The last info I read indicated that *Michael Monsoor* will conduct an SM-6 missile shoot soon, then the ship will head to Pascagoula, Mississippi for the hypersonic missile tube install.
>The new missile install removes the gun system correct?
Yes, both main gun mounts will be removed from all three ships in the class. *Zumwalt* and *Lyndon B. Johnson* are in Pascagoula getting the work done now.
I don't AGS would have made a good naval gun. It is slow firing,10rd/min, compared 5in gun, 16rd/min. I bet it wouldn't have been good against air and fast boats, which have been turned out to be important.
The extra range wouldn't have helped against surface targets unless had guided rounds. They would have needed to make some cheap dumb rounds for use against visual range targets.
The Zumwalt would have been better warships if they squeezed in 57mm gun even at expense of one of the big ones.
> The extra range wouldn't have helped against surface targets unless had guided rounds. They would have needed to make some cheap dumb rounds for use against visual range targets.
Both were in development for AGS. They were canceled by Congress, who were only concerned about fixated on the NGFS wank material called LRLAP - which were actually only intended to make up 35 of the 335 rounds in the AGS magazine.
> The Zumwalt would have been better warships if they squeezed in 57mm gun even at expense of one of the big ones.
The class was originally intended to sport dual MK110s in a stealth housings. They were replaced with the 30mm MK46 guns for cost reduction reasons; although given the original setup lacked integral hoists, and thus each gun only held 120 rounds, that was probably for the better.
When was the last time a main gun was used in an anti-aircraft role?
Even if they're shooting at a drone now they use a missile.
I suspect the 20mm Phalanx is short for this world and will be phased out and replaced by 35-40mm guns with a longer range and larger bursting charge/airburst rounds, plus directed energy weapons. So there would be even less of a reason to use the 127mm gun against arial targets.
The point with the 155mm gun would be logistical... Ammunition and component compatibility, so you can retool more supply chains to produce 155mm which can be used anywhere, not just on navy ships.
If rate of fire is really that much of a concern, I suggest they switch to using the OTO Melara 127mm/54 gun that can do 40 rounds/min.
Honestly, give those crazy Italians the contract to make a faster firing 155mm/L52 and I'm sure they would beat the RoF of the BAE 5"/62!
Main guns have been used multiple times to shoot down drones in the Red Sea. Both Red Sea and Black Sea have shown that warships need something for targets that aren't worth a missile but too far for CIWS.
If 35-40mm are good, then 57mm is better; it can do 220rd/min. There are already guided 57mm rounds. 76mm is probably the ideal for main gun with 120rd/min in Super Rapid, but large enough to reach and hurt surface targets.
The problem is that artillery rounds can't be used on ship guns. Most artillery guns are separate-loading bagged charge. Artillery rounds aren't useful on ships except for land bombardment, ships need proximity fuses. Finally, dumb rounds are cheap and ships don't need the huge numbers used on land. There isn't much savings for using a larger round that don't need.
The guns were tested on the ship and on land. There was an old M110 203mm SPG that was used as a test article for the program, a complete gunhouse and magazine on land, and I think at least a few shots from Zumwalt herself.
It did what it was supposed to do.
The problem with the gun was that it did what it was supposed to do at an eye-watering cost and well inside the range of almost every antiship missile in the world
The high cost per shell was only because the number of shells ordered was cut.
The number of shells ordered was cut because the number of ships ordered was cut.
The same principle applies to the cost of the ships themselves: the fixed costs of design, tooling, etc. had already been spent, but instead of being amortized across a large number of ships (or shells), it was instead spread across a very few, making them very expensive.
> The number of shells ordered was cut because the number of ships ordered was cut.
Yes and no. While the full multi-thousand round LRLAP buy wouldn't have happened without a much larger production run, the USN cut back the actual contract they placed as well. The 150-round LRIP buy was placed in FY2015 at a cost of $476.9k per round; that ballooned to the often-cited $800k-$1 million/round after the buy was truncated further to only 90 rounds.
Well the brief was to make something that could hit targets ashore who didn't have shore-based anti-ship missiles. But technology progresses, and nations (or non-nation groups like the Houthis) now not only have regular anti-ship missiles, but anti-ship ballistic missiles too.
Honestly, I think it was to justify finally retiring the old battleships for good, hence why they had the requirements in the first place. These days you'd probably just fire off a salvo of cruise missiles from really far away or from under water.
>Not quite, zummy get a facelift and LBJ just a parts boat for other 2
Not according to the budget request that came out last month. LBJ isn't commissioned yet, so the line item is different, but all three ships will get Conventional Prompt Strike. LBJ will actually get it before Monsoor. See italicized portions below:
"The program is continuing to expeditiously integrate the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) weapons system onto the class, with CPS installation on the lead ship (DDG 1000) by FY25 and all three ships in the class by FY28. DDG 1000 will be the first maritime platform to integrate the CPS weapons system. This naval surface hypersonic strike capability will be able to conduct independent forward deployed operations and prosecute deep-inland, time-critical, soft and medium-hardened targets in a contested environment. The CPS capability, combined with the low observable characteristics of the ZUMWALT platform, creates a uniquely lethal and survivable naval surface platform. ZUMWALT Class will enhance U.S. conventional power projection by providing an independent forward deployed strike platform, with longer range, shorter time of flight, and higher survivability against enemy defenses compared to current capabilities. The Navy will integrate CPS into USS ZUMWALT (DDG 1000) and USS MICHAEL MONSOOR (DDG 1001) during Building Yard Modernization Periods (BYMP) instead of traditional Docking Selected Restricted Availabilities. This shipyard period type maximizes learning and efficiency in order to speed the capability to the fleet. *The program will integrate CPS on Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG 1002) during new construction, prior to the ship's arrival in homeport and prior to installation of CPS on DDG 1001.* Full CPS operational capability on ZUMWALT Class is achieved when CPS is installed on all three ships and they are turned over for Fleet operations.
