• Friday, November 16, 2018

Top 10 Destroyers

Discussion in 'Naval Warfare' started by Zarvan, Sep 14, 2018.

  1. Zarvan

    Zarvan ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    45,886
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Ratings:
    +81 / 45,743 / -13
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    The most porweful modern navies operate destroyers. These are the heaviest surface combatants in general use today. These ships are not numerous. Only the powerful navies around the world operate these warships.

    So which is the most powerful destroyer in the world? Which is the greatest modern destroyer and why? Our Top 10 analysis is based on the combined score of firepower, offensive and defensive capabilities, size, displacement, sensors, stealthiness and some other features.

    This list only includes destroyers that are currently in service, or will be commissioned in the near future.

    Currently top 10 destroyers in the world are these:



    [​IMG]

    Nr.1 Zumwalt class (USA)



    The Zumwalt class destroyers are the new cutting-edge warships for the US Navy. The lead ship, USS Zumwalt, was commissioned with the US Navy in 2016. It is named in honor of Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. Originally 32 ships of the class were planned. However only three ships will be built due to high unit price.

    The Zumwalt class warships are the largest destroyer ever built. Actually in terms of size, displacement and armament these are closer to cruisers rather than destroyers. The Zumwalt class ships are even larger than Ticonderoga classcruisers. These new vessels sport cutting-edge technology and are stealthy to radars. Also these warships have new propulsion and powerful armament.

    These stealthy guided missile destroyers can perform anti-aircraft and naval fire support, however the main focus is on land attack.

    The USS Zumwalt has unusual hull design optimized for wave piercing. There is a composite deckhouse. Angular shape minimizes its radar signature. The ship has hidden radar and sensors. The despite its size the USS Zumwalt has a radar signature of a fishing boat. Also it has reduced sound and infrared signature what makes this ship harder to detect.

    These warships will be fitted with 80 advanced modular vertical launch cells for various missiles. The USS Zumwalt can carry a mix of various missiles, including Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles (1 per cell), ASROC anti-submarine rockets (1 per cell), RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM) (4 per cell) and Standard surface-to-air missiles. Also there are two 155-mm naval guns with 920 rounds of ammunition and two 57-mm guns.

    This stealthy destroyer has the highest level of automation of any US Navy surface warship. It will be operated by less sailors than comparable ships. The USS Zumwalt will be run by a crew of about 140 sailors. It is half the crew of comparable Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Automated systems will put out fires and combat flooding. Surveillance cameras will monitor what is going outside.

    The ship has a flight deck and a hangar for up to two medium-lift helicopters such as SH-60 or MH-60R Seahawks. It can also carry up to three MQ-8 Fire Scout or other small UAVs.

    The USS Zumwalt is the first US surface warship to use electric propulsion. Its integrated power system can send electricity to the electric drive motors or weapons. Its powerplant produces enough electricity to power future weapons like the electromagnetic gun or laser. It generates enough power to light up a small city. Sound levels of the Zumwalt are comparable with Los Angeles class submarines.





    [​IMG]

    Nr.2 Sejong the Great class (South Korea)



    The Sejong the Great class destroyers are among the most advanced warships afloat today. They were developed under the KDX-III program, which sought to provide the South Korean Navy with a world-class destroyer capable of meeting virtually any threat at sea, on land, or in the air.

    The design of these vessels borrows heavily from features of the American Arleigh Burke class and the Japanese Atago class, and shares numerous common components and systems as well, but has a largely original construction and composition. Moreover, with a combat displacement of some 11 000 tons (practically making these vessels Cruisers), the Sejong the Great class destroyers are substantially heavier. South Korean Navy operates three of these vessels.

    Likely owing to the use of only fully-developed technologies and subsystems, the Sejong the Great class destroyers cost only $923 million per-vessel. This price tag makes these vessels among the most inexpensive AEGIS warships ever constructed.

    The weapons, sensors, fire controls, propulsion, and other systems are fully-automated, and networked together via the Aegis combat information system; the version currently used in the Sejong the Great class is Baseline 7 Phase 1. This system allows the ship to detect, identify, evaluate, and engage targets with no input from the crew, other than the decision to engage. The system can also display several-thousand contacts, and track and/or engage up to 100 targets simultaneously.

    The missile battery of the Sejong the Great class is exceptional. Not even including the 21-cell RAM launcher, or even the 16 Hyunmoo III anti-ship missiles, they carry an incredible 128 missiles in three different vertical launch cell pads (one forward with 48 cells, one aft with 32 cells, and another 48-cell pad aft). This is a much larger stock of missiles than the 96 cells found on the Arleigh Burke class, furthermore it is second-place to the Kirov class battlecruisers (which have the world's largest missile battery, at 352 missiles).

    The variety of missiles carried by the Sejong the Great class is staggering as well. These include the RIM-66M-5/SM-2ER Block IV Standard SSM-700K Haeseong with a range of 240 km, the Hyunmoo IIIB land attack cruise missile with a range of 1 000 km, the SSM-700K Haeseong anti-ship missile with a range of 150 km, the Red Shark (also called the K-ASROC) anti-submarine missile with a 18.5 km range, and the RIM-116B RAM surface to air missile with a range of 7.4 km. The K745 Blue Shark torpedo has an effective range of 18.5 km.

