US Navy DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Actually the gun was built for the Zumwalt. The early early DD21 was built around a extended range 127mm (5") gun the Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships. The next iteration had a conventional 5" naval gun.
This was then replaced with the AGS.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
She's finally underway for operations...

SAN DIEGO (March 8, 2019) The Guided-missile destroyer USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) departs San Diego as part of an operational underway. The milestone demonstrates the U.S. Navy’s commitment to advancing the lethality of its surface combatants by integrating cutting-edge technologies in Zumwalt’s combat systems, weapons, and engineering plants. (U.S. Navy photos by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Natalie M. Byers)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
inside
Navy: Next Large Surface Combatant Will Look A Lot Like Zumwalt
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

"As an example, Galinis said the Navy continues learning from the DDG-1000 program. The Navy is applying a lot of acquisition and production lessons learned from the Zumwalt class experience to the Columbia-class submarine program, Galinis said."

that's - great
Sounds a lot like what I have been saying for years.
Just like the return to a Seawolf style mission for the next SSN.
yeah the Pentagon will order balsa wood again
You just love balsa wood. I bet you buy stock in Balsa.
The last of the class uses a steel deck house.
Alright so this report above. The next Large Surface Combatant likely to look more like Zumwalt class.

Okay we have seen this shift back to Cold War missions sets taking place for a little while now. The Services USN,USAF,USArmy and USMC are reducing the asymmetric assets as Russia and the PRC flex their muscles.
For the Navy this has already been pointed to with the SSN(X) pushing more torpedos no VLS and deep dive. FFG(X) design pushing Anti surface and anti sub more than anti piracy.
So a return to a more DD21 base is not without precedent.
In the peer vs peer mission set of today the VLO design of the ships hull and superstructure are a must. The electrical and propulsion systems also would lend themselves to more modern sensors and suites.
Using the established and tested hull form would aide in getting the class off the ground by 2025 as opposed to starting clean sheet or trying to establish a foreign design for US build.
Although there are design changes no doubt in the works.
As @Jura likes to point out Bulsa wood was used as part of the Composite deck house on DDG1000 and DDG1001. DDG1002 moved to a steel deck house and LSC probably would do the same.
Clearly however the mission equipment of the ship need revision as does armament.
The Enterprise Air Defence Radar has pretty much been established as the choice for LSC. Presumably even more advanced Mission control systems.
The AGS is dead as a T-Rex. So some new gun system probably more conventional in nature.
Hopefully a secondary gun system better suited to the ship than the current Bushmaster II. Which fine as tertiary could do better for CIWS.
The VLS system should be salvageable from DDG1000 just would like more.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
That “Road block” is that they don’t want foreign made components. That’s not anything new. This would be a USN ship not a French or Italian ship. It shouldn’t face technical issues because a foreign maker can’t keep up with demands or has locked them out.
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
Alright so this report above. The next Large Surface Combatant likely to look more like Zumwalt class.

Okay we have seen this shift back to Cold War missions sets taking place for a little while now. The Services USN,USAF,USArmy and USMC are reducing the asymmetric assets as Russia and the PRC flex their muscles.
For the Navy this has already been pointed to with the SSN(X) pushing more torpedos no VLS and deep dive. FFG(X) design pushing Anti surface and anti sub more than anti piracy.
So a return to a more DD21 base is not without precedent.
In the peer vs peer mission set of today the VLO design of the ships hull and superstructure are a must. The electrical and propulsion systems also would lend themselves to more modern sensors and suites.
Using the established and tested hull form would aide in getting the class off the ground by 2025 as opposed to starting clean sheet or trying to establish a foreign design for US build.
Although there are design changes no doubt in the works.
As @Jura likes to point out Bulsa wood was used as part of the Composite deck house on DDG1000 and DDG1001. DDG1002 moved to a steel deck house and LSC probably would do the same.
Clearly however the mission equipment of the ship need revision as does armament.
The Enterprise Air Defence Radar has pretty much been established as the choice for LSC. Presumably even more advanced Mission control systems.
The AGS is dead as a T-Rex. So some new gun system probably more conventional in nature.
Hopefully a secondary gun system better suited to the ship than the current Bushmaster II. Which fine as tertiary could do better for CIWS.
The VLS system should be salvageable from DDG1000 just would like more.
Maybe just get rid of that Bow go to a more conventional hurricane type gun system definitely DO Not design a ship around A Gun especially a experimental one VLS will need increase in the cell number to around the current 122 to 130 like the Ticos have
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The Bow is perfectly fine and if you are worried about RCS all the more reason to keep it on the hull.
I am not sure it would need that many missiles but a increased VLS cell number would do.
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
The Bow is perfectly fine and if you are worried about RCS all the more reason to keep it on the hull.
I am not sure it would need that many missiles but a increased VLS cell number would do.
Though I am no naval architect the bow is a concern in rough seas if it wasnt then it would not have been abandoned in the 1800s to early 1900s as much as the navy says it's for Rcs reduction it matters little if it cant go into rough water without major concerns
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The Hull for was used for untold generations of Naval Shipping. The last class was Russian in 1905 and they did sink against Japanese battle ships with then advanced shells.
Most of this debate comes from civil naval architects. The Navy has confidence in the design having tested models for years.
 

dtulsa

Junior Member
That “Road block” is that they don’t want foreign made components. That’s not anything new. This would be a USN ship not a French or Italian ship. It shouldn’t face technical issues because a foreign maker can’t keep up with demands or has locked them out.
Possibly but that steers ot away from both the Fremm and Navantia designs and towards the Legend and Independence designs of which we know very very little about the HII presentation
 
Top