What's new

America's Zumwalt-Class Destroyer: Too Few, Too Advanced and Too Late?

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,470
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
USS_Zumwalt_Destroyer.jpg

USS Zumwalt World's most Advanced Guided Missile Destroyer

The U.S. Navy’s first DDG-1000 destroyer Zumwalt (Note; It’s not USS until the ship is commissioned) is set to undergo an initial set of sea trials in December.

The ship is one of three DDG-1000-class vessels the service is buying—which effectively means that the ships are glorified technology demonstrators for the various high-tech innovations found onboard.

“We’ve got a builder’s sea trial with a notional start of the 7th of December,” said Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition in an interview with Defense News. “That is the critical milestone in terms of being able to deliver in the spring. We need a successful trial. We’ll learn things from the trial, we always do. First-of-class, we expect to learn a lot.”

The roughly 15,700-ton vessel has been years in the works and features a host of new technologies including an Integrated Power System—which generates 100 percent of the electricity needed for each vessel's propulsion, electronics and weapons. According to Raytheon—one of the key subcontractors—the system provides 58 MW of reserved power while “steaming” at 20 knots.

Advanced Induction Motors (AIM) provide the actual propulsion for the ship using electromagnets to turn the drive shaft. The ship was originally expected to use much more capable and compact permanent magnet motors—but the development program failed to deliver. The next application for such technology is the Ohio Replacement Program ballistic missile submarine.

The Zumwalts also feature a “Total Ship Computing Environment” which is a single, encrypted network that controls all shipboard computing applications for everything from machinery controls to the radars and weapon systems. It also has a pair of 155 mm guns capable of firing long-range projectiles that can strike a target from a distance of sixty-three nautical miles and eighty missile tubes. Those tubes carry the standard variety of naval missiles including the Standard and Tomahawk.

”Everything is new,” Stackley told Defense News. “From the propulsion plant, the power distribution – the whole integrated power system – the extraordinarily unique features of the hull form that provide the degree of stealth and survivability, the radar system, the degree of automation that’s incorporated into the ship to enable the reduced-size crew – it’s all new.”

While the ship is set for sea-trials, she won’t be ready for war even after the vessel is delivered. Instead, mission systems will be installed later in California once the ship is transferred to San Diego. Bath Iron Works—which builds the ship in Maine—is only responsible for the ship’s hull, mechanical and electrical system. The mission systems—which include the ship’s combat systems, radars and other sensors—are Raytheon and BAE Systems’ responsibility. “This two-phased delivery approach has been in place since the contract was first struck,” Stackley said.

The Navy plans to build only three DDG-1000s. Originally, it had planned to build thirty-two ships. That was later reduced to twelve and later to just three. The Navy simply couldn’t afford the ship’s astronomical price tag—each vessel costs roughly $4 billion not including research and development. Total program costs are near $23 billion.

Additionally, the DDG-1000 design is not particularly well suited for the ballistic missile defense role. The ship relies on the AN/SPY-3 X-band active electronically scanned array radar—which can provide guidance for the SM-2 and the Evolved Sea Sparrow, but it can’t provide area air defenses because it lacks volume search capability. Originally, the ship was supposed to have an S-band radar as part of an integrated dual-band system called the SPY-4—but that ran into technical trouble and cost issues. It was removed in 2010. The Zumwalts also need a slightly modified version of the Standard missile to be compatible with the vessel’s fire-control system—which is a logistical problem.

The dual-band radar was superseded by theGallium Nitride-based technology, which will be used on the Flight III DDG-51’s Air and Missile Defense Radar. Because of the growing ballistic missile threat, the Navy has opted to build Flight III DDG-51s instead of more DDG-1000s. But the DDG-1000’s technology will live on and will likely be used on a new Future Surface Combatant.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter:@davemajumdar

America's Zumwalt-Class Destroyer: Too Few, Too Advanced and Too Late? | The National Interest Blog
 
It is too bad that the USN cannot have the amount of Z-ships it want. It is not that the technical problems cannot be resolved -- those issues can be fixed.

radar_ticon_zumwalt_zps738fc556.jpg


Top is a visual image of a current ship, no matter whose and regardless of being military or civilian.

Middle is a radar representation of a ship.

Bottom is the visual image of a Z-ship.

In the EM representation of a ship, the black squares would be the Z-ship. That is a difference of magnitudes.

That is just my opinion. Not the Navy's or the ship's maker. Just mine.
 
It is too bad that the USN cannot have the amount of Z-ships it want. It is not that the technical problems cannot be resolved -- those issues can be fixed.

radar_ticon_zumwalt_zps738fc556.jpg


Top is a visual image of a current ship, no matter whose and regardless of being military or civilian.

Middle is a radar representation of a ship.

Bottom is the visual image of a Z-ship.

In the EM representation of a ship, the black squares would be the Z-ship. That is a difference of magnitudes.

That is just my opinion. Not the Navy's or the ship's maker. Just mine.
1:10 Are you sure?
 
U.S DoD should be more pragmatic when it comes to these programs.

Zumwalt and LCS total waste of money.
 
U.S DoD should be more pragmatic when it comes to these programs.

