Zumwalt revisited?

**Dreadnought** · 19 Sep 11,, 04:40

IMO, Stop wasting money on stealthy DDG's and focus more on its weapons and radar surveilance capability and fire control. Its pretty obvious they are going to know we are coming through political banter so why bother hiding it. We never have before outside of subs and perhaps now the LCS ships. If your going to make something stealth then apply it in a practical method such as troop transports or landing ships. Everything else already has the capability to fire from well over the horizon so seeing the ship really doesnt matter that much on that point but used practicaly will save lives. Troops lives.

**Dreadnought** · 23 Sep 11,, 17:23

September 23, 2011
Navy News

WHITE SANDS, N.M. -- The long range land attack projectile (LRLAP), designed for the DDG 1000 Advanced Gun System, successfully completed two live-fire tests at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, the Navy announced Sept. 22.

The mission, conducted Aug. 30, was the first live-fire test to successfully demonstrate LRLAP effectiveness against targets.

LRLAP is a 155 millimeter rocket-assisted guided projectile designed to support land-attack and naval surface fire support operations in conjunction with the Advanced Gun System on DDG 1000-class destroyers.

"This test success represents a key milestone in development of the land-attack capability and represents a significant step in the tactical maturation of the LRLAP," said Capt. Tim Batzler, Navy Surface Ship Weapons major program manager for Program Executive Office, Integrated Warfare Systems.

Both flight tests flew 45 nautical miles and met key test objectives including successful launch, GPS acquisition, warhead functionality, and terminal accuracy.

Live-fire testing is part of land-based flight qualification during the engineering and manufacturing development phase.

PEO IWS is an affiliated program executive office of the Naval Sea Systems Command, which manages surface ship and submarine combat technologies and systems, and coordinates Navy open architecture across ship platforms.

*This would be approximately 52 statue miles on land.

**Gun Grape** · 24 Sep 11,, 18:40

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

IMO, Stop wasting money on stealthy DDG's and focus more on its weapons and radar surveilance capability and fire control. Its pretty obvious they are going to know we are coming through political banter so why bother hiding it. We never have before outside of subs and perhaps now the LCS ships. If your going to make something stealth then apply it in a practical method such as troop transports or landing ships. Everything else already has the capability to fire from well over the horizon so seeing the ship really doesnt matter that much on that point but used practicaly will save lives. Troops lives.

Stealth keeps enemy missiles from locking onto the ships. We are not worried about stealth to keep the Mk-1 eyeball confused.

**Dreadnought** · 26 Sep 11,, 16:44

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Stealth keeps enemy missiles from locking onto the ships. We are not worried about stealth to keep the Mk-1 eyeball confused.

Very true GG, but the majority of countries that allow terror to exist or would choose to fire upon one, Partiularly a ship with that kind of gun range well over the horizon. Idiots like terrorists seldom have access to sat tracking or fighter jets. Better counter measures and jamming tech will also assist and the ship is already designed with a fairy small RCS and other protection as listed. Adding a CIWS or Goaltender system is also possible.

CLASS - ZUMWALT Flight I As Built.
Displacement 14,164 Tons, Dimensions, 600' x 79.1' x 27' 6"
Armament 2 x 155mm Advanced Gun System, 80 - PVLS cells for
Tomahawk, Standard Missle & Evolved Sea Sparrow Missle.
Aircraft, 2 SH-60 LAMPS helicopters or 1 MH-60R helicopter, 3 RQ-8A Fire Scout VTUAV
Machinery, LM2500 & LM500 Gas Turbines, 2 Fixed Pitch Propellors,
Permanent Magnet In-Hull Motors.
Speed, 30+ Knots, Range 6000 NM, Crew 150.

**JRT** · 28 Dec 11,, 18:45

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

IMO, Stop wasting money on stealthy DDG's and focus more on its weapons and radar surveilance capability and fire control. Its pretty obvious they are going to know we are coming through political banter so why bother hiding it. We never have before outside of subs and perhaps now the LCS ships. If your going to make something stealth then apply it in a practical method such as troop transports or landing ships. Everything else already has the capability to fire from well over the horizon so seeing the ship really doesnt matter that much on that point but used practicaly will save lives. Troops lives.

I understand that there is a lot of room for argument about whether or not the stealth characteristics can be used to good advantage in various situations, but I don't see where stealth characteristics would be disadvantageous.

What would you like to see changed?

I'd like to see Zumwalt get S-band radar (maybe the AMDR-S if/when that becomes available).

