New Navy Destroyer

We now need to know the names of the doctor, 1st officer, helmsman, comm officer etc. Would be funny though.

Gunzy said:

We now need to know the names of the doctor, 1st officer, helmsman, comm officer etc. Would be funny though.

Click to expand...

I sure would not want to be a "red shirt" on a ship with Capt Kirk.........

In answer to the various questions posed: The external shape of the ship appears to be optimized to reflect horizontal or nearly horizontal radar beams up into the atmosphere. Salt water is also a pretty good reflector, so reflecting down (as a conventional bow would) is not a good option. If you remember that the deadliest threat to a surface vessel is a radar-guided antiship missile, and that such missiles have the option of either coming in close to the sea for stealth or at a high angle for better radar acquisition, the ship's hull, deck, and superstructure is going to glitter like the F-117A at any angle of paint and will be hard to get a good lock on, but if the emitter is close to the sea the return will be very low. The missile will not get a strong lock early and will likely be easily distracted.

An antiship missile at a higher altitude is easier both to see and to shoot down before it hits the ship. And yes the bow looks like a ramming bow from an ironclad or iron-hulled ship of 1860-1918.

Nope, no LM2500s. Not enough power: "The DDG 1000 will be powered by Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines, which is based upon the Rolls-Royce “Trent” engine that powers the Boeing 777 airliner. The aviation version of the engine has a demonstrated reliability of 99.98%. The ‘marinized’ version of the MT30 has 80% commonality with the Trent 800 but is shock-mounted and has different blade coatings for operation in a saltwater environment. This engine is also serving today aboard the new Littoral Combat Ship USS Freedom (LCS 1).

Zumwalt will also have a smaller gas turbine, the Rolls-Royce 4500. DDG 1000 power generators produce 4,160 volts alternating current (AC), which is rectified to direct current (DC) that allows ship service power distribution to be tailored to the ship’s needs. There are three primary advantages to DC. First, DC uses solid state power conversion that supplies loads which are converted back to AC and is a cleaner way to supply power. Secondly, many of the combat systems’ loads are DC. Finally, it enables power to be shared and auctioned. DC enables uninterrupted power even in the occurrence of a casualty." - http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV9N1_ART04.pdf

So 78 MW of gas turbine generators powering 4KV DC buses that run everything. No shafts from the turbines to the props. Constant pitch props (says above). The reasoning is that the ship has, or will have a lot of electrically powered weapons that will be majority power consumers when in combat. Chances are that you're aware of USN's railgun and laser research...

She still has a remotely-operated rapid-fire deck gun like the Arleigh Burkes, but it's mounted in a tiny low-RCS turret with the barrel normally stowed pointing aft, again to minimize RCS.

As for the 'submarines will love her' comment, well, USN destroyers are generally the predator rather than the prey in that particular contest. Given that the one major structural upgrade to the Arleigh Burkes was the addition of more hangar space for more flying ASW assets, I think it's safe to assume that she won't be underprovided where ASW is concerned either. Additionally, if a hostile submarine's presence is anticipated, I would assume that she'd have a Virginia class friend along for company...

When railgun is past it's proving stages and ships power can supply the needed requirements, look the f out!

The only thing DDG1000 has to worry about is what happens in DC

DrillerSurplus said:

built for the US Navy in the 1980s at a cost of $190 million.

the 563-ton vessel is being sold for scrap. Bidding for the Sea Shadow from salvage dealers had reached $100,420 yesterday

Click to expand...

Ouch! We seem to get sucker-punched a lot as the great American taxpayers we all are...but maybe, just maybe, i'm wrong about that.

They tried for a good long while to get the Sea Shadow into a museum somewhere but nobody wanted the ugly and huge floating 'parking garage' that came with it in a non-dividable deal.

USS Nautilus is unusual in being a naval technology prototype that wasn't sent to the breakers later on. So it shall be for the Sea Shadow.

I worked at BAE when we were making the AGS (advanced gun system) for this DDG-1000. It was a pretty cool gun, it was even a stealth gun!. If I remember right, it could fire 5-10 rounds that were able to loiter in the air before all striking the targets simultaneously. We also made the MK57 Vertical launch system for the missles. It was a really cool ship that the navy had plans to build 33 some of I think but then they pulled the plug down to 2 I think after they discovered china's new weapon. China apparently came out with the ability to pintpoint a ballistic missile so well that they can litterly use a solid non explosive warhead to destroy even our biggest ships. It doesnt take any explosion to destroy something when its going at Mach 26 as long as you can hit what your aiming for!