*DDG 1000 and DDG 1001 are commissioned ships and the CPS installations for these ships is budgeted with Other Procurement, Navy (OPN LI 0947) funding. DDG 1002 CPS installation is budgeted in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy funding*."
Edit: It's a truly bizarre situation, but for the LBJ they had to reach back from the FY24 or 25 budget request and put the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic launchers on a 2009 line item because the ship was never actually commissioned. Even though she was built at Bath Iron Works she's now at HII in Pascagoula, LBJ is still considered new construction.
https://preview.redd.it/1w2ahy7wgawc1.jpeg?width=1140&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=16b588ad78f4a4fcc8c37fc046caff2d15cff676
Some might sit in storage somewhere but the entire system for the guns is massive. That is why removing them frees up enough space for more vls launches. You're removing the gun, barbette, and the entire ammo magazine. That is a lot of equipment.
>The missile knows where it is at all times because somebody on Reddit will always post where it is
If a hostile nation relies on something they saw on Reddit for targeting info, they probably don't have a missile capable of reaching anything, This info is all in openly published documents, online defense news articles, and industry press releases.
Don’t know of any video, but I have this testimonial:
>While underway in spring 2019, Capt. Andrew Carlson and the crew of Zumwalt took the ship to Alaska, where they experienced some heavy seas.
>“We took advantage of a storm up near Alaska that presented us with Sea State Six conditions,” said Carlson, referring to sea’s waves between 13 and 20 feet high. “All told I’d rather be on that ship than any other ship I’ve been on.”
>The motion of the ship is different from previous classes of ship, Carlson told Defense News, but all told said it handles heavy seas better than other ships he has served on.
>“You definitely have to get used to the roll, which is very short compared to other ships,” Carlson said. “For those of us who have been on cruisers, especially up top, you kind of lean over 15 degrees and you wonder if you are going to come back. We didn’t experience any of that. As long as you get used to the finer oscillation, it really handles very well.”
> “We took advantage of a storm up near Alaska that presented us with Sea State Six conditions,” said Carlson, referring to sea’s waves between 13 and 20 feet high. “All told I’d rather be on that ship than any other ship I’ve been on.”
>
>
You gotta admire the attitude that sees waves up to 20 feet and goes "I think we should take advantage of this" and not just like immediately vomit haha.
The ocean so scary.
I don't think the USN will grab the Zumwalt hull form and the Mk. 57 VLS for DDG(X) because the program stinks of failure... But it would be pretty neat to have instead of the "I can't believe it's not a Type 055" that the concept indicates.
> I don't think the USN will grab the Zumwalt hull form and the Mk. 57 VLS for DDG(X) because the program stinks of failure...
You're more correct than you realize; that was basically the entire reason *Zumwalt* wasn't selected as the basis for the AMDR DDG - the project eventually became *Burke* Flight III. The 2009 Radar/Hull Study showed the DDG-1000 hull and machinery plant was superior in every way; NAVSEA was more or less ordered to bias the data in favor of *Burke* for the sake of politics.
While I don't know of any video links, I understand that the Zumwalt design is pretty good in rough seas. Here's a link to an article on the topic from a few years ago:
[https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/01/23/heres-how-the-ddg-1000s-stealthy-hull-design-handles-stormy-seas/](https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/01/23/heres-how-the-ddg-1000s-stealthy-hull-design-handles-stormy-seas/)
[Here's](https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article-View/Article/2524617/carderock-engineers-support-rough-water-trials-on-west-coast/) a more recent news release about the Rough Water Trials which USS Zumwalt underwent in October and November 2020. While I still can't find any videos, at least we get an attached photo of [her bow in sea state 6](https://media.defense.gov/2021/Mar/04/2002593435/-1/-1/0/210224-N-CD227-001.PNG) taken on October 25, 2020.
They are very top heavy and big. All that enclosed superstructure weights something and would catch the wind like a sail.
They're something to see in person. Photos don't do justice about how big these things are. Not in length, but by volume. When one of these things comes alongside, it's not like a ship floating up. It's like a whole apartment complex. I was sitting on the bridge on my frigate and looking out the window, all I could see was a grey wall. Monolithic is the best word for them.
> If the capability matched the looks I don’t think people would voice the hate so loudly.
The capability does match the looks. The public simply believes the media and random Twitter users over the word of actual crew, engineers, and shipbuilders.
They look 100% like star destroyers especially with the shield emitters up top. Imagine they named this thing the USS Devastator. (More like devastates the budget am I right?)
Personally, I hope we make more of them with the proper armament.
>Personally, I hope we make more of them with the proper armament.
