USS Zumwalt DDG-1000 Launched

[Patroklos]

A couple days ago up in Maine...

BATH, Maine (NNS) -- General Dynamics Bath Iron Works successfully launched the Navy's first Zumwalt-class destroyer Oct. 28 at their Bath, Maine shipyard.

The future USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) will be the lead ship of the Navy's newest destroyer class, designed for littoral operations and land attack.

The ship began its translation from Bath Iron Works' land-level construction facility to a floating dry dock on Friday. Once loaded into the dry dock, the dock was flooded and the ship was removed from its specially designed cradle. By late Monday, the dock had been flooded and the ship was floated off and tied to a pier on the Kennebec River.

"This is the largest ship Bath Iron Works has ever constructed and the Navy's largest destroyer. The launch was unprecedented in both its size and complexity," said Capt. Jim Downey, the Zumwalt-class program manager for the Navy's Program Executive Office, Ships. "Due to meticulous planning and execution, the operation went very smoothly. I'm extremely pleased with the results and applaud the combined efforts of the Navy-industry team."

Construction began on DDG 1000 in February 2009, and the Navy and its industry partners have worked to mature the ship's design and ready their industrial facilities to build this advanced surface combatant. Zumwalt is currently more than 87 percent complete, and the shipbuilder will continue remaining construction work on the hull prior to planned delivery late next year.

Because of the complexity of the first-of-class ship, the Navy will perform a two-phase delivery process. Bath Iron Works will deliver the ship itself to the Navy in late 2014. Upon delivery, the Navy will then conduct combat systems activation, tests and trials, to include multiple underway periods. The ship is expected to reach its initial operating capability in 2016.

The ship, the first of three Zumwalt-class destroyers, will provide independent forward presence and deterrence, support special operations forces and operate as part of joint and combined expeditionary forces. The Navy has incorporated many new technologies into the ship's unique tumblehome hull, including an all-electric integrated power system and an Advanced Gun System, designed to fire rocket-powered, precision projectiles 63-nautical miles.

The shape of the superstructure and the arrangement of its antennas significantly reduce the ship's radar cross section, making the ship less visible to enemy radar at sea. The design also allows for optimal manning with a standard crew size of 130 and an aviation detachment of 28 Sailors thereby decreasing lifecycle operations and support costs.

The lead ship and class are named in honor of former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Elmo R. "Bud" Zumwalt Jr., who served as chief of naval operations from 1970-1974.

As one of the Defense Department's largest acquisition organizations, PEO Ships, an affiliated PEO of the Naval Sea Systems Command, is responsible for executing the development and procurement of all major surface combatants, amphibious ships, special mission and support ships and special warfare craft.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=77322

Precommissioning test 1 of 898684 Completed Succesfully: IT FLOATS!

It could be the vanguard of the future, a costly proof of concept, or a complete failure. I used to be pretty down on this design by my last CO happened to work in the design office and we got to talk a lot about it and I am more or less onboard now and can't wait to see it pier side here in Norfolk. I still hate the LCS with a passion.

In similar USN news the USS Ford is approaching launch as well on Novermber 9th.

http://thefordclass.com/index.html

[Borgholio]

Yeah I'm on the fence about the Zumwalt. On one hand, lots of neat tech (steath that gives it the noise output of an attack submarine and the radar signature of a fishing boat, a 5" gun with a range twice that of a battleship, etc...). On the other hand, it's expensive as fuck and has a LOT of automation. I'm not sure being highly automated with a small crew is a good thing for such a large warship.

[LaCroix]

Well, high automation and a very corrosive environment have always played well together, right?

I'll keep my seat on the fence until that thing takes it's first substancial trip anywhere without revealing substancial handling problems. Many boats have passed the floating test...

(Also, I'm looking forward to the waves this bow will make...)

[Patroklos]

Yeah they always say that though, and we all saw how that worked out on LCS and DDG51. Engineers and politicians love to talk about reduced manning and automation and the brass go right along with it because it lets them sell a lower price tag to a congress even though they know it will never be successful. It is telling that Zumwalt has accommodations for nearly twice the number of its listed crew requirement.

