>AGS (Advanced Gun System) >155mm gun that fires rockets with 83nm range >not just slapping missiles on the thing and calling it good >making super special ammo meme rounds that cost nearly 1 million dollars >get canceled and make the guns worthless and have to get removed anyway
Why is the .mil like this? It seems like making the AGS a gun fired missile is basically the mic trying to get around the absolutely retarded gun requirements that the turbo boomers imposed upon them, like pointed out.
In the modern age there's absolutely no reason for ships to carry anything but chainguns for self defense and a suit of missiles for everything else.
>In the modern age there's absolutely no reason for ships to carry anything but chainguns for self defense and a suit of missiles for everything else.
There is though. There's more than a billion chinese in china and they won't be subdued by 12 explosions.
> Keep a HIMARS with GMLRS ammo in the helicopter bay (it's big and fit multiple helos already) > Now you have all the coastal support you'll ever neeed
Why not? At the distances we're talking about (50 km+) a ballistic missile have shorter travel time than a gun round anyways.
The range for ballistic is velocity*velocity / g (short range and ignoring drag). Same range means roughly same vel.
Missiles can go faster because aren't limited due to barrel, but GMLRS aren't particularly fast.
Many guided missiles/bombs are quasi-ballistic (GMLRS included) and any correction to increase range by gliding makes them slower than a ballistic path.
They aren't ASM with large fins more efficient to have an depressed trajectories (energy bleed rage of small fins is terrible)
>any correction to increase range
Who said to increase range? The basic GMLRS already has 92km range, and the GMLRS-ER even more. TC-GMLRS was used as a proof of concept for the GMLRS-ER, and at burnout hit mach 3.8, apogee was 31km alt, it did a high AOA pull up to increase range and still impacted at mach 1.3 for a total range of 113km.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
So? Maximizing range doesn't minimize flight time. >a ballistic missile have shorter travel time than a gun round anyways.
High AOA to reduce drag also means less horizontal speed for like 30-35 seconds.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Maximizing range doesn't minimize flight time.
Where did I say that? They can be fired in a depressed trajectory if the target is below max range, and use the excess propellant to increase speed. Ballistic shells are a meme, unless they're rocket assisted, or ramjet powered. >High AOA to reduce drag
By definition, a high AOA increases drag. >also means less horizontal speed for like 30-35 seconds.
Why are you pulling numbers out of your ass?
Waste of money. Also suffers the same real problem that the Zumwalt's system did, which is that there's no reason to put it on a destroyer. Just put the rocket launcher on a 40 year old ship or really anything.
Not making the ammo on the supergun an open standard that anyone could bid on is criminally stupid. Not having a backup plan to put on a gun compatible with Army artillery rounds even more so.
>This remains true.
Way to prove yourself as a smoothbrain. Carrier aircraft have proven to be an extremely effective way for naval forces to provide support to land operations. And extended range GMLRS/ATACMS would be a much more affordable and practical way to provide firesupport than a gun.
If they had followed through it would have been fine. Instead they pulled out, likely due to Navy Versions of Sprey. Now they have to build the Constellation class, and DDG(X).
The difference is the US actually has terminal phase maneuvering and a more stealthy warhead design in general which should make it harder to properly track and intercept, especially when used AGAINST russian and chinese air defense.
It's not like we're using a Zumwalt to attack a US base protected by a Patriot and or THAAD battery.
I still fail to see why hypersonics are worth the investment. They do nothing a stealthy cruise missile can't do already. If anything a stealthy cruise missile has already shown it's much more effective than hypersonics.
Hypersonics fill a very niche role in hitting a very high-value target with a very small window of opportunity. If you know a high-value target is only going to be confirmed at a location for 30 minutes, you don't really have time to load up a stealth plane with a stealth bomb for some unnoticed attack.
These missiles are ~$50-60m a pop, you don't fire one of these on a whim.
>there is quite the difference
Iskander and kinzhal terminal velocity is 800-1200 m/s, not far from the meme ">1.7 km/s" of hypersonic. MRBM have terminal velocity of +1500 m/s and LRBM well above 2km/s. The laser patriots were designed to intercept that kind of targets.
>only 12 shots
I want thousands of rounds to bombard the chinese with, and could've had that with the AGS. We need another artillery ship. 12 explosions aren't nearly enough.
