There's a need for China to build Zumwalt type radar evading style destroyers.

[Jeff Head]

It's big
It's heavy
It's undergunned
It lacks long-range SAM
It's expensive
It's unneeded

Well, the gunfire rate is unparralled. But it is much more than that.

It's ASW capabilities will be very strong with the large hangar and the two ASW helos, and its AAW capabilities will be strong too. ESSM is not the only missile it will be able to carry in its 80 PVLS cells. They will also be able to carry Standard Missiles (SM-3), Tomahawk missiles, and VLASROC missiles in addition to the ESSMs.

So, here's the counter:

It's big...but it is very stealthy.
It's heavey...but it carries a lot.
It is not undergunned, it will be the heaviest direct fire support vessel in any navy's inventory.
It does not lack long-range SAM, but it is not meant to be a principle area coverage SAM vessel, though it could.
It's expensive...but it provides numerous ground breaking, expensive technologies
The Navy planners indicate it is needed and the intial three (or only three) will meet that need.

Ultimately it will be capable of fielding rail gun and other new technologies as well.

 

[Skywatcher]

A 203mm AGS would have been nice (though to be honest, you probably can smash most littoral targets with that 155mm round, which is a lot larger than the M109's ammo).

I really don't care for the tumbledown hull, though.

 

[Mysterre]

It's not going to be stealthy when it switches on that Phase Array Radar! If it doesn't switch on it's radar then how does it track and target? Sonar perhaps?

Besides unless this ship's machinery is silent and it's hull is covered in anechoic tiles, it will be picked up on sonar so it's not going to be sneaking up on any one!

So by redux as already pointed out, the vessels ends up looking like a sub that doesn't dive!

I would say that most of the latest AESA's are all designed to be LPI, so just because it's emitting doesn't automatically mean you will be able to pick it up. The claim for the Zumwalt is also that it is as quiet as a LA class submarine.

I think the whole Zumwalt class is unneeded. Why built a ship of 180m+ and ~14000 tons when its only equipped with two guns and ESSM. They'll need escorts like tico's or Ab's to provide cover for advanced cruisemissiles and air-attack. Shore bombardment can also be carried out by ordinary destroyers, frigates or F/A-18's and F-35's. The concept of AGS is sounds effective, but you don't need a 180m ship for just two of them.

It's big
It's heavy
It's undergunned
It lacks long-range SAM
It's expensive
---------------------------+
It's unneeded

I agree this ship is far too wasteful of taxpayer dollars. What the USN wanted was a stealthy lone wolf that could sneak into contested waters without the aid of a fleet and do some shore bombardment. But if you have a decently advanced enemy possessing radars with counterbattery capabilities anywhere nearby, you're hosed, even if you shoot and scoot. They will find you eventually.

If you want shore bombardment, I would say just go cheap and build an arsenal ship built for the sole purpose of shore bombardment. No fancy and expensive electronics or self-defense weapons, just 4 AGS mounts sitting on top of a massive pile of ordinance in what amounts to a container ship on steroids. Double the firepower of a Zumwalt for, what, less than 10% of the cost?

 

[joshuatree]

....It's expensive...but it provides numerous ground breaking, expensive technologies...

To me, this is a huge problem with the US military today. Always everything has to be ground breaking, resulting in expensive price tags. Great for military industrial complex, but not the most efficient use of limited dollars. Even though all battleships have long been struck from registry, how often did the USN actually need them for shore bombardment in modern times? The LCS program is another waste. It's already racking up its share of problems and that funding could have gone to building a series of Perry class replacements; simple, mature systems that will work real well as workhorses. Yes, ABs are awesome but really overkill and vulnerable for littoral patrols. I no longer see any future weapons systems in the pipeline that are simple and mature off the shelf designs that will get the job done. The pot of money ain't getting any bigger.

If you want shore bombardment, I would say just go cheap and build an arsenal ship built for the sole purpose of shore bombardment. No fancy and expensive electronics or self-defense weapons, just 4 AGS mounts sitting on top of a massive pile of ordinance in what amounts to a container ship on steroids. Double the firepower of a Zumwalt for, what, less than 10% of the cost?