Some related news, recent and older:

Zumwalt's SPY-3 radar to gain volume search capability
12/27/2011 - Jane's Navy International

Raytheon is to modify the AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) planned for the US Navy's Zumwalt-class (DDG 1000) destroyers under a USD254 million software contract, the company announced on 19 December.

The X-band MFR will receive a volume search capability to compensate for the removal of the AN/SPY-4 Volume Search Radar (VSR) S-band array that was originally planned for the three next-generation destroyers.

In combination, the MFR and VSR are known as the Dual Band Radar (DBR). The deletion of Lockheed Martin's VSR from the Zumwalt class - under a decision taken by the navy in July 2010 - means that the DBR is now going in just one type of ship, the Gerald R Ford-class aircraft carriers.

Awarded by Naval Sea Systems Command on 16 December, the Raytheon contract funds "SPY-3 volume search software and firmware development, as well as software maintenance in support of the Zumwalt-class destroyer programme".

The VSR was cut from the Zumwalt programme after it breached the Nunn-McCurdy statute, which requires military equipment programmes with significant increases in unit cost to undergo a review and certification process. The navy also postponed the destroyers' initial operational capability from 2015 to 2016.In addition to the modifications to the AN/SPY-3 MFR, the contract also covers work on the total ship computing environment onboard the navy's Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS), formerly the Spruance-class destroyer Paul F. Foster.

Axing DDG 1000 Radar May Save Cash, Enable BMD
June 04, 2010 --- Defense News

The Pentagon's move to delete half the radar system for the U.S. Navy's DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers could save more than $600 million and may eventually open the door to giving the ships a ballistic missile defense capability, industry sources said.

The decision to eliminate the S-band Volume Search Radar (VSR) from the ship's Dual Band Radar (DBR), announced June 1 as part of a program restructuring brought on by a Nunn-McCurdy breach, means the ship will rely on the Raytheon SPY-3 X-band Multi-Function Radar (MFR) as its primary radar.

The Navy was unwilling to discuss how much money the move will save.

One source said it would be at least $100 million per ship, while an industry source said it would be "at least" $200 million for each of the three planned Zumwalts.

In letters sent to Congress on June 1 to explain the Nunn-McCurdy breaches, DoD acquisition chief Ashton Carter also said the initial operational capability (IOC) for the Zumwalt had been shifted from 2015 to 2016.

One source said the move reflects a "more realistic date" and is more in line with production and contractual realities.

The DDG 1000 was one of six programs whose cost growth required the Pentagon to reassert that the program "is essential to the national security." Its Nunn-McCurdy breach was due to the Navy's mid-2008 decision to cut the number of ships in the class from seven to three. Since development and test costs remain the same regardless how many ships are built, the decision boosted average individual cost per ship.

Navy leaders said changing priorities led them to cut DDG 1000 production and re-start DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer production. More ballistic missile defense (BMD) was needed, and the Navy chose to continue development of the Lockheed Martin Aegis combat system, carried by the DDG 51s, for sea-based BMD.

Sources said the decision to eliminate the VSR was "purely a budget decision" and not a reflection of any decision to install BMD capability in the ships.

But an industry source insisted the move meant space, weight and power would be available for the possible future installation of a BMD radar - which could be the Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), currently in the early stages of development. The Navy plans to fit that radar, which will be designed from the start to handle ballistic missile defense, into new Flight III versions of its venerable DDG 51-class destroyer. The first Flight III ship is scheduled to be ordered in 2016.

"Given that the Navy is engaged in the AMDR competition for the future S-band radar, why spend the money on a three- or four-of-a-kind approach to create these one-offs, when in fact, in about the same schedule, you can have a fairly good match to whatever comes out of the AMDR program?" the industry source said.

"You could do it," a technical source said. "If Zumwalt were to stay around and take on a BMD mission, it's certainly an option."

Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin bid for the AMDR contract in April, and the Navy is considering whether to downselect to one or two competitors or move ahead with all three. An announcement could come as early as September, according to the industry source.

The same technical source, however, noted that the Navy is requiring the AMDR phased array to fit into the 12-foot hole that currently houses the Aegis system's SPY-1 radar, and the VSR.

Prime contractor for the DBR is Raytheon, which is responsible for the SPY-3 MFR and the controllers that marry the system with the SPY-4 S-band volume search radar, whose arrays are made by Lockheed Martin. Navy officials confirmed the DBR still is to be installed on the new aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), already under construction by Northrop Grumman, and on the as-yet-unnamed CVN 79. No decision has been made on the radar for carriers beyond CVN 79.

