DDG(X) Assessment
The DDG(X) destroyer is beginning to get pinned down in terms of capabilities and appearance. Below is a concept drawing taken from an official Navy presentation graphic.
Understanding that this is still not a final design, let’s see what a visual assessment offers in the way of positive and negative features. Has the Navy learned any lessons? Have they been reading this blog?
Positive Features
Superstructure – The superstructure is noticeably smaller than in previous ship designs. This will decrease radar, infrared, and optical signatures. One can see that the smaller superstructure has the effect of increasing the usable deck space with a notable large flat area amidships that may house a VLS cluster or other weapons. The fact that the structures still stretch the full width of the ship is disappointing but the overall reduction is a net positive.
It’s interesting to note that the various power related air intakes and exhausts make up a significant portion of the superstructure. If those could be eliminated or substantially reduced due to rerouting to the waterline or substituting a different power source than the common turbines, the ship would achieve a marked decrease in superstructure size and signatures.
See, “Ship Superstructures” and “Top Heavy”
Hull – The Navy has, wisely, abandoned the tumblehome hull form of the Zumwalt which had some significant operating restrictions regarding certain sea conditions and decreasing wetted area as the ship settles/sinks which has negative implications for survivability. That the Navy abandoned the tumblehome hull should be telling us everything we need to know about that hull form, right?
Negative Features
Weapon Density – The weapon density appears appallingly deficient. It looks like the ship will have 2x 32-cell VLS, 1x 5” gun, 1x laser, and 2x RAM. That’s a pitifully meager amount on a ship that size.
Fantasy – The Navy appears to be counting on a laser for significant defense despite there being no actual demonstrated laser capability. This is delusional and has no place in a useful, effective, realistic design.
Close In Defense – Close in defense appears limited to the two RAM launchers with 21 missiles each. Unless the Navy has some super-secret, Star Wars type laser ready to go, the laser is limited to possibly disrupting a small quadcopter and will be completely ineffective against missiles. Potentially worse, the two RAM launchers have a limited engagement zone of about 120 deg to either side with substantial blind spots directly forward and astern. RAM requires targeting from the ship’s fire control system and I don’t know whether it can engage targets the missile’s sensor can’t initially see. Normally, the launcher is fired facing directly at the target.
The Navy appears to be discounting close in defense. You’ll recall that the Zumwalt class has no close in defensive weapons!
Illuminators – It’s hard to tell from the blurry drawing but it appears that there are two fire control illuminators atop the aft superstructure and one atop the forward superstructure. The aft pair are located side by side with what appears to be just a few feet separation in violation of every precept of survivability. A single hit in that area would eliminate 2/3 of the ship’s fire control illuminators – a horrible design flaw. Worse, the illuminators are located just feet away from one of the two hot exhaust outlets which will be major heat seeking missile targets. This is just bad all around.
Questionable Features
Aviation – The ship appears to have a larger hangar for enhanced aviation. The question is what type of aviation? An additional -60 type helo or Fire Scout is useless. This ship will not be risked conducting ASW and Fire Scout is not survivable. If the additional space is intended to support small surveillance UAVs, then the space would be a positive development.
Summary
All in all, the design is a decidedly mixed bag of positives and negatives. Clearly, the Navy is not learning any lessons and, if this design holds, will produce a very sub-optimum vessel that falls well short of a true WARship.
Caution/Disclaimer – The drawing is just a concept drawing. The final design may be quite different, however, I suspect that the drawing is fairly set and accurate, at this point. If it does turn out to be substantially different, we’ll re-evaluate.
CBO estimates it will cost an additional 50% over and above a Burke Flight III, presuming rough estimate based on tonnage as they estimate DDG(X) at 13,500 tons, think that their $ estimate maybe too low. Navy planning future proofing for high power directed weapons and necessary power and cooling and will use the Integrated Power System from the Zumwalt-class destroyer, Navy was never open enough to ever disclosed the cost of Zumwalt's IPS, the time taken to build is unbelievable (it has taken BIW ten years to complete the build of 3rd ship hull, the Lyndon B Johnson to its H,M&E stage, only in Jan 2022 it sailed to Ingalls for installation of its operational equipment with delivery expected sometime 2024).
ReplyDeleteYou only have to look the PDF presented at SAS 2018 Electric Ships Office PMS320 Directing the Future of Ships Power for their new IPES " Harnessing Total Ship Energy & Power" to see how complicated/expensive a system it is and strongly suspect only second in cost to nuclear power. It would appear tech has moved on from the PMS IPES design with ships moving from AC bus to DC bus which brings many advantages.
It would be best if Congress strangled the current Navy DDG(X) at birth. Plenty of time for re-think as due to priority of funding for the NGAD the Navy saying seven years design phase.
One more point here is the concept doesn't even match what they say. I see 4 large air exhausts and 3 small just like Burke, Tico, Spruance in the concept. I know they have developed a 25MW LM2500+ genset. I wouldn't be surprised if they used it, although I'd have stuck with the the Zumwalt's layout exactly, except upgrading to the 4MW genset from Burke Flt III.
DeleteSince this design seems less-capable than current ships in the fleet, I take it that this would be the LCS replacement?
ReplyDeleteOuch! :)
DeleteAssuming she ever becomes real, you're looking at the Burke's replacement here.
DeleteGuess we will never see a Tico replacement for a true Cruiser, aka command ability and 120+ VLS cells? Why not take a look at what Japan is going to do for a large, 20k ton missile ship?
DeleteZumwalt if loaded with 7 shoters in those big tubes dets you to 108. Quad pack SDB-GMLRS-ER and Pac-3MSE and it starts to not matter.
Delete"7 shoters"
Delete????
"Quad pack SDB-GMLRS-ER and Pac-3MSE"
SDB is an unpowered glide bomb and is not suitable for VLS, if that's what you're suggesting.
Why would PAC be preferred over Standard, if that's what you're suggesting?
What purpose would GMLRS serve?
I think I'm completely missing whatever you're trying to say.
SDB riding an MLRS boster rocket is a done deal. Its headed to Ukraine. I'll take that 250lb shell over a 5' gun and be happy well into the future.
DeleteJust saying there is room to grow in a mk 57. An example would be quad packed PAC-3 of any flavor although only a mk 57 would apear large enough to quad pack MSE.
- round launcher for Tomahawk and SM-6 like on SSGNs and VPM Virginias.
If NAVSEA approves the design, it will be bad. They have forgotten everything and relearned nothing.
ReplyDelete"They have forgotten everything and relearned nothing."
DeleteSuccinct and accurate!
We desperately miss BuShips. NAVSEA was never a direct replacement for BuShips and is clearly not an expertise replacement. The loss of BuShips has never been more keenly felt than now as evidenced by our floundering designs and oversight.
DeleteThis puppy is not a destroyer, it's a cruiser. And a damned lightly armed one at that. If it's going to be a cruiser, how about:
ReplyDelete15,000T
IEP with excess generation capacity to handle future weapons
2x2 or 2x3 8" guns
192 Mk41s, with 64 convertible to 16 large missile launch cells
100-300 UAVs, with through flight deck so not restricted to VTOL
2-3 helos
Ability to launch small to medium USVs and UUVs over the side
Aegis/AMDR or EMPAR/SAMPSON and SMART-L
2 SeaRAM (fore/aft) and 4-6 Phalanx (2-3 P/S)
"IEP with excess generation capacity to handle future weapons"
DeleteWhy are you hung up on future weapons that history assures us will never be installed? 'IEP with excess generation capacity' just drives up today's cost and will never see 'future weapons'.
"64 convertible to 16 large missile launch cells"
Again, it will never happen. If/when the time comes, the Navy will do what they always do and claim the ship is too worn and outdated to be worth upgrading and they'll build a new class. Did we upgrade the early Ticos to VLS? Did we upgrade the Spruances to Aegis/NTU? It just doesn't happen which is why building for more than a 15-20 year service life is foolish. You want to add a whole lot of extra future capability that will never be used.
____________
What CONOPS are you possible envisioning other than do-everything? This equipment list suggests a bloated, uber-expensive, unfocused, next-LCS on a mammoth scale.
This sounds like a modernized version of the Kiev-class aircraft carrier concept, though not displacing as much, carrying smaller aircraft, and adding a surface fire support capability. At least that's what came to my mind.
Delete"What CONOPS are you possible envisioning other than do-everything? This equipment list suggests a bloated, uber-expensive, unfocused, next-LCS on a mammoth scale."
DeleteAs far as CONOPS, I will borrow the description that you use for your independent cruiser in your proposed fleet.
" The cruiser is designed for operations separate from
a carrier group, hence, the “independent” description. The cruiser would form the basis of a surface group able to operate without significant air cover. Radar, IR, and visual stealth measures would be maximized. Main missions would be anti-surface and land attack with an emphasis on more peripheral areas of operation."
I think it needs all that I am providing in order to do that. It would also be the flagship for an escort squadron including something like 2 AAW destroyers (could be Burkes), 3 GP ASW/ASuW escorts (what FREMM could and should be instead of Constellation), and 4 ASW frigates (again, basically the ASW DEs in your proposed fleet). It could operate independently, or lead the squadron on a squadron mission, or command the squadron as part of a screen for CTFs, CVBGs, and SAG/HUK groups.
It's not a Kiev. The air component would be limited to 2-3 helos (depending on room) and a bunch of UAVs. It would have a large inventory of unmanned vehicles providing intel, surveillance, and targeting.
The design to accommodate this could look a lot like the WWII proposed CF-2 flight deck cruiser. 8" gun mounts fore and aft, flight deck for helos and UAVs, hangar underneath to store helos and UAVs, with booms to launch and recover USVs/UUVs over the side from hangar. Missile tubes would be located on front and rear ends of flight deck.
I still think the USN needs a mix of multi-capable (high) and single-purpose (low) ships. The low end ships would extend the high-low mix out to the numbers needed (I've come up with a 600-ship fleet for what the USN plans to spend for 300 or so). The cruisers would be multi-capable, the AAW destroyers, GP escorts, and ASW frigates would be single-purpose (or dual in case of the GP escorts) low end ships. The AAW destroyers could be Burkes until their lives run out. The GP escorts could be FREMMs not bastardized into Aegis platforms, and the ASW frigate could be the ComNavOps ASW DE (I really like the idea of the Virginia side panels, if that is doable).
"Again, it will never happen. If/when the time comes, the Navy will do what they always do and claim the ship is too worn and outdated to be worth upgrading and they'll build a new class."
DeleteThe fact that the USN historically does certain things does not mean that I would do the same. I will admit that one reason I am okay with Burkes as my AAW destroyer is that the USN has a bunch of them and will continue to do so for a while. But they are here (or will be soon) so they are basically free, and they're not totally useless like the LCSs. The USN needs to quit decommissioning perfectly useful ships.
The CEO of a corporation doesn't pass out mail in the mail room. He delegates that task. The CEO does CEO tasks, not every task in the corporation.
DeleteSimilarly, a high end (hopefully, that means high end combat) ship doesn't do every task in the fleet. It delegates those tasks. So, launching and operating USVs and UUVs is a task for a small, dedicated ship. Operating a floating airfield for helos and UAVs is a task for a dedicated UAV carrier (converted cargo ship with a flat deck space). Minesweeping, VBSS, ASW or whatever else you think those USVs and UUVs will do is a task for smaller, more expendable, dedicated ships.
You've created a monstrosity of a ship. It's an 8" gunned cruiser with a mammoth, through flight deck for maintaining and operating 100-300 fixed wing UAV aircraft and full USV/UUV launch and control facilities. This is the perfect example of what the US Navy does to ruin projects.
Full heavy gun fit, mega VLS, supersized flight capability, unmanned mothership ... this is the ultimate gold plating! And, like the Navy, you can't see it for what it is.
My initial cost estimate for this ship is several trillion dollars and it should take just under a hundred years to complete.
"It's not a Kiev."
DeleteTrue. A better analogy would be this is a 21st century combination of the Des Moines and Long Beach class cruisers, though that isn't quite right, either. The term "through deck cruiser" also came to mind, and you do describe this ship as having a through deck.
CDR Chip, I don't think I've heard of the CF-2 flight deck cruiser before. It is interesting. But may I ask what advantage the proposed ship has over CNO's separate independent cruiser and UAV carrier?
DeleteA ship with four to six 8-inch guns would provide great fire support. There have been interesting discussions on this blog about modern armor for modern warships. Arguably, a modern cruiser used in the fire support mission should have the functional equivalent of Des Moines- or Alaska-class armor. Would the aviation facilities of this proposed ship compromise the ship's protection?
"You've created a monstrosity of a ship. It's an 8" gunned cruiser with a mammoth, through flight deck for maintaining and operating 100-300 fixed wing UAV aircraft and full USV/UUV launch and control facilities. This is the perfect example of what the US Navy does to ruin projects."
DeleteWhat the USN does to ruin projects is to go with unproved theoretical equipment and concepts. There is nothing on my proposed cruiser that is not already proved and in use. The power is there (and by design the weight) to add things as they prove themselves.
The one advantage I see to operating the unmanned vehicles off the cruiser is that if it really is to be an independent cruiser it can't be relying on other ships (who won't be there if it is operating truly independently).
I still think the optimum arrangement is a small number of top-end multi-purpose ships, with a bunch of cheaper single-purpose ships to flesh out the numbers.
DeleteBetter image here
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43877/this-is-what-we-now-know-about-the-navys-future-ddgx-destroyer
Surfing some online info, Congressional reports state a 96-cell VLS baseline, so hopefully thats correct. A couple things in the graphic have me curious and though. First, the range and efficiency numbers... Those are pretty lofty goals. How much of those are based on some iffy-tech propulsion system, vs maybe just carrying more fuel?? Since it seems that the Zumwalt power and propulsuon system is what will be used, what kind of economy figures are they producing so far, or have any figures ever been released??
ReplyDeleteSecond, and this is terrifying... A Destroyer Payload Module?? Seriously??? Id think by now, anything with modular in it would be banned. But evidently there are some holdouts and diehards hiding in the program office somewhere!!
Third, the displacement is up in the 13kton zone. For a 'destroyer'?? If this is an evolutionary vs revolutionary design, how did we get to 13+k from the Burkes 10k? Thats a HUGE jump!! Are the power systems that much heavier?? Is the hull that much larger and have a significantly different length to beam, to help fuel economy? Or did they secretly sneak in some armor somewhere (ok I know, that was just for the LOLs...)??
Im just not sure where the size and weight are coming from in what shouldnt be much more than a restyled FLT V Burke with different guts and some Admirals accommodations...
As an aside- anyone notice that the graphic appears a lot like a Chinese design with American details photoshopped onto it???
Burke is one of the most densely built ships out there. Part of the goal is to restore margin although I question their ability to do that with this approach. Especially given the payload module. I assume that might create some waste in the overall useful margin. My guess is its really just varying payload types designated for a specific area with its own weight and space margin, similar to the mk 44 launcher giving way to the mk 41 launcher.
Delete-Smaller Deckhouse - I disagree. If its shorter it is due to the same reasons you criticize. The point defense is amidships with a bad field of fire instead of having a second area aft. Plus the Illuminators are side by side. What I do like is the forward 8x8 mk 41 VLS is turned so the shorter dimension is fore and aft exposing less area when struck from the side. The bridge is also below the radar, like Zumwalt. This may hurt the view, but it sure makes an easier run from the CIC to the bridge should the need arise. Also may help if the radar is hit and on fire, possibly keeping the bridge useful. In the end, they want to design this for an 18' radar so it won't be smaller.
ReplyDelete"-Smaller Deckhouse - I disagree. If its shorter it is due to the same reasons you criticize."
DeleteI'm completely missing your point, here. Are you saying you don't think the superstructure is smaller? And, you're saying something about reasons why it is shorter which seems to contradict whatever it is you're disagreeing with? You're making a point but I'm completely missing what it is. Try again?
"What I do like is the forward 8x8 mk 41 VLS is turned"
DeleteIf you look very closely (the drawing isn't that sharp so it's very difficult to tell), there appears to be 64 cells in the forward VLS. I suspect someone just stuck a generic VLS image in there so the actual orientation may not be what the graphic suggests. Regardless, I don't think a few feet more or less fore and aft (or side to side) will make much difference if an anti-ship missile hits the area. A missile is going to take out pretty much the entire VLS.
Gets into reality and the fact their image very likely skews the scale of some of the details. Is it showing fitted with 14 or 18 foot radar for instance?
DeleteIf the Navy really wants to allow for railguns or lasers, the way to do it is to set a weight and space budget for it now, which matches an actual weapon system. That can be installed and used meanwhile, and most likely for the life of the ship.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the placement of the two RAM launchers. They have a limited arc of fire and neither can fire directly aft.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason I thought this new destroyer would have three 32-cell VLSs, which I hoped would make it less likely a direct hit on a VLS would destroy the ship. Looks like I was wrong about the armament.
ReplyDeleteThe laser weapons are depicted with an optimistic footprint on the deck. Laser guns are likely to require as much space as a 5-inch gun mount.
http://www.g2mil.com/Laser_Scams.htm
I see the bow-mounted sonar. Are there any torpedo launchers?
There should be a couple stabilized mounts for Bushmaster 30 mm chain guns to defend against speedboats.
The ship should have two Vulcan Phalanx 20 mm Gatling guns and two SeaRAM launchers (I confess to the blog influencing my thinking on this one).
"I confess to the blog influencing my thinking on this one"
DeleteConfess????? Say it proudly!
"The ship should have two Vulcan Phalanx 20 mm Gatling guns and two SeaRAM launchers"
DeleteWhat orientation or placement do you suggest for these two layers of self air defense? The easiest to achieve is probably two (one of each type) fore and two aft, so that you have two layers, each with no blind spots, and limited interference. Although maybe you could get a "diamond" configuration (one fore, one aft, two amidships with one of these port and the other starboard) to fit on the available deck space if the decrease in the likelihood of one hit taking out multiple self-defense weapons is thought to outweigh the increase in the blind spots for at least one 'layer'.
Incidentally, I think there's an argument to be made that it makes more sense in the first configuration on this particular ship to go with RAM instead of SeaRAM, though in most other cases (especially with no Phalanx) SeaRAM is the better choice. I can elaborate on my thinking here if you'd like.
"What orientation or placement do you suggest for these two layers of self air defense?"
DeleteAdmittedly, the current superstructure design is limiting. As CNO points out, the RAM launchers won't be effective forward or aft.
"it makes more sense in the first configuration on this particular ship to go with RAM instead of SeaRAM"
I'm having difficulty tracking it down, but I think I read somewhere on this blog that RAM is better for a smaller warship because the launcher has more missiles ready to go, and a small ship might not have reloads. My interpretation was that SeaRAM would be better suited to a larger ship because it is more likely to have reloads. I acknowledge that whether RAM or SeaRAM is better could depend on the ship design and the weapon's location.
"RAM is better for a smaller warship because"
DeleteAs a general statement, RAM is a badly flawed weapon in that it is a last chance, close in weapon and it depends on the main radar for its fire control. If we're down to last chance, desperation, we don't want to depend on a single radar that may well have already been destroyed. We want a self-contained system with its own radar. We want SeaRAM and lots of them (THAT'S how you compensate for the limited number of missiles per launcher).
Now, for very small vessels the RAM dependence on the main radar is likely not as big a problem since a hit anywhere is probably fatal for both the radar and launcher. In this limited case, the greater number of missiles may be more beneficial than the self-contained radar of SeaRAM. That decision would have to be on a class by class, case by case basis and someone would have to 'game out' the best choice.
In general, SeaRAM and CIWS because they are self-contained and independent.
CNO, thank you for the clarification.
DeleteDoes anyone remember that when CIWS first came into the fleet, the acronym was "Chr***, it won't shoot."
DeleteWonder if any advancements have been made in developing an electronic warfare system. We know of SEWIP block 3 but is it a viable system?
ReplyDeleteHave read the archive piece on the SEWIP program. It is unclear if the block 3 has been thoroughly tested
DeleteI'll continue to say, aside from how to fit an 18 foot radar, Zumwalt is still the way to go and we will hopefully see that as they look to integrate another radar, sonar and other features to the existing 3.
ReplyDelete- It has the weight, space and power margin already.
- The 80 cells are not a cheap kill. They are like having 4 banks of launchers where they are more resilient with their either 57' or 86' banks, separated, and armored between each set of 4 and insulated from the rest of the ship. They are larger. You could quad pack PAC-3MSE as a for instance. Each can carry about twice the current system and without restriction which I think the current mk 41s are now running into.
- The boat bay means it could distribute sensors with its own USV/UUV.
- Even if we get away from embarking helos, we could fit a small cat and trap for smaller, yet substantial fixed wing UAVs.
- The existing close in mounts need enhanced. Although they are aligned with one another with the length of the hull, they have good fields of fire which can partially support one another.
- Removing the final gun forward leaves plenty of room for 2 point defense weapons either length wise or side by side.
- Leave the large payload tubes as part of the design. They are the flex module. 3 Hypersonic each or work the 7 Tomahawk size like an SSGN.
- Their is existing tech that can be integrated to improve the design. They could integrate the 36.5MW PMM developed and tested too late for the original ships. They could use the updated 4MW gensets from flight III Burke. If there were a real need they could integrate an advanced water jet.
-It has a ballast system. Good for survival, but makes me think that if they aren't happy with the fuel load they could still do something about it to extend range.
- It still has the most advanced and resilient electrical system.
- Stealth will still have value as 360 EO/IR systems improve along with ECM like SEWIP 3.
"-It has a ballast system."
DeleteThis was part of the original concept but I've been unable to find any evidence that it made it into the final build. I've also been unable to find any documentation of it being tested and I've been unable to find any photo of it being used. At this point, I'm thinking it was dropped from the final design and build. Do you have a reference to it actually existing?
Like Prego, its in there. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018/october/handling-zumwalt-class-destroyer
DeleteWikipedia says it's supposed to have 128 VLS cells. There are two cluster of 32 forward and 2 clusters of 32 aft.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the latest cost and time projections for the upgrade of the Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes? The cost projection is for 17bn $ for 20 ships and 18-24 months each.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many Type-055/054D China could build with 17bn $ and in how much time.
https://news.usni.org/2023/01/31/navy-destroyer-modernization-program-could-cost-17b-take-up-to-2-years-per-hull
Wonder if its allowing for future Hypersonics as they seem to be much larger than the current mk41 VLS
ReplyDeleteThe graphic text indicates that the standard Mk 41 VLS is the current requirement and that larger VLS cells are a future possibility - presumably for hypersonics although they don't mention them explicitly.
DeleteI'm really taken aback by the lack of CIWS.
ReplyDeleteThe logical conclusion to arrive at is that CIWS like Phalanx don't work so they're not included in new ship designs.
That, of course, would be assuming that the navy is doing its best to design ships that will be effective in combat.
However, the navy seems to not be serious about creating fighting ships (the Edsel comes immediately to mind).
I look at CIWS much like WW2 anti-aircraft guns. There is no such thing as too many, and the limitation should be deck space and weight.
Clearly the designers of these ships don't intend to ride them into harm's way along with the sailors on board.
Lutefisk
"I'm really taken aback by the lack of CIWS.
DeleteThe logical conclusion to arrive at is that CIWS like Phalanx don't work so they're not included in new ship designs."
My guess is that the thinking goes something like this: RAM/SeaRAM is much longer-ranged (~5nm vs ~0.9 nm) and more capable against fast or maneuvering missiles, so any space given to Phalanx is better given to RAM/SeaRAM.
I still think a layered self-defense approach is better: once inside the area defense layers (interceptors, SM-6, SM-2, ESSM), you have RAM as the outer self-defense layer and Phalanx as the inner self-defense layer.
"so any space given to Phalanx is better given to RAM/SeaRAM"
DeleteAh ... you realize the absurdity of that statement, right? I mean that in the theatrical sense not a personal criticism! This is a 15,000 ton cruiser. In WWII, it would have had some forty or more weapon emplacements and yet, today, we're gingerly discussing whether there's enough space to fit around four weapons???????? A ship this size should have around 12 SeaRAM AND 12 CIWS!!!!!!!!! Only in our current badly flawed paradigm do we consider four lousy weapon mounts to be crowding the ship's space. My how we have fallen in our WARship design world. This is tragic (again, in the theatrical sense of the word).
"The logical conclusion to arrive at is that CIWS like Phalanx don't work so they're not included in new ship designs."
DeleteNo, the logical conclusion to arrive at is that the Navy designers are absolute, single digit IQ, certifiable morons who seem bent on designing a peacetime cruise ship instead of a WARship and have prioritized cost cutting over combat effectiveness. THAT'S the only conclusion.
That. ^
DeleteLutefisk
We cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into the Navy's warped mindset. Therein lies madness. We must question the Navy's actions from OUTSIDE the paradigm not from within.
Delete"A ship this size should have around 12 SeaRAM AND 12 CIWS!!!!!!!!"
DeleteAbsolutely. A ship that bristles with close in weapons should be.much more confident in being survivable and able to defend itself. That leads to carrying more OFFENSIVE weapons. And isnt that how you win a conflict??