Maybe even make it an automated drone ship?

 

[Jeff Head]

What the USN wanted was a stealthy lone wolf that could sneak into contested waters without the aid of a fleet and do some shore bombardment.

Actually, that was not what the US Navy wanted at all. The had no intention of having a "Lone Wolf" destroyer sized vessel enter contested Littoral Waters for shore bombardment without joint force support.

They wanted a vessel that could act in concert with an entire ARG (Amphibious Ready Group) and bombard enemy positions in support of Amphibious or Air Assault marine forces coming off of the vessels in the ARG (LHAs and LPDs) and provide fire support missions up to over 60 miles inland, and to be able to do so accuratley and lethally...and in heavy volume.

In addition, thy wanted the vessel to be multi-function employing very good ASW and AAW as well.

And that is what they are getting.

With respect to the latest news on the first vessel (all three are now under construction), the steel and composite deckhouse (1,000 tons) was lifted and integrated onto the hull beginning Dec 14th and officially aannounced on Dec 19th. This is a major milestone for the vessel.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here's the article:

USS Zumwalt Integrates Deckhouse

BATH, Maine -- The Navy's next generation destroyer, the future USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000), completed a major ship milestone with the successful lift and integration of the deckhouse on to the ship's hull Dec. 14.

The 1,000-ton deckhouse was fabricated by Huntington Ingalls Industries in Gulfport, Miss., and delivered to the Navy in October 2012. The deckhouse was then transported to Bath, Maine for integration with the ship's hull, which is under construction at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works.

"This is a major milestone for the program as this ship construction progresses," said Capt. Jim Downey, DDG 1000 class program manager, Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships. "The successful integration of the deckhouse and hull is a testament to the tremendous design and planning efforts that were instrumental to this program."

With the successful lift and integration of the deckhouse, 9 of 9 ultra units are now on land level at BIW.

"The industry government team meticulously planned the 100' static lift of the deckhouse and translation of the 610' hull into position under the deckhouse," said Downey. "The deckhouse was then lowered into position and the resulting ship moved back into the construction position on the land level facility. Working with our industry partners, we look forward to delivering this highly capable ship to the Fleet."

Construction on DDG 1000 began in February 2009 and is currently 80 percent complete, with ship launch and Christening planned for 2013. The ship is scheduled to deliver in 2014 with an initial operating capability in 2016. Zumwalt will be 610 feet in length, have a beam of 80 feet, displace approximately 15,000 tons, and will have a crew of 130 officers and sailors plus an air detachment. The deckhouse, which is built from steel and composite materials, is 155 feet long and over 60 feet high and will house the ship's bridge, radars, antennas and intake and exhaust systems.

Progress on the DDG 1000 Zumwalt class guided missile destroyers continues to go very well, with all three ships now under construction. Construction on the second ship of the class, Michael Monsoor, began in 2010 with delivery planned in 2016. DDG 1002, the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson, is expected to deliver to the Navy in 2018.

The multi-mission DDG 1000 is tailored for sustained operations in the littorals and land attack, and will provide independent forward presence and deterrence, support special operations forces, and operate as an integral part of joint and combined expeditionary forces.

[video=youtube;SrE6eXflrqU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrE6eXflrqU[/video]​

 

[Mysterre]

Actually, that was not what the US Navy wanted at all. The had no intention of having a "Lone Wolf" destroyer sized vessel enter contested Littoral Waters for shore bombardment without joint force support.

They wanted a vessel that could act in concert with an entire ARG (Amphibious Ready Group) and bombard enemy positions in support of Amphibious or Air Assault marine forces coming off of the vessels in the ARG (LHAs and LPDs) and provide fire support missions up to over 60 miles inland, and to be able to do so accuratley and lethally...and in heavy volume.

