Legit question now that this thing is active. Is it actually

define your terms

>>31710763
What is a "meme" in your eyes? Genuine question

File: Type-45 Destroyer.jpg (2MB, 2048x1340px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1340px

>>31710850
>>31710862
Well I mean besides it's stealth capabilities and new gun system what sets it apart from other destroyers considering the price tag? It's literally more than twice as expensive as a Type-45 destroyer.

It >should be more combat effective than a Burke.

It should be stealthy as fuck.

It has slightly less VLS cells but they are more spread out so one hit can't take out half the tubes like could happen on a Burke.

Its supposedly got amazing naval artillery guns and shells that can reach out nearly a hundred miles.

It doesn't have enough close in guns like M2s though

Needs more rockets.

>>31710993
Open architecture, all electric, huge power generation capabilities, tons of automation to reduce crew size, etc.

>>31710993

>what sets it apart from other destroyers considering

1. It's fucking huge
2. It has an innovative hull shape that allows it to run quieter, smoother, and faster than other destroyers
3. It has a super-powerful generator for powering all kinds of advanced systems
4. It has two 6-in guns whereas most destroyers have one 5-in gun.
5. It has larger aviation facilities than most destroyers (mostly because the ship itself is so big)
6. It has larger VLS cells which could potentially be used to develop more powerful missiles
7. It has the best CIWS ever devised in the form of two dual-purpose 57mm guns in addition to the 155mm guns already mentioned
8. It has the RCS of a small fishing boat
9. It is highly automated and has a small crew for its size, so each crew member gets more personnel space and a higher quality of life
10. The Captain is James Kirk

>>31711128
>It has the best CIWS ever devised in the form of two dual-purpose 57mm guns in addition to the 155mm guns already mentioned

They're 30mm.

>>31710763
Since they cancelled all but three of them, it's expensive for what we got. Also where in locust point did this get commissioned? I'm right next to the BFD repair station and didn't see shit all weekend for it.

>>31711193
wasn't that the LCS

>>31711217
The LCS has a 57mm main guns, and its surface package has 2 30mm guns.

The Zumwalt was originally going to carry 2 57mms, but this was swapped for 2 30mms.

>>31710993
Part of the reason the three are so damn expensive is that the planned run of them got cut down, however navy and pentagon are going to make the most of them thanks to some modular stuff they did with some of the radar and missile components which allows them to more easily use them as test beds for incoming new tech so that way when the next round of destroyer replacements are getting made we're not fitting them with untested tech.

At least that's the plan anyway.

>>31711193
pretty sure the LCS were the ones with 30mm.

>>31711217
>>31711279
The Zumwalt got changed to two 30mms.

>>31711290
Well shit.... Eh I guess when it comes to CIWS it's not really a matter of size of projectile but more volume of shit going out than anything else.

>>31711317
The 30mm guns are just Bushmasters, completely incapable of the CIWS role.

It needs a pair of SeaRAM.

Can someone explain why it's better than a Arleigh Burke? Is getting rid of the Ticonderoga without a direct replacement a good idea? Genuine question, I honestly don't know.

>>31711332
Direct replacement is planned to be Flight III Burkes.

Though the last of the Ticos won't be gone until the early 2040s most likely, so we'll probably see the beginning of a new cruiser class by then.

>>31711332
The distinction between cruisers (Ticos) and Destroyers (Burkes) is basically bullshit. They're effectively the same thing these days.

>>31711330

>It needs a pair of SeaRAM.

It needs a pair of 57mm as intended.

>>31711356
Big difference is that the Tico has the room to carry the command staff for an air combat group.

Part of the upgrades the Flight III Burke will have is the systems required to allow them to take that role if need be, though it's planned for there to still be enough Ticos for all the carrier groups for a long time.

>>31711332
There was supposed to be a cruiser variant of the Zumwalt built, like how the Ticos were based off the Spruance hulls. It was cancelled.

>>31710763
>>31710763

Can the 6-in guns be used against aircraft?

>>31711406
Maybe in theory, but the guns (which are 155mm, not 6") have no ammo capable of doing so.

>>31711356
Besides this,>>31711377
Ticos also have more missiles, guns and bigger crew complement.

