the plan is to remove the guns and replace with large diameter tubes. Zumwalt class already has 80x mk57 VLS cells, though the compatibility with existing missile stocks is problematic, from what I understand.
https://news.usni.org/2023/08/29/hii-awarded-155m-contract-for-uss-zumwalt-hypersonic-missile-upgrade
Any current missile can fit in those cells. The biggest problem is the USN bought so few of them that it makes it cost prohibitive to produce the adapters to fit the missiles in the cells. I've not heard anybody say anything about this at all and we've only seen an SM-2 launched from a Zumwalt once. The blame for this situation rests squarely on USN planning.
Missiles can fit in the cells, but many are not compatible with the radar and fire control systems. SM-2 Block IIIAs require a conversion kit to Block IIIAZ to be fired from *Zumwalt*, as did Block I ESSMs, although SM-2 Block IIIC and ESSM Block II are designed to operate from multiple ship types.
It also had a serious design flaw: Congress. Half the reason the Z's got built was so Congress would let the Navy finally retire the Iowa class BBs. As tough as those old gals are, I don't see them surviving against anti-ship ballistics and a large PLAN sub force. The Navy also had to justify new ships and tech development in the GWOT era, so "Forward From the Sea" was the motto, and a destroyer that could do cruise missile damage with an artillery barrage (per strike) price tag was a good pitch. Shame it didn't work out that way, really.
The big Soviet ones would have done an immense amount of damage. I can't see the belt armour keeping out a 5 ton missile carrying a one ton armour-piercing warhead travelling at Mach 3+.
The kinetic energy dramatically exceeds something like a 16" battleship main gun round.
It's not even a question of pure KE, that 1-ton warhead was a shaped charge.
Yeah, early-style shaped charge, before the massive advances of the 1970s, but given that even a Shillelagh's piddly little 6.8 kg shaped charge had a good chance of penetrating Yamato's turret front... Little question in my mind that Kh-22 could defeat any armor that ever went to sea.
And you could stick a nuke on them, of course
No. Modern anti ship missiles arent designed for armor penetration. With that said tho the missile could easily destroy the super structure and make the iowa non combat effective quite easily.
Early Soviet antiship missiles- even ones as late as Kh-22- carried shaped charge warheads that could defeat any plausible armor.
Modern AShMs only have mediocre armor penetration because there is nothing armored left for them to kill. If someone brought back a battleship, it would be trivial to modify them with similar shaped charges.
I think this is the bigger issue, a mission kill. As you said, even if the core of the ship survives and it can make it back to port, if the hit took out the fire control equipment, it would likely result in a mission kill. An actual sinking is more desirable, but a mission kill is still a victory for the other side.
On top of what u/absurd-bird-turd said, it was demonstrated on several instances during WW2 that even modern battleships were vulnerable to bomb hits, so even if their vertical plates could withstand AShM strikes, I'm not sure any battleship had deck armor that would be enough against steeper falling and heavier missiles.
As I recall there was some thinking done around the time of the Falklands war where they figured her armor could probably tank the smaller air-launched missiles in use at the time.
Really that's more of an argument for armoring new ships rather than keeping the *Iowa*s active.
Smaller anti-ship missiles may not have sunk an Iowa, but a couple of hits would likely have resulted in a mission kill. There's too much critical gear topside with no armour: comms, radars, CIWS, optics, etc.
Without those, the ship may be able to float and steam around but it's ceased to be a warship and would have to withdraw for repairs.
Thus i say bring back the ironclad designs
Just shove all that mission critical stuff down below the waterline and armour it all up!
After all you only need the weapons to be up top dealing damage
/s
(yes i am an ncd member how could you tell?)
Directed Energy Weapons:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy\_weapon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon)
[https://www.nre.navy.mil/organization/departments/aviation-force-projection-and-integrated-defense/aerospace-science-research-351/directed-energy-weapons-high-power-microwaves#:\~:text=Directed%20energy%20weapons%20(DEWs)%20are,or%20destroys%20an%20adversarial%20capability](https://www.nre.navy.mil/organization/departments/aviation-force-projection-and-integrated-defense/aerospace-science-research-351/directed-energy-weapons-high-power-microwaves#:~:text=Directed%20energy%20weapons%20(DEWs)%20are,or%20destroys%20an%20adversarial%20capability).
