• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

USN DDG-1001

azguy

Well-Known Member
None
#4
The DDG-1000 program has really evolved into a small class of RDT&E ships, though we'll see them deploy operationally, probably by the early 2020s.

On the aviation side, it'll probably look like the LCS concept, pairing a Romeo with several UAS (Fire Scout near-term; possibly TERN or something else longer-term). I think this is where the surface force is moving in terms of aviation dets. The UAS gives a single CO or SAGC an unparalleled organic ISR capability, while the MH-60R the weapon of choice to reach out and touch an SS.
 

robav8r

I have a use for you
None
Contributor
#5
USS MICHAEL MONSOOR now in sea trials. It’s got some interesting, unproven capabilities. From an aviation standpoint, how will the Zumwalt-class integrate with the CVW and land-based maritime ISR aircraft?
Like every other surface combatant.

From the article:
"The Monsoor is the second in a class of three futuristic-looking ships that feature electric-drive propulsion, new radar and sonar, powerful guns and missiles and a stealthy shape."

Hopefully it will be manned with Sailors & SWO's that are proficiently trained in the bridge, navigation and combat systems and are allowed to spend enough time at sea to exercise that proficiency.
 

zippy

Freedom!
pilot
Contributor
#9
Has its intended mission been defined?
To feed money into the military industrial complex and thus bring $ into congressional districts?

You would think that they would have learned that small unit # classes of high tech ships ala SEAWOLF have disproportionately expensive logistics/support costs per unit...

Between DDG 1000 and LCS we’ve spent Billions on expensive toys with no clearly defined rolls, or capabilities to actually accomplish defined mission sets.

That defense spending audit is long overdue.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
#10
Like every other surface combatant.

From the article:
"The Monsoor is the second in a class of three futuristic-looking ships that feature electric-drive propulsion, new radar and sonar, powerful guns and missiles and a stealthy shape."

Hopefully it will be manned with Sailors & SWO's that are proficiently trained in the bridge, navigation and combat systems and are allowed to spend enough time at sea to exercise that proficiency.
Will be interesting to see what the Navy will eventually do about the 155's on the Zumwalt.

A year after the Navy decided to abandon the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) for the Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer, there is no plan in place for a replacement round for the Advanced Gun System (AGS) the ships are built around, service officials said on Wednesday...The Navy canceled a planned buy of the 2,000 rocket-assisted Lockheed Martin LRLAP rounds that were custom-designed for the AGS system that was set to be the heart of the Zumwalt class. However, the cost of each round rose to about $1 million and proved too costly for the service. In 2016 the Navy was moving toward modifying the Raytheon Excalibur guided 155mm artillery round to fill the space of the LRLAP, but the service has since scrapped those plans.

https://news.usni.org/2018/01/11/no...destroyer-gun-system-navy-monitoring-industry
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
#12
Can we as a Navy finally acknowledge that when a ship is 600 feet long, displaces over 14,000 tons, and is commanded by an O-6, that it's a freaking cruiser, not a destroyer?
In all seriousness, besides size what is supposed to be the difference in classification? Today's destroyers make WWII destroyers look like frigates.
 

Jim123

molding (warping) the future of naval aviation
pilot
#13
Cruiser can simultaneously fight two major warfare areas (ASW, AAW, surface... pick two). Destroyer and below only one at a time. Well sort of, that's the simple way of putting it.
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
#15
Walk and chew gum?
Not really. Even a FFG can simultaneously perform multiple warfare areas.
What I think he was getting at was how many warfare areas the ship is designed to actually be good at.
Continuing the FFG example, it could simultaneously do AAW, SUW, and USW...but it was never going to be very good at AAW or SUW, but was designed to be decent at USW.
A Spruance DD had very limited AAW, but had SUW/Strike and USW on par with the CG.
And obviously the CG could do it all.

But much less true now than before. A modern (foreign) FFG is capable of doing all the things a Spruance DD did 20 years ago.

In all seriousness, besides size what is supposed to be the difference in classification? Today's destroyers make WWII destroyers look like frigates.
In terms of external differences in hardware, the main difference between a CG and DDG is an extra one of these:

and these:


Also some more VLS cells.
In other words...adds capacity, not new capability.
With DDGs and CGs sharing the same combat management software and VLS, it's basically irrelevant.

Besides the external differences above, the major difference is their role in Strike Group CWC.
The Cruiser actually has extra room and space built in to meet the Air Defense Commander role on a sustained basis.
A Destroyer CAN do it...but it'll dramatically increase the suck factor for everybody involved.
For a submariner, bitching about space probably sounds trivial, but...it matters when you have to absorb extra staff.