Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Zumwalt Self-Defense System Problems

We all know the story of the Zumwalt debacle in which the Navy built a ship with a main weapon that, despite using an Army/NATO/world standard 155 mm caliber gun, was completely incompatible with any other artillery system and, when the unique munition for the Zumwalt gun failed in performance and demonstrated runaway costs, left the Zumwalt with no functional main weapon.  Well, it now appears that the Zumwalt’s firepower problems extend to its self-defense capability, as well.

According to the 2019 DOT&E Annual Report (1), the Zumwalt is experiencing severe problems with the ship’s self-defense system – severe enough to render the system nearly useless. 

The Navy has discovered severe problems during the DDG 1000 SDTS [ed. Self Defense Test Ship] events that will adversely affect the operational effectiveness of the combat system if not corrected.  Consequently, the Navy has put the test program on hold and is currently working to identify the root cause of these problems. (1)

The report does not identify the specific problem(s), presumably for security reasons.  However, the magnitude of the problems can be gleaned from the status of the self-defense testing program,

The Navy conducted 4 of the 10 DDG 1000 tests planned for the Self-Defense Test Ship (SDTS) (3 of 6 planned developmental tests, and 1 of 4 planned integrated developmental and operational tests). The Navy canceled one integrated test event and one developmental test event because of unacceptably low performance predictions. (1)

The fact that testing could not proceed even by the Navy’s demonstrably lax standards is incredibly damning.  We also know that Navy performance predictions are always excessively exaggerated so if their own predictions were too low to justify continued testing, they must have been truly horrible.  We’ve seen the Navy routinely push poor performing systems along in order to avoid jeopardizing funding so, again, the fact that the Navy would cancel tests suggests staggeringly bad performance and very serious problems.

As I said, the report does not specify the problems so we are left to speculate.  Just for fun, let’s try to reason out the problem, shall we?

As the report describes, the system consists of several components (1):

  • Total Ship Computing Environment (TSCE) The command and control architecture unique to Zumwalt.
  • Multi-Function Radar (SPY-3) The new X-band radar going on DDG 1000-class guided-missile destroyers and the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78).
  • Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) The tracker and sensor data fusion and distribution system.
  • Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 (SLQ-32B(V)6) The passive electronic sensor used to detect and identify hostile radars.
  • Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 1 with Joint Universal Weapon Link (JUWL) The short-range missile interceptor used to defeat air threats at close-in ranges, and the system used for radar-missile communication and support.  Within the U.S. Navy, only the DDG 1000-class ships and the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) use ESSM with JUWL.
  • Standard Missile 2 (SM-2 Block IIIAZ) with JUWL The unique Zumwalt variant of SM-2 used to defeat air threats at longer ranges.
  • MK 57 Vertical Launch System (VLS) - The DDG 1000-only vertical missile launcher variant.

So, presumably the problem lies with one or more of the components on that list.  Let’s consider the likelihood of each component being the problem (or part of it).

Total Ship Computing Environment (TSCE) This is just the ship’s internal network and it’s been installed on various ships/classes for some time and has functioned without notable problems.  This seems very unlikely to be the problem.

Multi-Function Radar (MFR/SPY-3) The radar is untested.

Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) This has been around for many years and has been installed on many platforms.  It is very unlikely to be the problem.

Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 (SLQ-32B(V)6) This has been a separate developmental effort and has been reported to have some typical developmental problems but nothing all that severe.  The system has been in development for some time and its issues are well known and would not likely trigger surprise cancellation of the Zumwalt self-defense program.  In addition, it is independent of the active defenses.  This is almost certainly not the problem.

Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 1 with Joint Universal Weapon Link (JUWL) ESSM has been around for some time, has been extensively test, by Navy standards, and has reportedly performed well.  It is highly unlikely that the missile, itself, is the problem.  However, the guidance data link appears to be brand new and untested.

Standard Missile 2 (SM-2 Block IIIAZ) with JUWL SM-2 variants have been around for some time and have been extensively tested, at least by Navy standards.  It is unlikely that the SM-2 is the problem.  However, the guidance data link appears to be brand new and untested.

MK 57 Vertical Launch System (VLS) - The VLS has not been extensively tested but, other than failure to launch, would be unlikely to cause severe problems and a systematic failure to launch issue would, undoubtedly, have been noted and reported before now since it would be too big and obvious a problem not to be publicly noted and reported.  Further, a launch failure does not fall into the category of predictable performance problems which the report refers to.  Therefore, this is not the problem.