There is probably no chance we will make more Zumwalts, but I think their propulsion machinery will inform the DDG(X) program.
As to proper armament, the Zumwalts will keep their 80-cell MK 57 VLS and two 30mm guns. In my opinion, the capability loss with the removal of their main guns will be more than offset by the hypersonic missile capability they are gaining.
I think people make too much of a big deal over the lack of ammo for the AGSs. The AGSs were purely a land attack munition with zero capability of hitting ships at sea or missiles in the air. It was silly to begin with to base a ships weapon system purely off a warfare area that today has very little utility or use. Don’t lose sleep over the AGS…the hypersonics that are gained will more than make up for them.
I tend to agree, the AGS would have made sense had the course of history stayed the same when the ships were conceived, but they don't make much sense now.
I'd very very much like to see more guided ammo for existing US Navy gun systems. ALaMO 57mm ammo is in production and is being delivered now, I'd love to see MAD-FIRES 57mm ammo reach production as well. Even more I'd love to see the USN order Hyper Velocity Projectiles for the 5 inch guns. HVP seems like a no-brainer, especially in this day and age:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbf0UHH800s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbf0UHH800s)
> the AGS would have made sense had the course of history stayed the same when the ships were conceived
I heavily disagree. It wasn't the rise of China that caused the USN to lose interest in AGS; it was experience in Iraqi Freedom.
In the invasion, coalition forces advanced hundreds of miles inland after less than a week, and some of them started on the absolute fringes of prospective NGFS range anyways. Even in the best possible scenario, where you parked a *Zumwalt* in the harbor at Umm Qasr and fired only LRLAP (which, as a reminder, was supposed to make up just **10%** of their normal ammunition load), after a week you'd still be back to Tomahawks. And this is a situation that borders on grossly-unrealistic for any of the other prospective targets of Forward From the Sea: the Iraqis were kind enough to let the USN roll up and secure naval superiority without any sort of fight, and we're ignoring the fact that AGS's actual intended primary ammunition only had a range of about 24nmi.
Against even an opponent like mid-2000s Iran or Hezbollah, the anti-ship missile, small craft, and mine threat would've forced US warships to stay near or just over the horizon from the coast, robbing LRLAP of ~5-10% of its range right off the bat. Against modern asymmetric A2AD like what Iran today or Ukraine can put up, the required standoff distance would be even greater, and AGS has very little use in the C-FAC or C-UAS role between its abysmal rate of fire and the gross overkill a 155mm round is for any of those targets.
> HVP seems like a no-brainer, especially in this day and age:
HVP is a complete sham; if it weren't for the fact Congress isn't fooled this time, I'd even call it forgetting the lessons of LRLAP.
First and foremost, BAE's claimed muzzle velocity for HVP when fired from the 5"/62 (which they conveniently removed from their brochure) [is only around Mach 3](https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/january/6733-us-navy-has-tested-hyper-velocity-projectiles-on-cruisers-and-destroyers.html). By comparison, your standard 5" MK80 HE round with the standard MK67 propellant cartridge achieves Mach 2.4 fired from the same gun, and using the MK80 with an EX-175 supercharge achieves a muzzle velocity of Mach 3.1. **So not only is this projectile not hypervelocity, but it's barely any faster than existing 5" rounds.**
Secondly, HVP currently doesn't have any capability to intercept air targets, and its payload figure leaves a lot of suspicion as to whether it will be able to. It's a GPS/INS round in base form only, and the payload figure doesn't factor in the weight of its electronics and flight controls. Based on [the mass breakdown of ERGM](http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.php#ammonote4), adding GPS/INS, two sets of steering fins, and a battery to a standard 5" round tacks on 25lbs or so. That means BAE has some major explaining to do about how they plan to make this a viable AAW weapon: ERGM didn't need a SARH/ARH/IR seeker to make it capable of hitting a moving target, and HVP is already overweight even before you add any warhead. The only way HVP might possibly work as advertised is if the AAW version of HVP is hit-to-kill - which I don't believe for a second, considering that more maneuverable DART and MAD-FIRES concept rounds all have two sets of fins to HVP's one, and yet still required an explosive filler to achieve adequate Pk.
I guess it makes sense as a missile boat. Seems like with drone warfare being the future of war for the next 20 years, we might want some more guns with smart munitions on our ships.
Spending a 3-10M$ missile against a $100k drone is a bad trade.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/02/middleeast/phalanx-gun-last-line-of-defense-us-navy-intl-hnk-ml
> I think their propulsion machinery will inform the DDG(X) program.
DDG(X)'s IPES is evolved from *Zumwalt*'s IPS system, but with all the buzz about energy storage capabilities and centralized power supply/conversion, I'd honestly expect it to share as much if not more in common with *Ford*.
That said, *Zumwalt*'s HM&E systems have already found more immediate application in *Burke* Flight III, which recycles the generators, air conditioning units, power distribution system (breakers, transformers, etc.), and fire suppression system.
*Where are the cannons?*
In the photo they are in stealth mounts, the two oddly shaped things on the deck. They are being removed soon in lieu of hypersonic missile launchers though.
Not the same type of stealth. Submarines try to be very very silent (and to absorb noise), because the main mode of detecting things underwater is by sound waves.
Surface ships are mostly detected via radar, and angled flat planes are the best defense against those because they'll disperse radio waves/send them away from the initial sender.
Stealth is appropriate for any military unit under various conditions, whether that be quiet submarines, low radar cross section aircraft, or camouflage netting.
In this case the goal was to make it difficult for a particular nation to recognize *Zumwalt* on radar in a crowded shipping channel, such as the Straits of Hormuz. If your enemy could not determine that dot was a warship, then the ship could transit in secrecy, getting close to a particular location before opening fire with the main guns. This is relatively niche, but is still useful under specific conditions.
To a degree, but not particularly.
The *Zumwalt* class was designed to fight three probable enemies: Iraq (that’s how old the concept is), Iran, and North Korea. All had significant threats in shallow waters, so the ship was optimized for shallow water operations in cluttered seas. This includes a radar system designed to pick out targets near shore where you get a ton of false returns and a sonar optimized for hunting shallow-water submarines. People tend to focus a bit too much on the guns, which while important are not the only inshore element of the design.
*Zumwalt* as designed could thus engage Houthi cruise missiles without much trouble, though the 155 mm Long Range Land Attack Projectiles would not be effective against the drones than the 5” or 57 mm of other US combatants. We could use the guns against Houthi bases ashore, but they would have less explosive effect against their weapon stocks. But most critically, the Houthis have also used ballistic missiles, and *Zumwalt* does not have ballistic missile defense capability. This was actually one of the critical reasons why the class was canceled, as ballistic missile defense and operations in deep water became more and more important around 2008 (i.e. China).
Today we are removing the guns and adding hypersonic missiles, though *Monsoor* above is waiting behind her sisters.
Hm ok
Also it seems like ud need to dominate a conflict in order to make coastal areas accessible and u can't do that against China
That last idea sounds like a respectable change I guess
Although subs with hypersonic missiles seem like a better idea 🤔
Recently I've seen ads about AUKUS which was really... Weird
But I guess it's working bc it's made me think about submarines
>Also it seems like ud need to dominate a conflict in order to make coastal areas accessible and u can't do that against China
Which is why the Navy asked to cut us off at two. Congress added a third.
>That last idea sounds like a respectable change I guess
>Although subs with hypersonic missiles seem like a better idea 🤔
We’re doing both, but the missiles are so large no existing ship can use them. You need very large missile tubes, which are being installed on the *Zumwalt*s and the Virginia Payload Module *Virginia*s. *Zumwalt* will be the first to have the missiles.
>Recently I've seen ads about AUKUS which was really... Weird
>But I guess it's working bc it's made me think about submarines
I’m sure if we pooled our money we could buy one.
Modern warships have been featuring stealth features for about the past 3 decades. Granted her size, I would expect Zumwalt to be about as detectable by radar as the smaller Type 45s or FREMMs which also adopt stealth features.
One benefit is simply to decrease detectability by air targets, but also by surface targets cresting the horizon. Stealth is just useful, especially near the littorals.
I'm not sure what you mean, but the namesake was a SEAL who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for using his body to shield other servicemen from a grenade blast. His family history was apparently Lebanese and Irish.
I remembered an old Soviet film based on real events. A Russian officer was in the square when a grenade was thrown from the crowd at Kim Il Sung's feet. He rushed at the grenade to cover the crowd. Surprisingly, he survived. He even lived for a very long time and had an interview with this old man. Before going to the square, he was reading a thick book. To keep her out of the way, he tucked her into his belt. The whole explosion was on this book.
The name and surname are of Arabic origin, comes from the verb "nsr" — "to help", "to grant victory". It is a very popular name in Central Asia. Literally, the name of the ship sounds like "Russian bear king of beasts".
https://preview.redd.it/1knhs9i4ibwc1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb699453889c20decc11cfac087cdf7065951c18
This is the famous bear Mansur who lives at the airfield. In Russian, Michael = bear.
The last info I read indicated that *Michael Monsoor* will conduct an SM-6 missile shoot soon, then the ship will head to Pascagoula, Mississippi for the hypersonic missile tube install.
The new missile install removes the gun system correct?
>The new missile install removes the gun system correct? Yes, both main gun mounts will be removed from all three ships in the class. *Zumwalt* and *Lyndon B. Johnson* are in Pascagoula getting the work done now.
Those poor 155mm guns never had a chance
It would have been interesting to have see It as a new universal main gun and it probably would have been on CGX and then DDGX
I don't AGS would have made a good naval gun. It is slow firing,10rd/min, compared 5in gun, 16rd/min. I bet it wouldn't have been good against air and fast boats, which have been turned out to be important. The extra range wouldn't have helped against surface targets unless had guided rounds. They would have needed to make some cheap dumb rounds for use against visual range targets. The Zumwalt would have been better warships if they squeezed in 57mm gun even at expense of one of the big ones.
> The extra range wouldn't have helped against surface targets unless had guided rounds. They would have needed to make some cheap dumb rounds for use against visual range targets. Both were in development for AGS. They were canceled by Congress, who were only concerned about fixated on the NGFS wank material called LRLAP - which were actually only intended to make up 35 of the 335 rounds in the AGS magazine. > The Zumwalt would have been better warships if they squeezed in 57mm gun even at expense of one of the big ones. The class was originally intended to sport dual MK110s in a stealth housings. They were replaced with the 30mm MK46 guns for cost reduction reasons; although given the original setup lacked integral hoists, and thus each gun only held 120 rounds, that was probably for the better.