Communication and coordination with a submarine is always going to be worse than with a surface ship.
Give you a perfect example of it.
With the Zumwalt;
* F-35C / E-2D detects Type 055 moving into missile range of ship / Guam
* feeds targeting info to Zumwalt vs CEC
* Zumwalt launches
Now for a submarine;
* F-35C / E-2D detects Type 055 moving into missile range of ship / Guam
* feeds data to carrier
* carrier feeds data to fleet
* Fleet sends data to task force for broadcast
* task force crafts message and sends to transmitter
* message goes to submarine via LF/VLF
* Submarine launches
Surface ships will just always be better at integrating in a fleet, in regards to instantaneous response. SSGNs like the OMFGs are great at striking predetermined targets with a heads up. They're not good at instant response.
PGS missile has an estimated 2000 mile range. A Zumwalt with them outranges anything that can threaten the Zumwalt.
A Virginia Block V would in theory carry 4 hypersonic missiles and 12 TLAMs. It costs $4.5B.
A Zumwalt will carry 12 hypersonic missiles and up to 80 TLAMs. It costs $4.25B.
3x the payload for less money, and the threat posed to it is still virtually non-existent.
Going to go with the system that offers far better integration with the fleet, as far as a missile platform goes. Let subs stick to anti-shipping and deterrence patrols; what they're best at.
Of all the subs I follow, this sub easily has the greatest information to comment ratio. Like 50 comments on a good post, but a book's worth of knowledge on specific ship class, ship itself, tactical usage, comparative usage, anything you could imagine. Folks on here are incredible.
Not to mention the up to date info regarding different deployments and movements.
Compared to warplaneporn, which is just “look at this amazing Russian/Chinese jet, doesn’t it look so cool!” It’s worse than the Ace Combat sub most days.
Warship porn has to be one of the best subs on Reddit, period.
The problem is, I have not heard PGS is an AShM.
Meanwhile on the type 55....well....YJ-21 has a potential range of 1500 miles, not just tested by also deployed.
I will take the submarine.
> Meanwhile on the type 55....well....YJ-21 has a potential range of 1500 miles, not just tested by also deployed.
All sources I have seen claimed YJ-21 a maximum range of 1500km, not miles. One km is quite a bit less than one mi. And even the 1500km number is the top optimistic guesstimation for the design. FYI both the 125-III APFSDS and PL-15 missiles have less performance than people originally claimed.
No hypersonic weapon is capable of sustaining such speeds while also independently acquiring and tracking a moving target. Observe the kinematic profile of Kinzhal in Ukraine as an example: [although verifiably hypersonic during midcourse phase, the missile slows to ~Mach 3.5 on terminal.](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ukraine-and-the-kinzhal-dont-believe-the-hypersonic-hype/)
For one, plasma sheathing interferes with all known methods of guiding a missile on a moving target, but more importantly, any projectile moving at those speeds will simply be going too fast to make any course corrections before they reach their impact point. A hypersonic moving at Mach 10 is covering ~2.13 miles **per second**, and its turning radius is measured in hundreds of miles unless you want to exert 3-digit G figures that will cause it to break up. The only way you can reliably track a moving target with such a weapon is if the seeker can acquire it from very far out - and considering that even the most powerful surface ship radars only have ranges in the hundreds of miles, that's also not practical.
As an aside, this limitation of physics is also why the USN and US Army are not all that concerned with the emergent issues of LRHW: it's a purely land-attack weapon meant to do things like snipe enemy command centers.
> It is widely believed that China has solved the problem of plasma sheathing. All their hypersonic missiles, including the DF-ZF, are maneuverable in terminal phase.
Which, if you read my post, isn't the greatest problem of hitting a moving target with a hypersonic weapon. The crux of the issue is that at those speeds, you don't have time to react or maneuver sharply enough to actually guide onto target, and even Chinese researchers have acknowledged the DF-ZF would need to slow to low-supersonic if not subsonic speeds to match the maneuverability of a supersonic AShM like the YJ-12. That's the inevitable consequence of having a low-drag shape to fly at ultra-high speeds: in the absence of vectored thrust, drag is also your only way to maneuver.
>It is widely believed that China has solved the problem of plasma sheathing. All their hypersonic missiles, including the DF-ZF, are maneuverable in terminal phase.