Ships are great if designed well at the start. The issue with the zumwalt is there was a lot of feature creep and last minute penny pinching. Then they completely changed the the way it was to be used. The Trimaran style warships suffed the same result. They want a F-35 of warships. Jack of all trades, master of none.
>make an affordable and long range 200 mm rocket (or reuse GMLRS) >make a triple boat meme (conehead hull, guided 155 incompatible with land systems, railgun the electric memeloo)
You're a boomer and have to decide which is the best garbage for the taxpayer.
USN is desperate for Cruisers and old boomers know what a cruiser is. They likely would have kept funding it, if it was classed as a cruiser. Which it totally should have been, I have no idea why they tried to sell it as a destroyer.
I always thought the look of these was pretty cool, like out of an early to mid 90's 3D video game. Was the polygonal shape of these intended to do something?
more were, but the 3 that were already built or being built were/are being finished.
Zumwalt DDG-1000, Michael Monsoor DDG-1001, and Lyndon B. Johnson DDG-1002.
DDG-1002 is currently in dry dock undergoing combat systems installation and activation.
DDG-1001 is homeported in San Diego at the moment where DDG-1000 was before getting moved back over to Mississippi where it is undergoing repair/modernization for hypersonics.
Huntington Ingalls was also awarded a long lead contract for upgrading DDG-1001 and 1002 for hypersonic missiles.
Probably would have been good if boomers in congress didn't completely ruin them.
A good shore fire support ship should just have a bunch of HIMARS pods on it to put GMLRS and ATACMS on shore. Fuck the meme 155m gun.
Horrible as a frontline destroyer. They are getting some redemption as a testbed. Still it would be nice if the U.S. was ready for all the Ticos that are getting retired.
>Is it a waste of money?
The real waste was that they didn't build more of these and stuck to the originally proposed missile boat wagon. They could have been the HIMARS of the sea while not being an outright submarine.
Every country needs at least 1 honest to god wunderwaffe >Raaaaailguns >Steaaaaaalth >Naval guns in current year >Precision-guided rounds have a CEP of 50 goddamn meters and cost half as much as a tomahawk iv
It looks cool at least
I feel like at the end of the day it was just a technology test bed that we probably gained valuable info from.
I also think it was way more than they admitting, with the ability to sink more of it's hull than they're saying. I don't believe the rail gun was as big as failure as they're making it out to be either. I dont' know what those fucker built but no way this wasn't just a test bed for something else.
It single-handedly ended the age of broadsides and boarding parties. Look at that thing, there's nothing to hang onto, you'll just slide off into the sea.
Supposedly the hull has very good seakeeping abilities. So it would habe been nice if they profited from the money spent by at least reusing the hull shape for newer vessels. But that's not happening.
Supposedly the hull has very good seakeeping abilities. So it would habe been nice if they profited from the money spent by at least reusing the hull shape for newer vessels. But that's not happening.
relevant quote
> The program office isn’t committed to a specific hull design but presented a swept, angular, bulbous bow design reminiscent of an Arleigh Burke rather than the tumblehome, wave-piercing design of the Zumwalts. >“We haven’t actually locked down the hull form, yet. That’s a concept,” Connelly said, referring to the concept drawing the office presented. >“It is one of the many options still in play. … We as the design team, are going through all the different options to see which one performs best for the long-term and the mission.”
It's ugly as fuck.
ruined by congressional boomers and "muh naval gunfire is the only way to support land operations"
everything that went wrong with it stems from that mandate
>AGS (Advanced Gun System)
>155mm gun that fires rockets with 83nm range
>not just slapping missiles on the thing and calling it good
>making super special ammo meme rounds that cost nearly 1 million dollars
>get canceled and make the guns worthless and have to get removed anyway
Why is the .mil like this? It seems like making the AGS a gun fired missile is basically the mic trying to get around the absolutely retarded gun requirements that the turbo boomers imposed upon them, like pointed out.
In the modern age there's absolutely no reason for ships to carry anything but chainguns for self defense and a suit of missiles for everything else.
>Why is the .mil like this?
because the people making the decisions never have to face the consequences of their mistakes.
Gun fired missiles have a long and proud tradition of destroing US weapons programmes.
>In the modern age there's absolutely no reason for ships to carry anything but chainguns for self defense and a suit of missiles for everything else.
There is though. There's more than a billion chinese in china and they won't be subdued by 12 explosions.
o rly?
> Keep a HIMARS with GMLRS ammo in the helicopter bay (it's big and fit multiple helos already)
> Now you have all the coastal support you'll ever neeed
Why not? At the distances we're talking about (50 km+) a ballistic missile have shorter travel time than a gun round anyways.