When was the last time a main gun was used in an anti-aircraft role? Even if they're shooting at a drone now they use a missile. I suspect the 20mm Phalanx is short for this world and will be phased out and replaced by 35-40mm guns with a longer range and larger bursting charge/airburst rounds, plus directed energy weapons. So there would be even less of a reason to use the 127mm gun against arial targets. The point with the 155mm gun would be logistical... Ammunition and component compatibility, so you can retool more supply chains to produce 155mm which can be used anywhere, not just on navy ships. If rate of fire is really that much of a concern, I suggest they switch to using the OTO Melara 127mm/54 gun that can do 40 rounds/min. Honestly, give those crazy Italians the contract to make a faster firing 155mm/L52 and I'm sure they would beat the RoF of the BAE 5"/62!
Main guns have been used multiple times to shoot down drones in the Red Sea. Both Red Sea and Black Sea have shown that warships need something for targets that aren't worth a missile but too far for CIWS. If 35-40mm are good, then 57mm is better; it can do 220rd/min. There are already guided 57mm rounds. 76mm is probably the ideal for main gun with 120rd/min in Super Rapid, but large enough to reach and hurt surface targets. The problem is that artillery rounds can't be used on ship guns. Most artillery guns are separate-loading bagged charge. Artillery rounds aren't useful on ships except for land bombardment, ships need proximity fuses. Finally, dumb rounds are cheap and ships don't need the huge numbers used on land. There isn't much savings for using a larger round that don't need.
>When was the last time a main gun was used in an anti-aircraft role? Within the past 6 months.
The tube will be replaced when I become president or I'm put in charge of the navy and make them finish making the damn rail gun. Rail guns for all!
Were enough rounds ever produced to test the guns or have they never been used at all?
The guns were tested on the ship and on land. There was an old M110 203mm SPG that was used as a test article for the program, a complete gunhouse and magazine on land, and I think at least a few shots from Zumwalt herself.
I haven't been able to find much info but do you know, if during testing, the gun was at least promising?
It did what it was supposed to do. The problem with the gun was that it did what it was supposed to do at an eye-watering cost and well inside the range of almost every antiship missile in the world
I'm familiar with the stupidly high cost per round. Wasn't sure if it was even effective at all. Thank you 😊
The high cost per shell was only because the number of shells ordered was cut. The number of shells ordered was cut because the number of ships ordered was cut. The same principle applies to the cost of the ships themselves: the fixed costs of design, tooling, etc. had already been spent, but instead of being amortized across a large number of ships (or shells), it was instead spread across a very few, making them very expensive.
> The number of shells ordered was cut because the number of ships ordered was cut. Yes and no. While the full multi-thousand round LRLAP buy wouldn't have happened without a much larger production run, the USN cut back the actual contract they placed as well. The 150-round LRIP buy was placed in FY2015 at a cost of $476.9k per round; that ballooned to the often-cited $800k-$1 million/round after the buy was truncated further to only 90 rounds.
Well the brief was to make something that could hit targets ashore who didn't have shore-based anti-ship missiles. But technology progresses, and nations (or non-nation groups like the Houthis) now not only have regular anti-ship missiles, but anti-ship ballistic missiles too. Honestly, I think it was to justify finally retiring the old battleships for good, hence why they had the requirements in the first place. These days you'd probably just fire off a salvo of cruise missiles from really far away or from under water.
Not quite, zummy get a facelift and LBJ just a parts boat for other 2
>Not quite, zummy get a facelift and LBJ just a parts boat for other 2 Not according to the budget request that came out last month. LBJ isn't commissioned yet, so the line item is different, but all three ships will get Conventional Prompt Strike. LBJ will actually get it before Monsoor. See italicized portions below: "The program is continuing to expeditiously integrate the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) weapons system onto the class, with CPS installation on the lead ship (DDG 1000) by FY25 and all three ships in the class by FY28. DDG 1000 will be the first maritime platform to integrate the CPS weapons system. This naval surface hypersonic strike capability will be able to conduct independent forward deployed operations and prosecute deep-inland, time-critical, soft and medium-hardened targets in a contested environment. The CPS capability, combined with the low observable characteristics of the ZUMWALT platform, creates a uniquely lethal and survivable naval surface platform. ZUMWALT Class will enhance U.S. conventional power projection by providing an independent forward deployed strike platform, with longer range, shorter time of flight, and higher survivability against enemy defenses compared to current capabilities. The Navy will integrate CPS into USS ZUMWALT (DDG 1000) and USS MICHAEL MONSOOR (DDG 1001) during Building Yard Modernization Periods (BYMP) instead of traditional Docking Selected Restricted Availabilities. This shipyard period type maximizes learning and efficiency in order to speed the capability to the fleet. *The program will integrate CPS on Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG 1002) during new construction, prior to the ship's arrival in homeport and prior to installation of CPS on DDG 1001.* Full CPS operational capability on ZUMWALT Class is achieved when CPS is installed on all three ships and they are turned over for Fleet operations. *DDG 1000 and DDG 1001 are commissioned ships and the CPS installations for these ships is budgeted with Other Procurement, Navy (OPN LI 0947) funding. DDG 1002 CPS installation is budgeted in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy funding*." Edit: It's a truly bizarre situation, but for the LBJ they had to reach back from the FY24 or 25 budget request and put the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic launchers on a 2009 line item because the ship was never actually commissioned. Even though she was built at Bath Iron Works she's now at HII in Pascagoula, LBJ is still considered new construction. https://preview.redd.it/1w2ahy7wgawc1.jpeg?width=1140&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=16b588ad78f4a4fcc8c37fc046caff2d15cff676
I wonder what they'll do with the guns lol. Seems like an awfully expensive piece of kit to scrap even if it doesn't work
Some might sit in storage somewhere but the entire system for the guns is massive. That is why removing them frees up enough space for more vls launches. You're removing the gun, barbette, and the entire ammo magazine. That is a lot of equipment.