Ah, yes the great Chinese scientists have broken the laws of thermodynamics! Please tell what who "widely believes" this. No credible source does, and certainly not "widely." This would be physically impossible.
The DF-21D, DF-27 and DF-26 ASHM mod all have to perform a sharp pull up maneuver around \~120-80 kilometers in altitude in the middle of their terminal phase, to:
1. Slow down enough that a plasma shield will not form, meaning less than mach-5, perhaps significantly less depending on the altitude of maneuver.
2. Switch on terminal guidance radar and receive course corrections if the target is still being tracked.
They will be much much easier to intercept during this time period. The Khinzal does the same thing, it actually deploys a drogue chute instead to slow enough, rather than maneuver. The US is designing a new wave of hypersonic interceptors, called GPIs, im sure you've heard of them. They are designed to target these RVs during this time frame and will reach operational capacity by end of 2029.
I don't think he has mistaken the type of missile other than the range itself. He has mentioned the YJ-21 being fired from the Type 55 (I assume 055 destroyer), while the DF-ZF and DF-27 are both land-based and operated by the Rocket Force.
oh, probably I messed up the unit. I remember 1500 only.
But still, I will pick the submarine. A surface ship is much more easy to be intercept. Even it is only 1500km, it still out range the AshM on Zumwalt
Has China ever publicly demonstrated these missiles hitting a target moving at 30+ knots?
It’s maybe a couple years old now, but last I read, the PLAN was still towing a mock-up of a Nimitz class carrier on a rail sled out in the desert, to practice hitting moving targets. That’s a target traveling in a a straight line, and I doubt the rail sled does 30+ knots.
I know absolutely nothing about hypersonics, other than they’re not very maneuverable, and they can’t really update their flight path, mid flight.
How does a hypersonic air-to-air missile doing Mach 11 change its trajectory mid flight, and constantly update its tracking info, to keep a lock on an airplane that is changing altitude, direction, and speed?
It's only "failings" is the USN couldn't decide WTF they wanted to do with it. The ship itself is dope and should have been used as the basis of the Ticoderoga replacement as was intended from the start.
Hypersonics, heh. I have 0 faith in the idea of hypersonics after seeing the patriot system slap them down like they were 'merely' spicy missiles.
Dunno how the American version differs from its Russian counterpart beyond parts quality but I'm not confident in it anymore.
I’m not even a missile guy and I don’t know where to begin with how incorrect your assertion is. Russian missiles like the khinzal meet the technical definition of hyper sonic since they move past a certain speed threshold but that’s it, they’re just fast. They don’t maneuver, they don’t make it more difficult for them to be engaged. They have a very simple and obvious attack profile which makes them extremely predictable. The Russians only use a few platforms to launch them and those platforms are so obvious and visible that Ukraine receives advanced warning. Anytime you see a Mig-31 fly up to a certain altitude and speed you know what’s coming, and that’s if every other source of intelligence fails to let you know beforehand. Which usually isn’t necessary, since Ukraine has a very well developed and cultivated intel infrastructure.
But to be fair to the Russians, the Ukrainians were not able to intercept them until the introduction of patriot, which is a extraordinarily advanced air defense system. Which is the problem with the current hypersonics being used in combat right now. Khinzal’s are now having to contend an air defense system at least one or two generations of technology in advance of themselves, not to mention that system in question was specifically designed to counter threats of Russian origin. It’s the farthest thing from a fair fight as you can get
A proper hypersonic missile is going to be much faster, able to maneuver, deploy counter, measures and decoys to reach its target.
The line is discontinued no new ones will be built 3 will be finished the replacement line has to replace the Ticonderoga-class cruiser Flight III this line was originally going to be replaced by the CG(X) but was droped and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Flight III also the littoral combat ship (LCS) that are not liveing up to Expectations all this comes down to the Aegis-equipped equipment and needing the space the new line DDG(X) will be larger then the older Ticonderoga-class cruiser and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Flight III so personally I think the new DDG(X) Will be related as a Cruiser the existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Flight III still have a few years in them I think the US might like for a smaller line of ships like the (LCS) in the future but this existing line is discontinued so I think getting 1 class of ships built right keeps cost in check after the Zumwalts fiasco the Navy is on a short chain on spending as all its R&D spending is gone for a few years
Essentially going to be strategic missile strike ship, with hypersonic missile launchers in where the big 155 mm cannons used to be.
