Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1617181920212223242526 LastLast
Results 361 to 375 of 389

Thread: DDG-1000 News

  1. #361
    Regular thebard's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    113
    Throwing in the towel on the AGS, finally.
    https://www.upi.com/Zumwalt-class-st...8131543673265/

  2. #362
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,054
    I wonder how costly it would be to replace the guns with 2 127mm?

  3. #363
    Regular thebard's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    I wonder how costly it would be to replace the guns with 2 127mm?
    Very.

    But the real problem is to define a mission, then determine the armament needed. Then we can equip for that mission and then it will be deployed, presumably, one day.

  4. #364
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by thebard View Post
    Very.

    But the real problem is to define a mission, then determine the armament needed. Then we can equip for that mission and then it will be deployed, presumably, one day.
    Well... right now that hull is just a glorified missile barge. Can it function as an air defence cruiser, or can it just carry+shoot SAMs, to be guided by others? With just 2 helis, it can't do large-scale ASW work (like the old japanese Haruna-class DDs, or the italian Andrea Doria). With no guns, it can't do fire support unless a lot of money is spent there...

    So... whatever the choice the USN is going to spent serious cash...

  5. #365
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Jan 18
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by thebard View Post
    Very.

    But the real problem is to define a mission, then determine the armament needed. Then we can equip for that mission and then it will be deployed, presumably, one day.
    Indeed and then there is the potential issue of bolting on OEM Mk 45 5"/62s and further compromising the "Stealth" characteristics along with the addon antennae arrays.

    I find it hard to believe all the "smart" folks can not come up with some sort of fix to at least make these 155mm serviceable albeit less capable than originally imagined. The Defense Industry has been working on accurate/long range naval artillery a very long time and have just not figured this out.... is it really too hard/expensive even with reduced build of the Zumwalts? I was on a ship that fired RAP projectiles to support operations ashore almost 50 years ago. Of course nobody knew where the rounds went? Thankfully the engineers figured out how to make sensitive proximity fuses withstand the shock of hundreds/thousands of Gs back in WWII. Perhaps unfairly, I opine......Would we still be waiting today for that same VT ammo?

  6. #366
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by FlankDestroyer View Post
    I find it hard to believe all the "smart" folks can not come up with some sort of fix to at least make these 155mm serviceable albeit less capable than originally imagined.
    Afaik, there's nothing with the rounds. The problem is their cost. The last price tag I saw was around USD$800.000 per round. Minimum...

  7. #367
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by FlankDestroyer View Post
    I find it hard to believe all the "smart" folks can not come up with some sort of fix to at least make these 155mm serviceable albeit less capable than originally imagined.
    Afaik, there's nothing with the rounds. The problem is their cost. The last price tag I saw was around USD$800.000 per round. Minimum...

  8. #368
    Regular thebard's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    113
    So, I think the major problem is that the DDG1000 was really designed to fill the government mandated-by-law requirement for naval gunfire support that was lost when the Iowas were decommissioned. The VLS system is there just because any ship should have it, and other than that, the ship was designed around the AGS, which is now dead. As far as I know, the legal mandate for naval gunfire support is still in place, so somehow congress has evaded their responsibility to fund this mission (just like in so many other areas). AEGIS is now being considered for modifications to provide a theater defense strategy much like the ABM capability. If that ever happens, the DDG1000 might just end up being a big magazine that AEGIS can utilize to deliver interceptors. I'm just making all this up of course, and whatever happens in that regard is many years away. Best case scenario is that they are outfitted with a reliable, large caliber gun and electronics suite that will make them relevant in theater. I don't really see that happening though. But- smarter minds than mine are always at work so maybe there is something we haven't even considered yet.

  9. #369
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by thebard View Post
    So, I think the major problem is that the DDG1000 was really designed to fill the government mandated-by-law requirement for naval gunfire support that was lost when the Iowas were decommissioned. The VLS system is there just because any ship should have it, and other than that, the ship was designed around the AGS, which is now dead. As far as I know, the legal mandate for naval gunfire support is still in place, so somehow congress has evaded their responsibility to fund this mission (just like in so many other areas). AEGIS is now being considered for modifications to provide a theater defense strategy much like the ABM capability. If that ever happens, the DDG1000 might just end up being a big magazine that AEGIS can utilize to deliver interceptors. I'm just making all this up of course, and whatever happens in that regard is many years away. Best case scenario is that they are outfitted with a reliable, large caliber gun and electronics suite that will make them relevant in theater. I don't really see that happening though. But- smarter minds than mine are always at work so maybe there is something we haven't even considered yet.
    Continue the DDG-1000 line for the CG(X) to relplace the Ticonderogas. Stretch it and give it a normal bow and reuse some of those billions spent on the design.