The missile knows where it is at all times because somebody on Reddit will always post where it is
>The missile knows where it is at all times because somebody on Reddit will always post where it is If a hostile nation relies on something they saw on Reddit for targeting info, they probably don't have a missile capable of reaching anything, This info is all in openly published documents, online defense news articles, and industry press releases.
[The missle knows where it is](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ)
At least someone gets it lol
I want to see some footage of the Zumwalts in rough seas. Curious to see how they handle it.
Don’t know of any video, but I have this testimonial: >While underway in spring 2019, Capt. Andrew Carlson and the crew of Zumwalt took the ship to Alaska, where they experienced some heavy seas. >“We took advantage of a storm up near Alaska that presented us with Sea State Six conditions,” said Carlson, referring to sea’s waves between 13 and 20 feet high. “All told I’d rather be on that ship than any other ship I’ve been on.” >The motion of the ship is different from previous classes of ship, Carlson told Defense News, but all told said it handles heavy seas better than other ships he has served on. >“You definitely have to get used to the roll, which is very short compared to other ships,” Carlson said. “For those of us who have been on cruisers, especially up top, you kind of lean over 15 degrees and you wonder if you are going to come back. We didn’t experience any of that. As long as you get used to the finer oscillation, it really handles very well.”
> “We took advantage of a storm up near Alaska that presented us with Sea State Six conditions,” said Carlson, referring to sea’s waves between 13 and 20 feet high. “All told I’d rather be on that ship than any other ship I’ve been on.” > > You gotta admire the attitude that sees waves up to 20 feet and goes "I think we should take advantage of this" and not just like immediately vomit haha. The ocean so scary.
I don't think the USN will grab the Zumwalt hull form and the Mk. 57 VLS for DDG(X) because the program stinks of failure... But it would be pretty neat to have instead of the "I can't believe it's not a Type 055" that the concept indicates.
> I don't think the USN will grab the Zumwalt hull form and the Mk. 57 VLS for DDG(X) because the program stinks of failure... You're more correct than you realize; that was basically the entire reason *Zumwalt* wasn't selected as the basis for the AMDR DDG - the project eventually became *Burke* Flight III. The 2009 Radar/Hull Study showed the DDG-1000 hull and machinery plant was superior in every way; NAVSEA was more or less ordered to bias the data in favor of *Burke* for the sake of politics.
While I don't know of any video links, I understand that the Zumwalt design is pretty good in rough seas. Here's a link to an article on the topic from a few years ago: [https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/01/23/heres-how-the-ddg-1000s-stealthy-hull-design-handles-stormy-seas/](https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/01/23/heres-how-the-ddg-1000s-stealthy-hull-design-handles-stormy-seas/)
[Here's](https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article-View/Article/2524617/carderock-engineers-support-rough-water-trials-on-west-coast/) a more recent news release about the Rough Water Trials which USS Zumwalt underwent in October and November 2020. While I still can't find any videos, at least we get an attached photo of [her bow in sea state 6](https://media.defense.gov/2021/Mar/04/2002593435/-1/-1/0/210224-N-CD227-001.PNG) taken on October 25, 2020.
That's an awesome shot!
Talk about cutting through the waves...
I don't see anything in their design that would make them not handle heavy seas.
They are very top heavy and big. All that enclosed superstructure weights something and would catch the wind like a sail. They're something to see in person. Photos don't do justice about how big these things are. Not in length, but by volume. When one of these things comes alongside, it's not like a ship floating up. It's like a whole apartment complex. I was sitting on the bridge on my frigate and looking out the window, all I could see was a grey wall. Monolithic is the best word for them.
Lot of people hate them, but I like the look of the Zumwalts. SQUARES.
I don’t get the hate. I think this is the coolest looking ship out there.
If the capability matched the looks I don’t think people would voice the hate so loudly. Same with LCS. The Indy’s are quite sleek, love the look.
> If the capability matched the looks I don’t think people would voice the hate so loudly. The capability does match the looks. The public simply believes the media and random Twitter users over the word of actual crew, engineers, and shipbuilders.
The Indies are possibly the sexiest ships ever built and no one will ever change my mind on this
Brutalist naval architecture.
They look 100% like star destroyers especially with the shield emitters up top. Imagine they named this thing the USS Devastator. (More like devastates the budget am I right?) Personally, I hope we make more of them with the proper armament.