>>31710763
I wish they gave it a more martial/epic name. 50 years from now, historians will call warships pre-Zumwalt the same way they called pre-Dreadnoughts obsolete.

>>31711406

It has 80 VLS cells for anti aircraft missiles.

>>31711128
>Best CIWS
>Fucking guns, 2 of which have an RPM of 10 (ten)
It's a straight downgrade from a Burke champ. I don't see any RAM or Phalanx.

>>31712451

http://www.military.com/video/guns/naval-guns/57-mm-mk-110-naval-gun-system/909568793001

I honestly can't believe that you just cited Phalanx as a positive. It's the worst CIWS ever devised.

>>31711128

>7. It has the best CIWS ever devised

Where has this sudden rush of "57mm best CIWS eva" thing come from? It's a handy anti-air device, but it's hardly the best around. RAM/SeaRAM, the Oto Melara 76mm with DART. There is better out there. I'm not even sure if the 57 has the sort of "automated fast response" that Phalanx, Goalkeeper or SeaRAM do.

>>31712544

>the Oto Melara 76mm with DART.

Literally half the rate of fire.

>RAM/SeaRAM

For ships with limited space, this is a very good option, but it doesn't have the sustained firepower of the 57mm bofors.

>>31712501
It's certainly better than bushmasters and the AGS at rapid engagement. What the fuck is the AGS going to do? Plink with LRLAPS?

Also stop shilling this 57mm shit. The Zumwalt doesn't fucking have them, look at a photo of it sometime.

>>31712578

>Literally half the rate of fire.
>but it doesn't have the sustained firepower of the 57mm bofors.

They both have notable greater reach, power per round, more advanced radar for tracking and in the SeaRAM/RAM's case, much greater accuracy and persistent ongoing protection, one launch, next target.

Simply "hurr it fires more bullets" isn't the only thing that matters, otherwise the basic Phalanx would be the best in the world.

>>31712544
The 57mm Bofors sends out more mass per second than any other naval autocannon. And 3P is neat.

I still dont get why they didnt go for the stealth variant tho.

A 76mm gun is however probably more versitile

>>31712657
>They both have notable greater reach, power per round, more advanced radar for tracking

None of this is actually true when comparing the Bofors to the Oto Malera.

>>31712731

It has a great capability, but it is also at shorter ranges than other options, that will fire earlier, hit more and in SeaRAM's case have vastly greater reliability in knowing whats going to happen for a kill.

Basically, the 57mm is a great medium gun, but the whole recent trend of BEST ANTI AIR WEAPON EVER is a little ridiculous.

File: Capture.png (360KB, 882x421px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 882x421px

>>31712603

>The Zumwalt doesn't fucking have them, look at a photo of it sometime.

It should.

>>31712657

>Simply "hurr it fires more bullets" isn't the only thing that matters, otherwise the basic Phalanx would be the best in the world.

220 rounds per minute of 57mm is nothing to shrug at. That's 4580 kilo-joules per second. For quickly engaging multiple fast-moving targets in a short window of time, nothing is better.

>Gun based intercept
Its the 21st century guys, Burke Phalanxs are being replaced by SeaRAM for a reason

>>31712830

I agree on that, its a great gun, but naturally it cant match a missile.

The SeaRAM is cool but looks a bit funky.

>>31712847
Yeah, older Burkes that have yet to be upgraded to use ESSM.

File: 229e02bc6e214ae520683a8ead416038.jpg (30KB, 564x438px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 564x438px

>>31712847

>Burke Phalanxs are being replaced by SeaRAM for a reason

Because Phalanx has always been shit. There are so many other better systems that it is frankly baffling that the US has kept using it for so long. Goalkeeper, Dardo, Kashtan, etc all have better range and stopping power.

>>31712819

Range definitely is. The 57mm's latest guided round, as per the manufacturer's own website, can reach out to 10km.

The 76mm gun can reach almost double that for anti-air. (Four times that for land attack in fact, but thats not the current topic)

>>31712845

I'm not "shrugging" at it, I'm pointing out that the complete orgasm as if it's some sort of anti-air revolution is patently overblown.

If you want rapid engagement of multiple targets at range, then you want a RAM or SeaRAM. If you want reach, shot power and versatility, you go for a 76mm. If you want something quite light that can function as a multipurpose gun while also carrying out a fairly neat anti-air mode, you get the 57mm. If you want something really light to bolt on quickly somewhere, you can get a Phalanx/SeaRAM depending on budget.