    There are two hangars for helicopters.





    [​IMG]

    Nr.3 Arleigh Burke class (USA)



    The Arleigh Burke class warships are the biggest destroyers currently in service with the US Navy. Also these are one of the biggest destroyers in the world that incorporate highly advanced weaponry and systems.

    These guided missile destroyers entered service with the US Navy in 1991 were the first large US Navy vessel designed to incorporate stealth shaping techniques to reduce radar cross-section. Also these were the first destroyers fitted with Aegis combat system. These destroyers were intended to be a cheaper, less capable vessels than the Ticonderoga classcruisers. Originally tasked with defending against Soviet aircraft, missiles and submarines, these potent general purpose destroyer are now used in high-threat areas to conduct anti-air, anti-submarine, anti-surface, and land attack operations.

    Hull profile of the Arleight Burke class significantly improves seakeeping, permitting high speeds to be maintained in difficult sea states. The hull form is characterized by considerable flare and a 'V'-shape appearance at the waterline.

    Built primarily from steel, the class has aluminium masts to reduce topweight. Kevlar armour is fitted over all vital machinery and operations room spaces. Surprisingly, it was the first US warship class to be fully equipped to operate in NBC environments, with the crew confined to a protected citadel located within the hull and superstructure.

    The AN/SPY-1D phased array radar incorporates significant advances in the detection capabilities of the AEGIS weapons system, particularly in its resistance to enemy electronic countermeasures.

    The AEGIS system is designed to counter all current and projected missile threats to the Navy's battle forces. A conventional, mechanically rotating radar 'sees' a target when the radar beam strikes that target once during each 360° rotation of the antenna. A separate tracking radar is then required to engage each target. By contrast, the AEGIS system brings these functions together within one system. The four fixed arrays of the SPY-1D send out beams of electromagnetic energy in all directions simultaneously, continuously providing a search and tracking capability for hundreds of targets at the same time. The SPY-1D and the Mark 99 fire control system allow them to guide vertically-launched Standard missiles to intercept hostile aircraft and missiles at long ranges. Missile are stored in vertical launch systems, that can also house smaler Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) missiles, Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, ASROC anti-submarine missiles. For point defense the ships are equipped with two Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS). Also there are 324 mm launchers for Mk.46 or Mk.50 torpedoes.

    This class currently consists of 62 destroyers in three versions, namely Flight I, Flight II, and Flight IIA. The laters Flight IIA vessels are sometimes referred as the Oscar Austin class. These have a helicopter hangar for two helicopters, as well as an enlarged vertical launch system, a new 127 mm dual-purpose gun and are packed with modern sensors and weaponry. These warship have a full load displacement of 9 648 tons and are significantly larger than original Flight I ships, that were commissioned in the early 1990s. Construction of further improved Flight III variant is planned for 2016.





    [​IMG]

    Nr.4 Type 052D class (China)



    The Type 052D class is referred as Chinese Aegis. It is known in the West as Luyang III class. It is a follow-on to the previous Type 052C (Luyang II) class. A total of 12 Type 052D destroyers are being built at a rapid pace for the Chinese Navy by two different shipyards. The first vessel entered service in 2014.

    The Type 052D class is among the World's biggest and most capable destroyers. It follows the lines of the previous Type 052C class, but is larger and has reduced radar cross-section. Also the new warships have improved weaponry and pack a heavier punch. These guided missile destroyers are equipped with advanced radar and two 32-cell Vertical Launch Systems (VLS) for various missiles. Still though these are general-purpose destroyers, rather than specializes anti-air warfare vessels. It seems that these warships have capabilities similar to those of the US Arleigh Burke class general-purpose destroyers.

    It looks like the phased array radar of the Type 052D is a further development of the Type 052C radar. The new radar is larger and presumably has more transceivers. This radar was first observed in 2012 on a Bi Sheng weaponry trial ship. In function it is similar to the US SPY-1 Aegis radar. It can detect air targets at significant ranges and track numerous targets simultaneously. Some sources report that the Type 052D class warships are also fitted with a newest Chinese data link. This secure tactical data system is used for communication with other naval assets.

    The two 32-cell VLS can hold and launch different types of missiles. These include surface-to-air missiles, cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine missiles. The Type 052D class has superior offensive capabilities. In these terms it even outperforms many Western destroyers.

    Point defense is provided by a HHQ-10 launcher, packed with short-range air defense missiles.

    Last ditch defense is provided by a seven-barreled 30 mm CIWS. It seems that starting with the 9th hull destroyers will be fitted with improved eleven-barreled 30 mm CIWS. It can fire at a rare of a whooping 10 000 rounds per minute. It is claimed that it can intercept incoming anti-ship missiles up to a speed of Mach 4 with a 96% success rate. So far these eleven-barreled CIWS were fitted on Chinese Liaoning aircraft carrier and latest Type 054A class frigates.

    These Chinese destroyers have a single 130 mm main gun.

    For anti-submarine warfare there are torpedo tubes and anti-submarine rocket launchers.

    The Type 052D class warships have a hangar for a single helicopter. These destroyers can accommodate a Kamov Ka-28 (export version of the Ka-27) or Harbin Z-9C. However most other warships of similar size and displacement typically can accommodate two helicopters.