So, what did that little analysis leave us with?  The only candidates for problems are the SPY-3 radar and the JUWL guidance link.  Either could be a likely source of predictable failure. 

As you may recall, the Zumwalt was originally supposed to have the Dual Band Radar (DBR) which consists of the SPY-4 (S band) volume search radar and the SPY-3 (X band) horizon search radar.  The SPY-4 was deleted from the Zumwalt design as a cost saving measure.  As a result, the SPY-3 was to be reprogrammed to selectively perform volume search or (and?) its intended horizon search function.  The functionality was to be operator selectable.

It seems quite plausible that the intended modifications to perform volume search have proven to be problematic.  The volume search was not intended, not designed into the SPY-3, and has had an extremely abbreviated development and testing schedule.  It is reasonable to believe that now that Zumwalt is undergoing actual combat system tests, the previously untested radar is demonstrating poor performance.

The other problem candidate, the Joint Universal Weapon Link, is also a plausible trouble source.  Again, it is unique and untested.  However, weapon guidance links are relatively straightforward communication technologies and relatively easy to correct, one would think.  So, this is certainly a possible problem point but seems much less likely than the SPY-3.

The other potentially problematic aspect to the JUWL is the mechanism of transmission.  Assuming the SPY-3 is being used to transmit the JUWL guidance commands, it is possible that the demands of the simultaneous dual guidance/tracking functions are not working together correctly.  If so, this again leads us back to a flawed SPY-3.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the Zumwalt is experiencing severe problems with the SPY-3 radar.

Ominously, the SPY-3 is also installed on the Ford which has not yet tested its combat systems.  More problems to come for the Ford?

Zumwalt SPY-3/4

If all of the above speculation is correct, there is even worse news.  The Navy has been testing the SPY-3 on the Self Defense Test Ship (SDTS) but is planning to remove the SPY-3.  From the DOT&E report,

The Navy plans to remove the SPY-3 radar and TSCE computer equipment on the SDTS at the end of 2QFY20. (1)

Whatever problems the SPY-3 has, the Navy’s best hope of solving them lies with exercising the SDTS with the SPY-3 installed.  Removing it may greatly hinder or totally prevent diagnosis and correction of the problem(s).  Removing the SPY-3 does not seem prudent or wise but when has the Navy ever been accused of wisdom?

The poor Zumwalt program can’t seem to catch a break, can it?  Aside from the complete failure of its main weapon system, it’s had problems with power generation/distribution (which was supposed to be a strength of the design), ship handling concerns in certain seas, and now its self-defense system is useless.  Think about it, though – is it really bad breaks or is it just a very bad design concept showing its inherent and utterly predictable problems and failures?

We’ll be keeping an eye on this one.



_________________________________

(1)Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, “FY2019 Annual Report”, 20-Dec-2019, p.159-60

38 comments:

  1. Hmm, the best surprise is no surprise?

    Can they do anything right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Can they do anything right?"

      History, here, chiming in. I've been around a long time and I keep trying to offer lessons and suggestions but no one listens to me.

      -Dear History, welcome aboard the blog. I'll listen to you and I'll introduce you to as many of my friends and readers as I can! You're always welcome here. Sincerely, ComNavOps

      Delete
  2. Under the Royal Navy Naming System, RNNS, I suggest new names
    for the U-Class Cruisers.
    USS Unarmed, USS Unable and the USS Unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Too much new technology at the same time. Not enough time or ships to mature the development across.

    ReplyDelete
  4. With the "unfunded" items in the budget, sounds like they could save some $$$ by putting the rest of the class in mothballs until they figure out a purpose for them, and work out the issues, if ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, considering that USN wants to get rid of the first 4 LCSs, could USN figure out a way to discretely get rid of the 3 Zummies? It's really throwing good money after bad at this point.....just need to find someway to get this past Congress.

      Delete
  5. You are looking at HW as the only fault. I think you should look at the SW. Raytheon was writing new SW to conduct this function. So it is not the TSCE that it runs on but the application itself that may be to blame.

    When I was doing IV&V on DDG-1000 early releases did not update the IP for the 2nd missile firing (shoot shoot look). That was planned for a later release.

    Look at the applications. It was called the engagement segment back then. I am sure they have a new fancy "agile" like name for it no, as the Navy jumped on that golden approach du jour a few years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You are looking at HW as the only fault."

