The USN repeats the Seawolf fiasco

[MKSheppard]

A tumblehome hull with its sides sloping inwards forms an obtuse angle with the surface of the sea and that gives a weak radar reflection. (All right, who can spot the horrible flaw in that argument; I'll think of a nice prize for the first person to get it.).

Let me guess, is it because the ocean is not a perfectly stable environment, and as a ship pitches and rolls; it's cross section changes a lot as the interface between the sea surface and the ship hull changes on a constant basis?

[Stuart]

Let me guess, is it because the ocean is not a perfectly stable environment, and as a ship pitches and rolls; it's cross section changes a lot as the interface between the sea surface and the ship hull changes on a constant basis?

Exactly; as the ship rolls, the angle between teh ship's side and tehs ea surface changes all the time anyway. Plus the waves change that angle as well. Again, you see, we're coming back to the original problem; the basic configuration of DDG-1000 wasn't designed by naval architects, it was designed by electronics engineers - and they'd done most of their work for the aircraft industry. So they designed ships the way they'd designed aircraft.

[Sea Skimmer]

As I recall isn't massive size of the ship partly driven by the need to accommodate some really big active roll stabilizers, and also to accommodate large ballast tanks so that the waterline is always fixed and properly trimmed? I cant think all the water washing up that tumblehome slope does anything to help RCS either, unless a radar in a sea search mode just filters that out thinking its a wave.

[starslayer]

<snip neat answers>

I hadn't thought of those things. So yeah, they haven't forgotten physics, they've just forgotten that ships should be designed by naval engineers, not EEs, skilled as they may be. MFAs sound pretty cool, but I can easily see how much of a bitch they would be to implement. I've run into some devices that can give you microsecond timing and routing of the sort you'd need in the labs here at UCSC, but they're a) very expensive, and b) fragile. To make them tough enough to take military-grade punishment, I would imagine that a) becomes REALLY FUCKING EXPENSIVE. Besides, I thought that engineers tended to go for designs that cause the fewest problems while still meeting design goals. DDG-1000 doesn't seem to fit that in any way, shape or form, designed by EEs or no. What the hell happened?

[JointStrikeFighter]

A tumblehome hull with its sides sloping inwards forms an obtuse angle with the surface of the sea and that gives a weak radar reflection. (All right, who can spot the horrible flaw in that argument; I'll think of a nice prize for the first person to get it.

RCS is really huge above the ship?

Boat is stealthier than the sea around it so appears as a hole on radar scopes.

Shallow angle = waves sloshing over deck.

[Beowulf]

The DDG-1000 program is developing a capable ship which meets the requirements for which it was designed. The DDG-1000, with its Dual Band Radar and sonar suite design are optimized for the littoral environment. However, in the current program of record, the DDG-1000 cannot perform area air defense; specifically, it cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6, and is incapable of conducting Ballistic Missile Defense. Although superior in littoral ASW, the DDG-1000 lower power sonar design is less effective in the blue water than DDG-51 capability. DDG-1000's Advanced Gun System (AGS) design provides enhanced Naval Fires Support capability in the littorals with increased survivability. However, with the accelerated advancement of precision munitions and targeting, excess fires capacity already exists from tactical aviation and organic USMC fires. Unfortunately, the DDG-1000 design sacrifices capacity for increased capability in an area where the Navy already has, and is projected to have sufficient capacity and capability.

Wait, what?

[Sidewinder]

However, in the current program of record, the DDG-1000 cannot perform area air defense; specifically, it cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6, and is incapable of conducting Ballistic Missile Defense. Although superior in littoral ASW, the DDG-1000 lower power sonar design is less effective in the blue water than DDG-51 capability. DDG-1000's Advanced Gun System (AGS) design provides enhanced Naval Fires Support capability in the littorals with increased survivability. However, with the accelerated advancement of precision munitions and targeting, excess fires capacity already exists from tactical aviation and organic USMC fires. Unfortunately, the DDG-1000 design sacrifices capacity for increased capability in an area where the Navy already has, and is projected to have sufficient capacity and capability.

The more I hear about the Zumwalt class, the more convincing Sparky's argument (on reactivating the Iowa class battleships) becomes, especially considering the possibility that doing so would give the USN a more cost-effective platform for shore bombardment.

By the way, do we have the aviation technology to let USN and USMC aircraft to attack land targets in all weather conditions from relatively safe distances (beyond the range of enemy air defenses) with reasonable accuracy, which would support the claim that "excess fires capacity already exists from tactical aviation"? It would suck if the marines relearn what the Israelis learned the hard way in the Yom Kippur War.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No, what we need are nuclear powered cruisers with 2 x 8in/55cal lightweight guns and 160 VLS cells designed for BMD work with SPY-3 fitted and four 21-round RAM launchers for close-in defence. Well, in my dreams, anyway.

[SirNitram]

The DDG-1000 program is developing a capable ship which meets the requirements for which it was designed. The DDG-1000, with its Dual Band Radar and sonar suite design are optimized for the littoral environment. However, in the current program of record, the DDG-1000 cannot perform area air defense; specifically, it cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6, and is incapable of conducting Ballistic Missile Defense. Although superior in littoral ASW, the DDG-1000 lower power sonar design is less effective in the blue water than DDG-51 capability. DDG-1000's Advanced Gun System (AGS) design provides enhanced Naval Fires Support capability in the littorals with increased survivability. However, with the accelerated advancement of precision munitions and targeting, excess fires capacity already exists from tactical aviation and organic USMC fires. Unfortunately, the DDG-1000 design sacrifices capacity for increased capability in an area where the Navy already has, and is projected to have sufficient capacity and capability.

Wait, what?

Oh, I am amused. Wasn't this a major reason for the DDG-1000? To replace those horrible Aegis cruisers?

I must quote Apollo 13.

'Let's look at this from a standpoint of Status. What've we got on the ship that's good?' '...I'll get back to you, Jean.'

[Beowulf]

The DDG-1000 is supposed to fulfill a role that's been empty since the demise of the Iowas (not that they'd be better at it). It's not meant to replace the AEGIS cruisers. It's not really needed since anywhere standard tactical air support aircraft can't go, because of ADA, you can use cruise missiles, stealth aircraft, or supression to go.

[Sea Skimmer]

The more I hear about the Zumwalt class, the more convincing Sparky's argument (on reactivating the Iowa class battleships) becomes, especially considering the possibility that doing so would give the USN a more cost-effective platform for shore bombardment.

More cost effective? You’re looking at a couple billion to reactivate one battleship with bare bones modernization, and then another billion dollars for DDG-51 ride shotgun to defend it. And for all that you get some 24 mile range guns which are lacking in accuracy and a hull that has perhaps 10-15 years of life left while being extremely expensive to operate. Battleships are not cost effective for anything, they are in fact the least cost effective option available; Arsenal Ship loaded with navalized GMLRS rockets and Army Tactical Missiles would be cheaper, longer ranged and generally more effective. What’s more you could actually put just as many GMLRS rockets onto Arsenal ship as you’d have 16in shells on a battleship, so you aren’t even losing volume of fire.

I don’t recommend Arsenal Ship at all, but anything would be better then a battleship. Course Even if AGS works it still wont really meet Marine requirements for these infiltration tactics, but it would come much closer then anything sane that’s ever been proposed.

By the way, do we have the aviation technology to let USN and USMC aircraft to attack land targets in all weather conditions from relatively safe distances (beyond the range of enemy air defenses) with reasonable accuracy, which would support the claim that "excess fires capacity already exists from tactical aviation"? It would suck if the marines relearn what the Israelis learned the hard way in the Yom Kippur War.

We have plenty of all weather stand off weapons….but nothing can replace artillery. I am not really surprised that a Rear Admiral doesn’t understand that given the similar stupidity going on in FCS. Aircraft make raids, at best they stick around for 10 minutes (after you waited a half hour, to maybe as long as four to six hours, for them to show up) drop a few bombs and then fly back home for gas. Artillery provides all weather sustained and highly responsive fire support. This Admiral’s thinking is basically that all that matters is mathematical ability to strike aim points in a day, but war is not that simple and not all kinds of fires are equal.

Some kind of large loitering UCAV might be able to mostly replace artillery, but the USN does not have anything like that nor any public plans to gain that capability. Unless someone finds a way to make a Reaper carrier capable AND survivable against any kind of real air defence this is not going to change.