    [​IMG]

    Nr.5 Kolkata class (India)



    Even though the Indian Kolkata class destroyers might not be as advanced as contemporary Western or even Chinese warships, these pack a very formidable punch.

    The Project 15A was launched in 1986, following the approval of the cabinet committee as a follow-on class to Delhi class. As with most Indian military projects, development and construction of these warships was plagued with setbacks, delays and cost overruns. By the year 2000, the Kolkata class was redesigned by Directorate of Naval Design including the modern stealth attributes. These destroyers have reduced radar cross section, although these are by no means true stealthy vessels. The lead vessel was delayed by 4 years (to 2014) due to technical faults found out during the sea trials. However, the faults were rectified and INS Kolkata was finally commissioned 2014. The Kolkata class comprises of 3 ships namely – INS Kolkata, INS Kochi, INS Chennai. All 3 named on the coastal cities of India.

    These warships a packed with a mix of indigenous, Russian, and Western sensors, equipment and weapons. Weapon systems include BRAHMOS nuclear capable supersonic missiles (16 missiles) These can reach a speed of 2.8 Mach (3 457 km/h) and engage hostile ships or land targets. So these Indian destroyers have significant offensive capabilities. Also there are Indo-Israel jointly developed Barak-8 air defense missiles (32 missiles). These have a range of up to 90 km.

    Other weapons include a single 76 mm dual-purpose gun and four AK-630 CIWS.

    Anti-submarine weapon include 533 mm torpedoes and anti-submarine rocket launchers. These vessels can house two helicopters, either HAL Dhruv or Westland Sea King.





    [​IMG]

    Nr.6 Atago class (Japan)



    The Atago class are large Japan's destroyers with strong anti-air warfare capability. This class is a scaled-up and improved version of the Kongou class (a Japanese version of the US Arleigh Burke class). Two Atago class ships are in service with Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and two more are being built.

    The Atago class warships carry Aegis world-class air defense system. It integrates a mix of Japanese- and American-made systems, including weapons, radar and fire control into one highly efficient system, capable of controlling a fleet battle above and below the surface. Furthermore the Aegis system used on Atago class ships is more capable than that, used on the previous Kongou class.

    The main role of the Atago class destroyers is to provide air defense for the fleet. These warships can even engage ballistic missiles. There is a 96-cell Mk.41 VLS with 64 cells in the forward area and 32 cells in the stern area. These are packed with a mix of SM-2MR Standard missiles, SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles and RUM-139 ASROC anti-submarine missiles.

    The same VLS could also pack Tomahawk anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles. However in line with Japan's post-war constitution the Atago class does not carry Tomahawk missiles. Instead anti-ship capability is provided by less capable Type 90 (SSM-1B) anti-ship missiles. These anti-ship missiles have a range of 150 km and carry a 225 kg warhead. In concept these are similar to the US Harpoon, though it looks like these Japanese missiles are more advanced than the Harpoons. The Atago class can carry up to 8 of these missiles on two quadruple launchers.

    So offensive capabilities of the Atago class warships is rather week, even compared with the Indian Kolkata class destroyers, that are much smaller.

    The Atago class has a 127 mm dual-purpose gun in a stealth-shaped mount. The gun is the same as on the previous Kongou class, its barrel has extended from 54 calibers to 62 calibers. It can handle strengthened powder charges and has a maximum range of 38 km. This gun can engage hostile ships, air targets, and bombard land targets.

    Last ditch defense against incoming anti-ship missiles is provided by two 20 mm Phalanx CIWS. One of them is located in the forward area, while another one is in the stern area.

    For anti-submarine warfare there are 2 triple-tube torpedo launchers for Mk.46 Mod.5 Neartip, or Japanese Type 73 torpedoes.

    Hangar of the Atago class accommodates only a single SH-60K helicopter. Though most warships of similar size and displacement can accommodate two helicopters.

    These warships are operated by a crew of 300 sailors, including the aircrew, and can function as fleet command centers.





    [​IMG]

    Nr.7 Kongou class (Japan)



    For much of the last four decades, the primary focus of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force (JMSDF) has been on anti-air and anti-submarine warfare. During the 1980s and 1990s, the increasing threat from China, together with the reduction of the US military presence in the region, meant that Japan was forced to take a more active military role in Asian waters. To meet this new role a new Kongou class of guided-missile destroyers has been commissioned.

    Based loosely upon the US Navy's Arleigh Burke class, the Kongous have been built to mercantile instead of warship standards. However, they are slightly bigger than the American ships, and carry an improved lightweight version of the Aegis combat system. It integrates weapons, radar and fire control into one highly efficient system, capable of controlling a fleet battle above and below the surface. Actually the Kongou class destroyers are one of the largest destroyers in the world. In terms of size and displacement these are nearly as large as cruisers.

    The lead ship of the class, Kongou, was commissioned in 1993. It was followed by three more similar warships.

    The main external difference between these vessels and the Burkes is that the Kongous have a longer flush deck at the stern, making it easier to handle helicopters up to the size of the SH-60J Seahawk or larger. Though it looks like due to this improvement the Kongou class lost some of the Arleigh Burke class's seakeeping.