      No, no, no! I'm sorry if I gave that impression. When I refer to the 'radar', I mean both the hardware and software, BUT MOSTLY THE SOFTWARE! I completely recognize the modern systems are drive by their software more than hardware. If the SPY-3 has problems, it's almost certainly in the software.

      For example, the sudden and forced change of the SPY-3 from horizon search to also doing volume search is purely a software change, as I understand it.

      Again, my apology for not making that clear. Thanks for highlighting the point!

      Delete
  6. Nice to see from PDF that Zumwalt started in 2003 and still doing testing about defense systems in 2020....17 years??? I guess USN isnt in a rush or worry too much, no need to hurry up or anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry the USS Ponce can take up the slack with it laser mount and umm, err networking!

      Delete
    2. "Don't worry the USS Ponce can take up the slack with it laser mount and umm, err networking!"

      Um … there might still be some slack to take up. USS Ponce was decommissioned in Oct 2017.

      Delete
    3. There is a new laser on some DDG,can't recall the name.

      Zumwalt is another USN major failure....17 years and counting! Plus, we only know about the big failures, how much small crap has been swept under the rug???

      Delete
    4. The Navy has installed an 'optical dazzler' laser on USS Dewey back in Nov-2019. It is a non-lethal 'weapon' that is intended to blind UAVs, apparently. It will not destroy them.

      The system is the Optical Dazzler Interdictor, Navy (ODIN). It is a low power laser that attempts to blind the optical/IR sensors on a UAV.

      Delete
    5. Escalation of force, perhaps? The next step up, given that aircraft can have poor situational awareness and miss warning shots if the operator isnt paying attention.

      Conceivable laser dazzlers would be conplimentary softkill defenses against AShMs with combo radar-IIR seekers. From my reading ODIN strikes me as a stepping stone, the way the Bofors 20mm recoilless rifle, while of limited effectiveness in WW2, led to the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle.

      Delete
    6. "ODIN strikes me as a stepping stone"

      No doubt! I wonder if it and the ship are going to be sent to Iran where UAVs seem to be a persistent annoyance and it will be a real world test platform?

      Delete
  7. Electronic warfare is a capability needed. It is interesting to note that a block 3 SWIP is mentioned in this article. But testing in a realistic environment is necessary. The block 3 is supposed to have electronic attack capability. The Zumwalt has
    been a test ship for a decade or more and a expensive one.

    https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/us-navy-from-slick-32s-to-sewip-05365/

    ReplyDelete
  8. A bit tangential but I have to think the man - Admiral Zumwalt is likely rolling in his grave. The Zumwalt the ship is the very thing he was against or at least as a big/only investment. The father of the Pegasus class and Perry class cannot be happy. Its a bit a back handed slap they named a massively expensive white elephant after him

    ReplyDelete
  9. Question? Has the Navy discussed what their plan for the hardware removed for the SDTS.

    I wonder if they intend to install it on one of the Zumwalts, or the Ford. That would be because so few system have been built that further production of system might not be economically possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Makes you wonder about SDTS, is SPY3 so messed up USN has decided to discretely give up on it? Is it on anything else than 3 Zumwalts and Ford? Might not really be worth getting it right if it's only on 4 ships....pretend it kind of works and call it a day?

      Delete
    2. "Has the Navy discussed what their plan for the hardware removed for the SDTS."

      Not that I've heard. My vague impression is that it was planned to remove the hardware to make room for other equipment to be tested on the ship. The Navy assumed - overly optimistically, as always - that they'd be done with testing by now. Again, that's only my vague impression and I could easily be wrong.

      Delete
    3. "pretend it kind of works and call it a day?"

      Well, as horrible as that would be (what if a war crops up and you have to fight with it?), there is precedent. The Long Beach and Enterprise billboard radars never worked right and they let them 'ride' until a convenient major refit came along and then they were replaced.

      Delete
    4. ^yes, pretty much what I was alluding to. Bunch of USAF and USN systems in the 50s and 60s especially were never really "fixed", just were rapidly or discretely discarded....I wouldnt be surprised if USN goes this route here....

