Zumwalt DDG

[phavoc]

I found a couple of interesting articles regarding the new Zumwalt class destroyers. First, at about 15,000 tons they are friggin HUGE to be classified as a destroyer.

Some interesting points:

There are no general crew quarters onboard. All crew compartments are designed to hold a maximum of 4 people, and each one has it's own head in it. Traveller staterooms are making a comeback! The crew is relatively tiny - about 175 vs. 315 for Arleigh's.

There's no CIWS, just the Evolved Sea Sparrow systems. And a pair of 30mm gatlings for close-in protection. There are also fewer VLS cells than the Arleigh Burke. Though it's more of an offensive weapons platform than fleet defense like Arleigh Burke. It also doesn't mount an Aegis radar.

The amount of electrical power is massively different. The Arleigh's generate 9 Mw, while the Zumwalts will generate 78 Mw! Prime candidates for energy-intensive weapons!

You can find more in the articles.

http://www.defensenews.com/interactive/article/20140928/DEFREG02/309280017/Meet-Zumwalt-US-Navy-s-Stealth-Destroyer-Will-Go-Sea-Next-Spring

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/02/28/zumwalt-class-destroyer-sitrep-2/

 

[Rick]

I think the massive power production is designed for a much quieter propulsion system, but it's probably modular, like the latest RN ships, so it can be upgraded that much easier.
This ship looks like a blue-water version of the littoral combat ships, and I would not be surprised to find out that they had a similar capability for 'flexible mission module space' on board, or being planned for later ships in the class.
Interesting design though - an aggressor ship, designed to sneak into an area (presumably where it might otherwise be detected by ground or sea-based defences), then launch long-range attacks guided by data from drones, then sneak out again.

 

[phavoc]

The official version for the excessive power generation capabilities is that they didn't want to have to upgrade the ship as new weapons technology came into play. We already know they are working on shipboard lasers plus the new electromagnetic cannons. I don't know what the final size of the cannon will be, but the Zumwalt mounts two of the 155 cannons forward. It's possible that they could remove those two and mount a single EM cannon.

I would imagine the next few decades will see the deployment of more tech that is power hungry.

The one big drawback I see to the Zumwalt is it's cost. The US Navy has been on a disturbing trend over the last few decades of continually building very expensive (and capable) warships. The problem is that a Zumwalt costs in excess of $1billion, but it can only be in one place at one time. The LCS, I think, are going to prove to be shitty FF replacements. Yes, the Navy (and Air Force) need capable platforms, but they continually work towards buying extremely expensive ones at the cost of total numbers. So the loss, grounding, dry docking or back in port time means a huge hit to deployment. Plus how do you police the world's oceans with just a handful of ships?

 

[sideranautae]

I found a couple of interesting articles regarding the new Zumwalt class destroyers. First, at about 15,000 tons they are friggin HUGE to be classified as a destroyer.

Some interesting points:

There are no general crew quarters onboard. All crew compartments are designed to hold a maximum of 4 people, and each one has it's own head in it. Traveller staterooms are making a comeback! The crew is relatively tiny - about 175 vs. 315 for Arleigh's.

There's no CIWS, just the Evolved Sea Sparrow systems. And a pair of 30mm gatlings for close-in protection. There are also fewer VLS cells than the Arleigh Burke. Though it's more of an offensive weapons platform than fleet defense like Arleigh Burke. It also doesn't mount an Aegis radar.

The amount of electrical power is massively different. The Arleigh's generate 9 Mw, while the Zumwalts will generate 78 Mw! Prime candidates for energy-intensive weapons!

You can find more in the articles.

http://www.defensenews.com/interactive/article/20140928/DEFREG02/309280017/Meet-Zumwalt-US-Navy-s-Stealth-Destroyer-Will-Go-Sea-Next-Spring

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/02/28/zumwalt-class-destroyer-sitrep-2/

As you correctly deduced, these will be the first operational Class of ships to be fitted with energy weapons. It is slated for the Rail guns and then later with Laser turrets.

 

[Rick]

The official version for the excessive power generation capabilities is that they didn't want to have to upgrade the ship as new weapons technology came into play. We already know they are working on shipboard lasers plus the new electromagnetic cannons. I don't know what the final size of the cannon will be, but the Zumwalt mounts two of the 155 cannons forward. It's possible that they could remove those two and mount a single EM cannon.

I would imagine the next few decades will see the deployment of more tech that is power hungry.

