PENTAGON - DDG-1000 On the chopping block again - Polidicks

[t]http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iOqL69En94h4/v2/1200x-1.jpg[/t] [quote]Canceling the USS Lyndon B. Johnson, a Zumwalt-class destroyer, is a topic that’s “to be reviewed in the next few weeks” by teams formed by the Pentagon’s independent cost-assessment office, according to a Defense Department briefing document dated Aug. 25. Two officials familiar with the issue confirmed that cancellation discussions are under way although no decision has been made. The Zumwalt-class destroyer is designed as a multimission land-attack vessel that will use electricity generated by gas turbines to power all of its systems, including weapons. The cancellation discussions, part of planning for the fiscal 2017 budget, are the latest twist for a program that’s been buffeted by delays, rising costs and changing plans. From an initial 32, the quantity planned was reduced over the years to seven and then three. The estimated procurement cost for all three vessels has increased by 37 percent since 2009 to $12.3 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service. The estimated construction cost for the third destroyer, designated DDG-1002, is about $3.5 billion. A key question is how much of that could be saved by canceling a ship that’s about 41 percent complete, according to the officials, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations.[/quote] [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-14/general-dynamics-destroyer-reviewed-by-pentagon-for-cancellation[/url] This tin-can can join the F-35 program in budget blunders. It was designed to fight a war that doesn't exist. It almost reminds me of the Seawolf program. Wonder if they'll re-purpose the hull?

A war that doesn't exist? Not everything is counterinsurgency anymore.

They'll re-purpose it into razor blades. I really liked the hull form of this ship. I'd be a shame to see it go, even if it's pointless.

[QUOTE=dbk21894;48695339] [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-14/general-dynamics-destroyer-reviewed-by-pentagon-for-cancellation[/url] This tin-can can join the F-35 program in budget blunders. It was designed to fight a war that doesn't exist. It almost reminds me of the Seawolf program. Wonder if they'll re-purpose the hull?[/QUOTE] but seawolf lead directly to the virginia class sub which is actually pretty good

[QUOTE=OvB;48695371]They'll re-purpose it into razor blades. I really liked the hull form of this ship. I'd be a shame to see it go, even if it's pointless.[/QUOTE] You'll still get two of 'em! Sadly the design / hull form are the only really interesting parts of the ship. Yes, it is designed to carry the Navy's railgun in the future, so that's a plus, but it has less VLS cells than a Burke, no CIWS, not very stable in heavy sea states (a Burke can do 26kts in sea state 5), and no ability to operate as an AAW ship for fleet defense.

3.2 billion for a destroyer jesus You could fund half a super carrier for that

Its money well spent in testing and creation; they wanted to create a stealth destroyer that relied on electricity alone instead of say, gasoline. Unfortunately the cost ballooned as specifications and plans changed to include a power hungry rail gun.

[QUOTE=Swilly;48695514]Its money well spent in testing and creation; they wanted to create a stealth destroyer that relied on electricity alone instead of say, gasoline. Unfortunately the cost ballooned as specifications and plans changed to include a power hungry rail gun.[/QUOTE] this isn't an electric ship it still has two 39MW Rolls Royce Gas Turbines

[QUOTE=Swilly;48695514]Its money well spent in testing and creation; they wanted to create a stealth destroyer that relied on electricity alone instead of say, gasoline. Unfortunately the cost ballooned as specifications and plans changed to include a power hungry rail gun.[/QUOTE] Its literally in the OP that this is a gasoline powered ship

[QUOTE=Saxon;48695455]3.2 billion for a destroyer jesus You could fund half a super carrier for that[/QUOTE] Who needs half a super carrier when you can have a destroyer Jesus m8

No CIWS? That's odd. Does it use interceptor missiles or something instead?

[QUOTE=Jon27;48697154]No CIWS? That's odd. Does it use interceptor missiles or something instead?[/QUOTE] It slices incoming projectiles in half with the bow, like a Japanese sword in anime.

This needs to be completed because of the railgun alone. Would be great to have the first military use railgun actually in service.

The surface fleet doesn't have a future anyway.

As cool as this thing is, I'd rather the money go toward funding something that looks less stupid and is more capable. Or perhaps something more awesome. Perhaps we can take the four Iowas and refit them, (or maybe just one) making an entirely new class: nuclear-powered battleships with railguns, missiles, lasers, and fucking gigantic sonic weapons that project AC/DC's Thunderstruck hundreds of miles away. A man can dream. [QUOTE=dbk21894;48695598]this isn't an electric ship it still has two 39MW Rolls Royce Gas Turbines[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Code3Response;48696307]Its literally in the OP that this is a gasoline powered ship[/QUOTE]Yeah pretty sure that's not what he meant. Originally it was supposed to be all-electric but as Swilly said the cost ballooned and there were design changes.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;48696307]Its literally in the OP that this is a gasoline powered ship[/QUOTE] Indeed, its literally in the OP. [quote]The Zumwalt-class destroyer is designed as a multimission land-attack vessel that will use electricity generated by gas turbines to power all of its systems, including weapons.[/quote] That's different then most ships which use the gas to fuel the engine and the power, instead it generates power to make it move and do everything else, that's it. Which is the first step toward switching to battery. [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] Its obvious it was meant to be all electric, and then specifications and costs happened.

