US Navy planning next "large surface combatant"

[Haijun watcher]

I seem to remember someone else posting about an enlarged Zumwalt somewhere else on this forum...

Defense News

The US Navy is planning to get serious about a next-generation large surface combatant
By: David B. Larter ? 2 days ago
WASHINGTON � The U.S. Navy in 2021 is planning to kick off a five-year research, testing and design effort for its next generation of large surface combatant, according to Navy budget documents released Monday.
The large surface combatant program is looking to install older, proven systems �into a new hull design that incorporates platform flexibility and growth capabilities to meet projected future Fleet system requirements,� according to Navy fiscal 2021 budget documents. The effort will be increasingly important as the Navy starts decommissioning its cruisers without a direct replacement.
And the Navy isn�t just talking about it � it�s asking to put real money toward it. The service is requesting $46.45 million in 2021, but funding is slated to triple the next year. In 2022, the Navy is expecting to spend $129.5 million, and $145.9 million after that.
The service released a request for information in 2019 with some ideas about where the Navy wanted to go, but the 2021 budget request is the first time it requested significant money toward its next generation of heavy warships.
(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

Defense News

Congress aims to strip funding for the US Navy�s next-gen large surface combatant
By: David B. Larter ? 5 hours ago
WASHINGTON � The U.S. Navy�s interminable quest to design and field a next-generation large surface combatant is going back to the drawing board once again, a victim of the Pentagon�s disorganization around this year�s long-range shipbuilding plan, according to documents and a source familiar with the situation.

The Senate Armed Services Committee stripped $60.4 million dollars from the Navy�s proposed fiscal 2021 budget intended to be used for preliminary design work for the future large surface combatant, according to documents released by the committee. Instead, the money is being funneled into a land-based testing facility in Philadelphia that will work on the future combatant�s power system, which is the raison d'�tre for the envisioned class, a source familiar with the deliberations told Defense News.

The money for the large surface combatant design is one of the victims of the Pentagon�s inability to produce an annual 30-year shipbuilding plan, an annual requirement that is intended to give Congress an idea of where the Navy wants to steer its fleet, the source said, adding that the large surface combatant was not in the five-year future years defense program which is submitted with the President�s budget.

(...SNIPPED)

[navydavesof]

I really wonder if designing a Burke-style super structure to accommodate a more conventional take at whatever is inside the super structure.

I can think of three major conventional weapons configurations (keep in mind, this would be in a Burke-like superstructure arrangement):

1. Adapt the guns to work and arrange Mk41 modules in the peripheral Mk57 positions. SeaRAM in the Phalanx positions forward and aft. 76mm Super Rapidfire center lined atop the helo hangar or elsewhere.

2. Unless they are going to make the guns work, they could replace both guns with two arrangements of 64 Mk41 VLS or perhaps add a 32-cell or even a third 64-cell. The peripheral weapons pits for the Mk57 could be left void and split armored like the Iowas had with a decaping (detonation plate) on the outer hull and the existing 4" armor on the inner hull to reduce damage from a potential suicide boat or missile impact.

3. Two 64-cell Mk41s in place of the two AGS and a third associated with the hangar like the Burke Flight IIAs affording the ship 3 64-cell VLS. A 76mm SR would have to go somewhere, perhaps ahead of the forward VLS on the bow (if they could put a 57mm on the bow of an Independence-class LCS, a 76mm or a 5" could be put on the bow of the Zumwalt hull).

CAG162.jpg

Eh, who knows? The Navy can't make up its mind one way or the other, and boy oh boy are they not creative

[maxim]

Why do you want to add the old-style superstructure?

The replacement of the 155 mm guns with VLS launchers makes a lot of sense and would be a likely modification, if a new class will be built.

How many attempts had the US Navy made to get a new large surface combatant? The last new design, which was built be built in larger numbers, is from the 1980s, the Arleigh Burke class! Nearly 40 years old! Imagine the US Navy building a 40 year old design in the 1920s! That would have been from the 1880s!?

[navydavesof]

Why do you want to add the old-style superstructure?

The replacement of the 155 mm guns with VLS launchers makes a lot of sense and would be a likely modification, if a new class will be built.