The one big drawback I see to the Zumwalt is it's cost. The US Navy has been on a disturbing trend over the last few decades of continually building very expensive (and capable) warships. The problem is that a Zumwalt costs in excess of $1billion, but it can only be in one place at one time. The LCS, I think, are going to prove to be shitty FF replacements. Yes, the Navy (and Air Force) need capable platforms, but they continually work towards buying extremely expensive ones at the cost of total numbers. So the loss, grounding, dry docking or back in port time means a huge hit to deployment. Plus how do you police the world's oceans with just a handful of ships?

Considering that the 155mm advanced cannon is designed to fire guided shells at over-the-horizon ranges and the railgun is a direct fire weapon, chances are they won't both be replaced.
As to the cost - this is why they are still launching Arleigh Burkes. The Zumwalt is a different breed of platform entirely - it is designed to go after an identified target, find it and destroy it, preferably without ever being seen in the process, alone or in the company of about 1-2 other Zumwalts (much like an attack submarine), whereas the Arleigh Burke is a fleet destroyer, designed for patrol and mainly defensive operations within a fleet. Despite what has been said, I just don't see the Zumwalt as a successor to the Arleigh Burke, they have completely different missions, and I don't see even the USN ever needing more than about 15-20 Zumwalts.

 

[sideranautae]

Considering that the 155mm advanced cannon is designed to fire guided shells at over-the-horizon ranges and the railgun is a direct fire weapon, chances are they won't both be replaced.

The Navy's railgun is designed to fire GPS guided KE kill vehicles... That's why the 155's are going to be pulled.

 

[Reynard]

Be interesting what a translation of this vessel as a Traveller starship would look like.

 

[sideranautae]

Be interesting what a translation of this vessel as a Traveller starship would look like.

Wonder if there is a way to get an accurate total volume of this vessel?

 

[phavoc]

Doing some very rough guessing, I think it will come in around 4,500 dtons. The unknown though is the tower portion. Specs say 180m long by 24.5m wide. I used a 14m height, which may be too little.

 

[locarno24]

Sounds about right - and about double an Arleigh Burke (155m length x 20m beam x 9.3m draft works out at about 2,000 dTons).

Warship classifications are done by function these days - even the 9,000 tonne USN Burke and RN Daring would be considered cruisers by older typed-by-displacement sorts.

And yes, the DDG-1000 was always intended to carry railguns and lasers. The 155mm guns are good, but a railgun will be able to do most things a 155mm could do once they get it right.

Theoretically, the USN is aiming for a high/low mix of ships - DDGs supported by LCS with mission-specific plug-ins. The problem is that the LCS isn't as flexible or as capable as originally advertised due to the limited number of modules that so far...you know...work. It's not a bad ship, but it doesn't half cost for what it can do.

 

[sideranautae]

Doing some very rough guessing, I think it will come in around 4,500 dtons. The unknown though is the tower portion. Specs say 180m long by 24.5m wide. I used a 14m height, which may be too little.

I can see 4.5K tons.

Thanks for the estimate. I suck at doing that visual stuff.

 

[Reynard]

Looking over the article, this destroyer is a stealth artillery platform supporting land operations. Not the normal mission for a 'destroyer' class I assume.

I see a starship with stealth coating and stealth jump plus counter-measure suite. To represent the large power source of the Zumwalt, the starship has a high maneuver drive. 155 guns firing land attack shells become bays with ortillery missiles while the Tomahawks are ortillery torpedoes.
There's also a couple turrets plus a torpedo hardpoint for protection.

The vessel carries 2 multi-purpose small craft with offensive weapons, advanced electronics and cargo space for various missions.

 

[Rick]

Are we looking at the same ship? :shock:

I only ask because the ship I was looking at had anti-submarine missiles, tomahawk multi-role missiles (anti-shipping and anti-land) as well as a couple of helicopters optimised for ASW.
Not exactly what I would call a

stealth artillery platform supporting land operations

- more like a fairly standard fit for a USN vessel.
I'd go with a couple of Ortillery railgun barbettes (can you give railguns the 'long range' option?), a pair of laser turrets, a mix of torpedoes and missiles along with a pinnace or two.

 

[Reynard]

Are standard fit ships normally called "The US Navy's Stealth ship' as well as "epitome of stealth design"? I saw the description for a knife-like bow to enhance stealth qualities plus Radar Absorbing Material tiles to reduce radar signature. How many more times can they refer to stealth?

They mention the 155 guns Advanced Gun System being optimized to attack land targets. Then there are the Tomahawks which I remembered for their very frequent use against land objectives and I counted six land attack variants and only one Anti-ship variant. Coupled with the guns, it seems reasonable the ship's focus are land targets. That's not exactly a standard fit USN vessel but more a stealth artillery platform supporting land operations.

A Traveller ship like this could be a normal part of planetfall operations freeing up fighting ships for space superiority. Might be organic to troop transport squadrons.