No wonder the ship's costs skyrocketed when the order was cut from 33 down to 2 or 3

peashooter said:

I worked at BAE when we were making the AGS (advanced gun system) for this DDG-1000. It was a pretty cool gun, it was even a stealth gun!. If I remember right, it could fire 5-10 rounds that were able to loiter in the air before all striking the targets simultaneously. We also made the MK57 Vertical launch system for the missles. It was a really cool ship that the navy had plans to build 33 some of I think but then they pulled the plug down to 2 I think after they discovered china's new weapon. China apparently came out with the ability to pintpoint a ballistic missile so well that they can litterly use a solid non explosive warhead to destroy even our biggest ships. It doesnt take any explosion to destroy something when its going at Mach 26 as long as you can hit what your aiming for!

No wonder the ship's costs skyrocketed when the order was cut from 33 down to 2 or 3

Click to expand...

Float like a Butterfly
Sting like a Bee

Oh yeah, I didn't mention the gun can "only" fire 10 rounds per minute which is why its pretty cool that the first round is able to loiter for a minute in the air in order to land at the same time the last (and other ones) do. It auto loads its projectiles from a below magazine, when reloading the barrel points straight up and is loaded, then back to its firing position. Here is a wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags_pics.htm

But I still am in awe when I watch videos of the WWII ships fire off the deck guns...AMAZING

steelypip,since you seem to know alot about this ship, is this for our blue water navy, or is this one of those inter coastal waters defense ships?

The answer would be 'yes.' Tin cans have always been used in littoral combat to some degree, as they're the smallest and most maneuverable capital ships. That said, there are separate littoral combat ships of a completely different design (with some feature overlap) which are specifically meant to support shallow water combat/amphibious landings.

The DDG1000, however, is mostly optimized to be a fleet defense picket, just as her DDG ancestors were. The difference is that she should be much more effective in a defensive role because of better stealth and sharper teeth.

Having just been reminded of the circumstances of the Iwo Jima landing in my visit to the National Museum of the Marine Corps, I can certainly see the point of being able to get a capital ship asset up close to the beach to act as a command/weapon platform. Tin cans and light cruisers weren't the perfect tools for the job, but they were what USN had to offer at the time. I know there have been many cases historically where a capital ship platform was run aground accidentally or on purpose in support of an amphibious landing. The LCS class is an attempt to create the naval version of the A-10 Warthog ground attack aircraft, and it's just as popular with blue water sailors as the warthog is with fighter pilots...

Here is some info on the Chinese DF-21D ANTI-SHIP BALISTIC MISSILE. This missile is the reason the DDG1000 Program (as well as the LCS/Littoral Combat Ship program) was scaled back so drastically and quickly from 33 ships down to 2 or 3. The Chinese are the FIRST to create such a weapon in operational form. Its capable of: destroying an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it"

peashooter, such a claim is a bold one. I am pretty certain there are already countermeasures against it. And ANY MRBM is pretty much ****ing for any ship it hits.

TehTDK said:

peashooter, such a claim is a bold one. I am pretty certain there are already countermeasures against it. And ANY MRBM is pretty much ****ing for any ship it hits.

Click to expand...

Its what I was told when I was working on systems for the ship while at BAE Systems. It was a pretty big deal for us (lots of folks lost their jobs due to it) when we found out the orders were getting slashed... and it was a quick decision too that didnt have much public press. At the time they just said "a new threat had drastically changed the navy's fleet plans", it wasnt until a month or 2 later that we were told what the "new threat" was.
The only real countermeasures against a ballistic missile is our missile defense system. The Arleigh Burke Aegis ships (destroyers) have the SM3 missile which is part of the midcourse missile defense system, but these DDG1000 ships werent designed to use them because of a different radar system. So other than the ship being stealthy, it didnt have any countermeasures to this new threat. Since they can build about 4 of the Arleigh Burke destroyers for the price of 1 Zumwalt (not even counting the R&D), they figured the money was better spent on quantity.
You are right about any MRBM being trouble if it hits a ship (or anything else for that matter), but the Chinese DF21D was feared because it supposedly has a precision terminal guidance system to hit the ship (a "small" moving target), other ballistic missiles arent really capable of changing their target once launched and certainly not accurate enough to be expected to hit a target the size of a ship.

peashooter said:

Here is some info on the Chinese DF-21D ANTI-SHIP BALISTIC MISSILE. This missile is the reason the DDG1000 Program (as well as the LCS/Littoral Combat Ship program) was scaled back so drastically and quickly from 33 ships down to 2 or 3. The Chinese are the FIRST to create such a weapon in operational form. Its capable of: destroying an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it"

Click to expand...

Radical:

- but how about a Navy that is 100% submerged; a total submarine Navy.

The Surface crowd would get hot, but you could count on Electric Boat (General Dynamics) lobbying for it.

This thread is so much more enjoyable to read than one that is filled with words like, "Read the TM, closed for political reasons, re-post, blah blah".

Thanks a bunch for the wealth of knowledge put into this thread. I've learned quite a bit in reading it.