How many attempts had the US Navy made to get a new large surface combatant? The last new design, which was built be built in larger numbers, is from the 1980s, the Arleigh Burke class! Nearly 40 years old! Imagine the US Navy building a 40 year old design in the 1920s! That would have been from the 1880s!?

Why not use the Burke structure? It works, it is functional and meets the mission. Are you suggestioning change just for?

[maxim]

I have not proposed to change the superstructure from a 21st century design to an 1980s design You proposed to go back and use the old-fashioned design. Therefore, I had asked why.

The Zumwalt superstructure has several advantages:

more stealth
radar arranged higher up and have therefore improved detection (e.g. of sea-skimming anti-ship missiles)
more spacious, less cramped

What advantages a "conventional take" would have? Are there any known disadvantages of the new design? Except that because of cost cuts (related to the severe reduction of the number of built ships) half of the sensors are not fitted?

The Flight III Arleigh Burke would be likely also much more expensive, if the Navy would decided to built only three. Then, perhaps also only half its radars would be fitted...

[navydavesof]

I have not proposed to change the superstructure from a 21st century design to an 1980s design You proposed to go back and use the old-fashioned design. Therefore, I had asked why.

Why not? I guess you will explain below.

The Zumwalt superstructure has several advantages:

more stealth
radar arranged higher up and have therefore improved detection (e.g. of sea-skimming anti-ship missiles)
more spacious, less cramped

The same amount of stealth can be achieved with the Burke structure. The angle is the angle. It's a question about the material you make the structure out of, or the material you layer it with.

What advantages a "conventional take" would have? Are there any known disadvantages of the new design? Except that because of cost cuts (related to the severe reduction of the number of built ships) half of the sensors are not fitted?

Yes, cost. Absolutely. When you try to make all this reinforced carbon-carbon sandwiching balsa wood garbage with a huge surface area, it not only offers a huge cost, but it also offers a huge surface area. It is more to hit. As soon as that stealth had been compromised, there is now a massive surface area to be struck and damaged. Then it is a far larger billboard for more seekerheads than a Burke structure where the weapons would likely have missed instead of struck.

The Flight III Arleigh Burke would be likely also much more expensive, if the Navy would decided to built only three. Then, perhaps also only half its radars would be fitted...

It is not equitable. The DDG-1000s are 16,000 tons. That is 6,000 tons more than the biggest, fatest Burke with shockingly complex internal construction. These ships are not really comparable in cost. The real-life solution is the CGBL cruiser proposition where the Burke was stretched out and fattened to a 600' long ship that has straight and smooth space and construction and would have reduced cost considerably. This possibility exists in the DDG-1000 construction if they were to simply things.

[maxim]

I am not sure if it is really true that the superstructure cost more because of its material. There are other navies using such materials for cheap, small escorts.

For sure, the Arleigh Burke are less optimal regarding stealth compared to modern designs. A lot of equipment is exposed.

In addition, they have several other disadvantages besides stealth and the radars low in the ship:
extremely large crews
propulsion not optimised for today's requirement, especially in regard of power generation
old-fashioned hull design
old-fashioned radars (will be corrected with Flight III)
cramped

I do not understand this fascination for old designs. Imagine the WW2 cruiser force based on Tennessee class armoured cruisers - that is what you propose for tomorrow. That is a design from the 1980s! Nearly 40 years old!

The Zumwalt design has plenty advantages:
stealth
modern propulsion
modern hull design (e.g. improved seakeeping)
more economic to operate
less crew requirements
radar antenna higher up in the ship
spacious

For sure, there are room for optimization there, especially the focus on land attack using guns has to go and the the problems demonstrated during the trials have to be fixed.

A completely new design for large surface combatant would be also an option - but the USN has an extremely bad record in the last decades in regard the introduction of new surface ship classes. That is the background for the continuous building of an 40 year old design...

[navydavesof]

The cost is way too high. The carbon carbon wood sandwich is not acceptable. Standard build.

[maxim]

What is the evidence that this cost more? Other navies uses these materials for cheap, mass produced corvettes.