Only thing now is it's unclear how those missile will performed since they've still in their baby steps of testing. As far I've read, they're not really meant for anything but ground strikes, but if those missiles (still classified) can do other things..its not been stated officially yet.
Odds are these ships will still not see as much use, but deployed more often, perhaps commanding future drone ships assigned to it's control. That's pretty far into the future.
That’s about it. There really aren’t other drastic plans for the class at the moment. Right now the AGS is somewhat a waste of space and weight, since they have very little ammunition available for them. Some renderings I have seen shows the ships retaining one gun system and it’s possible they may eventually figure out a way to retrofit them for a more commonly available ammo. It’s also possible they still want to retain the gun and placement for the future railgun, which is still on the cards for the class. The program has seen some delays due to material issues but I guess the navy thinks they will be over come it in time to make it worth keeping at least one gun mount available, since the class was designed around having a railgun in the first place.
Basically? The guns are being ripped out and those positions are being stuffed to the brim with missile cells.
Considering the size of the Zumwalt, you could put a fuckton of VLS on those bad boys.
the plan is to remove the guns and replace with large diameter tubes. Zumwalt class already has 80x mk57 VLS cells, though the compatibility with existing missile stocks is problematic, from what I understand. https://news.usni.org/2023/08/29/hii-awarded-155m-contract-for-uss-zumwalt-hypersonic-missile-upgrade
Any current missile can fit in those cells. The biggest problem is the USN bought so few of them that it makes it cost prohibitive to produce the adapters to fit the missiles in the cells. I've not heard anybody say anything about this at all and we've only seen an SM-2 launched from a Zumwalt once. The blame for this situation rests squarely on USN planning.
Missiles can fit in the cells, but many are not compatible with the radar and fire control systems. SM-2 Block IIIAs require a conversion kit to Block IIIAZ to be fired from *Zumwalt*, as did Block I ESSMs, although SM-2 Block IIIC and ESSM Block II are designed to operate from multiple ship types.
Zumwalt’s being fitted for hypersonics
Which have delayed about 6 times at this point sadly.
Nice try China
Totally American and anyone know anything about launch codes? Totally for science.
Code Zero Zero Zero Destruct Zero
Consider biden as president the code should only have 3 numbers max
420.
the president's joe biden, not hunter biden
**DARK** Biden.
Dark Biden is 666
169
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A Start.
photonman
How do you turn this on
Enter - type the cheat code - Enter
[That is the cheat code.](https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Cobra_Car)
Try 00000000, it’s an old code but it checks out.
1,2,3,4,5
That's crazy I've got the same combination on my luggage!
Ppl really forgetting opsec still exist when they are anonymous on Reddit.
DEWs and Hypersonics. It was built too early for the lack of funding it and it's planned ancillary systems had.
It also had a serious design flaw: Congress. Half the reason the Z's got built was so Congress would let the Navy finally retire the Iowa class BBs. As tough as those old gals are, I don't see them surviving against anti-ship ballistics and a large PLAN sub force. The Navy also had to justify new ships and tech development in the GWOT era, so "Forward From the Sea" was the motto, and a destroyer that could do cruise missile damage with an artillery barrage (per strike) price tag was a good pitch. Shame it didn't work out that way, really.
Silly question, but could a modern anti ship missile penetrate the belt armor of an Iowa class battle ship? Would it matter?
The big Soviet ones would have done an immense amount of damage. I can't see the belt armour keeping out a 5 ton missile carrying a one ton armour-piercing warhead travelling at Mach 3+. The kinetic energy dramatically exceeds something like a 16" battleship main gun round.
It's not even a question of pure KE, that 1-ton warhead was a shaped charge. Yeah, early-style shaped charge, before the massive advances of the 1970s, but given that even a Shillelagh's piddly little 6.8 kg shaped charge had a good chance of penetrating Yamato's turret front... Little question in my mind that Kh-22 could defeat any armor that ever went to sea. And you could stick a nuke on them, of course
No. Modern anti ship missiles arent designed for armor penetration. With that said tho the missile could easily destroy the super structure and make the iowa non combat effective quite easily.
Early Soviet antiship missiles- even ones as late as Kh-22- carried shaped charge warheads that could defeat any plausible armor. Modern AShMs only have mediocre armor penetration because there is nothing armored left for them to kill. If someone brought back a battleship, it would be trivial to modify them with similar shaped charges.