    The main role of these warships is fleet air defense. The Kongou class ships are an extremely important element in the protection of Japan. Their sophisticated long-range air defense capability is seen as a national asset beyond their duty to protect the fleet.

    Main weapons of the Kongou class are two Mk.41 vertical launch systems with a total of 90 Standard SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles.

    There are two 20 mm Phalanx CIWS, that provide last ditch protection against incoming anti-ship missiles. There is also a 127 mm dual-purpose rapid-fire cannon that can engage both surface and air targets, or bombard land targets.

    Anti-ship capability is provided by 2 quadrupple Harpoon missile launchers. However the Kongou class lacks any significant land attack capabilities.

    Also there are two tripple launchers for Mk.46 Mod.5 Neartip anti-submarine torpedoes. Anti-submarine capability is also provided by a SH-60J helicopter.

    Further development of the Kongou class became the Atago class anti-air warfare destroyers. These are essentially scaled-up versions of the Kongou class.





    [​IMG]

    Nr.8 Aikizuki class (Japan)



    The Japanese Aikizuki class of general purpose destroyers are used as escorts for the Hyuga and Izumo class helicopter carriers. A total of 4 Aikizuki class ships were planned and were eventually completed. The lead ship was commissioned with the JMSDF in 2012. The last one was commissioned in 2014.

    The Aikizuki class is based on the previous Takanami class destroyers. Their main role is to escort Hyuga class and Izumo class helicopter carries, as well as Kongou class and Atago class Aegis destroyers, and to shield them from air, surface and underwater threats. The Aikizuki class ships pack more advanced equipment than their predecessors, including new sensors and sonar and are slightly larger than the Takanami class vessels. Furthermore the Aikizuki class has cleaner lines in order to reduce the radar cross-section. Other improvements include more powerful engines. Also the Aikizuki class destroyers have an indigenous ATECS battle management system, that is being called the Japanese Aegis.

    The Aikizuki class destroyers have an indigenous combat system, which includes AESA radar and fire control system. It is a derivative of the combat system, used on Hyuga class helicopter carriers, but has additional local area defense capability. Data is transferred among JMSDF ships by a secured Link 16 datalink.

    The Aikizuki class guided missile destroyers carry balanced armament, that provides protection airborne, surface and underwater threats. There is a 32-cell Mk.41 VLS, packed with a mix of RIM-162 Evolves Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM) surface-to-air missiles and ASROC anti-submarine missiles. The lead ship, Aikizuki, is armed with RUM-139 ASROC missiles, while all later ships carry the Type 07, a Japanese equivalent of this missile.

    Long-range anti-ship capability is provided by two quadrupple launchers with Type 90 (SSM-1B) anti-ship cruise missiles. These anti-ship missiles have a range of 150 km and carry a 225 kg warhead. In concept these are similar to the USHarpoon, though it looks like these Japanese missiles are more advanced than the Harpoons. The JMSDF actually replaces Harpoon missiles on its ships by their Type 90.

    There is a 127 mm dual-purpose gun in a stealth-shaped mount. The gun is similar to that as used on the larger Atago class destroyers. It has an extended 62 calibers barrel and can handle strengthened powder charges. The gun has a maximum range of 38 km. It can engage hostile ships, air targets, and bombard land targets.

    Last ditch defense against incoming air threats is provided by two 20 mm Phalanx Block 1B CIWS. One of them is located in the forward area, while another is in the stern area.

    Anti-submarine capability is provided by two tripple launchers for 324 mm torpedoes. These can launch Mk.46 Mod.5 Neartip, or Japanese Type 73 torpedoes. Also the Aikizuki class ships have an anti-torpedo system.

    There is a hangar for a single Mitsubishi SH-60K anti-submarine helicopter. It is mainly intended for anti-submarine duties.

    Some of the Aikizuki class systems, such as hull sonar, towed array sonar, electronic warfare suite, are comparable to those used on the Zumwalt class.





    [​IMG]

    Nr.9 Daring class (United Kingdom)



    The Daring class eveloped from a joint Anglo-French-Italian project called 'Project Horizon'. However, this initiative was beset with delays and arguments. The Royal Navy wanted a larger destroyer, which would operate in the Atlantic ocean, could patrol large areas and provide air defense for the fleet. On the other hand France and Italy desired for smaller warships to operate in the Mediterranean region. In 1999, the Royal Navy withdrew from the joint project and commenced the development of the Type 45 class. Significant changes were made to the original project. The lead ship, HMS Daring, entered service in 2009. The last of 6 ships was commissioned in 2013. These are the largest surface combatants operated by the Royal Navy since World War II. Also these are the most advanced warships of the Royal Navy.

    The main role of the Daring class is to provide air defense for the fleet. Some of the class's features include Principal Anti-Aircraft Missile System (PAAMS). The PAAMS incorporates 48-cell VLS with 32 Aster-30 missiles (80 km range) and 16 Aster-15 missiles (30 km range). The system can intercept super-agile missiles fitted with re-attack modes, together with the full envelope of current and anticipated air threats. Furthermore, the ship can engage missile threats operating either individually or in salvos. In addition to PAAMS, it is hoped that the Daring class will eventually deploy Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    Anti-ship capability is provided by two quadrupple Harpoon launchers.