      Delete
  10. >

    If you want the full background foretelling the current disaster engulfing the Zumwalts and Ford AAW, read the March 2014 thesis by Joseph J. Oravec Lieutenant Commander, USN, "DDG-1000 MISSILE INTEGRATION: A CASE STUDY" from the Navy Post Graduate School.
    https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608093.pdf

    Note should not effect the follow on CVNs as the SPY3 and 4 Ford radars will be replaced by SPY-6 V2 S-band, a variant of SPY-6 V1 on Burke Flt III and SPY-6 V3 for FFG(X) allowing them to use the new SM-2 IIIC and ESSM Blk 2 missile with active seeker heads.

    If understanding correctly the Zumwalts and Ford SM-2 and ESSM missiles are unique as controlled in flight by the X-band SPY-3 radar with the new Joint Universal Weapon Link, JUWL and X-band semi-active seeker head, whereas all other USN ships use the S-band SPY-1 and the MK 99 FCS/FCR illuminator I/J-band to control SM-2 and ESSM and painting target for its semi-active seeker heads?

    ReplyDelete
  11. On the general topic of ship self-defense, This problem seems to encourage inclusion of more CIWS-type units on board, ones that use self-contained targeting & "blunt-force" means of engaging anything incoming - even if they arent suited to all tasks equally, especially at further ranges.

    The frigates that my country (New Zealand) operate include numerous points where large caliber MGs can be mounted for 'manual' operation. Now, These really are low-end, I get that, but they are not subject to software glitches (no puns intended) and are cheap enough to mount EVERYWHERE on a (non stealthy) ship - as they often were in the past. Are such mounting points also included on high-end US/British/Russian/Chinese ships & just not generally seen as worth mentioning, or do they rely on their escorts and more automated defenses?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, US ships all have multiple 0.50 cal machine gun mounting points but they're intended for anti-small boat / suicide boat use rather than any anti-air function.

      Delete
    2. Of course, I never meant to imply they had serious value as anti-air, more for small boats as you describe (apologies).
      I rather intended that there seems to be an over-reliance on the high end and expensive self defense systems (tech for the sake of tech?) on this ship - but I suppose thats a moot point when the ship has no offensive capability anyway.

      Thank you for clarifying the other point; I'm really enjoying browsing your blogs past posts as well as the new ones!

      Delete
    3. In a break with tradition and common sense, the Zumwalt class lacks any point defense like CIWS, RAM, SeaRAM. Truly baffling especially for a ship that was designed to stand close inshore and provide gun support. Presumably, it would have been subject to intense missile attack. No one has ever explained the omission.

      Delete
    4. My understanding of the timeframe of when the Zumwalt was conceptualised was the 90s, when the USN faced little antiship threat and the bulk of the work was throwing Tomahawks at people. I guess a Zumwalt makes sense for that environment, but times have changed.

      Delete
    5. "Zumwalt was conceptualised was the 90s,"

      This is one of the major problems we face. Our badly broken acquisition system (to include development and production) takes so long to produce a product that it is often rendered obsolete or ineffective by the time it enters service. The F-35 is an example of that. It's taken around 20 years (so far!) to develop the F-35 and it is no longer well suited for what appears to be its main purpose which is countering the Chinese threat.

      Delete
    6. @JMD, maybe other ships weren't considered to be a threat back then (I'd very much question this, but putting that aside...), but to come to the conclusion that nothing will get close enough to make a CIWS or equivalent worth including seems like the height of ignorance or arrogance; I just cant decide which.

      Delete
  12. Hate to be cynical, but how do we know the integrated ship self defense systems on older ships work any better? Phibs, CVNs? Didn't a cruiser get struck by a target drone some years back?

    Like has been said in this blog before, when was the last time any ship faced a realistic missile defense test of its system, and not some heavily scripted turkey shoot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, you're correct. The Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS) is the self-defense system installed on amphibs and others and has been problematic since its inception. It was intended to integrate all the legacy sensors and weapons but has been found to have serious flaws, many related to sensor placement and coverage. You can find some articles on this by clicking on 'Ship Self-Defense System' in the Keywords column of the blog.

      Delete
  13. As ComNavOps and I have discussed the Royal Australian Navy tested ESSM/CEAFAR Radar/SAAB 9LV (Aust) Combat System against multiple supersonic missiles on the best instrumented range in the world (USN range). They were perfect, they even intercepted debris field of previously hit missiles (the fields are supersonic and can do a lot of damage).