No matter what you do someone has to cook food, sweep floors and unclog toilets.

[Borgholio]

No matter what you do someone has to cook food, sweep floors and unclog toilets.

Maybe it's partially manned with astromech droids...

Edit - This fucker is literally the size of a pocket battleship. I wonder how they expect it to perform in the LCS role then...since that's part of what it is designed to do.

[Patroklos]

It's draft is only 27' compared to the DDG51 36' draft due to the sonar dome.

This was never billed as an LCS though, but rather a land attack destroyer so as long as those guns and missiles can make it well inland it doesn't need to be in the deep littorals. Of course since DDG51 already has those missiles all this brings to the strike arena is the guns.

[energiewende]

Yeah they always say that though, and we all saw how that worked out on LCS and DDG51. Engineers and politicians love to talk about reduced manning and automation and the brass go right along with it because it lets them sell a lower price tag to a congress even though they know it will never be successful. It is telling that Zumwalt has accommodations for nearly twice the number of its listed crew requirement.

No matter what you do someone has to cook food, sweep floors and unclog toilets.

Automation has already been highly successful. A modern supertanker has a crew of about a dozen, compared with 40+ for a WWII Liberty Ship that carried less than a tenth as much cargo. When it comes to warships, absolute numbers dropped less but that obscures the full story. The capabilities of modern warships that are attributable to automation (eg. computer control of sensors and fire control) would simply be impossible with any amount of manpower in WWII.

There's always a floor limit, but it's not clear why this decade's aspiration is any less reasonable than that of three, four, five decades before.

[NeoGoomba]

Since I'm too lazy to look it up, is this also the Linux ship I've been hearing about?

[energiewende]

Pretty much all ships run on unix based operating systems, along with almost all servers and industrial, research and defence supercomputers.

[NeoGoomba]

Well shows what I know then. Thanks.

[Borgholio]

Pretty much all ships run on unix based operating systems

Yeah, especially after that hilarious test-run on the old USS Yorktown using Windows NT as the core operating system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorkto ... ip_testbed

[Simon_Jester]

Energiewende, the problem is that supertankers have relatively few systems per unit volume, and the systems they do have can be made almost arbitrarily robust and simple. A warship has vastly more complex electronics and gadgetry, with high maintenance requirements. Thus, trying to drastically reduce crew sizes will only work if the automation turns out to be very reliable and the equipment can be made low-maintenance. And that is not a common experience for warships.

[energiewende]

Nor did Liberty Ship; this explains the difference in levels between warship and merchant ship manning but not the reduction. Also, you ignored how I specifically addressed warships.

How about this:

USS McCampbell (2002), 9,200t (full load) - 380 crew
USS Oakland (1941), 7,400t (full load) - 673 crew

And McCampbell is far more complex than Oakland. Zumwalt isn't an "automated ship"; they're all automated. It's only a question of degree.

[Mr Bean]

USS McCampbell (2002), 9,200t (full load) - 380 crew
USS Oakland (1941), 7,400t (full load) - 673 crew

And McCampbell is far more complex than Oakland. Zumwalt isn't an "automated ship"; they're all automated. It's only a question of degree.

Actually no because the USS McCampbell does not need crewman to man her 40mm bofors she has CIWS, nor does she have on deck torpedos or the like. You picked a terrible example because old time guns which shit inaccurate which meant you needed lots of them. To put it another way the physical guns of the McCampbell have a total crew component of about 31 all total for every single .50cal and 25mm gun. The Oakland by contrast had north of 90 people dedicated just to the physical guns. That's not automation in the traditional sense it's just the weapon systems are just that much more effective you need less physical mounts even if those mounts require the exact same number of gunners.

[Zwinmar]

On a warship the question of crew really can come down to damage control parties. With it being a warship and all it is supposed to see combat, and in combat shit breaks. Is the crew compliment enough to fix shit that breaks? I realize there are some things that can only be done in dry dock but that does not help when something blows out at sea. Of course, the question of redundancy plays its part as well.

[phongn]

A few years ago there was a pretty good thread on DDG-1000; I wonder how many of those problems got resolved.