    The ships feature a comprehensive suite of sensors. An S1850M radar provides wide-area, long-range search. This is reinforced by an MFS-7000 bow-mounted sonar. Air defence combat management is co-ordinated by the Sampson radar system, combining surveillance and tracking roles in a single system. This can detect and track hostile aircraft or missiles while providing guidance for the ship's own weapons systems. This radar is more capable than the radars used on the Franco-Italian Horizon class destroyers.

    The ship's sensors are linked together by the combat management system, while communications with other vessels and satellite systems are facilitated through the fully-integrated communications system.

    Ship protection is provided by the Surface Ship Torpedo Defence System. Furthermore, the ship can embark a complement of 60 Royal Marine Commandos with a supporting helicopter. The flight deck accommodates the Royal Navy'sMerlin helicopter, although initially the ships operated with Lynx.

    The Type 45 or Daring class features a revolutionary WR-21 advanced gas turbine engine. The engines features an Integrated Electric Propulsion System, which eliminates the gearbox and increases fuel efficiency.

    The ship's interior has been designed with 'room for growth' as a major consideration. While the ship's complement include around 190 crew, there is an option to increase this to 235. This permit the accommodation of specialist personnel, which allow for an increased range of missions, such as humanitarian relief, to be performed.





    [​IMG]

    Nr.10 Horizon class (France/Italy)



    The Project Horizon started life in 1992 as a cooperative Anglo-Franco-Italian development. In Italy it was known as Project Orizzonte, which translates as "horizon". An international joint venture company was established in 1995 to produce the new warships. However due to differing national requirements this initiative was beset with delays and arguments. The Royal Navy wanted a larger destroyer, which would operate in the Atlantic ocean, could patrol large areas and provide air defense for the fleet. On the other hand France and Italy desired for smaller and less capable warships to operate in the Mediterranean region. Also there were workshare arguments. In 1999 the United Kingdom left the project and eventually developed its equivalent - the Daring class destroyers. France and Italy continued development on their own. In 2000 a contract was signed to jointly produce 4 ships, two for each country. Originally four more ships were planned, tow for each country. But eventually these were never ordered.

    Italy ordered Andrea Doria and Caio Duilio. The first one was commissioned in 2007. It reached full operational capability in 2008. The second ship followed in 2009. France ordered Forbin and Chevalier Paul. The first one was commissioned in 2008 and the second followed in 2009.

    The Horizon class ships are officially referred as frigates. However considering their size and powerful armament these ships are clearly destroyers. These are called frigates purely for political reasons. These vessels have enhanced stealth features with significantly reduced radar cross section and noise levels.

    The main radar is the EMPAR phased array multi-purpose radar. It detects air targets and provides tracking for the missiles.

    The Horizon class destroyers are fitted with a 48-cell VLS for a mix of Aster-15 (range 30 km) and Aster-30 (range 120 km) surface-to-air missiles.

    Anti-ship capability comes from two quadrupple launchers. French warships are armed with MM.40 Exocet anti-ship missiles, while Italian warships carry OTOMAT Teseo Mk.2A anti-ship missiles. These have a range of 180 km and carry a 210 kg warhead.

    The French Horizon class warships are armed with two OTO Melara 76 mm Super Rapid guns. These rapid-firing dual purpose guns can engage both surface and air targets and even act as CIWS. On French ships last ditch defense is provided by a SADRAL launcher with six Mistral short-range surface-to-air missiles. Also there are two 20-mm automatic cannons for engaging small surface targets.

    On the other hand Italian warships are armed with three 76 mm rapid-firing guns. Also there are two Oerlikon 25 mm cannons for engaging small surface targets.

    These destroyers are armed with 2 twin launchers for MU90 lightweight torpedoes. For defense against incoming torpedoes there are 2 launchers with SLAT anti-torpedo system.

    The Horizon class destroyers can accommodate a single helicopter. It can be NH90 HFH, or AW101. It can be used for long-range anti-submarine warfare, search and rescue, utility and other roles. Aviation facilities include a flight deck and hangar.

    http://www.military-today.com/navy/top_10_destroyers.htm
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. dBSPL

    dBSPL FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    313
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2018
    Ratings:
    +3 / 550 / -0
    Country:
    Albania
    Location:
    Turkey
    We can not consider the power issue as purely gun power. Use of non-optimal power can not be continuous, either short-lived or fragile. As far as systems are concerned, the most important issue here is organizational and doctrinal approaches.

    The system that does not have substitution problems and that will not push you to make deficits with a sustainable logistics infrastructure; Describes optimum use of the power.

    Zumwalt is a system that even the United States pushes itself to the edge because of costs and sustainability issues. It may be a good propaganda tool, but if you know some theory of war, you must know that weary and long wars can not be won by technology that will have a substitution problem on the front. They go with Airleigh Burke with a correct and rational decision.

    According to my opinion, real number 1 is Airleigh Burke and second Chinese type 52s...
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. +4vsgorillas-Apebane

    +4vsgorillas-Apebane SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,265
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Ratings:
    +2 / 6,288 / -5
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    Chinese 055 should be counted. Though not commissioned yet its often referred to as a destroyer.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. Beast

    Beast ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    13,352
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Ratings:
    +6 / 32,005 / -24
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    China
    Zumwalt is a massive failure. The one who rank Zumwalt I bet is some amatuer kid who has no knowledge in military. The only weapon it has is 2 conventional guns that does not give any edge in a modern era naval warfare.