Thanks for calling my attention to the railgun variant. Closer fit to the 155s. Might the cutter be appropriate to simulate a multirole design or does a pinnace's cargo hold.get configured for the roles all at once?

 

[phavoc]

Looking over the article, this destroyer is a stealth artillery platform supporting land operations. Not the normal mission for a 'destroyer' class I assume.

I see a starship with stealth coating and stealth jump plus counter-measure suite. To represent the large power source of the Zumwalt, the starship has a high maneuver drive. 155 guns firing land attack shells become bays with ortillery missiles while the Tomahawks are ortillery torpedoes.
There's also a couple turrets plus a torpedo hardpoint for protection.

The vessel carries 2 multi-purpose small craft with offensive weapons, advanced electronics and cargo space for various missions.

The 155s are also capable of engaging sea targets, and from a video I saw, you could engage an air target (not a fast-moving, but like a helo) using proximity-fused shells. I think these are stopgap measures while they wait on the railguns. A 155 is equivalent to a 6' cannon, so technically they are carrying larger guns than most other destroyers (but 6' is kinda small for a true cruiser... you'd have to go back to WW2 to get into the caliber argument though).

Are standard fit ships normally called "The US Navy's Stealth ship' as well as "epitome of stealth design"? I saw the description for a knife-like bow to enhance stealth qualities plus Radar Absorbing Material tiles to reduce radar signature. How many more times can they refer to stealth?A?

I read on a naval blog (put out by the USN) that some have questioned the design of the Zumwalt. They still haven't done sea trials, so how well it performs in rough weather with its bow shape remains to be seen.

They also questioned about the buoyancy. It seems that the hull design is different than normal ships. When a normal ship takes on more water, it becomes more buoyant. The Zumwalts, however, if they were to take on water, they become inherently LESS buoyant. So there was some questions about crew survivability in the event of battle damage. The other argument about battle damage is that with a much smaller crew, the first-line of defense after the fact is having crew to repair the damage. Since they don't have repair drones, a smaller crew means fewer hands to fix things. But as long as you aren't going to war, a small crew is great for the budget!

 

[sideranautae]

When a normal ship takes on more water, it becomes more buoyant.

Umm, nope. ANY ship taking on water, becomes less buoyant as the water is filling space formerly occupied by air. Whoever wrote that on the blog was taking copious amounts of hard drugs.

 

[Reynard]

God! There go my taxes again. Expensive publicity stunt.

Still, I'll keep the Traveller stealth ortillery platform.

 

[sideranautae]

God! There go my taxes again. Expensive publicity stunt.

If you are upset as a tax payer over this, don't EVER check out where most of your tax dollars go! :lol:

 

[Rick]

Are standard fit ships normally called "The US Navy's Stealth ship' as well as "epitome of stealth design"? I saw the description for a knife-like bow to enhance stealth qualities plus Radar Absorbing Material tiles to reduce radar signature. How many more times can they refer to stealth?

They mention the 155 guns Advanced Gun System being optimized to attack land targets. Then there are the Tomahawks which I remembered for their very frequent use against land objectives and I counted six land attack variants and only one Anti-ship variant. Coupled with the guns, it seems reasonable the ship's focus are land targets. That's not exactly a standard fit USN vessel but more a stealth artillery platform supporting land operations.

A Traveller ship like this could be a normal part of planetfall operations freeing up fighting ships for space superiority. Might be organic to troop transport squadrons.

Thanks for calling my attention to the railgun variant. Closer fit to the 155s. Might the cutter be appropriate to simulate a multirole design or does a pinnace's cargo hold get configured for the roles all at once?

Media types love to hype stealth capabilities, and get it wrong a lot of the time! The knife-like bow is supposed to improve the ships ability to maintain stealth whilst coping with rough seas - I think anyway!
There are only 2 types of Tomahawk in service, both land-attack types, although there is a new anti-ship type being developed (not really been a need for them much - when did the USN last have a stand-up fight with a comparable navy?). But I'd still stay with the Tomahawk being a torpedo system with both KE and Ortillery types. The RIM-66/ESSM I see as being a missile system, with different warheads and possibly incorporating sandcasters? As to the Pinnace/Cutter idea - might need a bit of working out; if it incorporates both the LAMPS III as well as the small boats, it'd need to have long range sensor, limited anti-ship, boarding and small cargo capabilities.

 

[Reynard]

God! There go my taxes again. Expensive publicity stunt.

If you are upset as a tax payer over this, don't EVER check out where most of your tax dollars go! :lol:

Already know as it's in the news all the time. Corporate subsidies and bank bailouts. I'd rather have a cool stealth ship.