    As smaller combatants only have ESSM and not SM6, and if there is an ambush of fast missile craft, this may prevent missiles being launched at you. An ESSM would hit the surface target in 1/4 the time of Harpoons. Against Iran it may be useful. Although I can't see carriers needing it, they don't patrol bays with headlands - same with amphibs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On carriers they can potentially still be useful because they may have to go through passages such as the Malacca Strait. Although I would hope there would be sufficient escort to deal with fast boats. As for amphib's they discharge their loads slower the farther they are from shore. To be useful they need to get in fast boat territory. As with carriers, hopefully properly escorted.

      Delete
  14. Replies
    1. Yes, indeed!

      Care to offer something a bit more specific?

      Delete
  15. The biggest problem with the USN [ and the USAF w/ F-22 / F-35 ] [and probably USAr and USMC with their new Infantry Fighting Vehicles backslash Anti-Mine rolling behemoths] is too much reliance on the latest whiz-bang technology - especially in the electronics / avionics department .. I mean we've pretty much proven over the last 20 years that Computers are EASY TARGETS and one viral blip in the code shuts down the whole operating system for days and weeks .. WW2 was not won with "technology" - and neither was Vietnam .. WW2 was won with overwhelming numbers of men and ships and planes .. under-armored Infantrymen with a 100 year old, wooden-stock, .30 caliber rifle on Iron sights, a simple claymore mine and a lot of tar can disable an entire Nazi Panzer tank division .. the Tin-Can Fletcher-Class Destroyers were over-populated, over-built Brick-s%t-houses that could take a pounding, but didn't have any "special advances" in weaponry - and they defeated - in less than 2 hours - the Largest, most technologically advance Battleship ever built, and its entire Cruiser/Destroyer support fleet, simply through moxey and daring and balls the size of a Battleship .. the inaccurate, sheet-metal AK47 defeated the more technologically-advanced M-16 simply because they were EASIER and FASTER to produce and were so sloppy that they didn't clog up with mud and carbon ..the Russians/Chinese/North Vietnamese/North Koreans/Al-Qaeda/Taliban have been kicking our a%% for 6o years not with technology but with overwhelming Force Of Arms .. -- they OUTNUMBER US .. both in AK-47s and in Manpower and in cheaply-built, mass-produced trucks, tanks, planes , guns, shoulder-fired missiles and boats .. The F-15 Eagle is 50 years old, but still dominates on the battlefield .. the Arleigh Burkes are roughly 30 years old but still dominate on the battlefield - and, as far as I can tell, neither the Russians or the Chinese or the Australians or the Brits have any ship that is "better" than the Arleigh Burke .. nothing that can wipe out the "dated" defense systems of the Arleigh Burke fleet in one fell swoop and make it obsolete within the next 10 years .. improvements? .. yeah, sure .. plug away at it -- but in small increments, one system at a time -

    ReplyDelete
  16. We don't need a new hull form .. the Arleigh Hull works just fine .. the 100 year old 5"/62 or 5"/54 Main Gun Works just fine .. the CIWS works just fine -- we don't need to replace them UNTIL we have a PROVEN replacement .. and, as far as I can tell, the AN-6 or 67 or whatever current iteration of SPY/SPS and the rest of the Electronics Warfare Suite aboard Arleigh Burke STILL works just fine - and probably will for another 10 to 15 years .. apparently [ at least w/i the public domain ] the HULL of the Zumwalt operates just fine in heavy sea states .. don't know why the electric motors wouldn't work, as they've been using Electric Motors for propulsion for decades on Subs .. but if they're NOT working yank em out and replace them with LM2500 Turbines and direct drive prop shafts .. pull out whatever Hardware and software is NOT working on the Zumwalt and replace it with whatever is on the Arleigh Burke - AN/Spy 6 ; 5"/64 Guns .. renumber / rename the Zumwalts as CRUISERS and use them as Cruisers within 3 Destroyer Squadrons of Arleigh Burkes and FFGs .. they would at least be usable for 15 maybe 20 years and, with their 14,000 - 18,000 lb displacement, could periodically be upgraded with more [proven] computer power and advances in [ proven ] weapons systems and Radar /Sonar .. a LARGER DISPLACEMENT HULL with room for growth [ the Arleigh Burke being Maxed-out ] .. a Radar Signature SMALLER than the Arleigh Burke .. make the flight deck smaller .. add more VLS .. add a flare to the forward bow if need be for better seaworthiness .. and revert to an electronics defense and weapons package off the Arleigh Burke that we KNOW works and is survivable in Combat .. and you now have the new CGX // DDX platform the Navy's been looking for for the last 20 years with most of the costs already absorbed ..

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.