>(50 km+) a ballistic missile have shorter travel time than a gun round anyways.
Both are ballistic...
but the missile travels faster…
The range for ballistic is velocity*velocity / g (short range and ignoring drag). Same range means roughly same vel.
Missiles can go faster because aren't limited due to barrel, but GMLRS aren't particularly fast.
Acksually LRLAP gets half of its range doing glide. It is slow projectile.
GMLRS aren't ballistic, neither are ATACMS, nor the new GMLRS-ER.
Many guided missiles/bombs are quasi-ballistic (GMLRS included) and any correction to increase range by gliding makes them slower than a ballistic path.
They aren't ASM with large fins more efficient to have an depressed trajectories (energy bleed rage of small fins is terrible)
>any correction to increase range
Who said to increase range? The basic GMLRS already has 92km range, and the GMLRS-ER even more. TC-GMLRS was used as a proof of concept for the GMLRS-ER, and at burnout hit mach 3.8, apogee was 31km alt, it did a high AOA pull up to increase range and still impacted at mach 1.3 for a total range of 113km.
So? Maximizing range doesn't minimize flight time.
>a ballistic missile have shorter travel time than a gun round anyways.
High AOA to reduce drag also means less horizontal speed for like 30-35 seconds.
>Maximizing range doesn't minimize flight time.
Where did I say that? They can be fired in a depressed trajectory if the target is below max range, and use the excess propellant to increase speed. Ballistic shells are a meme, unless they're rocket assisted, or ramjet powered.
>High AOA to reduce drag
By definition, a high AOA increases drag.
>also means less horizontal speed for like 30-35 seconds.
Why are you pulling numbers out of your ass?
Waste of money. Also suffers the same real problem that the Zumwalt's system did, which is that there's no reason to put it on a destroyer. Just put the rocket launcher on a 40 year old ship or really anything.
>this is how zoomers who get their military knowledge from ukraine war news and drone footage think
I fear for our future.
Not making the ammo on the supergun an open standard that anyone could bid on is criminally stupid. Not having a backup plan to put on a gun compatible with Army artillery rounds even more so.
have a nice day
>naval gunfire is the only way to support land operations
This remains true.
>This remains true.
Way to prove yourself as a smoothbrain. Carrier aircraft have proven to be an extremely effective way for naval forces to provide support to land operations. And extended range GMLRS/ATACMS would be a much more affordable and practical way to provide firesupport than a gun.
If they had followed through it would have been fine. Instead they pulled out, likely due to Navy Versions of Sprey. Now they have to build the Constellation class, and DDG(X).
>They don't follow through and start a new project instead of fixing one that they already invested.
See this is why lying to MEPS about ADHD is wrong.
u r a waste of money
The Zumwalts are finally becoming useful with the upgrade for hypersonic missiles.
They'll be the only surface ships capable of launching hypersonic missiles until the DDG(X) sometime in the late 2030s or early 2040s.
Hypersonics are a memetier weapon. The Russians have already proved hypersanics can't beat an AD system from the 90s
The difference is the US actually has terminal phase maneuvering and a more stealthy warhead design in general which should make it harder to properly track and intercept, especially when used AGAINST russian and chinese air defense.
It's not like we're using a Zumwalt to attack a US base protected by a Patriot and or THAAD battery.
I still fail to see why hypersonics are worth the investment. They do nothing a stealthy cruise missile can't do already. If anything a stealthy cruise missile has already shown it's much more effective than hypersonics.
Hypersonics fill a very niche role in hitting a very high-value target with a very small window of opportunity. If you know a high-value target is only going to be confirmed at a location for 30 minutes, you don't really have time to load up a stealth plane with a stealth bomb for some unnoticed attack.
These missiles are ~$50-60m a pop, you don't fire one of these on a whim.
iskander is hypersonic on the boost phase
zircon is hypersonic on the terminal phase
there is quite the difference
>zircon
May we see it?
>there is quite the difference
Iskander and kinzhal terminal velocity is 800-1200 m/s, not far from the meme ">1.7 km/s" of hypersonic. MRBM have terminal velocity of +1500 m/s and LRBM well above 2km/s. The laser patriots were designed to intercept that kind of targets.
later iteration patriot*
No no, keep talking about the laser patriots.