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...s?iid=sr-link9

  10. #370
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by thebard View Post
    So, I think the major problem is that the DDG1000 was really designed to fill the government mandated-by-law requirement for naval gunfire support that was lost when the Iowas were decommissioned. The VLS system is there just because any ship should have it, and other than that, the ship was designed around the AGS, which is now dead. As far as I know, the legal mandate for naval gunfire support is still in place, so somehow congress has evaded their responsibility to fund this mission (just like in so many other areas). AEGIS is now being considered for modifications to provide a theater defense strategy much like the ABM capability. If that ever happens, the DDG1000 might just end up being a big magazine that AEGIS can utilize to deliver interceptors. I'm just making all this up of course, and whatever happens in that regard is many years away. Best case scenario is that they are outfitted with a reliable, large caliber gun and electronics suite that will make them relevant in theater. I don't really see that happening though. But- smarter minds than mine are always at work so maybe there is something we haven't even considered yet.
    Continue the DDG-1000 line for the CG(X) to relplace the Ticonderogas. Stretch it and give it a normal bow and reuse some of those billions spent on the design.

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...s?iid=sr-link9

  11. #371
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    Continue the DDG-1000 line for the CG(X) to relplace the Ticonderogas. Stretch it and give it a normal bow and reuse some of those billions spent on the design.

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...s?iid=sr-link9
    That's... a massive increase in tonnage and size... can the USN even aford that?!

  12. #372
    Regular thebard's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 17
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    Continue the DDG-1000 line for the CG(X) to relplace the Ticonderogas. Stretch it and give it a normal bow and reuse some of those billions spent on the design.

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...s?iid=sr-link9
    Using the past to predict the future, you should expect two things:
    1) With the new congress, disparate spending priorities make funding questionable for a CG(X) program at all.
    2) Assuming the program goes forward, there will be massive compromises to steer work to different congressional districts and to reduce (promised) costs to obtain votes for funding, so lots of the capabilities outlined will never make it into whatever hull might be chosen.

  13. #373
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    That's... a massive increase in tonnage and size... can the USN even aford that?!
    compared to a cruiser? (the Ticonderogas?)

    (do i have my terminology correct there?)

  14. #374
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    compared to a cruiser? (the Ticonderogas?)

    (do i have my terminology correct there?)
    Don't let the class fool you. The Ticonderogas came out at between 9500-9800 tons with 173 meters, while the latest Arleight Burkes destroyers come at... the same tonage with 154 meters (getting overloaded?).

    Whereas the current DDG-1000 has over 14500 tons at 183 meters in lenght. Strech that and you get very close to the WWII's Baltimore class of heavy cruisers (17000/205)...

  15. #375
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    Don't let the class fool you. The Ticonderogas came out at between 9500-9800 tons with 173 meters, while the latest Arleight Burkes destroyers come at... the same tonage with 154 meters (getting overloaded?).

    Whereas the current DDG-1000 has over 14500 tons at 183 meters in lenght. Strech that and you get very close to the WWII's Baltimore class of heavy cruisers (17000/205)...
    interesting on the sizes. i've never been aware of the size differences really.

    i know the Zumwalts have the two deck guns with the vertical launch cells on the perimeter, but is that why they have so many fewer than a ticonderoga? 80 compared to 122?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. DDG-1000's stealth capability
    By cr9527 in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 25 Apr 11,, 16:21
  2. Zumwalt class DDG / DDG 1000
    By xinhui in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09 Apr 09,, 00:17
  3. Post number 1000
    By Repatriated Canuck in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04 Jun 08,, 01:04
  4. UK to cut 1000 Basra troops
    By Ironduke in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03 Oct 07,, 02:43

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •