Printable View
The CSS Virginia...err....USS Monitor, ack, one more time, the USS Zumwalt is the future United States Naval Destroyer, bearing a striking resemblance to the Ironclads of old.
https://i565.photobucket.com/albums/...ss_Zumwalt.jpg
She, naturally, will have a lower profile, less of a crew, and a tumblehome hull. Me, being a naval fanatic, began to wonder:
What does the future hold for Naval Warfare?
I haven't come to a definate answer myself, but I am wondering what you think.
I think the trend will be;
1. More of a joint use type ship that does almost everything (also going for subs as well)
2. More electronic based with less crew (as the poster above noted)
3. Perhaps a remote controlled ship as in the unmanned air drones in the USAF/Army
Stealth will be a big topic with the emphasis on insertion of Seal teams/Marines.
The carriers are going to be retained but eventually as a moving base where the smaller ships will deviate from.
Wow, that thing is ugly.
Does the United States really need a new class of destroyer? Have the Chinese matched us already?
I say this because we apparently only have enough funds available to put half as many Raptors in the air as the F-15 and F-16s they're supposed to be replacing. The top brass tried to spin it off by claiming the plane's capabilities were such that it could take the place of two of the older models, but it is clear they were not happy about it. Priorities...
I was just thinking that myself. It certainly isn't very intimidating.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Well, it's apparently supposed to fulfill the need for off shore fire support since we decomissioned the Missouri&Co.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I actually think it looks fairly nice, but that's just me. If I recall, people thought the Vasa would sail well. (See what I did there?)
Naval warfare has moved into the realm of stealth. Who would think such an ugly ship dangerous?Quote:
What does the future hold for Naval Warfare?
It is not that ugly actually...
...just minimalistic.
I believe that the decreasing necessity for open sea vessels (no mid-ocean naval battles in sight) and the increasing threat from enemy aircraft that can launch very effective long range air-to-surface missiles will shape modern vessels into smaller and more versatile vessels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Zumwalt
$6B... for a DESTROYER?!? :furious3::help::dizzy2::wall:Quote:
Cost issues
A January 26, 2009 memo from John Young, the Defense Department's top acquisition official, stated that the per ship price for the Zumwalt destroyers had reached $5.964 billion, 81 percent over the Navy's original estimate used in proposing the program. If true, that means that the program has breached the Nunn–McCurdy Amendment, requiring the Navy to recertify and rejustify the program to Congress.[6]
The USS Seawolf class, the world's most advanced attack submarine, costs $2B per boat. The new Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier costs roughly $8B per boat. For $6B the USS Zumwalt had better be invisible, shoot death rays and deploy a special squadron of attack sharks with freakin' laser beams on their heads AND... be able to fly!
Goddamn people, off the shelf components... OFF THE SHELF!!!
Man, Eisenhower was right in warning us about the military industrial complex. Now watch as this destroyer program goes the way of the Commanche and gets canceled.
There is no real 'future' for surface naval warfare. It's too expensive and generally purposeless at this point. Modern day shipping can be dealt with very well by air power, long range ground solutions, and the currently available craft. Sure, we still pour the cash into the military-industrial complex but it's just a way to keep the fat guys from having their jobs threatened.
The USS Zumwalt, if it's ever completed and moved into service, will never fire on an enemy vessel of war.
:egypt:
Where are the drone destroyers?
The drone aircraft carriers carrying predators?
If it was submersible (say to 50ft) and could pop up and surprise pirates, then maybe it could be priced at 2BN... but what are they getting for 6BN?
for 6 billion you could get about 400 predators.
Now make it that the cost of the aircraft is only a tenth of the total cost of ownership (spare parts, maintenance, hangers, back at base pilots etc). You could still fly 40 predators for the cost of one destroyer hull. And which would win? and have more versatility etc.
Found a link for the Preds and other drones:
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/...mand1jan08.htm
Table at the bottom has the cost for the drones and then for the system...
So for 6 billion could buy:
MQ 1B ... 250 systems
MQ 9A ... 120 systems
The advantages of the stealth assets of such a ship are huge. However a destroyer should IMHO be a ship which is actively searching for targets with all the sensors it has at it's disposal. The modern phased radars can detect low observable from huge distances. A high flying LO aircraft for example from up to 400km. But the (broad) radar impulses give their position away, negating a great part of the advantages of the LO design. Of course narrow beams can also be employed but there would be the need of an "AWACS" (Airborne Early Warning and Control) or a Shipborne Early Warning and Control in the air or in the sea. Think of the combination of a AEW&C and a VLO fighter (F-22). So a interesting concept but far far too expensive for being cost-effective.
Stealth may be the future of naval warfare, but the Zumwalt class is definitely not. It is essentially defenseless against any modern naval or air threat. For this reason and due to massive budget over-runs, the building program has been drastically scaled back and most of the planned ships have been canceled.
Quote:
But now, a leading figure in the Navy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (and Vice-Admiral) Barry McCullough, is saying that the DDG-1000 "cannot perform area air defense" at all. Never mind the SM-3; the ship isn't designed to fire any kind of long-range air-defense missile, whatsoever. It's presumably limited to the same last-ditch "point defense" systems (think Phalanx guns and short-range interceptors, like the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles) that cargo ships, aircraft carriers and even Coast Guard cutters carry in case a missile slips past their screening Burkes. Those point defenses can't intercept ballistic missiles at all -- and when they destroy sea-skimming missiles, the debris can still strike and severely damage the ship.
In other words, the world's most expensive surface warship can't properly defend itself or other ships from an extremely widespread threat. That, needless to say, is a problem. Not only is the DDG-1000 vulnerable to the ballistic anti-ship missiles that countries such as China are developing, it wouldn't even be particularly effective at protecting fleets against common weapons in the arsenals of everyone from Russia to Iran. And it's not like this was some kind of new threat; these missiles have been around, in one form or another, since World War II.
Hah! Looks like those converted SSBN's that carry 150+ Tomahawks make for a much more cost effective cruise missile platform... and are a helluva lot stealthier to boot.
$6B for a stealthy Tomahawk barge that couldn't shoot down a fly... good riddance!
Thanks for the linkage TinCow! :2thumbsup:
http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.co...l/6086722.htmlQuote:
Pentagon may sink plans for destroyer scheduled for BIW
A new generation of Navy destroyers that Bath Iron Works hoped would support thousands of jobs may be abandoned under the budget Defense Secretary Robert Gates will submit in April.
That's the opinion of defense industry analysts who are familiar with the DDG-1000, a Cold War-era design with a price tag estimated at more than $3 billion each.
CBR
Boo hoo. Granting those people generous severance packages and putting them all on taxpayer sponsored unemployment for say, a several years would still pale in comparison to the cost of keeping them employed so they could build a fleet of those obscenely overpriced missile barges.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Why not take all those jobs in danger and put them towards SLEP (Service Life Extension Programs) for older warships in need of upgrades or modification? Better yet, have the Navy treat this as a challenge and push through an expedited destroyer design & development program that produces a cost effective and stealthy surface combatant built entirely from proven, off the shelf components. As we all know lobbyists and high ranking officers with political aspirations would never allow that to happen... :wall:
Anyway per the article the end result will probably be the continued production of additional Arleigh Burke class destroyers which, despite their age, are still state of the art... and alot cheaper to boot ($1B/vessel).