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”
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.
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… ;]
So where was the BB when that Marine was killed?
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.)
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.
PS two BBs were off the coast of Inchon providing fire support…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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…
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).
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
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
Yeah, but an aircraft can fly and drop that bomb more accurately and cheaper.
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
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.
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?
James, do you know what it is for the iowa class?
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.
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)
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.
*100 miles out
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.
that velocity2 means velocity squared, sorry.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
Forgot to ask- dj elliott, I know the other two but what is a shoe. (aside from what goes on feet)
Blackshoe or shoe for short. Surface.
DJ that doesn’t help much!
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
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).
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.
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.
Correction 2003
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
Holy Crap, 100 comments!