Zumwalt class destroyers (updates)

[carr]

..

[maxim]

You have only repeated the statement of those, who claim that it is no problem to remove on part of a designed system and that it could still perform the function, eventhough a part of the system is missing, with some few software adjustments. But why is this possible? And why did the designers of SPY-3/4 pair, which thought otherwise, are wrong? Also the next generation, AMDR (SPY-6), will be a combination of antenna, again a X band/S band pair as SPY-3/4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-6). Therefore the radar designers apparently still think that for full function two different bands (sets of wavelengths) are necessary. As do the designers of radars for other navies. And these bands have different physical characteristics.

If you read the different Wikipedia articles, you will find that most modern radars have more range and for those the range is described in much more detail, including references, which are unfortunately completely lacking for SPY-3 on Wikipedia. There is unfortunately also no information about the characteristics of SPY-4.

But there is information on Wikipedia that SPY-3 was designed to guide SM-2 and make SPG-62 or similar fire control radars not longer necessary, i.e. a SPY-3 ship does not need additional illuminator radars.

In general, longer wavelengths appear to be also better for detection of stealth objects a longer distance, which again would require longer wavelengths than the X band of SPY-3. We talking about a time with massively increasing range of anti-ship missiles (more than 200 miles for the new Russian ones!), but for sure the radar horizon and the over-the-horizon capacity would be relevant here. Sure, purely for defence horizon search would be sufficient, but regarding the attack role, this is a different topic. Unfortunately this is a topic not described in any detail for most radars in the Wikipedia articles. The height of the missile reached directly after launch (before it goes into low level flight) would also play a role here, if range could be relevant - I could not find any detailed information about that.

But again: if something is designed to work as pairs, I assume that it causes problems, if one part is removed and still the same function should be available. That is usually either causing disaster - or amazing technological progress. But disaster or at least a massively inferior technology, is more likely.

[carr]

..

[maxim]

Yes, I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different radars, because the omission of the SPY-4 reduced the fighting capabilities of the Zumwalt class dramatically. Instead of a first class, modern radar system, the ships have now only half of it. Likely a very bad compromise, impairing both the functions SPY-3 should fulfil and the functions, for which SPY-4 was designed.

The half they have, the SPY-3, was obviously designed as a high precision short range radar for detection of missiles and guiding the own missiles - it was not designed for volume search and long range. That is obvious, because it was designed to be paired with a radar using longer wavelengths and for SPY-3 short wavelengths were chosen.

The range given at Wikipedia without any reference does not refute that this is a step reducing the capabilities and that SPY-3 is designed for very different functions - not for long range volume search.

Without a proper radar combination, the ships are much less useful for the new role, anti-ship (because of the reduced defence capabilities and lack of capabilities to detect targets itself on long range), are not useful for air-defence and also not really useful for the land-attack role (because of the reduced defence capabilities). And that combined with the lack of a modern anti-ship missiles and the guns without ammunition gives the indication of very bad design and acquisition process - the USN has apparently severe problems to develop modern designs. Its main surface fighting ships are designs from the 1970s and 1980s - including the newly built Arleigh Burkes - or of doubtful capabilities (LCS, the amputated Zumwalts).

[carr]

..

[maxim]

A claim without any reference in a vague and not very detailed article on Wikipedia does not prove that SPY-3 is useful for volume research and the omission of SPY-4 does not drastically reduce the capabilities. There is no reference for the range, no specifications what can be detected at this range (a flying object of the size of Jahre Viking?) etc. This is not surprising for a new radar that not much is known - but it is for sure known that it was not designed for long range volume search. The "200 miles" on Wikipedia is only a claim without any support.

The lack of SPY-4 ruins a very advanced radar system - theoretically much better than everything else on USN cruisers and destroyers. And now there is a ship with nearly 15000 t displacement - and amputated radar system and not working guns.

[carr]

..

[maxim]

The question is not, if 200 miles are short range, but what the effective range of SPY-3 is and what the capabilities of the radar are, if it should be used for more functions than designed for If you do not understand that comment, read my last five posts again

[MartinJQuinn]

I feel like I'm watching a tennis match. Take the volley and serve offline to PM or e-mail, please.

[Haijun watcher]

Defense News

Advanced Gun System was holding back the Navy�s new stealth destroyer
1 hour ago


Development issues with the Navy�s Advanced Gun System, destined to be one of the main armaments of DDG-1000, prompted the Navy to change Zumwalt into a ship killer, the Navy�s top requirements officers said Tuesday.

The Navy announced in February in budget justification documents that it intended to integrate Raytheon�s SM-6 missile and was changing the mission from a land-attack platform to a ship killer.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee�s seapower subcommittee, Vice Adm. Bill Merz told senators that the slow development of the AGS prompted the change.

