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.
No Responses to “DD(X) to be the DDG 1000 ‘Zumwalt’ class”
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.’
Steve: But what ships out there could possilby provide better fire support? [Murdoc ducks for cover]
DDX is more battle cruiser than like the tin cans of WW 2, in size and function, but pretty cool nonetheless!
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.
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
EVERYTHING is concealment with 16-inchers, mo!
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.
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.
‘sif it would be any different if the dhimmicrats were in power… It’d just be different pockets the kickbacks ended up in…
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.
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
What is the obsession with 5-inchers? This isn’t the spanish-american war…
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?
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?
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
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.)
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
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.
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…
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
Skrip is right, i didnt see his thing cuz i was too busy writing those too help the DDX
Make love, not war. (:
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!
Nicholas shoots…HE SCORES!!!! Seriously. Do I have to disable comments in any post that mentions DD(X) or battleships? LOL!
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.
everyone will always have both sides murdoch history will prove one side right lets wait and see
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…
Well sorry, but I am doing my best to enjoy the break. lol And sorry for calling you Murdoch :P
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
Were all the cruisers with big guns scapped already? Maybe they’d be a good compromise. (I get the feeling they’re all gone :().
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
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…
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.
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
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.
’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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.’
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?
Err… amphibious assault under fire. Airpower is necessary, but not sufficient.
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.
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.
James – that was before the Inchon assault right?