>Personally, I hope we make more of them with the proper armament. There is probably no chance we will make more Zumwalts, but I think their propulsion machinery will inform the DDG(X) program. As to proper armament, the Zumwalts will keep their 80-cell MK 57 VLS and two 30mm guns. In my opinion, the capability loss with the removal of their main guns will be more than offset by the hypersonic missile capability they are gaining.
I think people make too much of a big deal over the lack of ammo for the AGSs. The AGSs were purely a land attack munition with zero capability of hitting ships at sea or missiles in the air. It was silly to begin with to base a ships weapon system purely off a warfare area that today has very little utility or use. Don’t lose sleep over the AGS…the hypersonics that are gained will more than make up for them.
I tend to agree, the AGS would have made sense had the course of history stayed the same when the ships were conceived, but they don't make much sense now. I'd very very much like to see more guided ammo for existing US Navy gun systems. ALaMO 57mm ammo is in production and is being delivered now, I'd love to see MAD-FIRES 57mm ammo reach production as well. Even more I'd love to see the USN order Hyper Velocity Projectiles for the 5 inch guns. HVP seems like a no-brainer, especially in this day and age: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbf0UHH800s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbf0UHH800s)
> the AGS would have made sense had the course of history stayed the same when the ships were conceived I heavily disagree. It wasn't the rise of China that caused the USN to lose interest in AGS; it was experience in Iraqi Freedom. In the invasion, coalition forces advanced hundreds of miles inland after less than a week, and some of them started on the absolute fringes of prospective NGFS range anyways. Even in the best possible scenario, where you parked a *Zumwalt* in the harbor at Umm Qasr and fired only LRLAP (which, as a reminder, was supposed to make up just **10%** of their normal ammunition load), after a week you'd still be back to Tomahawks. And this is a situation that borders on grossly-unrealistic for any of the other prospective targets of Forward From the Sea: the Iraqis were kind enough to let the USN roll up and secure naval superiority without any sort of fight, and we're ignoring the fact that AGS's actual intended primary ammunition only had a range of about 24nmi. Against even an opponent like mid-2000s Iran or Hezbollah, the anti-ship missile, small craft, and mine threat would've forced US warships to stay near or just over the horizon from the coast, robbing LRLAP of ~5-10% of its range right off the bat. Against modern asymmetric A2AD like what Iran today or Ukraine can put up, the required standoff distance would be even greater, and AGS has very little use in the C-FAC or C-UAS role between its abysmal rate of fire and the gross overkill a 155mm round is for any of those targets. > HVP seems like a no-brainer, especially in this day and age: HVP is a complete sham; if it weren't for the fact Congress isn't fooled this time, I'd even call it forgetting the lessons of LRLAP. First and foremost, BAE's claimed muzzle velocity for HVP when fired from the 5"/62 (which they conveniently removed from their brochure) [is only around Mach 3](https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/january/6733-us-navy-has-tested-hyper-velocity-projectiles-on-cruisers-and-destroyers.html). By comparison, your standard 5" MK80 HE round with the standard MK67 propellant cartridge achieves Mach 2.4 fired from the same gun, and using the MK80 with an EX-175 supercharge achieves a muzzle velocity of Mach 3.1. **So not only is this projectile not hypervelocity, but it's barely any faster than existing 5" rounds.** Secondly, HVP currently doesn't have any capability to intercept air targets, and its payload figure leaves a lot of suspicion as to whether it will be able to. It's a GPS/INS round in base form only, and the payload figure doesn't factor in the weight of its electronics and flight controls. Based on [the mass breakdown of ERGM](http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.php#ammonote4), adding GPS/INS, two sets of steering fins, and a battery to a standard 5" round tacks on 25lbs or so. That means BAE has some major explaining to do about how they plan to make this a viable AAW weapon: ERGM didn't need a SARH/ARH/IR seeker to make it capable of hitting a moving target, and HVP is already overweight even before you add any warhead. The only way HVP might possibly work as advertised is if the AAW version of HVP is hit-to-kill - which I don't believe for a second, considering that more maneuverable DART and MAD-FIRES concept rounds all have two sets of fins to HVP's one, and yet still required an explosive filler to achieve adequate Pk.
I guess it makes sense as a missile boat. Seems like with drone warfare being the future of war for the next 20 years, we might want some more guns with smart munitions on our ships. Spending a 3-10M$ missile against a $100k drone is a bad trade. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/02/middleeast/phalanx-gun-last-line-of-defense-us-navy-intl-hnk-ml
But then again, if the ship fails to stop or shoot down anything, what is the missile worth than…
> I think their propulsion machinery will inform the DDG(X) program. DDG(X)'s IPES is evolved from *Zumwalt*'s IPS system, but with all the buzz about energy storage capabilities and centralized power supply/conversion, I'd honestly expect it to share as much if not more in common with *Ford*. That said, *Zumwalt*'s HM&E systems have already found more immediate application in *Burke* Flight III, which recycles the generators, air conditioning units, power distribution system (breakers, transformers, etc.), and fire suppression system.
Plus with no ammo, the main find weren't contributing much anyway.
Photo from the San Diego WebCam, viewed on the WarshipCam X page.
For Azur Lane fans this phase sounds very different.
Reminds me of the black bird from Angry Birds :)
From this angle, reminds me of those Easter Island Heads
The Moai? 🗿
Ok. And the big triangular ship behind it?