    Due to trying to stay extreme stealthy, it sacrifice stability. Sure its very advance in sensor and fire control but without capacity to carry essential weapons like real railgun or missiles. It just like a floating USS Ford carrier without its airwing which will becomes as good as useless.

    Secondly, USS Alreigh Burke destroyer has not update since the 90s, the radar on-board is still PESA. Not even AESA. The idiot who do this ranking is just some america paid writer with no merit and proper research.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  5. Natan

    Natan FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,112
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,001 / -3
    Country:
    Israel
    Location:
    Israel
    Zumwalt class should rather be a type of its own. It is a modern-day monitor, not a destroyer.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. jhungary

    jhungary MILITARY PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    9,740
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Ratings:
    +319 / 9,852 / -0
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    Australia
    Wow......too many thing that is wrong.

    The number 1 advantage of Zumwalt is not its advance radar or stealth capability, although they are more advance than anyone at the field, the number 1 advantage Zumwalt class offer is automation, which resulting to a small (extremely small) ship complement compare to ship to similar size and class. Compare them to Ticonderoga, it needed 1/3 of a Ticonderoga crew but is 25% larger than it. And when you compare to 052D, Zumwalt require half of the number of a 052D crew but is twice the size.

    Why this is an advantage? You can replace equipment easy, especially with modular design like Zumwalt it takes no more than a month to replace radar system or weapon package, but to replace a crew member, you are looking at 18 - 30 months training. From recruit to being proficiency on operating the system or rating. So for a smaller crew, you need less crew replacement, because there are not much crew placement in the first place, that mean it save time, money and efficiency and you can provide a redundant crew to crew the ship even if the first crew is incapacitated.

    If you also put the advance sensor in Zumwalt, you will see why it is more advance than EVERY TYPE of warship currently in the market.

    Also Zumwalt CAN carry railgun and laser weapon, because the ship is a modular ship, like LCS, weapon package can be interchanged, in fact, the design requirement of Zumwalt is to accommodating with a railgun, notice its 78 MW power generator. With 58MW reserve power generation.

    https://thediplomat.com/2016/03/u-s-may-field-railgun-on-zumwalt-destroyer/
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 7
  7. Beast

    Beast ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    13,352
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Ratings:
    +6 / 32,005 / -24
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    China
    It needs lease crew becos of little weapon onboard. I am sure more crew is needed if more things are added. Then it's back to square one , same as darling or type052d.
    Finally, US rail gun is nowhere in sight. No even shipboard sea trial. I can dare to bet with you. US naval rail gun will not be in service in even next 10 years. Bragging about future weapon that no where operation in next 10 years is just like India bragging about a paper drawing AMCA project able to compete with F-22 raptor and J-20
     
  8. LeGenD

    LeGenD SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,666
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Ratings:
    +10 / 4,991 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    So much wrong in your post that it is difficult to decide from where to start.

    Zumwalt serve as the ultimate testbed for futuristic naval warfare concepts, and much of its capabilities are classified.

    As another member pointed out, Zumwalt is fully automated which translate into small crew for operating and maintaining it.

    Zumwalt have following armaments:

    155 mm AGS × 2 (~72 KM PSD)
    30 mm MK-46 x 2
    VLS (MK-57) x 80 carrying SM-6, ESSM and Tomahawk cruise missiles

    What else, is not clear.

    ---

    Arleigh Burke class destroyer is constantly updated and its capabilities are 2nd to none (better than anything out there in fact). These destroyers have defeated cruise missiles in real-time situations and even shot down ballistic missiles in various live-intercepts. Their armament levels are frightening to say the least.

    And you clearly do not understand the capabilities of radars in existence; PESA and AESA are layman arguments. Real thing is the overall design and sophistication beneath which is classified to large extent. Arleigh Burke class destroyers feature incredibly sophisticated AN/SPY-1 radar system (upgraded to 9C configuration to perform BMDS and normal operations in tandem; a breakthrough). However, latest vessels are being equipped with the new AN/SPY-6 radar system which is laughably ahead of anything in service across the world.

    Railgun technology is not mature yet, anywhere.

    Chinese railgun experiments failed hundreds of times [behind-the-scenes] before China reached the stage of fielding a functioning prototype on a single warship and it is huge still (about the size of a massive helicopter).

    In case you didn't knew, Zumwalt's 155 mm AGS (fully functional) are more advanced than even railgun prototypes. They are fully automated and can fire long-range guided munitions while in vertical and forward angles of attack. Although their munition is very expensive.

    US is looking forward to mass-produce miniaturized railguns, not massive prototypes. You will see major progress in this domain in the next 5 years. In fact, public is not kept informed about a great many things. US tested an endo-atmospheric hypersonic weapon in 1965 (declassified information). Do the math.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2018
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  9. Beast

    Beast ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    13,352
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Ratings:
    +6 / 32,005 / -24
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    China
    Another misleading post which you purposely omit it and added on your own. Zumwalt class is not a prototype. In fact 40 of them are planned before zero down to 3 and after realizing how limited this warship is. This will be the first and last build. This more or less show how a massive failure it is.