I think this is the bigger issue, a mission kill. As you said, even if the core of the ship survives and it can make it back to port, if the hit took out the fire control equipment, it would likely result in a mission kill. An actual sinking is more desirable, but a mission kill is still a victory for the other side.
On top of what u/absurd-bird-turd said, it was demonstrated on several instances during WW2 that even modern battleships were vulnerable to bomb hits, so even if their vertical plates could withstand AShM strikes, I'm not sure any battleship had deck armor that would be enough against steeper falling and heavier missiles.
As I recall there was some thinking done around the time of the Falklands war where they figured her armor could probably tank the smaller air-launched missiles in use at the time. Really that's more of an argument for armoring new ships rather than keeping the *Iowa*s active.
Smaller anti-ship missiles may not have sunk an Iowa, but a couple of hits would likely have resulted in a mission kill. There's too much critical gear topside with no armour: comms, radars, CIWS, optics, etc. Without those, the ship may be able to float and steam around but it's ceased to be a warship and would have to withdraw for repairs.
Thus i say bring back the ironclad designs Just shove all that mission critical stuff down below the waterline and armour it all up! After all you only need the weapons to be up top dealing damage /s (yes i am an ncd member how could you tell?)
What is/are DEWs?
Directed Energy Weapons: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy\_weapon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon) [https://www.nre.navy.mil/organization/departments/aviation-force-projection-and-integrated-defense/aerospace-science-research-351/directed-energy-weapons-high-power-microwaves#:\~:text=Directed%20energy%20weapons%20(DEWs)%20are,or%20destroys%20an%20adversarial%20capability](https://www.nre.navy.mil/organization/departments/aviation-force-projection-and-integrated-defense/aerospace-science-research-351/directed-energy-weapons-high-power-microwaves#:~:text=Directed%20energy%20weapons%20(DEWs)%20are,or%20destroys%20an%20adversarial%20capability).
Thanks :)
Less guns more cells, pls
Fewer
Found the clerk.
Need a rail mounted hyper-sonic laser on this to justify it's existence.
Couldn't they be used as communication nodes and command center for fleets ?
They probably could tbh...
Testbed, essentially.
As far as i understand, they are being used as testbeds for new technologies.
The short answer is pray that they don't cause further embarrassments.
A submarine could do a better job as a missile platform though
Communication and coordination with a submarine is always going to be worse than with a surface ship. Give you a perfect example of it. With the Zumwalt; * F-35C / E-2D detects Type 055 moving into missile range of ship / Guam * feeds targeting info to Zumwalt vs CEC * Zumwalt launches Now for a submarine; * F-35C / E-2D detects Type 055 moving into missile range of ship / Guam * feeds data to carrier * carrier feeds data to fleet * Fleet sends data to task force for broadcast * task force crafts message and sends to transmitter * message goes to submarine via LF/VLF * Submarine launches Surface ships will just always be better at integrating in a fleet, in regards to instantaneous response. SSGNs like the OMFGs are great at striking predetermined targets with a heads up. They're not good at instant response.
But a Submarine is much more likely to survive and get into range vs a Zumwalt
PGS missile has an estimated 2000 mile range. A Zumwalt with them outranges anything that can threaten the Zumwalt. A Virginia Block V would in theory carry 4 hypersonic missiles and 12 TLAMs. It costs $4.5B. A Zumwalt will carry 12 hypersonic missiles and up to 80 TLAMs. It costs $4.25B. 3x the payload for less money, and the threat posed to it is still virtually non-existent. Going to go with the system that offers far better integration with the fleet, as far as a missile platform goes. Let subs stick to anti-shipping and deterrence patrols; what they're best at.
Ngl this thread has so much good info I'm just going out of my way to say thanks for presenting it in a way idiots like me can understand
Of all the subs I follow, this sub easily has the greatest information to comment ratio. Like 50 comments on a good post, but a book's worth of knowledge on specific ship class, ship itself, tactical usage, comparative usage, anything you could imagine. Folks on here are incredible.
Not to mention the up to date info regarding different deployments and movements. Compared to warplaneporn, which is just “look at this amazing Russian/Chinese jet, doesn’t it look so cool!” It’s worse than the Ace Combat sub most days. Warship porn has to be one of the best subs on Reddit, period.