(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

Defense News

US Navy takes ownership of its second stealth destroyer
By: David B. Larter ? 21 minutes ago

WASHINGTON ? The U.S. Navy announced Tuesday that it accepted delivery of the Zumwalt-class destroyer Michael Monsoor from Bath Iron Works, Maine, meaning the ship is officially U.S. Navy property.

Its the second of three of the stealth destroyers that will make up the class, which was truncated repeatedly all the way from a planned buy of 32 at the outset. The lead ship, Zumwalt, was delivered in May 2016.

(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

Naval Today

US Navy�s second Zumwalt destroyer blew its gas turbine during acceptance trials: USNI News

The US Navy�s second Zumwalt-class destroyer Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) will need a new main turbine engine after turbine blades were damaged during the ship�s acceptance trials.

According to a USNI News report: Michael Monsoor will have to receive the new MT30 engine at the Bath Iron Works shipyard in Maine before being able to sail to San Diego for its combat system activation.

This was confirmed to USNI News by Program Executive Officer, Ships, Rear Admiral William J. Galinis who further said the turbine showed no signs of malfunction during the trials and that the defect was discovered during an inspection in February.
(...SNIPPED)

[InchHigh]

It's worse than that. Apparently the engine change rails (which all other gas turbine ships have going all the way back to the Spruances / Perrys) had not even been designed, let alone installed. What other basic design features were skipped? Keep in mind each of the Zumwalts cost the same as FOUR Burkes! From another article:

"It is taking over six months to replace the engine because a special rail system is needed to remove the engine and put in a new one. The system to enable engine replacement had not been designed when the Navy realized it needed one. Engineers had to finish the design and then install the system."

[Haijun watcher]

And the PCU /future USS Lyndon B. Johnson is in the water! Still, were budget constraints the main reason why only three were built in this class?

Defense News

The US Navy�s last stealth destroyer is in the water
By: David B. Larter ? 8 hours ago
WASHINGTON � Bath Iron Works has launched the U.S. Navy�s third and final Zumwalt-class destroyer amid a debate over the future of the ship, which fell victim to its enormous price tag and changing requirements.
The future destroyer Lyndon B. Johnson was launched Dec. 9 at General Dynamics-Bath Iron Works, Maine, which happens when the dry-dock on which the ship rests is flooded until the ship is floating.
The Johnson will be different from its sister ships, the Monsoor and Zumwalt, primarily because of its steel deckhouse instead of the composite material used on the other ships. The move was intended to save money.
(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

Military.com

USS Michael Monsoor Commissioning Honors Legacy of Navy SEAL
27 Jan 2019
U.S. Navy | By Petty Officer 1st Class Woody Paschall
SAN DIEGO - The Navy's newest Zumwalt-class destroyer, USS Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001), was commissioned Jan. 26 at Naval Air Station North Island.
Twenty Gold Star families and four Medal of Honor recipients witnessed the destroyer's commissioning, the second of its class to enter service.
(...SNIPPED)

[Haijun watcher]

Naval Today

US Navy christening final Zumwalt-class destroyer in Maine
The US Navy is to christen its third and final Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer, the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG 1002), in a ceremony at the General Dynamics-Bath Iron Works shipyard in Bath, Maine.
The ceremony is set for Saturday, April 27.
DDG 1002 is named in honor of US president Lyndon B. Johnson, who served in office from 1963-1969, and will be the first ship to bear his name.
Lynda Johnson Robb and Luci Johnson, the two daughters of the former president, will serve as the ship�s sponsors.
(...SNIPPED)

[Timmy C]

Looks like doubts regarding the Zumwalt's seakeeping have been put to rest - a new interview released today with the ship's captain talks about the ships' handling during, amongst other things, Sea State 6 off Alaska: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... ormy-seas/

[maxim]

Interesting: that indicates that new hull forms make sense!

[Haijun watcher]

Sighhh...


Defense News

Nearly 4 years after commissioning, the US Navy is about to get a fully working stealth destroyer
By: David B. Larter ? 39 minutes ago
WASHINGTON � The U.S. Navy�s first stealth destroyer, the Zumwalt, is on track to have its combat system installation completed and delivered within days, a source with knowledge of the program told Defense News.
It�s the end of a long journey for the ship that was commissioned in 2016 without a working combat system but is finally preparing to fully enter service. The ship was slated to have its installation completed in March, and the service is still on track to deliver on time, the source said.
In November 2016, BAE Systems was awarded a $192 million contract to deliver the combat system for Zumwalt and its sister ship the Michael Monsoor.
(....SNIPPED)

[maxim]

I had not been aware that they had no working combat system installed.