Sure, offensives have been blunted, and tides have been turned with a good defense, but a good offense afterwards is what carries the day. So frankly, there should be CI systems anywhere there is deck space. And if weight and stability is jeopardized by 8-12 standalone weapons, the design is faulty and likely too close to any margins to begin with!!!
What I do not understand is why the Navy did go with the 2 x CIWS mounts like there were on the Spru-cans? Was it a weight, stability issue? You would think that they be a little more prudent by having a Port-side CIWS mount and a Starboard-side mount, and maybe pair them up a complementary RAM mount. Even that is not fool-proof, if sea-skimmers are involved.
ReplyDeleteThe rampant narrow-mindlessness of the Navy's mindset when it comes to weapon and equipment design, in this case, lack of sufficient weapon systems to not only handle current threats but near future threats. Wouldn't the crem de la crem of our intelligence community (IC), be able project emerging threats to our military?
Did the sinking of the HMS Sheffield in 1982 have any impact on how we designed future surface ships? Did anyone look intently into how the Moskva meet her Waterloo? Is the DDG(X) program a poor attempt by the Navy to "atone" for the CG(X)/CG21 mistake?
Based on the information that is available, it does not appear that the DDG(X) is going to improve much upon the Burke's.
"The question is what type of aviation? "
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult decision - two helicopters or manned + drones. This largely depends on working technological advancement down the road.
Thanks to nuclear weapons, most likely military conflict between US and China is drone warfare as they are least likely escalate into nuclear war. Will DDG(X) deploy drones capable of launching offenses on Chinese air and surface vehicles? This depends also on Chinese weapons.
"...drone warfare as they are least likely escalate into nuclear war."
DeleteSo only drones can fight, and if actual people are involved, it will escalate to nuclear war??? Is a conflict going to be neat and polite and follow some special "nobody gets hurt" rules?? Sorry but I dont believe thats realistic at all. While Ill never say never, the likelihood of either party taking a conflict nuclear is so small as to be non-existent. In spite of the large current overmatch in a US/China warhead count, its national (and likely, personal) suicide for anyone, including the US, choosing to escalate it to that level. I just dont see it...
Human lives is one factor but not only one.
DeleteYou cannot send just one manned aircraft once you decide to challenge China on whatever militarily. If an aircraft is hit (either US or China), how about other airplanes? cannot sit idle, right?
It is much easier to find a face saving way out if a drone is lost.
People have to face reality regardless their constitutional right. Nuke!
"The ship will not be risked conducting ASW..."
ReplyDeleteFunny thing about submarines is that it is often hard to know where they are. A multirole combatant without an ASW helicopter is basically a target.
That's what escorts are for.
DeleteI look at the bow, MFTA, and towed decoy as freebies. The ship can keep right on moving and be where it needs to be for the AAW or even surface mission. You can even use it for a helo and mostly stay on mission. But to drop the VDS means you are slowing down and using the ship in the hunt.
DeleteDDG(X) is still in early stage of design. They will be modified according to:
ReplyDeleteNavy 's inputs (include good, bad, and ... you know)
Congressmen's political considerations such as use certain parts in his/her district.
Lobbyists hired by different sects of military industry complex.
But you are better prepared to stand up to all of those influences if you start with a sound concept. This does not appear to do that.
Delete"Destroyer payload module" tells me we learned nothing from the debacles of the last 20 years.
ReplyDeleteWeird analogy I know but I feel like the Navy's problem is a bit like Vegan Burgers. They are trying to make a thing fit the mold of a thing it functionally can't be.
They basically want warships that act like Cargo vessels mated with a Fighter.
Just build a new Burk or a new Tico. Learn the lessons of the past.
Several points:
ReplyDelete- expecting lasers which do not exist to step up shows concurrency is not dead
- the lack of guns, in particular the 57mm gun, is worrying. The Italiabs, at least on paper, have got the 76mm gun, software, and shell options, all figured out Sure, the usn is buying ALAMO, but it doesn't seem to be used anywhere except its make up programs ( lcs) . Italians even have x3 x 76mm guns on their Trieste lhd. Surely a 170 odd metre l9ng cruiser deserves a few guns.
- Perhaps the abundance of unfilled space means they are allowing for future upgrades, which isn't a bad thing.
Andrew