[QUOTE=Srillo;48697599]The surface fleet doesn't have a future anyway.[/QUOTE] Yeah m8 fuck those skimmers, bubbleheads rool

[QUOTE=Swilly;48699215]Indeed, its literally in the OP. That's different then most ships which use the gas to fuel the engine and the power, instead it generates power to make it move and do everything else, that's it. Which is the first step toward switching to battery. [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] Its obvious it was meant to be all electric, and then specifications and costs happened.[/QUOTE] That's pretty much how a lot of ships work. All ships generate power with generators. Some use electric motors for propulsion. The alternative is nuclear generation. It means electric weapons because the rail gun is electric. There's nothing super special about gas turbines in a ship.

[QUOTE=Srillo;48697599]The surface fleet doesn't have a future anyway.[/QUOTE] Yes it does, and I'm not just saying this for my job security either.

[QUOTE=OvB;48699317]That's pretty much how a lot of ships work. All ships generate power with generators. Some use electric motors for propulsion. The alternative is nuclear generation. It means electric weapons because the rail gun is electric. There's nothing super special about gas turbines in a ship.[/QUOTE] i think the key difference, at least this is with the Ford carriers being built, is that traditionally the turbines make steam as well as being coupled to the propulsion systems, and that steam is used for generators and running other systems, where as the ford carriers will supposedly generate electricity primarily and replaced the steam systems with electrically driven systems

Well fuck, this isn't good, my dad's been working on this, if this goes he's out of a job...

[QUOTE=OvB;48699317]That's pretty much how a lot of ships work. All ships generate power with generators. Some use electric motors for propulsion. The alternative is nuclear generation. It means electric weapons because the rail gun is electric. There's nothing super special about gas turbines in a ship.[/QUOTE] That's where you're wrong. Ships don't utilize nuclear, gas, or electric power. They run off of the noxious fumes produced by the crushed hopes and dreams of deck seaman and embarked marines.

[QUOTE=Swilly;48699215]Indeed, its literally in the OP. That's different then most ships which use the gas to fuel the engine and the power, instead it generates power to make it move and do everything else, that's it. Which is the first step toward switching to battery. [editline]16th September 2015[/editline] Its obvious it was meant to be all electric, and then specifications and costs happened.[/QUOTE] that makes no sense at all this ship was designed with an integrated power system from the ground up, no "costs" changed it that means that instead of the turbines turning the propellers, the turbines run generators that power every item on the ship, including the electric propulsion motors they were [I]never[/I] going to power this thing like a Tesla [editline]17th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Jon27;48697154]No CIWS? That's odd. Does it use interceptor missiles or something instead?[/QUOTE] they're steering away from CIWS for close-in defense and moving towards SM-3, SM-6 and SEARAM sadly the CIWS is ancient tech, and if a missile is close enough for the CIWS to engage, it's too close [editline]17th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48700344]That's where you're wrong. Ships don't utilize nuclear, gas, or electric power. They run off of the noxious fumes produced by the crushed hopes and dreams of deck seaman and embarked marines.[/QUOTE] don't forget needle guns! ships are incapable of moving without them

Speaking of the Navy Railgun, how feasible would it be to mount one of those on a tank chassis Elefant / Jagdtiger style? Not that a single ground vehicle would actually need that kind of power.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48700876]Speaking of the Navy Railgun, how feasible would it be to mount one of those on a tank chassis Elefant / Jagdtiger style? Not that a single ground vehicle would actually need that kind of power.[/QUOTE]I'd honestly prefer a conventional gun with magnetic assistance to accelerate the projectile further. Obviously you're not going to get hypersonic speeds out of it, but instead of a shell leaving the barrel at 1,500~ m/s you could get one traveling at perhaps two or three times that speed. Obviously you're going to reach a speed where conventional HEAT rounds and others like them will be going [i]so fast[/i] that their fuses cannot physically move fast enough to work correctly, we're already at that with HESH rounds. APFSDS rounds are only helped by an increase in velocity up until you start hitting weird compression effects at the upper end of hypersonic speeds. Then you're dealing with a totally different set of rules as far as external ballistics are concerned and at some point a pyrophoric metal like depleted uranium will [b]explode[/b] mid-air. All that aside though, magnetically assisting an already effective system would be ideal given the limited space and power requirements found on an armored fighting vehicle.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48700876]Speaking of the Navy Railgun, how feasible would it be to mount one of those on a tank chassis Elefant / Jagdtiger style? Not that a single ground vehicle would actually need that kind of power.[/QUOTE] It would be as stupid of an idea as Elefant/Jagdtiger were. There's not really any space for a vehicle of that size and weight in today combat. It would be very vulnerable to, well, all the stuff other armoured vehicles are to, but at the same time an extremely valuable target, so it would get Hellfire'd to smithereens the moment anybody would recon it. Another huge issue would be the power source. A boat already produces massive amounts of energy with it's turbines/reactors. You would really struggle to fit the energy generator and/or capacitors onto a tank chassis. [editline]17th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48700982]I'd honestly prefer a conventional gun with magnetic assistance to accelerate the projectile further. Obviously you're not going to get hypersonic speeds out of it, but instead of a shell leaving the barrel at 1,500~ m/s you could get one traveling at perhaps two or three times that speed. Obviously you're going to reach a speed where conventional HEAT rounds and others like them will be going [I]so fast[/I] that their fuses cannot physically move fast enough to work correctly, we're already at that with HESH rounds. APFSDS rounds are only helped by an increase in velocity up until you start hitting weird compression effects at the upper end of hypersonic speeds. Then you're dealing with a totally different set of rules as far as external ballistics are concerned and at some point a pyrophoric metal like depleted uranium will [B]explode[/B] mid-air. All that aside though, magnetically assisting an already effective system would be ideal given the limited space and power requirements found on an armored fighting vehicle.[/QUOTE] That sounds like a really bad idea that would unnecessarily complicate things and create an excessively unreliable weapon with very dubious performance gain. [editline]17th September 2015[/editline] What would be the advantage of just using, you know, a bigger conventional gun?