    The current gun installed onboard does not justify the price tag and electric propulsion needed. Not too mention the far superior spec of a real rail gun. US too has failed hundred of times of their rail gun test and not to mention field a railgun as small as Chinese onboard a ship. Show me a photo of USN railgun tested onboard, I will eat back my words. Chinese railgun can installed onboard a 4200tons LST. I don't see how it will be a problem for a 12000tons type 055 destroyer.

    Talking about how advance the combat system of US AB destroyer is very relative and is based on how reader interpret themselves. But facts is US AB destroyer now is still running on PESA. I do not want to elaborate further on adv and disadvantage of PESA vs AESA as it will be too long. Reader can sure find a lot of thread about it. Many based in AB is solely on it past merit when many current modern destroyer like daring , type 055 destroyer are not field 10 years ago. But I do admit in terms of fire power of 96 silo of VLS with land attack, anti ship, anti missile are hard to surpass of USN AB destroyer( except Type 055 destroyer 112 silo).
     
  10. gambit

    gambit PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    23,010
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +127 / 20,578 / -7
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Just another typical idiotic statement from an 'amatuer kid who has no knowledge in military', namely, YOU.

    Why is the US Navy's using the 5-in gun? Because that caliber has PROVEN to be economical, accurate, and sufficiently destructive.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/thi...n-here-to-the-gunners-room-below-the-5-inch-6
    All it take is a 10 rounds volley to render the Liaoning or equivalent incapable of conducting air ops, kid.

    What you and your fellow Chinese on this forum know of radar, you guys learned from me. Do not even try to pull anything with me, pal. There are situations where PESA system is just as good as an AESA system, and I bet you cannot explain when/where/how, no matter how much you search here or there. And no one from the Chinese forums elsewhere in the Internet can help you simply because just like you, none of them ever served or have relevant experience to help you.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
    • Positive Rating Positive Rating x 1
  11. Beast

    Beast ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    13,352
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Ratings:
    +6 / 32,005 / -24
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    China
    Lol... I doubt your AB can even get near 300nm of CV Liaoning. Not to mention even brag about 5 inch gun. The 5 inch coventional gun is consider a kiddy if compare to a railgun. Zumwalt destroyer is so mighty that USN believes building one is enough. :lol:

    Since like your basic logic theory can't even pass a 3 years old kiddy standard. Typical American troll when one standard applies to others and not yourself. PESA is so good that I believe F-22 raptor shall equipped one. May I ask u a simple question why AB flight III will equipped with AESA if the PESA is so good? And I don't know which idiot even like your post. Maybe your Clone account to do self bragging. :enjoy:

    @Flynn Swagmire
     
  12. LeGenD

    LeGenD SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,666
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Ratings:
    +10 / 4,991 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    You are misreading the situation. Cost of just 3 Zumwalt class destroyers have exceeded 22 billion USD mark. At this rate, USN cannot mass-produce them.

    The product itself is fantastic and equipped with largely classified sensor suite. To put things into perspective, Zumwalt will be able to strike at other warships from over 1500 KM; it is receiving state-of-the-art new generation of armaments. And its footprint is so small that it will slip through lot of stuff.

    Just 3 of those, can sink entire fleets from a safe distance (when ready).

    I am not sure from where you got the idea of US experiencing hundreds of failures in this domain. Nothing suggest this to be the case.

    General Atomics have demonstrated substantial advancements in miniaturizing railgun technology for even US Army applications. Blitzer is an example:



    You can notice that Blitzer is truck-mounted, and was striking at potential targets with a high degree of accuracy in 2016. Learn more from this link: http://www.ga.com/missile-defense-systems

    In contrast, look at the size of Chinese railgun prototype: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/02/sure-looks-like-china-has-a-ship-mounted-railgun/

    Too big, and hosted on a special testbed. Not a warship to be honest.

    People have access to generic explanation(s) of radar systems on the web. In theory, standard AESA is better than standard PESA. However, radar systems significantly vary in terms of design (and complexity); therefore, black-and-white judgements do not apply.

    To say that AN/SPY-1 is PESA and therefore inferior technology - is to ignore the bigger picture and the course of its evolution.

    - SPY-1A
    - SPY-1B
    - SPY-1D
    - SPY-6 (AMDR)

    SPY-1A was fielded in the 1980s - the first of its kind (i.e. PESA) and ahead of anything at the time.

    SPY-1B was/is a major leap from SPY-1A in all aspects. SPY-1B feature four phased arrays, two mounted fore and two aft (360 degree coverage of threats on 24/7 basis). Each antenna is subdivided into 140 array modules, each with 32 radiating elements. There are 4,096 transmitting elements and 4,352 receiving elements (AESA characteristic ???). The phase shifters include ultra-precise, temperature-resistant synthetic garnet crystals, and are driven by four-channel driver boards, of which there are eight identical ones to ensure redundancy and survivability. SPY-1B also feature a new antenna design with lower sidelobes and an improved signal processor. The new transmitter has the same peak power but double the duty cycle.

    SPY-1D can change frequencies automatically to avoid countermeasures and interference. Advanced digital signal processing techniques suppress jamming, chaff and sea clutter. Use of VLSI technology resulted in a considerable space savings. SPY-1D also offer robust BMDS capability. In fact the ongoing SPY-1D(V) modification program uplift system characteristics to a whole new level (to counter emerging threats).