James A Kirk. Son of James T. (Tiberius) Kirk.

Velly intellesting

RustyM923 said:

James A Kirk. Son of James T. (Tiberius) Kirk.

Velly intellesting

Click to expand...

This one?

DrillerSurplus said:

A friend who thinks I get a little carried away with military surplus sent me this back in April 2012. This was built in 1985- who knows what's under development now.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk US NAVY SEA SHADOW
View attachment 459490
"- - -top secret experimental vessel built for the US Navy in the 1980s at a cost of $190 million. Production on the vessel was completed in 1985, but the public weren’t aware of its existence until1993.
Now the Sea Shadow, which was the inspiration for the villain’s boat in the 1997James Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies, could be yours for a fraction of that price after being put up for sale on US government’s GSA auction site, an eBay-style website.

But don’t expect to sail off on any undercover missions – the 563-ton vessel is being sold for scrap. Bidding for the Sea Shadow from salvage dealers had reached $100,420 yesterday, and the auction closes this coming Thursday. The authorities hoped to find a museum to house it, but it is now for sale on the GSA Auctions website for military products.
View attachment 459491View attachment 459493

It comes with its own floating garage/dry dock324 feet long x 106’ wide.

View attachment 459501

Click to expand...

A little off the main subject of this thread..... but the floating drydock part of this set up is what has fascinated me for years. Its really fun and interesting reading to hear the background of it. If you have the time, google: HUGES MINING BARGE, GSF EXPLORER, and PROJECT AZORIAN. Its really some cool cold war stuff.

Basically the "floating garage" above is what was used to build a giant grappling Claw in secret in the late 1960's. The grappling claw was then mounted to Howard Huges "Mining Ship" which was actually a CIA project with a mission of picking up a recently lost and sunk Soviet Submarine fully equiped with nuclear balistic missiles. The sub sank in water over 3 miles deep! The sub broke in half as it was being raised and the US was not able to get the nuclear missile portion of the sub (they claim) but they did get the front half which still had nuclear tipped torpedoes. Much of the project is still classified, but its really neat to read.... sure would make a good movie

peashooter said:

You are right about any MRBM being trouble if it hits a ship (or anything else for that matter), but the Chinese DF21D was feared because it supposedly has a precision terminal guidance system to hit the ship (a "small" moving target), other ballistic missiles arent really capable of changing their target once launched and certainly not accurate enough to be expected to hit a target the size of a ship.

Click to expand...

The Chinese (ballistic missiles) and Russians (ASBMS, cruise missiles and hypervelocity torpedoes) have been serious about defending against the US fleet for a long time. The DF-21D is the latest effort to neutralize US naval superiority.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the US is playing a sucker's game here, and has been since about 1975 (when the Harpoon was developed). We build a $billions capital ship, they sink it with a $millions missile or torpedo. Remember that a billion is a thousand million. Our solution to protect the $billions capital ship is to build dozens more $billions capital ships and submarines to protect it with a floating array of $millions missiles and some projectile (and maybe energy) weapons.

The easy way to arrange for your capital ship to not become a target of the DF-21D is for it not to be there when the warhead arrives. Your choices are: 1) give up on sea power, 2) give up on naval airpower (supercarriers are very appealing targets, Arleigh Burkes less so), 3) develop really perky ships with good ECM/EW/OCM that can arrange to dart out of the way and/or spoof, 4) develop longer-legged naval air assets (why not just give the USAF a job instead and skip building the $billions ship?), or 5) all submarines all the time, as Ahab and the IJN suggest), or 6) some combination of the above.

Of course, there's also the realpolitik solution: Do the same with them that we did with Saddam and tell the Chinese that if they sink a USN capital ship with a ballistic missile we will retaliate by destroying the three gorges dam, which sounds dicey, but should be doable.

It's probably also worth mentioning that the Chinese likely see the DF-21D as a fleet defense asset for their own not-very-stealthy surface and submarine fleet. Their recent actions suggest that they just want to use their naval assets in the china sea to bully their neighbors, and the DF-21D is insurance to make sure they can do that whether or not USN is nearby.

Tit for tat is a wonderful thing - we've had the technology to build a DF-21D for decades (see the Wikipedia article on the DF-21D talking about the Pershing II RV). If we were to base a batch of ASBMs in Korea, Japan, and onboard SSBNs, in combination with stealthy airborne UAV targeting assist, we could deliver more pain to the PRC fleet sooner. It wouldn't solve the USN fleet defense problem, but it would take most of the steam out of Chinese hopes of exploiting their navy in a crisis.

But that doesn't have the blue-water navy sex appeal (or shipyard vote getting) power of a supercarrier either. Oh well. Some days you need to want to be able to win the war, and some days you want to keep the defense contractors happy. We don't seem to really be thinking about winning wars. I see some parallels to the USN ship building program from 1937-1941...