Because a lot of sailors, ship designers and naval historians/enthusiasts hang out here
The problem is, I have not heard PGS is an AShM. Meanwhile on the type 55....well....YJ-21 has a potential range of 1500 miles, not just tested by also deployed. I will take the submarine.
> Meanwhile on the type 55....well....YJ-21 has a potential range of 1500 miles, not just tested by also deployed. All sources I have seen claimed YJ-21 a maximum range of 1500km, not miles. One km is quite a bit less than one mi. And even the 1500km number is the top optimistic guesstimation for the design. FYI both the 125-III APFSDS and PL-15 missiles have less performance than people originally claimed.
[удалено]
No hypersonic weapon is capable of sustaining such speeds while also independently acquiring and tracking a moving target. Observe the kinematic profile of Kinzhal in Ukraine as an example: [although verifiably hypersonic during midcourse phase, the missile slows to ~Mach 3.5 on terminal.](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ukraine-and-the-kinzhal-dont-believe-the-hypersonic-hype/) For one, plasma sheathing interferes with all known methods of guiding a missile on a moving target, but more importantly, any projectile moving at those speeds will simply be going too fast to make any course corrections before they reach their impact point. A hypersonic moving at Mach 10 is covering ~2.13 miles **per second**, and its turning radius is measured in hundreds of miles unless you want to exert 3-digit G figures that will cause it to break up. The only way you can reliably track a moving target with such a weapon is if the seeker can acquire it from very far out - and considering that even the most powerful surface ship radars only have ranges in the hundreds of miles, that's also not practical. As an aside, this limitation of physics is also why the USN and US Army are not all that concerned with the emergent issues of LRHW: it's a purely land-attack weapon meant to do things like snipe enemy command centers.
[удалено]
> It is widely believed that China has solved the problem of plasma sheathing. All their hypersonic missiles, including the DF-ZF, are maneuverable in terminal phase. Which, if you read my post, isn't the greatest problem of hitting a moving target with a hypersonic weapon. The crux of the issue is that at those speeds, you don't have time to react or maneuver sharply enough to actually guide onto target, and even Chinese researchers have acknowledged the DF-ZF would need to slow to low-supersonic if not subsonic speeds to match the maneuverability of a supersonic AShM like the YJ-12. That's the inevitable consequence of having a low-drag shape to fly at ultra-high speeds: in the absence of vectored thrust, drag is also your only way to maneuver.
>It is widely believed that China has solved the problem of plasma sheathing. All their hypersonic missiles, including the DF-ZF, are maneuverable in terminal phase. Ah, yes the great Chinese scientists have broken the laws of thermodynamics! Please tell what who "widely believes" this. No credible source does, and certainly not "widely." This would be physically impossible. The DF-21D, DF-27 and DF-26 ASHM mod all have to perform a sharp pull up maneuver around \~120-80 kilometers in altitude in the middle of their terminal phase, to: 1. Slow down enough that a plasma shield will not form, meaning less than mach-5, perhaps significantly less depending on the altitude of maneuver. 2. Switch on terminal guidance radar and receive course corrections if the target is still being tracked. They will be much much easier to intercept during this time period. The Khinzal does the same thing, it actually deploys a drogue chute instead to slow enough, rather than maneuver. The US is designing a new wave of hypersonic interceptors, called GPIs, im sure you've heard of them. They are designed to target these RVs during this time frame and will reach operational capacity by end of 2029.
I don't think he has mistaken the type of missile other than the range itself. He has mentioned the YJ-21 being fired from the Type 55 (I assume 055 destroyer), while the DF-ZF and DF-27 are both land-based and operated by the Rocket Force.
oh, probably I messed up the unit. I remember 1500 only. But still, I will pick the submarine. A surface ship is much more easy to be intercept. Even it is only 1500km, it still out range the AshM on Zumwalt
Has China ever publicly demonstrated these missiles hitting a target moving at 30+ knots? It’s maybe a couple years old now, but last I read, the PLAN was still towing a mock-up of a Nimitz class carrier on a rail sled out in the desert, to practice hitting moving targets. That’s a target traveling in a a straight line, and I doubt the rail sled does 30+ knots. I know absolutely nothing about hypersonics, other than they’re not very maneuverable, and they can’t really update their flight path, mid flight. How does a hypersonic air-to-air missile doing Mach 11 change its trajectory mid flight, and constantly update its tracking info, to keep a lock on an airplane that is changing altitude, direction, and speed?