When I say lone wolf I don't mean it would not "act in concert" with an ARG, but that it would probably not be present with the bulk of the amphibious forces so that it has more flexibility on where it can situate itself during an assault. If that is not what they wanted, then why did they stealthify this ship to the extreme at a massive cost when every other ship in that alleged ARG would appear as giant blips on enemy radars and as ocean liners to every nearby enemy sub? If your Zumwalt moves with the ARG and the enemy knows your ARG is there, they would know your Zumwalt is there as well. If they want to attack the Zumwalt specifically, will they attack the giant blips? No, they will attack the ship in the midst of an ARG that strangely only has the radar return of a fishing boat. What is it doing there amongst all those big military ships? Not sure, but let's kill it just to make sure.

 

[Jeff Head]

When I say lone wolf I don't mean it would not "act in concert" with an ARG, but that it would probably not be present with the bulk of the amphibious forces so that it has more flexibility on where it can situate itself during an assault. If that is not what they wanted, then why did they stealthify this ship to the extreme at a massive cost when every other ship in that alleged ARG would appear as giant blips on enemy radars and as ocean liners to every nearby enemy sub? If your Zumwalt moves with the ARG and the enemy knows your ARG is there, they would know your Zumwalt is there as well. If they want to attack the Zumwalt specifically, will they attack the giant blips? No, they will attack the ship in the midst of an ARG that strangely only has the radar return of a fishing boat. What is it doing there amongst all those big military ships? Not sure, but let's kill it just to make sure.

Well, the San Antonio class have stealth features built into them, but admittedly the Americas and Wasps are much less so...though there will be very signifcant EW and decoying going on around any ARG that is at war. It will not be an easy task at all to identify and differentiate them.

But the idea is that even though an agressor may know the whereabouts of the overaall ARG, they would not know of the exact location or whaereabouts of the Zumwalt (which will provide significant defense to the ARG) and would thus present an agressor force at a distinct disadvantage. They will not throw a lot of missiles and aircraft at a fishing boat until they are sure it is not a fishing boat...and with all the EW, and with numerous LCVPs and LCACs in the water...which one would they attack?

The Zumwalt's are designed to be with the ARG and give close fire support, and ranged fire support (as they move inland) to the Marine forces making their air assault aand amphibious landings. That is their principle function.

They can also perform vary capably in both the AAW and the ASW role for the ARG as well, freeing up the Burkes & others to range further afield along various threat axis to interdict potential threats.

 

[no_name]

Zumwalts reminds me of Seawolf, where it becomes expensive and they eventually had less than planned and replaced it with the cheaper virginia. I wonder if the same will happen to Z.

Also kind of echos with the F-22/F-35 case.

 

[leibowitz]

Well, the San Antonio class have stealth features built into them, but admittedly the Americas and Wasps are much less so...though there will be very signifcant EW and decoying going on around any ARG that is at war. It will not be an easy task at all to identify and differentiate them.

But the idea is that even though an agressor may know the whereabouts of the overaall ARG, they would not know of the exact location or whaereabouts of the Zumwalt (which will provide significant defense to the ARG) and would thus present an agressor force at a distinct disadvantage. They will not throw a lot of missiles and aircraft at a fishing boat until they are sure it is not a fishing boat...and with all the EW, and with numerous LCVPs and LCACs in the water...which one would they attack?

The Zumwalt's are designed to be with the ARG and give close fire support, and ranged fire support (as they move inland) to the Marine forces making their air assault aand amphibious landings. That is their principle function.

They can also perform vary capably in both the AAW and the ASW role for the ARG as well, freeing up the Burkes & others to range further afield along various threat axis to interdict potential threats.

Is the capability worth the cost though? Close fire support and amphibious landings in a heavily contested environment hasn't been the USN/USMC's SOP since the Okinawa landings.

 

[Jeff Head]

Is the capability worth the cost though? Close fire support and amphibious landings in a heavily contested environment hasn't been the USN/USMC's SOP since the Okinawa landings.

Take out the "heavily contested" part, and you can make a case for it in numerous cases. Korea, Lebannon, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I (where it was used as a feint), etc.

Of course, that does not mean in the future it will not be heavily contested. The US was not really prepared for World War II in this regard, and had to build the capability up. In any major Pacific or even Mediteranean war, or European...no doubt it could happen again.