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48700999]That sounds like a really bad idea that would unnecessarily complicate things and create an excessively unreliable weapon with very dubious performance gain.[/QUOTE]Explain yourself. If the electrical system fails it's a conventional gun, so I don't know how that would compromise reliability. [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48700999]What would be the advantage of just using, you know, a bigger conventional gun?[/QUOTE]The same reason why we don't use steam engines anymore: power to weight. Bigger isn't necessarily better, it really isn't most of the time.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48701334]Explain yourself. If the electrical system fails it's a conventional gun, so I don't know how that would compromise reliability. The same reason why we don't use steam engines anymore: power to weight. Bigger isn't necessarily better, it really isn't most of the time.[/QUOTE] Dude, power to weight is something current electrical accelerators are absolutely abhorrent at. [editline]17th September 2015[/editline] Again, don't forget a boat already has a massive powerful electricity source. A tank engine would be strongly inadequate and also the tank would have to choose between charging a shot or moving around. Furthermore you would need loads of space and weight in capacitors - there's plenty of space in a boat, but every increase in size of a tank compromises it's survivability. [editline]17th September 2015[/editline] Another huge advantage of electrically accelerated projectiles is that you don't need to store the dangerous explosive propellant charges, if you do a combined system, you eliminate that advantage. Generally this is a fucking horrible idea.

There's a reason railguns are on ships. No land or air vehicle is going to have the ability to power one of them for quite some time.

[QUOTE=dbk21894;48695417] but it has less VLS cells than a Burke[/QUOTE] Zumwalts purpose to land attack, HOWEVER she can still carry 80 cans which is only 16 short of a Flight II loadout. Even if she could carry a full 96 cans it wouldn't matter as it'd be a very AUR heavy loadout anyway. So your point is irrelevant. [QUOTE=dbk21894;48695417] no CIWS[/QUOTE] I don't understand why you brought this up, MK 15 is garbage anyway, BUT not an outdated concept by far. Phalanx is, from first hand experience helping CWIS techs, unreliable, extremely costly to maintain man hour wise and generally a pain in the dick to maintain. It would be a waste to fit the Zumwalt with one and would only serve to increase her radar cross section. Either way it's made redundant by the fact that the Zumwalt can and WILL carry [B]atleast[/B] 2 quad-pack ESSM cans. [QUOTE=dbk21894;48695417] and no ability to operate as an AAW ship for fleet defense.[/QUOTE] Again, it's main mission is NGFS, so that's irrelivant although it is CEC capable there are talks of integrating SM-2/3/6 AAW capability later it's not like it's going to travel alone and it certainly won't be with the fleet for AAW, it can still cover the ASW/STRIKE warfare area better that the Burke and thus allowing them to carry a much more AAW centric loadout. The issue here is that all AAW/BMD stuff was offloaded to the CGX program, which was a great idea! Bleeding edge ASW/BMD super cruiser, awesome... Except the fucking canned the CGX program in favor of just pushing the DDG1000 program. [QUOTE=Swilly;48699215] That's different then most ships which use the gas to fuel the engine and the power, instead it generates power to make it move and do everything else, that's it. Which is the first step toward switching to battery.[/QUOTE] But it still uses Diesel.... F-76 to be exact. Have you ever received a $1m gas bill? I know I have and it was one of the most 'Murican things you can experience. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;48701334]Explain yourself. If the electrical system fails it's a conventional gun, so I don't know how that would compromise reliability.[/QUOTE] Do you not know how railguns work? If the system fails the gun just doesn't work. There is NO propellant charge on a railgun round. [QUOTE=OvB;48701905]There's a reason railguns are on ships. No land or air vehicle is going to have the ability to power one of them for quite some time.[/QUOTE] Yes, and although they are only going to make 3 of them, the money wasn't a total waste as a lot of the bleeding edge tech that went into making the most advanced warship in history is likely going to be put into the future Flight III and IV Burkes but the problem is, from what I understand as they have begun to plan out the newer flights the costs are begging to balloon out so much because of all the new shit they want to fit it with.