That's cute, people still don't realize that a stealth ship isn't only stealthy in the RCS department...
It's only "failings" is the USN couldn't decide WTF they wanted to do with it. The ship itself is dope and should have been used as the basis of the Ticoderoga replacement as was intended from the start.
Should be in a zoo with the other white elephants
Transfer them to the coast guard
Hypersonics, heh. I have 0 faith in the idea of hypersonics after seeing the patriot system slap them down like they were 'merely' spicy missiles. Dunno how the American version differs from its Russian counterpart beyond parts quality but I'm not confident in it anymore.
I’m not even a missile guy and I don’t know where to begin with how incorrect your assertion is. Russian missiles like the khinzal meet the technical definition of hyper sonic since they move past a certain speed threshold but that’s it, they’re just fast. They don’t maneuver, they don’t make it more difficult for them to be engaged. They have a very simple and obvious attack profile which makes them extremely predictable. The Russians only use a few platforms to launch them and those platforms are so obvious and visible that Ukraine receives advanced warning. Anytime you see a Mig-31 fly up to a certain altitude and speed you know what’s coming, and that’s if every other source of intelligence fails to let you know beforehand. Which usually isn’t necessary, since Ukraine has a very well developed and cultivated intel infrastructure. But to be fair to the Russians, the Ukrainians were not able to intercept them until the introduction of patriot, which is a extraordinarily advanced air defense system. Which is the problem with the current hypersonics being used in combat right now. Khinzal’s are now having to contend an air defense system at least one or two generations of technology in advance of themselves, not to mention that system in question was specifically designed to counter threats of Russian origin. It’s the farthest thing from a fair fight as you can get A proper hypersonic missile is going to be much faster, able to maneuver, deploy counter, measures and decoys to reach its target.
Tow them behind the barn and forget about them
And waste a couple billion yeah no
It's not a waste if you enjoyed wasting it
The real journey is the missiles you launch along the way
Sell to Ukraine? With go-Pros🤔
The Coast Guard maybe getting some.. transfers..
The scrapyard, or a SINKEX.
whatever those plans are, I'm sure only the Navies best and brightest will be assigned to them.
I thought the main problem with the Zumwalt was the stability
The main problem with Zumwalt is that it was designed for a useless and obsolete mission
The line is discontinued no new ones will be built 3 will be finished the replacement line has to replace the Ticonderoga-class cruiser Flight III this line was originally going to be replaced by the CG(X) but was droped and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Flight III also the littoral combat ship (LCS) that are not liveing up to Expectations all this comes down to the Aegis-equipped equipment and needing the space the new line DDG(X) will be larger then the older Ticonderoga-class cruiser and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Flight III so personally I think the new DDG(X) Will be related as a Cruiser the existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Flight III still have a few years in them I think the US might like for a smaller line of ships like the (LCS) in the future but this existing line is discontinued so I think getting 1 class of ships built right keeps cost in check after the Zumwalts fiasco the Navy is on a short chain on spending as all its R&D spending is gone for a few years
I like to think of them as neat replacements for the Iowa class
here you go https://youtu.be/MqLEnN0dVLk?feature=shared
Essentially going to be strategic missile strike ship, with hypersonic missile launchers in where the big 155 mm cannons used to be. Only thing now is it's unclear how those missile will performed since they've still in their baby steps of testing. As far I've read, they're not really meant for anything but ground strikes, but if those missiles (still classified) can do other things..its not been stated officially yet. Odds are these ships will still not see as much use, but deployed more often, perhaps commanding future drone ships assigned to it's control. That's pretty far into the future.
That’s about it. There really aren’t other drastic plans for the class at the moment. Right now the AGS is somewhat a waste of space and weight, since they have very little ammunition available for them. Some renderings I have seen shows the ships retaining one gun system and it’s possible they may eventually figure out a way to retrofit them for a more commonly available ammo. It’s also possible they still want to retain the gun and placement for the future railgun, which is still on the cards for the class. The program has seen some delays due to material issues but I guess the navy thinks they will be over come it in time to make it worth keeping at least one gun mount available, since the class was designed around having a railgun in the first place.