[energiewende]

USS McCampbell (2002), 9,200t (full load) - 380 crew
USS Oakland (1941), 7,400t (full load) - 673 crew

And McCampbell is far more complex than Oakland. Zumwalt isn't an "automated ship"; they're all automated. It's only a question of degree.

Actually no because the USS McCampbell does not need crewman to man her 40mm bofors she has CIWS

Indeed, with computers and servos replacing men feeding ammo and looking down rangefinders, instead requiring manpower only to inspect and service the mount. In other words, the AA guns were automated.

You picked a terrible example because old time guns which shit inaccurate which meant you needed lots of them.

A problem solved by automation. BTW Atlanta had exactly the same mission as the Arleigh Burke, air defence, and even had the state of the art for radar gunlaying at the time, as McCampbell does today.

[Patroklos]

On a warship the question of crew really can come down to damage control parties. With it being a warship and all it is supposed to see combat, and in combat shit breaks. Is the crew compliment enough to fix shit that breaks? I realize there are some things that can only be done in dry dock but that does not help when something blows out at sea. Of course, the question of redundancy plays its part as well.

The short answer is no. They just did this with LCS and have almost doubled the size of the crew cramming them in wherever they can.

These small crews generally rely on certain gimicks to get to that number that fall apart. One in the case of LCS is was "we will duel train every sailor!" Problems with this include:

1.) Training someone to do two things takes twice as long, and when that thing is weapons systems and engineering plants that means years. That costs money.
2.) Most people end up doing one thing well, and one thing passibly. That might work to a certain extent depending on what your threshold for performance is, in the military its pretty high.
3.) When you take two full time jobs on another ship and have one person on an LCS do both the results of time management shouldn't surprise you.
4.) Warships are designed to be in unpredicable high stress situations. When you have zero play in your crew size because its been optimized to use near everyone to do any one evolution, routine things fall to the wayside. I mentioned things like cooking food, cleaning spaces, and uncloging toilets before but that probably doesn't register as "important" to some outsiders (it very much is), so throw in there preventative maintenance, professional qualifying(studying, UIs, boards), and SLEEP!
5.) Crews are made up of people, and due to the the stressful job and the impact on families they very often end up injured or otherwise pulled away for things. With a small crew that is again optimized to the man what do you do when one weekend two sailors get a DUI, one fulls down a ladderwell and breaks his leg, one gets pregnant and another has a kid and goes on materninty (men get this too)? Oh, and three are away at long term schools for that duel training thing. That could be 20% of your crew right there.

Thats just an example. The current solution (besides cramming extra riders in wherevery they will fit) is a rotating A and B crew, that way you can burn each one out and just reload! SSBNs have made this work but they are in very specific circumstances doing exactly one thing (and with nuc and sub pay as motivation). Not to mention you lose ownership of equipment and situational awareness when you do that.

EDIT:

Another example was the "everyone will cook their own food and clean their own dishes!" Seems reasonable right?

Well, the problem here is that warships are closed enviroments of lots of people with varying levels of hygene and other habits. Its an industrial food service space and requires specific sanitation and food handling. That requires training, and its a hell of a lot easier to train and enforce that on a dedicated group of two or three (for an LCS sized ship) than all 40 (core) crew. Not to mention cooking for large groups of people is not as easy as Food Network makes it out especially if you want a consistant quality product inside the confines and restraints of a small ship galley and also on a specific schedule that also must flex to whatever that ship happens to be doing. You also shouldn't be surprised when people prioritize "fix that 50cal" over "wait until rince temp reaches 120 degrees" and just doesn't do the later.

In short people got sick and the crew ate crap which destroyed moral, and they had to go back to a traditional galley operaiton.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually no because the USS McCampbell does not need crewman to man her 40mm bofors she has CIWS

Indeed, with computers and servos replacing men feeding ammo and looking down rangefinders, instead requiring manpower only to inspect and service the mount. In other words, the AA guns were automated.[/quote]They were also vastly decreased in number- interestingly, we have McCampbell with 31 crewmen for seven guns, while Oakland had, from phongn's post, somewhere between 90 and 100 to serve forty-two guns. The ratio of men per gun has not changed. I'm surprised by that, actually.

