What does /k/ think of this coming class? It's interesting that the navy will have it serve as a replacement for both the Burkes and the Ticonderogas.
DDG(X) capabilities and expectations
What does /k/ think of this coming class? It's interesting that the navy will have it serve as a replacement for both the Burkes and the Ticonderogas.
To add it definitely has the armaments and FCS to succeed the Ticos but do they have the flagship facilities and will there be enough of them to replace both said Ticos and flight 1 (and maybe 2) Burkes?
A boat is a hole in the water into which the owner must continually throw money... in this case, the owner of these boats is We, the People of the United States of America, and we fukken' LOVE our BOATS & HOES BOATS & HOES I GOTTA HAVE ME MY BOATS & HOES... but, fr fr, the old Arleigh Burkes were plenty capable hulls of being completely gutted & refitted to state of the art specs with many more systems than these overpriced aluminum cans can carry... plus look at that terrible deck design! *hisses* I fricking hate when the main deck does not "go all the way around" like wtf how do you force your swabbies to run laps around the entire deck until they puke and have to swab it all up?
>congress exists to bankrupt america on shitty projects to replace perfectly functional programs & machinery just to fatten the wallets of their lobbyists' constituents
>*hisses*
Why are you parodying Sprey and 2010 Tumblr at the same time
Thank you (for understanding & savoring the idea of Pierre Tumblrposting back in the early tens); I do it for (You)s.
Hulls are wear items and emptying them is expensive too. Better to build more Burkes differently if that's what you want.
Makes sense to replace both with one tbh. Really the only difference between the two functionally is the ticos have 122 cells, and extra AN/SPG-62 (only helps with older missiles lacking active guidance) and the flagship shit. They more or less perform the same main mission which is BMD and AAW. If this program works out I'll be happy with it so far. The tech inside of the ticos and burkes is solid, they just need to transfer it all into a modern future proof hull with a lot more room for growth. Flight 3 burkes are pretty much at the limit of what they can do with power generation and cooling.
From what I've seen it looks like the requirement is for a baseline of 96 cells, meaning they could end up going 128 if they wanted in the future. In addition to swapping a block of 32 cells for 12 oversized cells for the IR-CPS there's also a destroyer payload module that can be added in. Idk what exactly that module would do but it could be specifically for more armaments or even some kind of drone bay.
This ship was honestly needed probably 10 years ago but better late than never. This is large numbers plus the constellation which should be increased to a run of 60 or 70 should be a good force. I also think they desperately need a 2000-4500 ton vessel specifically for mine warfare and anti-sub to augment the constellations.
>In addition to swapping a block of 32 cells for 12 oversized cells for the IR-CPS there's also a destroyer payload module that can be added in.
Has the VLS design been finalized? I've been curious as to how it would look like on the Zumwalts
>The flight III AB is a cluster fricking nightmare to transition to from flight IIs.
Is this cause of new features the Flight IIIs bring or cause of shipyard/construction issues you mentioned right after?
>That Laser CWIS they keep hinting at has me feeling a way.
Same
I don't think they've settled on a VLS design and I wouldn't be surprised if it's just mk. 41s. I would be pleasantly surprised if they went with the mk. 57 PVLS that the Zumwalt's have, doesn't actually have to be on the periphery but that design can handle larger missiles with more thrust, it's a lot more future proof and could allow some very long range designs if we ever wanted to go for a SM-7 or increase the booster strength/size on existing designs. The hypersonic cells should be the same as the ones they're planning for the submarines/zums, I think it's called advanced payload module.
I want them to put Virginia Payload Module sized cells on surface ships and stick hypersonic tipped IRBMs in them
I'd say it is a bit of both really. On a compartment by compartment basis a lot of stuff has to get moved around so its all good to go. In the other camp, a lot of the shipyards have lost a metric ton of experience die to retirement and people leaving for other, better paying industries. Though a lot of them are waking the frick up that they gotta do something and do it now if they want to continue existing. If you asked me which one was hurting more, I'd probably say navy autism is at its finest since theres no actual wars to fight.
OP's pic is supposed to have 96 cells? How? I count maybe a third of that.
Could be just errors. it's just a a placeholder CGI AFAIK. I would assume the forward cells are 32 and the aft cells are 64 and just blocked by the superstructure. It will for sure be at least 96
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11679
Isn't it supposed to have 128? The 96 cells would apply of one block of 32 cell mk41s was replaced with the larger VLS
Nah, the program specified 96 baseline. It could go up but they didn't specifically state a want or need for 128, but it's way too early in the program to be able to tell how that's going to go. Frankly imo 96 is fine and missile capacity is an impressive stat but really not insanely important since the USN builds a ton of ships, especially if as many DDGXs get built as I think there will be.
The DDGX is replacing the remaining Ticos and specifically older burkes, it'll serve alongside probably Flight IIA technology inserts and Flight III burkes I assume meaning they'll have around 62 burkes and 17 ticos to replace. A production run of 79 DDGX with 96 cells is 7,584 total cells before you even add in the remaining flight III/IIA-TI burkes. That's a massive amount still and the reduction from not matching the ticos capacity is only 442 cells. The very limited run of 20 constellations nets you another 620 cells making up for it, even more if the increase it to 40 or 60 like I wish they would. Plus people forget carriers can lob way more firepower in addition to the fleets VLS too.
I think production is going to be a fricking nightmare. The flight III AB is a cluster fricking nightmare to transition to from flight IIs. Most yards are backlogged to hell and back, and a lot of them are currently hurting for people/training off the street hires which is going to take at least 6 more years to have a capable workforce. Otherwise, I'm expecting to see some really cool stuff on them. That Laser CWIS they keep hinting at has me feeling a way.
>Laser CIWS
My body is ready.
It will be a Flight III Burke with bigger VLS.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea-air-space-2023/2023/04/lockheed-martin-developing-new-larger-vls-for-ddgx/
>But as part of being able to do a larger diameter missile, you could say take an eight-cell Mk.41 out, put what would be a four-cell with an exhaust on it. But those four cells would be able to handle quad packs of traditional missile canister-sized, or potentially larger missiles that will be coming in the future. So that’s part of one of the things we’re investing in that will help us maximize what you can do from your loadout perspectives and potentially even increase. Because if you think about it, with a four-cell quad pack that’s sixteen and more than the eight that were originally there, just because we changed the structure.
>Because if you think about it, with a four-cell quad pack that’s sixteen and more than the eight that were originally there, just because we changed the structure.
Question: If you were using the original 8 cells to hold 32 quadpacked ESSM, can you quackpack the new bigger quadpacked cells again for loadsaESSM?
>4 DDGX cells
>subdivided to 16 Mk 41 sized cells
>quadpacked with ESSM for 64(!!!) interceptors in the space of an 8 cell Mk 41
It can't be that easy, right?
It's possible but that depends on whether the new cells are literally the size of 4 Mk41 or just big enough to quadpack Standard missiles.
>What does /k/ think of this coming class? It's interesting that the navy will have it serve as a replacement for both the Burkes and the Ticonderogas.
Type-055's caused a panic, and the zoomerwalt is a massive failure
It looks cool.
At least it looks like a ship. The Zumwalts are absolute abominations. Ship based stealth was a mistake and a crime against aesthetics.
They're on record saying the current hull design is not final and they're likely to take lessons learned from Zumwalt and incorporate them into DDG(X). They also specifically said they have not ruled out using a tumblehome hull.
It's comical going to youtube to find vids about this class then looking at the comments to see chink shills going on and on about how it's a copy of the type 055, they're so angry lmao
Apart from being a literal type 055 knockoff its fine, the hangar size is good. But these oversize combat vessels are numbered. I estimate current correct blue water combatant size is around 3000 tonnes, - not big, which is the point. Big enough to have equivalent quality capabilities just not equivalent quantity. And then when it gets blown up in attrition trades didn't cost so much.