    There is another way to look at the evolutionary trends in Aegis platforms: from baseline 1 to Baseline 9.

    Every Arleigh Burke class destroyer (Flight I and Flight II) is being uplifted to SPY-1D(v) Baseline 9 standard; 33 converted by now.

    "The AN/SPY-1D is the main air search radar for all Flight I, II, and IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. It is a phased array set consisting of four large radar faces installed in the ship’s superstructure. Because each face is fixed, the AN/SPY-1D provides 360-degree coverage at all times, unlike a rotating radar. Due to its large size and relatively advanced design, the AN/SPY-1D is very powerful — open sources tend to agree that it can detect a target with a golf-ball sized radar signature at about 90 nmi. Range against large targets, such as ballistic missiles and non-stealth aircraft, is far longer. Of course, precise performance is classified, so these figures should be taken as roughly indicative rather than definitive. The SPY-1D is powerful enough that it tends to pick up false positives, so DDG-91 and onwards were built with AN/SPY-1D(V) radars, which are better able to distinguish between real targets and clutter. The older SPY-1D radars aboard Flight I and II ships are to be upgraded with low-noise amplifiers and other features to improve performance and clutter rejection."

    The Aegis Combat System on the whole, encompass multiple sensor systems that work in tandem to produce a single unified picture of multiple threats (Sensor fusion; IAMD) and can even exchange information with nearby companion asset (Cooperative Engagement Capability).

    Flight III (and above) feature SPY-6 AMDR whose capabilities are laughably ahead than anything out there not named Zumwalt.

    Food for thought:-

    http://mil-embedded.com/articles/the-aegis-combat-systems-continuous-modernization/

    https://whitefleet.net/2017/07/31/the-arleigh-burke-class-destroyer-ddg-51-an-in-depth-guide/

    ---

    You have no idea. The kind of capabilities an Arleigh Burke (Flight II and above) destroyer pack in current times, is not a global standard but far ahead. Some of those capabilities are clearly TABOO; some members are in disbelief about them. One Iranian member told me that USS Mason's exploits in Yemeni waters are the stuff of legends :) (the vessel itself is a myth ;)).

    Destroyers were originally conceived to defeat other ships in the sea; they could strike at shore-based defenses with big guns in addition. Fast forward to 1991, and I saw them unloading cruise missiles on targets deep inside Iraq in the cover of darkness. Then I learned about their anti-submarine warfare capabilities and decoys. Not long ago, I saw them defeating maneuvering cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. One even eliminated a (wobbling and tumbling) out-of-order spy satellite travelling at MACH 23. In the near future, they will be defeating ICBM and endo- atmospheric hypersonics. Wait...TABOO alert...full stop.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2018
  13. Beast

    Beast ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    13,352
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Ratings:
    +6 / 32,005 / -24
    Country:
    China
    Location:
    China
    If? If? If? Typical misleading. You are behaving more and more like Indian of their AMCA bragging about their 5th gen which is still in paper drawing board. The blizter you brag abt is no where near maturity. If it's so good. It will have mount on zumwalt. Truth is US railgun is far from operation and not even mount in board ship. No matter how you all twisted, railgun will not mount onboard in next 10years time.
     
  14. gambit

    gambit PROFESSIONAL

    Messages:
    23,010
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Ratings:
    +127 / 20,578 / -7
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    You can doubt all you want, as if your doubt have any significance, you who never served a day in the military, so what the hell do you stand on to speak of your doubt? :lol:

    I read that the PLAN destroyers uses 130 mm guns. Ain't that figure out to 5-in? :lol:

    Then the PLAN itself is that kiddy gun while the US Navy is that railgun.

    To take on the PLAN by itself? Yup.

    Like I said, it depends on the situations and usage. But of course, for someone like who never served or have relevant experience, you would not know which situations and usage. Most likely you are too stupid to understand the basics in the first place.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  15. LeGenD

    LeGenD SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,666
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Ratings:
    +10 / 4,991 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Which point is misleading in my post?

    I am NOT bragging about the 'maturity' of Blitzer railgun prototype but brought it to your attention, to show you that US have approached the stage of miniaturizing this technology for much wider applications, and these prototypes are producing promising results in various tests (proof in the video I shared); not failures (as you claimed). Exactly when this technology will be deemed to be mature enough for mass-production for naval and army applications - is not clear to anybody here. However, you will notice major advancements in this domain in the next 5 years.

    Americans are doing better than the Chinese in the railgun development domain (no pun intended). China have fielded a massive railgun prototype on a ship (very impressive) but this doesn't prove anything in terms of maturity level of the weapon system, and a Chinese engineer have disclosed that they have experienced hundreds of failures in this domain (not my personal claim).

    Chinese accomplishments are impressive in their own right but one shouldn't resort to bragging about it; expect to be humbled otherwise. YOU questioned the rankings of the warships in the original post, and I addressed your points in good faith.

    When you openly tout American stuff as FAILURE, then you make yourself susceptible to counter-arguments from relatively experienced and informed members. Learn to accept your mistakes, friend. Nobody is saying that Chinese stuff is bad.