You picked a terrible example because old time guns which shit inaccurate which meant you needed lots of them.

A problem solved by automation. BTW Atlanta had exactly the same mission as the Arleigh Burke, air defence, and even had the state of the art for radar gunlaying at the time, as McCampbell does today.[/quote]Gun accuracy has improved for reasons other than automation as well, which you are neglecting. Moreover, you are glossing over the question of what gets automated- physically, what systems are being modified to work in what ways? You can automate shell loading; that doesn't mean you can automate firefighting.

[Patroklos]

Just a note I am not sure where he is getting that number but most guns on a modern DDG, as well as the eariler ship, are maned by non gunners mates. Just whatever people they can get to pass qualification. Many watch stations are like that.

On a DDG their might be 25-30 gunners mates, but only half of those will be in CG division (guns), the other half will be in CM (missiles). Their skillsets might overlap for small arms but not for major weapons systems.

[energiewende]

Gun accuracy has improved for reasons other than automation as well

Such as? Missiles have gained from range but other than that, the main reason for the improvement in weapons lethality across the board is removing people. People are really bad at aiming and loading things, compared to machines. What machines aren't so good at is problem solving and command and control. They also can't be sued or court martialled, so there are liability issues.

which you are neglecting. Moreover, you are glossing over the question of what gets automated- physically, what systems are being modified to work in what ways? You can automate shell loading; that doesn't mean you can automate firefighting.

Even office buildings have automated firefighting.

--

Of course I'm not arguing everything can be automated, or that automation never has drawbacks (though it just as often has wider benefits than the crew savings) but it's a steady progression that has been going without much explicit public interest since someone decided that the wind might be a better source of motive power than galley slaves, and probably before that.

[Mr Bean]

Indeed, with computers and servos replacing men feeding ammo and looking down rangefinders, instead requiring manpower only to inspect and service the mount. In other words, the AA guns were automated.

Nope the guncrew sizes many of the guns are identical, what's changed is the opforce mix. .50cal are mostly useless at engaging jets you still need three people to help man one. The Atlantic and the McCampbell face much different enemies. The .50cals of the Atlantic would be engaging planes and small crafts. The .50cals on the McCampbell are in fact identical to the ones on the Atlantic in fact I'm pretty sure even the mounts are the same to the point you could unmount a .50cal from the Atlantic from 1944 and carry it over intact and bolt it down next to one from the McCampbell in 2004 and have the same characteristics. The 40mm Bofors is likewise identical, the aiming points have changed and radar has been added but the gun itself is identical and as Simon notes, the number of people manning it has not changed.

The threat posture has, the fact planes have gotten so fast and agile means the McCampbell uses it's .50cals just for defense against small craft, using it against planes would be hilariously ineffective since the guns are still man powered, they turn as fast as the gunner can turn the mount.

[Mr Bean]

Even office buildings have automated firefighting.

How many offices buildings have magnesium, high explosives, 20 amp truck lines or float? How many office buildings have to move? Ships have automated firefighting systems for certain specific areas where only one type of component is (Like computers) but many parts of the ship you have to have humans because only humans can lug the tanks of foam or water to the point of the fire. The amount of things that burn well and hotly on a ship of war is huge. Worse several things that can catch on fire will explode if you try and dump water or foam on it. If your office sprinklers put water on a magnesium fire you going to get an explosion. Put water on a truck line fire and you will murder anyone within ten feet of that water source.

I'm not damage control but I went through the courses, got my jqrs signed off, particpated in pratice runs and learned how to demount doors twisted out of shape from battle damage. When something explosive hits something expensive you can't trust in automated systems to do anything other than in very specific areas for very specific types of damage.

Because the hell of it is, unless you have robots your automatic fire fighting system needs to be right next to the thing that just caught on fire after getting hit.

[energiewende]

As much as I would like you to believe the sky is blue, I have little interest trying to persuade you if you insist otherwise.

I have a question for you: is 673 a smaller or larger number than 380?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Did you just completely ignore every point he's made? That's impressive. Yes, 673 is bigger than 370, well done, but I seriously doubt (for reasons others have explained) that the actual crew will be 370.