Zumwalt and LCS total waste of money.

I would say Flight III is a waste of money not Zumwalt
 
I would say Flight III is a waste of money not Zumwalt


and why do you say that?? the flight III is significantly better than earlier blocks of Arleigh Burke.


Zumwalt is expensive and unproven.

the tech is the future, but it isn't ready.
 
and why do you say that?? the flight III is significantly better than earlier blocks of Arleigh Burke.


Zumwalt is expensive and unproven.

the tech is the future, but it isn't ready.

because Zumwalt numbers were reduced due to it's price,Flight III which was thought as a cheaper solution to Zumwalt
while still incorporating key elements of Zumwalt,right Now Flight III is filled with problems and its current price tag is higher than Zumwalt's
 
because Zumwalt numbers were reduced due to it's price,Flight III which was thought as a cheaper solution to Zumwalt
while still incorporating key elements of Zumwalt,right Now Flight III is filled with problems and its current price tag is higher than Zumwalt's

the first ship will cost a lot, but price should full accordingly. is it the right ship we need?? no, but it's the most sensible right now.

they really should of just re-started building the Ticonderoga and added the features from the Zumwalt.
 
It is too bad that the USN cannot have the amount of Z-ships it want. It is not that the technical problems cannot be resolved -- those issues can be fixed.

radar_ticon_zumwalt_zps738fc556.jpg


Top is a visual image of a current ship, no matter whose and regardless of being military or civilian.

Middle is a radar representation of a ship.

Bottom is the visual image of a Z-ship.

In the EM representation of a ship, the black squares would be the Z-ship. That is a difference of magnitudes.

That is just my opinion. Not the Navy's or the ship's maker. Just mine.

We already know that this ship comes up as a small fishing boat on Radar but the thing is, it still DOES come up on radar. In a great ocean or a body of water like the SCS(South China Sea), China would be looking at EVERY ship, boat or not. So, the question is, WHY and HOW does the EM matter? Will it matter in battle? If so, HOW?

1:10 Are you sure?
Yes, it has been reported that the Zumwalt has the radar-cross section of a small fishing boat. LINK (11th paragraph)
 
We already know that this ship comes up as a small fishing boat on Radar but the thing is, it still DOES come up on radar. In a great ocean or a body of water like the SCS(South China Sea), China would be looking at EVERY ship, boat or not. So, the question is, WHY and HOW does the EM matter? Will it matter in battle? If so, HOW?
You may not know it, but I have said this many times before on this forum: In radar detection, nothing is invisible.

The issue is the intensity of detection. Another issue is that radar is line of sight (LOS) limited.

Horizon calculator - radar and visual

The lower the antenna's elevation, the lower its LOS. That means if the detector is surface level, give or take a few meters on a mast, detection range could be as short as 30 km. Then if the target is properly shaped, like how the Z-ship is, detection intensity maybe low enough that the detector could dismiss it as background clutter. It is estimated that in order for the Z-ship to be as EM visible as a 'normal' ship, the Z-ship would literally have to be within visual range, which at that range, radar is redundant.

How will this work in combat ? How about the Z-ship deploy a decoy to distract as it slips past the enemy fleet ? The enemy fleet would be under tactical obligation to investigate any signal to determine if it is a real or decoy target.

Even if the radar detector is airborne, the Z-ship's shaping could still make it difficult enough for this airborne detector. Radar does not work very well with water, especially if the sea state is high. Look up the Douglas Sea Scale for example. The higher the sea state, the greater the anomalous radar returns.
 
The Zumwalt should have been built as an experiment to test the new technolgies for future applications.Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderoga should be upgraded with technologies based on Zumwalt

The LCS idea is good but not a real replacement for Frigates. Orders for Independence-class should be reduced and a new stealth Frigate should be designed
 
Nope. But even if I am, you think I would 'spill the beans' ?
Then why indulge in blind speculation? To stay relevant?

U.S DoD should be more pragmatic when it comes to these programs.

Zumwalt and LCS total waste of money.
Well sometimes, programs start out right, then the unit numbers get reduced, and you end up with exorbitant numbers per unit, as in the case of the B-2.

Secondly, these new technologies are always useful, and trickle down to other platforms, so not entirely a waste of money, but definitely questionable.

We already know that this ship comes up as a small fishing boat on Radar but the thing is, it still DOES come up on radar. In a great ocean or a body of water like the SCS(South China Sea), China would be looking at EVERY ship, boat or not. So, the question is, WHY and HOW does the EM matter? Will it matter in battle? If so, HOW?

Yes, it has been reported that the Zumwalt has the radar-cross section of a small fishing boat. LINK (11th paragraph)
Do you people realize that, radar / RCS has been surpassed by other technologies, which with pin point accuracy can tell where a boat is, forget a ship?
 
Do you people realize that, radar / RCS has been surpassed by other technologies, which with pin point accuracy can tell where a boat is, forget a ship?
Such as ?

Then why indulge in blind speculation? To stay relevant?
My speculation is hardly 'blind'. It is based on nearly 19 yrs of aviation experience, in and out of the USAF.
 
Back
Top Bottom