Jump to content

Latest Littoral Combat Ship News-- Navy Reconsidering


shep854

Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 575
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I don't understand why they don't just build more Zumwalt's.  Especially as they are now removing one of the guns for 12 hypersonics with the option of removing the other for 12 more or to be replaced with a traditional 155mm gun.  It's already designed, built, and deployed.  It has a bigger radome, appears to be more stealth, and has most of the improvements proposed in the DDG(X) 2.0 document.  The ones not already present can be easily retrofitted as a flight II Zumwalt along with a few more VLS cells.

Edited by Cajer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Cajer said:

I don't understand why they don't just build more Zumwalt's.  Especially as they are now removing one of the guns for 12 hypersonics with the option of removing the other for 12 more or to be replaced with a traditional 155mm gun.  It's already designed, built, and deployed.  It has a bigger radome, appears to be more stealth, and has most of the improvements proposed in the DDG(X) 2.0 document.  The ones not already present can be easily retrofitted as a flight II Zumwalt along with a few more VLS cells.

Adapting Zumwalt to new requirements would be too much of a chore. Also, although the ships itself are not old, the project and much of the associated hardware and design solutions already are, and it would be enormous amount of work to restart the production line.

Tumblehome hull is officially a success, but even if it does work as advertised, the shape still has some well-estabilished drawbacks and traditional hull may be seen more suitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do they really have to adapt on the Zumwalt to new requirements?  As they are already taking out a gun?  

Though I had thought the last Zumwalt was just finished, but it finished in 2017.  So that makes this point a bit moot.

The tumblehome hasn't shown any issues in seakeeping, so I assume you mean damage control/buoyancy?  It seems that increased stealth from the tumblehome would likely negate damage control issues as you're less likely to be found and hit in the first place.   Especially with missiles if you're hit and fire control/propulsion is damaged you're defenseless against follow up attacks anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might find that with the existing weapon fit that the Zumwalt's tumblehome is fine, but the moment you start messing with the weight distribution, it would no longer work. Maybe what they're proposing to do is the limit of what they can do with that hull form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 3:30 PM, Cajer said:

I don't understand why they don't just build more Zumwalt's.  Especially as they are now removing one of the guns for 12 hypersonics with the option of removing the other for 12 more or to be replaced with a traditional 155mm gun.  It's already designed, built, and deployed.  It has a bigger radome, appears to be more stealth, and has most of the improvements proposed in the DDG(X) 2.0 document.  The ones not already present can be easily retrofitted as a flight II Zumwalt along with a few more VLS cells.

https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/us-navys-zumwalt-destroyers-to-carry-12-hypersonic-weapons-in-2025/

Quote

However, how the Zumwalts would accommodate hypersonic weapons was unclear until the navy’s 2022 budget was released at the end of May. The vertical launch cells on the U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke destroyers and the three huge Zumwalt-class destroyers are 25 inches- and 28 inches-wide respectively, too small for the Conventional Prompt Strike weapon’s 34.5-inch-diameter booster rocket. To put hypersonic weapons on the Zumwalt class, huge new launch tubes need to be installed.

Interesting idea, but maybe trying to put 8 pounds of taters in a 5 pound sack.
 

Quote

 

While a magazine of 12 hypersonic weapons might seem underwhelming, it is similar to Chinese deployments of its advanced long-range missiles. A PLA Rocket Forces DF-26 brigade, a long-range maneuverable ballistic missile thought to be able to strike U.S. bases in Guam and aircraft carriers at sea, typically consist of around 12 launchers. Since the weapons are intended for use against high-value, sensitive targets (and in the Pacific, likely against targets on China’s mainland) their operational use can be expected to be much more limited and controlled given the political and potentially escalatory implications of their targets, compared to the now-profligate use of Tomahawk cruise missiles against tactical-level targets.

The budget also reveals a goal of producing 24 CPS weapons per year to accommodate both the U.S. Army’s ground-launched hypersonic weapon units (planned to be ready in 2023) and the Zumwalt destroyers ahead of deployment on the Virginia submarines nearer the end of the decade. 

 

Hard to find a believable number for the length of a USN surface-launched IRCPS (as some term it), but mention of 30+ feet. Even for a Z-class, that is a big round.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/us-navys-zumwalt-destroyers-to-carry-12-hypersonic-weapons-in-2025/

Interesting idea, but maybe trying to put 8 pounds of taters in a 5 pound sack.
 

Hard to find a believable number for the length of a USN surface-launched IRCPS (as some term it), but mention of 30+ feet. Even for a Z-class, that is a big round.

 

They were going to take out the guns to put in new tubes so that shouldn't be an issue.  Though the VLS battery size for Zumwalts does feel a bit low especially as they don't have RAM currently.  If they were to restart production for the new destroyer class they would definitely need to go to a flight 2 ship.  I do wonder if they would mix VLS types (MK57/41) so they could get more VLS without lengthening the ship too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Now they tell...

 

Admiral Gilday: The [Constellation-class] frigates would be the gap-filler there with respect to ASW.  Those requirements for that ASW package for [the] LCS were developed back in 2008 against a diesel [submarine] threat in the littorals.  And then our minds shifted to we’ll be using these things in the deep blue ocean.  First of all, the ASW Modules just didn’t pan out; the VDS [Variable Depth Sonar] didn’t work as it should.  LCS is as noisy as an aircraft carrier and so there are some big challenges there that we should have pick up on way earlier. 

 

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/05/admiral-gilday-explains-lcs-asw-and-mcm-module-decisions/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lucklucky said:

Now they tell...

 

Admiral Gilday: The [Constellation-class] frigates would be the gap-filler there with respect to ASW.  Those requirements for that ASW package for [the] LCS were developed back in 2008 against a diesel [submarine] threat in the littorals.  And then our minds shifted to we’ll be using these things in the deep blue ocean.  First of all, the ASW Modules just didn’t pan out; the VDS [Variable Depth Sonar] didn’t work as it should.  LCS is as noisy as an aircraft carrier and so there are some big challenges there that we should have pick up on way earlier. 

 

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/05/admiral-gilday-explains-lcs-asw-and-mcm-module-decisions/

I wonder if he is referring to high transit speeds; any ship's noisy then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what the Navy paid for all these soon-to-be-retired LCS, they could have bought a frigate (or two).

Saudi Arabia ordered four ships based on the Freedom-class LCS (didn't realize it was that long ago). Something tells me that these are more capable than the US versions:

https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/saudi_arabia_15-68.pdf

Edited by Dawes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2022 at 10:20 AM, shep854 said:

I wonder if he is referring to high transit speeds; any ship's noisy then.

For Freedom class anyway, maybe something to do with the gearbox problems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably waterjets. So they did know it from beginning but still developed a multi million dollar sonar for it that failed...

 

Meanwhile one of the Freedoms "Sioux City" will for first time will come to Europe and then ME... Equipment: 1x57, 2x30mm , RAM , 2 helicopters...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Probably waterjets. So they did know it from beginning but still developed a multi million dollar sonar for it that failed...

Visby's have waterjets too and aren't much slower, and are supposed to be able to do both ASW and MCM, and have hull mounted, towed array, and VDS sonar, so seems like the Swedes are managing with waterjets.

Admittedly the Visbys are substantially smaller . . . but, given we're talking about the LCS, I'd guess more likely dumb ship specifications and/or massive mis-management of the ASW module.

Edited by CaptLuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yama said:

Wasn't that cancelled when the Saudi saw the price tag?

I think your right. Going from memory I believe the Saudi's bought French frigates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...