfortunately both BB’s have been released for donation so this is all moot. Good news is they will be taken care of by men who served and do care. As for DD(X) we will know they are flops when the Navy only opts for only 5-6
April 10th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Oh, so going back to 1940’s Battleships is the option then? Hey, I can get a Carrier Air wing to bomb those same targets in lebanon if need be.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
skrip00 They tried air first. 1 dead, 1 prisoner, CAG picked up out of the drink. Mission incomplete. BB on the other hand did the mission and lowered the ridgeline behind Beruit by 4 feet. I may not have been there but, friends were. Airdales, shoes and jarheads.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Livio – On the nonradiating radar. The term is an oxymoron. Basicly its the same as stating that the airforce has invented a flashlight that allow you to see what is in the room but it does not emit any light. What the B2 and other ’stealth’ radars are low probabililty of intercept radar sets. In operation the B2 almost never uses its radar – and when it does its only for brief periods. (thankfully GPS reduces thier use even more.) In any event, the Radar set on the DD(X) is not a low probabililty of intercept radar.
April 10th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
There is actually a way to have nonradiating ‘radar’. However, it only works in places with a lot of backround EM. This was a few years ago, and Im not sure how far the tech went- but its not totally ‘out there’. That said, this was for urban/etc. not in places where there is no signal around to begin with, certainly not out on the ocean. Even have good passive radar antenna can be very usefull though, as you can pick up people who ARE using there radar activelly. That does not mean you can use there signal to pinpoint everything on the map though- just home in on them. Thats what wild weasel type aircraft specialized (along with specialized missiles).
April 10th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Forgot to ask- dj elliott, I know the other two but what is a shoe. (aside from what goes on feet)
April 10th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Blackshoe or shoe for short. Surface.
April 10th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
DJ that doesn’t help much!
April 10th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
There is actually a way to have nonradiating ‘radar’. However, it only works in places with a lot of backround EM. I believe you are refering to VERA passive sensor system. Technically its not a radar and in any event its a multipoint ground based system. There are other passive systems that in theory could be used to detect stealth craft by measuring the variance in the background radiation. To the best of my knowlege, there is no operating system using this principal capable of detecting a plane. That said, these devices do have a great potencial of measuring road trafic density and speed
April 10th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Steve: Surface Line (Blackshoes) are the officers and enlisted that fight the ship. CIC, Bridge, Deck, weaps, lookouts, signals, radio, spooks, medical, supply, gunners, etc. Engineering (Snipes) are the ‘black gang’ that keep the engines and power running. Aviation (Airdales or Brownshoes) are the aviators and their support. Submariners (Bubbleheads) are the maniacs that intentionally get in a vessel that sinks. Snakeaters are Spec Warfare. etc. Major warfare disciplines of Nav. I earned my water wings (ESWS) on the Yorktown (CG48).
April 11th, 2006 at 12:36 am
Validated Marine Corps requirement for naval surface fire support’ (?) Are the Marines planning on re-invading Tarawa? Don’t they think they did a good enough job the last time? DD(X) – Last [latest] gasp of the battleship admirals. $4Billion and it’s most impressive feature is a gun? Maybe the guns should be mounted on the sides. Make it out of wood (nature’s composite material) and put sails on it (more environmentally friendly). It would not be much more ineffective that way than it will be now.
April 11th, 2006 at 2:32 am
Jack: I hate to burst your bubble but, the last Naval fire support mission for a marine attack was 1993 (Al Faw Peninsula). NSFS was used in Kuwait, Beruit, Vietnam, Korea and any number of operations large and small since Tarawa.
April 11th, 2006 at 2:33 am
Correction 2003
April 11th, 2006 at 11:27 am
I was not talking about the VERA, but yes the one I was talking about not quite for aircraft. VERA though, is said to be able to detect stealth aircraft. This, apparentyl was the reason the US blocked the sale of it china. I can imagine any passive ‘radar’ system being as usefull out in blue water scenario where there is less signal around. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040525-113028-4180r.htm
April 11th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Holy Crap, 100 comments!
April 11th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Hmm, the Australian Jindalee over-the-horizon radar can apparently track aircraft wakes. I wonder if it can track ship wakes too? I believe it’s VLF (but I could be wrong), so I’d be interested to see what stealth ships look like to it.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Nicholas Below is nice site detailing alternate uses of Over the horizon radars. The Navy has a couple of them. Deployment is an issue with respect to some arms control treaties. About ship wakes – yes they can. http://www.etl.noaa.gov/technology/archive/othr/ The sight below show how a SAR can be used to track ships. Note that it can track changes in the ocean (wake) thus stealth is ineffective in those instances. (If you use an Inverse SAR – then the radar measures the movement of the ship – not the ship itself.) http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/td2101/pichel.pdf Steve The VERA’s can’t detect stealth planes. In fact by itself it cannot detect planes at all. (If you turn off your electronics. But they can form a critical link to a real nasty air defense network. Use the VERA as overwatch so your active systems can stay hidden to the last second.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Fascinating stuff- I wonder if that reduced wake prototype posted on a while back would be less effected by the system. As for VERA, the article I linked to mentioned the stealth ac detection. How good it is at this, it didn’t say, though as you point out it would have to work in conjunction with other things.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:50 am
A good way to view the Vera is to think of it as a ground based version of a RC-135 River Joint. So it could detect & track a stealth plane based on its EM radiation. Unless the Vera is far better then advertised, we had this capability back in 1984 only better. You only needed one unit, and it had over the horizon capability. We used them to map the locations, frequency, comm channels, and power output of soviet radars. The recievers / base station could be hauled in a couple truck trailers. You could even put the unit in the bed of a C-130.