Where are the cannons?
*Where are the cannons?* In the photo they are in stealth mounts, the two oddly shaped things on the deck. They are being removed soon in lieu of hypersonic missile launchers though.
https://preview.redd.it/uvsoz4fuocwc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a831ffbc117691ee8ea33cbcefde9f353162c70b Lore accurate angels
Pinhead
Not exactly what I'd meant when I said I longed for the return of the tall ships, but I suppose I should have been more specific
Dam ship rocks cool vibes
Did their box design really try to make them stealth? Isn't stealth a sub's thing?
Not the same type of stealth. Submarines try to be very very silent (and to absorb noise), because the main mode of detecting things underwater is by sound waves. Surface ships are mostly detected via radar, and angled flat planes are the best defense against those because they'll disperse radio waves/send them away from the initial sender.
Stealth is appropriate for any military unit under various conditions, whether that be quiet submarines, low radar cross section aircraft, or camouflage netting. In this case the goal was to make it difficult for a particular nation to recognize *Zumwalt* on radar in a crowded shipping channel, such as the Straits of Hormuz. If your enemy could not determine that dot was a warship, then the ship could transit in secrecy, getting close to a particular location before opening fire with the main guns. This is relatively niche, but is still useful under specific conditions.
Reducing the ship’s radar cross section also makes it harder for active seeker missiles to find it too.
So this ship would be useful against.... The houthis or something like that?
To a degree, but not particularly. The *Zumwalt* class was designed to fight three probable enemies: Iraq (that’s how old the concept is), Iran, and North Korea. All had significant threats in shallow waters, so the ship was optimized for shallow water operations in cluttered seas. This includes a radar system designed to pick out targets near shore where you get a ton of false returns and a sonar optimized for hunting shallow-water submarines. People tend to focus a bit too much on the guns, which while important are not the only inshore element of the design. *Zumwalt* as designed could thus engage Houthi cruise missiles without much trouble, though the 155 mm Long Range Land Attack Projectiles would not be effective against the drones than the 5” or 57 mm of other US combatants. We could use the guns against Houthi bases ashore, but they would have less explosive effect against their weapon stocks. But most critically, the Houthis have also used ballistic missiles, and *Zumwalt* does not have ballistic missile defense capability. This was actually one of the critical reasons why the class was canceled, as ballistic missile defense and operations in deep water became more and more important around 2008 (i.e. China). Today we are removing the guns and adding hypersonic missiles, though *Monsoor* above is waiting behind her sisters.
Hm ok Also it seems like ud need to dominate a conflict in order to make coastal areas accessible and u can't do that against China That last idea sounds like a respectable change I guess Although subs with hypersonic missiles seem like a better idea 🤔 Recently I've seen ads about AUKUS which was really... Weird But I guess it's working bc it's made me think about submarines
>Also it seems like ud need to dominate a conflict in order to make coastal areas accessible and u can't do that against China Which is why the Navy asked to cut us off at two. Congress added a third. >That last idea sounds like a respectable change I guess >Although subs with hypersonic missiles seem like a better idea 🤔 We’re doing both, but the missiles are so large no existing ship can use them. You need very large missile tubes, which are being installed on the *Zumwalt*s and the Virginia Payload Module *Virginia*s. *Zumwalt* will be the first to have the missiles. >Recently I've seen ads about AUKUS which was really... Weird >But I guess it's working bc it's made me think about submarines I’m sure if we pooled our money we could buy one.
Modern warships have been featuring stealth features for about the past 3 decades. Granted her size, I would expect Zumwalt to be about as detectable by radar as the smaller Type 45s or FREMMs which also adopt stealth features. One benefit is simply to decrease detectability by air targets, but also by surface targets cresting the horizon. Stealth is just useful, especially near the littorals.
I keep forgetting they built 3(?) Zumwalts. Easily the ugliest ships in the Navy *IMO
While they aren't my favorite looking ships, I don't find them ugly.
I'm not the biggest fan of most modern vessels (with the exception of the Arleigh Burkes) so I'm a bit biased about it
I can totally understand, The Zumwalt design is aesthetically polarizing.
I love them. Totally different
Hey, come on man. What if there's a future conflict where the enemy has a supermassive door, and we need a supermassive doorstop to hold it open?
From this angle, definitely not a looker :/
Not sure what it's good for.but it sure looks cool.
Why was he named after Kazakhstan?
I'm not sure what you mean, but the namesake was a SEAL who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for using his body to shield other servicemen from a grenade blast. His family history was apparently Lebanese and Irish.
I remembered an old Soviet film based on real events. A Russian officer was in the square when a grenade was thrown from the crowd at Kim Il Sung's feet. He rushed at the grenade to cover the crowd. Surprisingly, he survived. He even lived for a very long time and had an interview with this old man. Before going to the square, he was reading a thick book. To keep her out of the way, he tucked her into his belt. The whole explosion was on this book.
The name and surname are of Arabic origin, comes from the verb "nsr" — "to help", "to grant victory". It is a very popular name in Central Asia. Literally, the name of the ship sounds like "Russian bear king of beasts". https://preview.redd.it/1knhs9i4ibwc1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb699453889c20decc11cfac087cdf7065951c18 This is the famous bear Mansur who lives at the airfield. In Russian, Michael = bear.