Article Archive: Current 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Surface Forces: DDG 1000s Under Construction
   Next Article → ARTILLERY: India Develops a Cheaper MLRS

February 18, 2008:  The U.S. Navy has ordered the first two DDG 1000 destroyers. This is the "Zumwalt" class, and each of the first two will cost $3.3 billion. At this point, the navy is only planning to buy seven Zumwalts. Compared to the previous class of American destroyers (the DDG 51s), the Zumwalts are very different.  The DDG 51s displaced 9,200 tons and had a crew of 360 sailors. The DDG 1000s displace 14,000 tons and have a crew of 142. The DDG 1000s are stealthy and carry a larger gun (two automated, long range 155mm weapons). It also has 80 vertical cells for anti-aircraft, land attack  and anti-ship missiles. It can carry one or two helicopters, plus three RQ-8A helicopter UAVs. The DDG 1000s are highly automated and are crammed with the latest electronics. After the first two are built, the next five are expected to cost about $2 billion each. The first DDG 1000 will enter service in five years.

 

 

Next Article → ARTILLERY: India Develops a Cheaper MLRS
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
MadMilitaryMind       2/18/2008 6:34:07 AM
It looks nice, but only 7? thats can't really be enough down the line. thats not even enough to have 1 per carrier?, just seem like a bad choice down the line.  Maybe they will become Seawolf's of the surface fleet?
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       2/18/2008 7:21:15 AM
I don't think they'll become the future seawolfs so much as replacement Iowa classers.  Massive show of force, great for doing the jobs they're designed to do, otherwise hurt by the "fleet in being" principle that a ship that big and expensive isn't too important to risk sending into direct combat.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/18/2008 7:50:21 AM
14000 ton destroyers!  amazing when you look at the history of destroyer development. They basically started off displacing about 600 tons!

On displacement comparisons, 14000 tons is a WW2 cruiser....



 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       2/18/2008 9:10:50 AM
They're fantastic ships, but the problem is that they're too good (and thus too expensive). Really these should have been the Ticonderoga replacements.
 
I've often thought that the USN should have gone for a smaller ship to replace the Arleigh Burkes. All you need for a detroyer type vessel is only one 155mm gun and smaller volume search radars that wouldn't need such a huge superstructure. A radar like the UK Sampson (which is much smaller) has a circa 250 km range which is more than adequate for air defence needs. Get your replacement cruisers to guard against nukes.
 
American readers probably wouldn't like this idea, but at least you would have got more than 7 ships! 
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/18/2008 9:42:23 AM
They're not designed to replace the Burkes. They're not designed to replace the Tico's. They're not designed to replace the Iowa's. 

They are designed to shut the USMC up. The USMC has been complaining since 1991 about the lack of NGFS ability. They want us to keep the Iowas, which is fine for them because they don't have to pay to keep a 60 year old ship in service! So the USN designed a new ship to give them adequate NGFS. Thus it has 2x155mm. 

Now on top of this the USN decided to throw just about every new technology onboard. It is, basically, an opportunity to produced a limited production of prototypes. The SPY-3/MFR radar, the PVLS, the 57mm, the 155mms, etc., will translate to CGN(X). You have to pay for the technology at some point. The theory here is you can buy the technology with DDG-1000 and have it mature before building CGN(X).
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       2/18/2008 10:39:59 AM

Now on top of this the USN decided to throw just about every new technology onboard. It is, basically, an opportunity to produced a limited production of prototypes. The SPY-3/MFR radar, the PVLS, the 57mm, the 155mms, etc., will translate to CGN(X). You have to pay for the technology at some point. The theory here is you can buy the technology with DDG-1000 and have it mature before building CGN(X).
Now I get it. The reason to build DDG-1000 is to push technology to a new level, where it will be readily available for next-gen cruiser. However, the USN doesn't want the prototype to be mass-produced, and want to build new class of ships based on lessons learned from DDG-1000. So they call it a destroyer.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/18/2008 11:01:02 AM

They're fantastic ships, but the problem is that they're too good (and thus too expensive). Really these should have been the Ticonderoga replacements.

 

I've often thought that the USN should have gone for a smaller ship to replace the Arleigh Burkes. All you need for a detroyer type vessel is only one 155mm gun and smaller volume search radars that wouldn't need such a huge superstructure. A radar like the UK Sampson (which is much smaller) has a circa 250 km range which is more than adequate for air defence needs. Get your replacement cruisers to guard against nukes.

 

American readers probably wouldn't like this idea, but at least you would have got more than 7 ships! 

When you plan to fight an enemy who throws ballistic missiles at you, you need to see DEEP into your MER. What works in 1998  does nor work in  2015. 250,000 meters against a MACH+8 target gives you 116  seconds . Not much time  if  you have to  fight an entire volley.

Also Sampson is not as insensitive to signal return threshhold against many targets at great separation as some might think. Depends on target, altitude, and transmitter set output. That radar is very good.

Herald

Herald


 
Quote    Reply

dont_tread       2/18/2008 4:46:14 PM
I am willing to bet that there will soon be an article on this website announcing massive cost overruns on the DDG 1000 followed by a few paragraphs explaining how its the governments fault and not the fault of the shipbuilding companies.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       2/18/2008 6:12:18 PM
One thing that I don't understand the USN's numbering system anymore is because I don't know where are DD-998 and DD-999.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/18/2008 7:00:23 PM
There are no 998 and 999. They were skipped so the DDX could be known as DDG-1000. It sounds better I guess.

In all actuality they should be the DDG-113 class.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT