USA's DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class Program

jofizo

Huh Arleigh Burke pun tak terkejar, ni kuar lak yg baru..........



lawa siot, gun dia leh simpan dlm housing





The prime missions of the DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class destroyer are to provide naval gunfire support and next-generation air defense in near-shore areas where other large ships hesitate to tread, possibly even as the anchor for an action group of stealthy Littoral Combat Ships and submarines. The estimated 14,500t (cruiser sized) Zumwalt Class will be fully multi-role, however, with undersea warfare, long-range surface attack, and ballistic missile defense roles. As such, the DDG-1000 is also envisioned as a "hidden ace card" that can use its overall stealth to create uncertainty for enemy forces.

At over $3 billion per ship for construction alone, and just 2-8 ships to be built in the class, the program faces significant obstacles as it tries to avoid either "technology demonstrator" status, or the fulfilment of Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter's fears for the fleet. A follow-on CG (X) cruiser is currently contemplated, and the success of the DDG-1000 Program will have a significant influence on whether that ever comes to fruition.

This is DID's FOCUS Article for the DDG-1000 program; it covers the new ships' capabilities, key controversies, related contracts, and related background resources. The latest news involves almost a billion dollars in contracts related to the build-out of the first ships

mentosonline

Heck, this is a destroyer? I thought it was a ****** spaceship.

yellowfin

huhuhu ... over $3 billion per ship... convert to RM brp ekk..?

Dan brp pulak komisen die kalo MY nak beli ekk..??

jazim

Originally posted by mentosonline at 25-9-2007 06:45 PM
Heck, this is a destroyer? I thought it was a ****** spaceship.

This is a future of surface warfare, man. Remember a stealthty F-117 and B-2? Both are futuristic in design and still spearheading American combat actions. But the majority of ships still had conventional outline, even for our F-2000 frigates and RSN's Formidable class.

mmc

but like the B-22 and the F-22, it is a design looking for an enemy...heck of a lotta  money just to act as shore fireship.

Debmey

Its the fire control system of the 155mm. Its no ordinary gun but one with high accuracy and range that in effect replaces those 16 inch guns on battleships.
This packs lots of surface fire power w/o the dreaded situation of troops on the ground.
In other words, it gives the US military better and wider options in a war and also replaces the need for battleships with equivalent fire power.

A ship like that can scare nations with a shore line w/o US sending in the marines.

mmc

heheheheheheh..korang ingat kapal mana kena hentam dulu bila dia mampir

escortburuk

$3 billion a piece! Mak aih! Just imagine it hit a mine and sank to the bottom of the sea... $3 billion down the drain

hijazzains

The US only good making weapons..good ones though...but sucks in almost everything else..public transport,health care,car design

mentosonline

That's why there's still democrats in the US...
But at least the republicans understand one thing. PEACE THROUGH POWER!

Debmey

The americans do not fully understand peace thru power. Thats why they allow iran, syria and north korea so much mischief.

capable_warrior

Still licking the Gwai Loh I see.  Seriously, any new original thought dare we ask rather than the usual the white boys is the master mentality?

RainbowSix

I think a stealth battleship is overrated. At US3 billion a piece, imagine what u can do. Stealth is used to obscure your presence. It contradicts the more conventional navy doctrine of show of force and power projection.

If the ship was to fulfil a hit and run strategy, well ships are too slow to run.

In such a case, why would u need a stealth battleship? Open sea battles is a thing of the past. I think its just a waste.

Debmey

Originally posted by capable_warrior at 28-9-2007 03:13 PM
Still licking the Gwai Loh I see.  Seriously, any new original thought dare we ask rather than the usual the white boys is the master mentality?

licking ang mo? No way. I think the americans are more stupid than you. Thats why the syrians and iranians are still around.

capable_warrior

Really, sure could fooled us because your tounge is lapping it up, dear boy

mentosonline

Stealth battleships are useless. Dollar for dollar, the scaled-down Seawolf class submarine would be a much better choice, given much better stealth capability and at a relatively "cheap" cost of US$1 billion compared to this stealth warship.
You can also detect stealth battleships easily - just put a good radar tracking system on a satellite and use it to track the wake of the warship. Totally nullifies the use for a stealth battleship.

matamata

Maybe its works on jet fighter, I doubt about ship. (Tumpang lalu...saya orang baru )

mmc

on the ship lagi nyata nak tengok wake...eyeball mk 1 pun boleh nampak..



in pulak ikut modeling..

mentosonline

Aurally stealthing it will also be damned expensive and difficult.
Best way is to use bubble generators and mount equipment on rubber rafts, but just like our Delta class frigates, it's impossible to completely stealth it... No sir...

capable_warrior

Seriously, ships with stealth only have advantage if you want to avoid being hammered by a seaskimmer going at you.  I would like to see a maritime doctrine deploying one ship, even the Delta Class, alone by its lonesome self in the South China Sea.  So a fleet doctrine makes it quite useless because you would also deploy the fleet with oilers, minesweepers, command ships, LST which are not that stealthy.  Even then, if you analyze the radar picture, if there's a big gap or weird black hole in the radar signals, doesn't it sort of kick you in the head that there's something there.  Even for the Zummwalt class of destroyers, it just doesn't make that much sense for Gunboat diplomacy to tell your potential adversaries that its there but you can't see it.  For a submarine there's strategic value but for a capital ship its a strategic statement when a combatant ship is in your gulf.  Plus, I don't think you can cut the RCS of a ship that much because a ship RCS will change with the angle of the emanating radar signal.  To actually reduce from all angles is impossible because the optimum design would look like a perfect sphere.  Now that would be funny.

[ Last edited by  capable_warrior at 3-10-2007 12:59 AM ]