The DDG-1000 is the future of the Navy's Surface Warfare Fleet.
No if's, and's or but's about it.
Or so says Elements of Power.
Which seems to bring us right back to the idea of maybe a family of modern warships based upon the DD(X)'s original objectives isn't such a bad idea after all? Is the Navy angling towards an eventual CG-1000 or just slouching their way to greatness?He hits on the main objection that many state when talking about the DDG-1000 (besides some not liking the idea of naval guns returning)...the tumblehome hull.
The Zumwalt's have significantly more room in their hulls for new or additional systems, and more power available to run them. modular weaponization, and long range guided artillery for when you need it. IMHO, it would be almost be worth it alone just to tweak the noses of people who can't stand or fear the 'Tumblehome' hull design.
I don't know squat about naval architecture so I'll take his word for it. But I HAVE seen videos of comparisons between the tumblehome and conventional hull designs and it does appear to be superior. I'll wait and see but Elements of Power makes a strong case for the DDG-1000 actually delivering while we're seeing the LCS class falter.
A stable platform, but the wave piercing aspect results in a very wet deck that that has a much reduced usable area
ReplyDeleteirrelevant upfront and the structure should protect the rear of the ship where the helopad is.
ReplyDeleteso in other words the design is spot on!
awesome.
This design would be excellent in ship to ship combat, but a standard non-stealth destroyer would be preferable for naval fire support, due to the proximity of shore based threats and small boat swarms.
ReplyDeletethe best weapons for small boat swarms are the close in weapon stations...the phallanx 25mm cannons and manned helicopters...this ship has those.
ReplyDeletebesides if they ever make blue green lasers work then the Burke class won't be able to generate enough electricity to power it...the DDG1000 will.
Ok, but what about when we only have 3 DDG-1000s? Are you going to be eager to put them in the littorals?
ReplyDeletewell you are providing naval gunnery in support of someone so i would expect some Marine assets to be around.
ReplyDeleteRiverine could be around.
Special Ops could be around.
the point is i don't think these ships will sail alone.
besides as risk averse as the US public is you would run the same risk if you used a Burke or even an LCS. one sunk ship is still a sunk Navy ship.
remember the Mayaguez incident.
DDG-1000 is a ridiculous ship in that it's core missions are at odds with each other resulting in a ship too large and expensive.
ReplyDeleteConsider it has 80 VLS geared toward long range cruise missile strike fighting for space with the two 6 inch guns and their rounds. We already have more than enough cruise missile platforms.
Moreover, the SPY-3 seems to be a great system but DDG-1000 is only going to operate ESSM and thus can't do area anti air.
There's been a lot of discussion of building more than 3 as the long term costs might be below the DDG-51 flight III and the DDG-1000 does shallow water asw better.
What the USN should have done was put the 6 inch guns on a double hulled shallow draft ship to exploit the range of the guns and provide a ship more survivable against the mine threat. Other systems should have been kept to a minimum in order to achieve an affordable modern monitor.
Instead we have a ship so expensive we can't afford it and might be unwilling to risk near shore. Not having an actual frigate for shallow water asw is also quite ridiculous. Numbers of platforms is still a force multiplier for asw. The asw module for LCS according to the USN at this time doesn't actually do anything.