In the case of the carriers, the VSR will replace two large air search radars carried by current ships, and also become the primary air traffic control radar.

The Navy has been testing both radars for some time. The SPY-3 MFR reportedly has exceeded technical expectations and will receive upgrades to give it a better volume search capability.

The VSR encountered "no serious problems," according to an industry source, although its performance "was acceptable but somewhat below expectations." Combined with dramatic cost growth - the radar was originally forecast to come in at about $20 million per ship - "it simply became a cost-benefit tradeoff." The drop in the number of radars that would be built also contributed to the radar's cost growth, the industry source said.

The Navy was apparently caught off guard by the June 1 announcements. Although the service realized by late 2008 that the program would be in breach of Nunn-McCurdy, service officials were unable to respond to media queries following the June 1 Pentagon press briefing.

The service did not respond to repeated requests by Defense News to speak to an informed expert on the subject, and a seven-question press query took three days to process.

**Dreadnought** · 29 Dec 11,, 04:09

What would you like to see changed?

Far too early to tell. Changes may take place even before they touch the water. We will have to wait and see since nothing is written in stone as of yet. There is no doubt they will not be launched with "yesterdays" tech. Hence the price tag of R&D. We are only beginning to see/read of the capabilities possible thus far. By the time comes to arm them and sensor arrays you may be looking at different then whats already in print. It wouldnt be the first time it has happened.

**Dayton3** · 29 Dec 11,, 05:31

I think they are putting way too much emphasis on simply building Burke class ships continually year after year. People forget that the Burke design is now more than 20 years old.

**USSWisconsin** · 29 Dec 11,, 18:24

IMO, they need to finish the three ships they had decided on, evalute them and get some ROI from the program.

**dundonrl** · 30 Dec 11,, 09:58

Originally Posted by Dayton3

I think they are putting way too much emphasis on simply building Burke class ships continually year after year. People forget that the Burke design is now more than 20 years old.

the Burke design is a VERY good design.. well though out, reasonably roomy, and has a lot of room for upgrades. It's also a semi-stealthy hull/superstructure, that's stable in heavy seas and as you can tell, from the Flight I/II to the Flight IIa, is easy to heavily modify.

what I think they should do, remove the LM-2500's and drop in a Ford reactor, lengthen the forward part of the hull and drop a 64 cell VLS module into it, and have our next generation Nuke Cruiser..

**USSWisconsin** · 02 Jan 12,, 07:01

I sure would like to see a couple of these in formation, perhaps with some LCS's. I really believe they need to complete the three of them, perhaps it will work out like the Seawolf and lead to a better design, I'm not getting the impression they'll be the next Burke - but we've invested so much, it would be sickening not to finish a couple.

**avon1944** · 02 Jan 12,, 09:40

Originally Posted by dundonrl

what I think they should do, remove the LM-2500's and drop in a Ford reactor, lengthen the forward part of the hull and drop a 64 cell VLS module into it, and have our next generation Nuke Cruiser..

You are looking at a major redesign, when the first ship has not been launched yet. Simply lengthening the hull was a simple solution for the Polaris missile subs but, on this surface ship is a lot more difficult and far greater time involved.

While the US Military has several 'black holes' to toss money into, to me the most destructive was the A-12 Avenger II! It crippled naval aviation by leaving a big hole in the carrier's attack capability. Without it, the A-6 & variants have been eliminated. The Hornet family can not fill the offensive range gap, neither in payload nor range.
The Zumwalt might be stealthy but, by how much in RCS compared to the Burke class DDG-51s? Is the difference in RCS worth the money involved.

**JRT** · 25 Jan 12,, 00:44

Originally Posted by JRT

By the time they get done gold plating DDG-51 for flight three, and redesigning it to carry the extra gold, its going to make DDG-1000 look like a bargain, except DDG-51 will never get the stealth treatment and will never be able to send 20 LRLAP per minute.

I know it is bad form to quote my own post.

But I'm doing that because this is intended as a follow-on to that comment.

Arleigh Burke Destroyers

Additional Analysis and Oversight Required to Support the Navy's Future Surface Combatant Plans

GAO-12-113, Jan 24, 2012

For the full report, download PDF at this link.

For the highlights version, download PDF at this link.

Below is GAO's description, from the HTML page at this link.

What GAO Found

The Navy relied on its 2009 Radar/Hull Study as the basis to select DDG 51 over DDG 1000 to carry the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) as its preferred future surface combatant—a decision that may result in a procurement of up to 43 destroyers and cost up to $80 billion over the next several decades. The Radar/Hull Study may not provide a sufficient analytical basis for a decision of this magnitude. Specifically, the Radar/Hull Study:

--- focuses on the capability of the radars it evaluated, but does not fully evaluate the capabilities of different shipboard combat systems and ship options under consideration,

--- does not include a thorough trade-off analysis that would compare the relative costs and benefits of different solutions under consideration or provide robust insight into all cost alternatives, and

--- assumes a significantly reduced threat environment from other Navy analyses, which allowed radar performance to seem more effective than it may actually be against more sophisticated threats.

The Navy’s planned production schedules of the restart DDG 51 ships are comparable with past performance and officials told us that hull and mechanical systems changes are modest, but these ships will cost more than previous DDG 51s. A major upgrade to the ship’s combat system software also brings several challenges that could affect the restart ships, due in part to a key component of this upgrade that has already faced delays. Further delays could postpone delivery to the shipyard for the first restart ship, and could also jeopardize the Navy’s plan to install and test the upgrade on an older DDG 51 prior to installation on the restart ships. This first installation would serve to mitigate risk, and if it does not occur on time the Navy will be identifying, analyzing, and resolving any combat system problems on the first restart ship. Further, the Navy does not plan to fully test new capabilities until after certifying the upgrade as combat-ready, and has not planned for realistic operational testing necessary to fully demonstrate its integrated cruise and ballistic missile defense performance.

The Navy faces significant technical risks with its new Flight III DDG 51 ships, and the current level of oversight may not be sufficient given these risks. The Navy is pursuing a reasonable risk mitigation approach to AMDR development, but it will be technically challenging. According to Navy analysis, selecting the DDG 51 hullform to carry AMDR requires significant redesign and reduces the ability of these ships to accommodate future systems. This decision also limits the radar size to one that will be at best marginally effective and incapable of meeting the Navy’s desired capabilities. The Navy may have underestimated the cost of Flight III, and its plan to include the lead ship in a multiyear procurement contract given the limited knowledge about the configuration and the design of the ship creates potential cost risk. Finally, the current level of oversight may not be commensurate with a program of this size, cost, and risk and could result in less information being available to decision makers.

Why GAO Did This Study
After nearly a decade and almost $10 billion in development on Zumwalt class destroyers, the Navy changed its acquisition approach from procuring Zumwalts to restarting production of Arleigh Burke class destroyers (DDG 51) and building a new version, known as Flight III. As requested, GAO reviewed the Navy’s plans for DDG 51 and missile defense capabilities by (1) evaluating how the Navy determined the most appropriate platform to meet surface combatant requirements; (2) identifying and analyzing differences in design, cost, and schedule of the restart ships compared with previous ships; and (3) assessing the feasibility of Navy plans for maturing and integrating new technologies and capabilities. GAO analyzed Navy and contractor documentation and interviewed Navy, contractor, and other officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making several recommendations to the Secretary of Defense, including requiring the Navy to conduct thorough analyses of alternatives for its future surface combatant program and conduct realistic operational testing of the integrated missile defense capability of the DDG 51’s upgrade, ensuring that the Navy does not include the lead Flight III ship in a multiyear procurement request, and raising the level of oversight for this program. DOD agreed with the recommendations to varying degrees, but generally did not offer specific actions to address them. GAO believes all recommendations remain valid and has included matters for congressional consideration to ensure the soundness of the Navy’s business case.

For more information, contact Belva Martin at (202) 512-4841 or MartinB@gao.gov.

Recommendations for Executive Action

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a thorough AOA in accordance with DOD acquisition guidance for its future surface combatant program to include: (a) a range of representative threat environments developed in concert with the intelligence community; (b) results of its ongoing Flight III studies and full cost estimates in advance of awarding DDG 51 Flight III production contracts; (c) implications of the ability of the preferred ship to accommodate new technologies on future capabilities to determine the most suitable ship to carry AMDR and meet near-term IAMD requirements and provide a path to far-term capabilities; (d) implications on future fleet composition; and (e) an assessment of sensor netting—conducted in consultation with MDA and other cognizant DOD components—to determine the risks inherent in the sensor netting concept, potential current or planned programs that could be leveraged, and how sensor netting could realistically be integrated with the selected future surface combatant to assist in conducting BMD. This AOA should be briefed to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to report to Congress in its annual long-range shipbuilding plan on its plans for a future, larger surface combatant, carrying a more capable version of AMDR and the costs and quantities of this ship.

Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to, in consultation with MDA and DOD and Navy weapons testers, define an operational testing approach for the Aegis ACB-12 upgrades that includes sufficient simultaneous live-fire testing needed to fully validate IAMD capabilities.

Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should upgrade the oversight of the Navy’s future surface combatant program to ACAT 1D status, and ensure that the appropriate milestone entry point is selected to provide cost baselines and assessments of design and technical risks and maturity.

Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the planned DDG 51 multiyear procurement request does not include a Flight III ship.

Agency Affected: Department of Defense

Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendations for Congressional Consideration

Recommendation: To help ensure that the department makes a sound investment moving forward, Congress may wish to consider directing the Secretary of Defense to require the Navy to submit a thorough, well-documented AOA for the its future surface combatant program that follows both DOD acquisition guidance and the elements outlined in our first recommendation prior to issuing solicitations for any detail design and construction contracts of DDG 51 Flight III ships.

Agency Affected: Congress

Status: Open

Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the department makes a sound investment moving forward, Congress may wish to consider directing the Secretary of Defense to elevate the ACAT status of the DDG 51 Flight III to an ACAT ID level if the decision is made to continue pursuing the program.

Agency Affected: Congress

Status: Open

Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the department makes a sound investment moving forward, Congress may wish to consider directing the Secretary of Defense to include the lead DDG 51 Flight III ship in a multi-year procurement request only when the Navy has adequate knowledge about ship design, cost, and risk.

Agency Affected: Congress

Status: Open

Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.

**Dreadnought** · 25 Jan 12,, 02:47

One thing is for sure. Aegis FC for the 5" is spot on. An article appeared not long ago of a live fire exercise gone wrong (fired on the wrong target however target was in a live fire exercise area and the area was declared hot) confirms that the gun and Aegis FC are well accurate at range. Aegis didnt make the mistake. The mistake was human error via program input and target select.

**JRT** · 26 Jan 12,, 00:12

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

One thing is for sure. Aegis FC for the 5" is spot on. An article appeared not long ago of a live fire exercise gone wrong (fired on the wrong target however target was in a live fire exercise area and the area was declared hot) confirms that the gun and Aegis FC are well accurate at range. Aegis didnt make the mistake. The mistake was human error via program input and target select.

Today I saw a recent article (see below) that BAE is working on a 5-inch LRLAP.
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/gr...rlap_5inch.pdf

Not sure if it is closely related or not, but 5-inch LRLAP looks a lot like the ERGM that was cancelled in 2008 that was being developed for use in the 5-inch / 62 caliber Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun System.
Extended Range Guided Munition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ATK - Surface-to-Surface Missiles

I had been under the impression that the 5-inch precision guided rocket assisted projectile had been pushed to the back burner. It makes sense that they would push forward with it, especially with the restart of the Arleigh Burkes and the renewed emphasis being placed on those.

Sources say . . . Lockheed Martin May Lessen Involvement In 5-inch LRLAP Program
Inside the Navy - 01/23/2012

Lockheed Martin may reduce its involvement in the 5-inch Long-Range Land Attack Projectile program, according to defense industry sources.

BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin originally teamed up for the LRLAP project in response to Navy interest in a 5-inch projectile for ships. However, Goodrich Corporation based in Charlotte, NC, may step up to fill Lockheed's role, sources say.

The 5-inch LRLAP is not a program of record. However last year, Inside the Navy reported, Maj. Gen. Timothy Hanifen, head of the Navy's expeditionary warfare directorate, said the Navy is still interested in a common 5-inch round that could be used on guided missile destroyers.

"We've come up with the concept, we've tested it, we've gun-launched the projectile," Darien Kearns, capture manager for munition programs at BAE Systems, told reporters during the Surface Navy Association symposium this month. The testing is taking place at the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah.

When asked about funding in next year's research and development budget for the 5-inch LRLAP, Lt. Gen. Richard Mills, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, told reporters after a Navy League breakfast on Jan. 18, "I think there is interest in the Navy in their surface fires and they're looking at some options. . . . It is an area which they are putting a renewed focus on."

Both the 155-mm LRLAP, which is a program of record slated for the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer, and the 5-in LRLAP are designed for land attack and anti-surface warfare. Both can fire about 10 rounds per minute. The range for the 155-mm LRLAP is up to 74 nautical miles and up to 52 nautical miles for the 5-inch LRLAP.

BAE Systems is also the prime contractor on the Navy's 155-mm LRLAP, which will be used on DDG-1000s and fielded in 2016. In September, ITN reported the 155-mm LRLAP will enter low-rate initial production in fiscal year 2013.

"We're almost ready to go into qualification with it. We anticipate this year finishing up the development testing and moving into qualification," Kearns stated.