World Affairs Board - View Single Post

rickusn · 01-22-2007, 20:48 PM

On another discussion site a poster proposed a Littoral DDGN this is a response to it from another poster whom I much respect;

" 1) If the cost of the Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class is a concern, why are you proposing a nuclear ship, which will certainly cost much more? There's a reason the USN doesn't build nuclear surface combatants anymore--they cost much more to build and operate than their conventional equivalents. And in littoral waters, the reactors are a real potential liability. You're more likely to get hit near shore, and a reactor hit is going to be a lot nastier to deal with than a gas turbine hit. A narrow hull would exacerbate this, making it hard to get enough hull stand-off from the reactors for effective protection.

2) Elevators to the flight deck are generally considered undesirable in combatant class ships. For starters, they are maintenance hogs. Unlike in aircraft carriers, combatant elevators require a watertight roof that can be closed over the hangar while the elevator is in the down position. As the Virginia class demonstrated, this will leak unless scrupulously maintained. Such an elevator is also a big hole in the strength deck of the ship, necessitating lots of structural reinforcement. It's not worth the trouble, wehn you can easily build a hangar for two large helos or V-22 class aircraft on the main deck.

3) Minesweeper V-22s? Don't exist, and never will. The V-22 isn't well-suited to towing sweep sleds or sonars. And the non-towed stuff is likely to entail lots of hovering, if it ever works well. That makes a helo (MH-60S or better, MH-53) a superior choice. An AEW V-22 is likewise not going to happen, because there's no reason for the USN to spend piles of cash to produce an inferior equivalent to the existing E-2 Hawkeye. Similarly, there is not going to be an SV-22. If the USN wanted to maintain a fixed-wing ASW capability, it would have kept the S-3s going in the mission.

4) The below-hangar deck you describe seems to essentially duplicate the mission module bay of an LCS, which is a truly huge space. It dominates the LCS designs and would be a big hit on even a large destroyer. LCS at least has the speed and low signatures to run in, deploy its unmanned vehicles or sensors, and then get back out.

5) The SPY-3/VSR combination on DDG-1000 makes AEGIS/SPY-1 look like what it is, a 25-year old system. Now, the new AEGIS Baseline 7 architecture is going to be an improvement, but for littoral air defense, I think DDG-1000 is going to be the better option.

Conclusion:
What you've tried to do here is combine all the features of DDG-1000, LCS, and a mini-LPD, plus nuclear power. The result puts so many eggs in one basket that your ship would be larger and much more expensive than DDG-1000 and would severely limit the Navys ship construciton options. That's the wrong direction to go. The whole point of LCS, for example, is to help reverse the decline in individual ship numbers. While the fleet does need a number of high-end ships like DDG-1000, it also nees a lot more inexpensive platforms that can spread out and coiver a wide area. Much of the time, the only systems they will really need are helicopters and a flagstaff--other times they will need some more advanced systems, but distributed so one lost ship doesn't leave the fleet totally exposed. That's why LCS is so critical, IMO. "

01-22-2007, 20:48 PM	#1 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	Ddgn On another discussion site a poster proposed a Littoral DDGN this is a response to it from another poster whom I much respect; " 1) If the cost of the Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class is a concern, why are you proposing a nuclear ship, which will certainly cost much more? There's a reason the USN doesn't build nuclear surface combatants anymore--they cost much more to build and operate than their conventional equivalents. And in littoral waters, the reactors are a real potential liability. You're more likely to get hit near shore, and a reactor hit is going to be a lot nastier to deal with than a gas turbine hit. A narrow hull would exacerbate this, making it hard to get enough hull stand-off from the reactors for effective protection. 2) Elevators to the flight deck are generally considered undesirable in combatant class ships. For starters, they are maintenance hogs. Unlike in aircraft carriers, combatant elevators require a watertight roof that can be closed over the hangar while the elevator is in the down position. As the Virginia class demonstrated, this will leak unless scrupulously maintained. Such an elevator is also a big hole in the strength deck of the ship, necessitating lots of structural reinforcement. It's not worth the trouble, wehn you can easily build a hangar for two large helos or V-22 class aircraft on the main deck. 3) Minesweeper V-22s? Don't exist, and never will. The V-22 isn't well-suited to towing sweep sleds or sonars. And the non-towed stuff is likely to entail lots of hovering, if it ever works well. That makes a helo (MH-60S or better, MH-53) a superior choice. An AEW V-22 is likewise not going to happen, because there's no reason for the USN to spend piles of cash to produce an inferior equivalent to the existing E-2 Hawkeye. Similarly, there is not going to be an SV-22. If the USN wanted to maintain a fixed-wing ASW capability, it would have kept the S-3s going in the mission. 4) The below-hangar deck you describe seems to essentially duplicate the mission module bay of an LCS, which is a truly huge space. It dominates the LCS designs and would be a big hit on even a large destroyer. LCS at least has the speed and low signatures to run in, deploy its unmanned vehicles or sensors, and then get back out. 5) The SPY-3/VSR combination on DDG-1000 makes AEGIS/SPY-1 look like what it is, a 25-year old system. Now, the new AEGIS Baseline 7 architecture is going to be an improvement, but for littoral air defense, I think DDG-1000 is going to be the better option. Conclusion: What you've tried to do here is combine all the features of DDG-1000, LCS, and a mini-LPD, plus nuclear power. The result puts so many eggs in one basket that your ship would be larger and much more expensive than DDG-1000 and would severely limit the Navys ship construciton options. That's the wrong direction to go. The whole point of LCS, for example, is to help reverse the decline in individual ship numbers. While the fleet does need a number of high-end ships like DDG-1000, it also nees a lot more inexpensive platforms that can spread out and coiver a wide area. Much of the time, the only systems they will really need are helicopters and a flagstaff--other times they will need some more advanced systems, but distributed so one lost ship doesn't leave the fleet totally exposed. That's why LCS is so critical, IMO. "