>laser patriots
Look up HIJINKS
hypersonic GLIDE VEHICLE is very different than a missile that just hits hypersonic velocities. The former is maneuverable and hard to track.
>only 12 shots
I want thousands of rounds to bombard the chinese with, and could've had that with the AGS. We need another artillery ship. 12 explosions aren't nearly enough.
Ships are great if designed well at the start. The issue with the zumwalt is there was a lot of feature creep and last minute penny pinching. Then they completely changed the the way it was to be used. The Trimaran style warships suffed the same result. They want a F-35 of warships. Jack of all trades, master of none.
you retard, F-35 is master of everything
>make an affordable and long range 200 mm rocket (or reuse GMLRS)
>make a triple boat meme (conehead hull, guided 155 incompatible with land systems, railgun the electric memeloo)
You're a boomer and have to decide which is the best garbage for the taxpayer.
>300x200
What is this, a ship for ants?
They could have classed it as a cruiser and it probably would have lived just saying.
They could've classified it a fishing boat and shot anyone who said otherwise, what's your point?
USN is desperate for Cruisers and old boomers know what a cruiser is. They likely would have kept funding it, if it was classed as a cruiser. Which it totally should have been, I have no idea why they tried to sell it as a destroyer.
It's hard to convince people it's a cruiser when it's got fewer VLS cells than a Destroyer.
I always thought the look of these was pretty cool, like out of an early to mid 90's 3D video game. Was the polygonal shape of these intended to do something?
Reduced radar cross section, it apparently looks like a fishing boat to most sensors.
these ships were designed during the time when everyone was hyperfixated on stealth designs. so the shape and coating help limit its radar signature.
zumsisters h-how did they capture our amazing nintendo64 battleship?!
It had its' Z long before Russia started using it.
pic related, here you can see it in 2018, years before the invasion.
WHO IS PLINKING MY $8,000,000,000 SHIP
I thought it was canceled
more were, but the 3 that were already built or being built were/are being finished.
Zumwalt DDG-1000, Michael Monsoor DDG-1001, and Lyndon B. Johnson DDG-1002.
DDG-1002 is currently in dry dock undergoing combat systems installation and activation.
DDG-1001 is homeported in San Diego at the moment where DDG-1000 was before getting moved back over to Mississippi where it is undergoing repair/modernization for hypersonics.
Huntington Ingalls was also awarded a long lead contract for upgrading DDG-1001 and 1002 for hypersonic missiles.
Probably would have been good if boomers in congress didn't completely ruin them.
A good shore fire support ship should just have a bunch of HIMARS pods on it to put GMLRS and ATACMS on shore. Fuck the meme 155m gun.
Horrible as a frontline destroyer. They are getting some redemption as a testbed. Still it would be nice if the U.S. was ready for all the Ticos that are getting retired.
>Is it a waste of money?
The real waste was that they didn't build more of these and stuck to the originally proposed missile boat wagon. They could have been the HIMARS of the sea while not being an outright submarine.
Every country needs at least 1 honest to god wunderwaffe
>Raaaaailguns
>Steaaaaaalth
>Naval guns in current year
>Precision-guided rounds have a CEP of 50 goddamn meters and cost half as much as a tomahawk iv
It looks cool at least
I feel like at the end of the day it was just a technology test bed that we probably gained valuable info from.
I also think it was way more than they admitting, with the ability to sink more of it's hull than they're saying. I don't believe the rail gun was as big as failure as they're making it out to be either. I dont' know what those fucker built but no way this wasn't just a test bed for something else.
It single-handedly ended the age of broadsides and boarding parties. Look at that thing, there's nothing to hang onto, you'll just slide off into the sea.
Zumwalt was a great idea and one of the few instances where the platform outpreformed the shit that was supposed to be placed on it.
Supposedly the hull has very good seakeeping abilities. So it would habe been nice if they profited from the money spent by at least reusing the hull shape for newer vessels. But that's not happening.
The DDG(X) hull will take lessons learned from the zumwalt hull, they also haven't ruled out another tumblehome design.
relevant quote
> The program office isn’t committed to a specific hull design but presented a swept, angular, bulbous bow design reminiscent of an Arleigh Burke rather than the tumblehome, wave-piercing design of the Zumwalts.
>“We haven’t actually locked down the hull form, yet. That’s a concept,” Connelly said, referring to the concept drawing the office presented.
>“It is one of the many options still in play. … We as the design team, are going through all the different options to see which one performs best for the long-term and the mission.”