Posted on 02/01/2019 11:19:17 AM PST by Steven Scharf
Navy struggles to find a place for Bath-built Zumwalt stealth destroyers
The Zumwalts were built for a mission that the Navy no longer views as a priority.
BY NATHAN STROUT BRUNSWICK TIMES RECORD Friday, February 1, 2019
BRUNSWICK — To those who kept a close eye on the development of the Navy’s futuristic, next-generation destroyers, calling the Zumwalt-class program a disappointment could be an understatement.
In the early 2000s, the Navy hoped to build 32 highly advanced stealth destroyers built solely at Bath Iron Works. BIW employees were hopeful that the new destroyers would be a source of work for years to come. As the years wore on, the number of ships ordered were slashed. And then slashed again. Ultimately, the Navy ordered just three ships — the second of which was recently commissioned by the Navy in San Diego.
With the USS Zumwalt, the lead ship of the class, expected to not be deployed until 2021, it remains to be seen whether the destroyers will be an effective tool in the Navy’s arsenal, or an expensive cautionary tale.
Bath Iron Works declined to comment on the Zumwalts’ mission or decisions made by the Navy.
In some ways, the Zumwalt can be seen as a casualty of the uncertainty facing the military following the end of the Cold War.
. . .
The ships have already demonstrated the effectiveness of some impressive new technologies. The ships show up as just a fraction of their 610-foot size on a radar, thanks to their stealth design. Their all-electric propulsion system is a first in the Navy, and could very well be adopted in future ships.
. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at pressherald.com ...
I am dubious of the radar claim. I would think you would want an all or nothing signature.
Not explained in the article is who they generate that electric power. It has to come from somewhere. But the ships are actually position to be able to provide temporary power in coastal locations.
Discuss
They each come with two 155mm guns - with non-procurable ammo. Not optimal in a shooting war.
The way to test the radar claim is to send one into Iranian or Chinese waters.
if they’re stealth, then park em any where you want!
It’s no wonder there are problems after naming them after the most disastrous Chief of Naval Operations in Navy history.
A recent article discussed the successful re-fueling at sea by an oiler. I believe 47,000 gallons of diesel ship fuel were delivered to the Zumwalt. That, of course, is converted to electricity which drives the Integrated Electric Propulsion system. Theoretically, the enormous capacity to generate electricity is useful if you a railgun as armament.
Well, if you want a semi-useful comment...
The ships are turbo electric. This was tried back in the 20’s with Lexington, Saratoga, and the Tennessee and Colorado class battleships. It worked well and had some advantages, including the ability to provide backup power to the town.
(Other advantages included the ability to control the power to each propeller shaft independently, etc.)
As to the radar claim, if it’s foggy at night, and you see a blip on your radar about the size of a fishing trawler, you’re much less likely to shoot at it, right? (vs seeing a 600+ foot return)
If they’d built all 24 of them, no doubt they’d be the pride of the fleet. As it is, it doesn’t matter how good they are, they’re white elephants.
If they’re actually good, they’re too valuable to waste on a potentially dangerous combat mission.
If they’re terrible, well, then they were just a total waste.
As it is, what they really are is just a testbed for spiffy cool new boat technologies. If they work, they’ll make their way into other ships. If not, well, they probably won’t do that again.
(Until enough time has passed that they forget that putting the tripod mast behind the funnel is a bad idea.)
It seems to me, with the technology and stealth, they could operate in a carrier fleet as first contact perimeter detection and defense.
????
On that topic, at least in theory, a primary mission for these ships was land attack. If a carrier group commander were concerned about advanced radar systems on the enemy coast, he could send in a stealthy ship with the ability to pound the heck out of the radar installation. Then the ship moves away and planes from the carrier can more safely approach and carry out the rest of the job (finishing off the radar and moving ahead to hit other targets).
But theory is not practice.
Ding, ding ding! We have a winner!
I don’t think all or nothing is the only option. Reducing the signature can have massive benefits.
There was a great book called “Skunkworks” by Ben Rich, who took over for the fabled Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, he drove the development of the F-117 Nighthawk.
In the book, he discussed how the benefits of stealth could be applied equally to either an aircraft or an aircraft carrier, which blew my mind, and the benefit wasn’t dependent on size.
If you have a far smaller RCS, then a missile depending on radar can be more easily defeated by countermeasures.
As for the power, it is developed by special marine tubines that generate a huge amount of power (78-megawatt power station supplying electricity to an advanced integrated power system (IPS)) and the power is both used to drive the vessel through the water and to power weapons systems demanding power, such as a rail gun. The electrical infrastructure is massively changed from current systems on vessels, but I don’t know the specs on it. I saw that, for alternating current, instead of using the standard three phase power motors in usual AC systems, this special system uses 15 phase motors. I only dimly grasp that, but...it sounds like it has something to do with speeding up the conversion of power to energy as needed for various tasks. (Maybe someone else on this thread understands this better)
I do know the ships ended up being built as technology test beds, which certainly didn’t make them cost effective to build.
Made in England - by British Aerospace. Not Lucas, fortunately :-)
As regards the “production of power” electrical power and engine power for the turbines.... welllll, the Great Green Fleet obmaumao’s and libs politically correct environmentally, and extremely expensive “Green” fuel sourcing (bio-fuels super “high tech”— and proven to foul things up as well. Bio diesel, etc. all tested on the farm first, and found lacking in extreme).
There is this— a ship that cannot run with the Fleet, and major number of engineering casualties, embarrassingly so:
As clear case has made— theory vs. reality. Great the ship is stealthy, but if it can’t run effectively, and not needing “exchangeables” to basically make power for the turbines from the “green” fuel on down to the “heat exchangers”(a technology that should be well understood, except for this design).
So, it’s a very expensive test bed (rail gun is already tested, and ready to go- an exciting stand off weapon reducing the need for propellants on board) and the Navy has decided the Mansour will be the last, and requesting 20 plus more NEW Arleigh Burke class tweaked to the max with all the new goodies, and turbine powered.
If they want something that doesn’t show up on radar, send a sub.
Yes...they are largely not useful since they may have unique capabilities, but will not be available in large enough numbers to justify cultivating those capabilities for tactical utility.
They will end up being extensive test beds.
The rail guns would be well suited to shore bombardment, but...that might be a role that is supplanted by less exotic or expensive technologies.
Hahahaha...Lucas...:)
I do know the ships ended up being built as technology test beds, which certainly didn’t make them cost effective to build.
I heard Joe Lucas was out of business...
That’s why we developed Tactical Tomahawk - it can shift targets on the fly and we don’t have to risk a multi-billion dollar ship on a million dollar target.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.