The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun May 16, 2021 7:06 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3106
Oh, DDG-1000. What great things have gone wrong. A 155mm gun? While analyzed a lot, it was a bad idea. Relying on TLAMs for fire support? Well, relying on a strategic weapon system to perform tactical roles was a bad decision. Totally enclosing the super structure to make it a stealth ship? Structurally and costly a very bad idea. A modified DDG-51 structure is best.

What is the mission of the ship? The big deal is a NGFS ship. The ship needs to be good at naval gunnery, so shooting its 8" guns. NSW will have a good time with helos launching from a ship like this.

So, to fix it...
Attachment:
mk71 loading.jpg
mk71 loading.jpg [ 42.43 KiB | Viewed 1118 times ]

DDG-1000 hull, at least we will start there.

Instead, we will replace the super structure with that of a Burke DDG.

2 Mk71 8" 60caliber guns

2 SeaRAM paired with 4 Millennium Guns

2x 21-cell RAM launchers

32x Mk57 VLS

64x Mk41 VLS

With a full O1 level, all the flagship stuff can be supported. The helo hangar can be supported. The guns and missiles...but it can all be done with a conventional structure. The 8" gun will deliver the same hit as a Harpoon or SLAM missile. DDG....CLG-161 will have at least 1700 rounds of 8".

Armor will be a big deal on this ship. It will have heavy deck armor and significant side armor. It is still operating off a Sprucan hull with an armored inner and outer armor.

Let's get some!!!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3106
Here is the preliminary idea!
Attachment:
CAG162.jpg
CAG162.jpg [ 83.5 KiB | Viewed 1001 times ]

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2020 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:28 pm
Posts: 690
Location: Downey, California
Interesting idea, and the proposed profile looks good, except without the stealth superstructure, why bother with the stealth gun coverings?

- Sean F.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2020 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3106
SeanF wrote:
Interesting idea, and the proposed profile looks good, except without the stealth superstructure, why bother with the stealth gun coverings?

- Sean F.
The weather shields are not “stealth”, they are “low-observable”. But with that aside, it would be an unnecessary expense to R&D a new weather shield, simply enlarge the current one. The current one reduces maintenance costs over what would otherwise be a Mk45 style open mount.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:15 pm
Posts: 55
Location: New England
This ship embodies all that is wrong with modern naval procurement. Programs should be judged not by intentions but results. This ship class is a complete disaster, as was the LCS program that preceded it. The Ford class isn't faring much better. For the first time, Congress is debating the future of "super carriers" --the most holy of holies of the USN. That alone speaks volumes about the future of the Navy.

A good redesign of this ship would feature a set of pontoons supporting a huge funnel with a crane to drop sacks of cash into. All three ships of this class are now in a DEVRON, and STILL looking for an actual mission. DEVRONS generate one thing: Reports. The USN could have done this a lot more cost-effectively than blowing the money on these floating advertisements for foolishness.

As far as future procurement goes, a proposed larger fleet needs a solid industrial support structure for planned and emergent maintenance. Teh USN is unable to get timely work performed now.

We could start by building several Naval Shipyards. Losing MINSY was political - not logical. The liberals in northern CA threw out all of the Bay area naval bases with a resulting huge economic loss of well-paying jobs and all the problems that follow massive unemployment. MINSY, Alameda NAS, Treasure Island, the huge Oakland Naval Supply Center, all gone. Tens of thousands of jobs wiped out in a short span of time. Vallejo, which was totally dependent on MINSY became a bankrupt ghetto.

If the surface fleet doesn't get it together soon, the bucks will flow faster to the submarine force, which is in many ways, a better investment. They may not embody the presence of a carrier, but they can be more deadly and immune from retribution in most cases. Just the threat of a modern nuclear submarine in an area is enough to sent surface ships scurrying back to port - the Argentinians can back that up.

All surface ships are vulnerable to the effects of EMP which the Chinese include in their battle doctrine. One nuke detonated far enough away to avoid casualties on a carrier (which would lead to a war) will turn it and it's air groups off like flipping a switch. Luckily, submarines are shielded from EMP, but that's little consolation to the carrier battle group that is out of action, waiting for a tow. Against near-peer adversaries, surface action forces are headed toward obsolescence - but Big Navy doesn't like to discuss that.

The DDX program had great intentions, too bad it couldn't fulfil very many of them. It's still a streamlined funnel to shovel money into. The last Big Idea was to replace the useless guns with directed energy weapons. "Sure, they're expensive, but cheap to shoot!" Good luck getting close enough to an adversary to use them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group