They're different tools, but marking the 57mm as GREATEST CIWS EVER DEVISED is just...come on. It reeks of "If I say it enough people will start to all claim it for my country", a severe issue on /k/.

>>31712920

>Because Phalanx has always been shit.

And here we have the opposite side of the spectrum. If it were shit, then no-one would be using it.

Except fucking everyone does and are continuing to order new versions after its proven itself in combat conditions against things even smaller than incoming missiles.

>>31712845
>It should.
Doesn't change the fact that DDG-1000 doesn't have them, making your entire argument fucking pointless.

Zumwalt's CIWS consists of the Bushmasters and AGS meaning it conclusively does not have the best CIWS defences.

>>31710993
The massivw power capacity

R A I L
G
U
N

>>31712935
>The 76mm gun can reach almost double that for anti-air. (Four times that for land attack in fact, but thats not the current topic)

At 20 km I doubth that a gun is a useful AA weapon, the flighttime of the projectile is so long that the target will probably have changed course.

That being said more range is always nice and never anything negative.

40 km sounds far for a 76mm gun with conventional ammunition. Are you sure thats not assisted ammunition?

>>31712937

The Zumwalt was always intended to have two 57mm guns for CIWS. They only got removed from the design to save money at the last minute after the Zumwalt buy was cut to three. The true Zumwalt design has 57mm guns.

>>31712935
>Muh mortars
Phalanx has literally never successfully engaged a missile in combat. The only kills it has are from fucking friendly fire

>>31710763
It's a meme ship.

Stealth in Naval Warfare is useless in the era of Satelites, we learned this with Sea Shadown and modern sonars.

Also it's a double meme together with "RailGun new money dump".

>>31713090

Yeah man, as soon as those satellites when up radar became obsolete. Nobody uses radar anymore, so having countermeasures against radar is pointless.

>>31713047
>Last minute
Happened over four fucking years ago now.

Your '''''true''''' Zumwalt design doesn't exist, wake the fuck up. 57mm has been replaced by 30mm for years.

>>31710763

For the same ammount of money you could get something like 200 F-35s.

>>31712935
>Range definitely is. The 57mm's latest guided round, as per the manufacturer's own website, can reach out to 10km.
>The 76mm gun can reach almost double that for anti-air.

The range of 57mm Orca is stated as 10km and the range of 76mm DART is stated as >8km.

>>31713192

>A 15,000 ton ship is more expensive than a 20 ton fighter jet.

Wow, never would have imagined that!

Why exactly were these things cut again? If R&D was spread out like planned (not just fucking three) each ship is actually comparative to estimates for Burke flight 3's. Seems like a waste considering the Burke hull has no growth for the future.

Out of all the procurement bullshit projects this was one that's cut? Seriously?

>2030

>Ticos, fight 50 Burke's, and GLORIOUS LCS's

Fuck everything.

>>31713230

You could also get Arleigh burke class destroyers for the cost of one Zumwalt

File: phalanx 1b.jpg (266KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1280x851px

>>31713085
Your qualifier is intellectually dishonest, no one has gotten a missile close enough to a USN ship to use CIWS in decades.

And despite your whining about mortars, you cannot name another CIWS that has shown the same level of capability.

File: 1396493704705.jpg (115KB, 640x548px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 640x548px

>>31713248

File: slash-and-whine.jpg (107KB, 640x548px)

107KB, 640x548px

>>31713248
Why was the F-22 cut to 180 fighters?

File: rtn_191605.jpg (189KB, 1920x521px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1920x521px

>>31713267

Not really. The next batch of Burkes are going to cost more than just buying more Zumwalts would have costed. Somebody in congress got the notion in their head that they could "save money" by building more of an outdated hull and it backfired.

See >>31713283 for more information.

The worst part is the effect that this will have on missile development. The Standard Missile series has reached the point where they aren't going to be able to improve range much further unless the US navy gets some larger VLS cells to allow for larger missiles. The Zumwalt's Mk.57 launch cells were built to fill this need. But they can't develop new missiles for Mk.57 when there are only three ships with Mk.57 in service. So the next generation of Standard Missiles will be delayed. Not to mention, the Navy now has no way to fill the congressional Naval Gunfire requirement without more Zumwalts.

The Navy needs a ~12,000 ton derivative of the Zumwalt keeping the stealth hull and the electric design, but ditching the AGS and having 100+ Mk 57 cells..

File: 1458702880758.jpg (311KB, 1075x1434px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1075x1434px

>>31713283
>>31713299
I can't even have hope for the future knowing that not even the damn Navy knows what they want. When they finally decide on something it'll be this picture all over again.

>>31713423

I think they could have done it something like the America-class. Build the first four or so Zumwalts with two 155mm guns and then make the rest with just one 155mm more VLS instead. Or do it like with the LCS and have two different versions, one with the guns, the other with just VLS.

>>31713384
All new ships should be flat topped, to enable operation of drones and helicopters, as seen fit/needed.

It's certainly retarded to build smaller burkes that are packed full rather than larger hulls with room to grow.

>>31713657

>All new ships should be flat topped, to enable operation of drones and helicopters, as seen fit/needed.

Every Destroyer and LCS already has a flight deck and aviation hangar.

>Flight IIA already so full they had to delete a Phalanx, Harpoons, and towed sonar array
>Let's try to cram even more stuff into the desgin

>>31713699

>Harpoons

To be fair, Harpoons will soon be obsolete when LRASM enters service in the near future.

>Phalanx

Phalanx was never useful.

>Towed sonar array

Why would they do that? That compromises the entire point of a destroyer.

It is the F-35 of the Navy.

>>31713737
>To be fair, Harpoons will soon be obsolete when LRASM enters service in the near future.
Except Harpoon (and NSM if it gets adopted) launchers give you 8 AShM shots without sacrificing a VLS cell

>Phalanx was never useful.
Yes it was, and it continues to be especially now that the USN can swap out a Phalanx mount for a SeaRAM mount.

>Why would they do that?
Because when you take a ship that's reached the limits of its growth and want to redesign to add a hangar, sacrifices had to be made.

>>31713835
They're adding towed array sonars to them now, so apparently it's not that much of an issue.

File: aegissm-3evolution.png (194KB, 1185x891px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1185x891px

>>31713384
Standard missiles have yet to max out Mk41's though, the new SM-3 Block IIA are nearly twice as big as earlier models.

>>31713699
>Flight IIA already so full they had to delete a Phalanx, Harpoons, and towed sonar array

These were removed as a cost savings, fitted for but not with.

>>31713928
Source?

>>31713902

>Standard missiles have yet to max out Mk41's though

But they will in the not-too-distant future. Larger VLS cells will be necessary to continue their development.

>>31714180
The fact that some Flight IIA's have 2 Phalanx or a towed array.

>>31714456
Name one.

>>31714556
Oscar Austin
Roosevelt
Winston S. Churchill
Lassen
Howard
Bulkeley

>http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130918/101291/HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-GreenertUSNJ-20130918.pdf
>Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combat system upgrades will be installed in all DDG forward homeported in the Western Pacific by 2018, including addition of a Multifunction Towed Array (MFTA) sonar.

You can look up which ships these are yourself.

>>31711208
That's just how stealthy it is

File: 57mm_bofors_76mm_otomalera.jpg (310KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1920x1080px

>>31712935

>>31713699
>a Phalanx
BOTH Phalanxs were removed from the Flight IIAs after >>31714681 because the idea was that ESSM could cover the close range intercepts (of course it turns out ESSM was a bit delayed so the very first CIWS less ships went to sea with nothing but SM-2s, but there you go). The Navy then decided it didn't want to get rid of Phalanx completely, so added back the rear Phalanx. If there was the money you could add the front one back, or swap them for SeaRAM, or all sorts of things, but then if there was the money you could upgrade every Burke to Baseline 9 first.

>>31713694
I'm talking a proper full length flight deck, not a helipad at the back

>>31714699
>They make decisions on what weapons to put on a ship based on fucking spread sheets about "explosives per second"

File: 2986329.png (293KB, 298x405px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 298x405px

>TIE pilots do it without protection

>>31713299
>>31713283
This doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't it just show that the cost per unit increases dramatically as the program goes on, until costs stabilize and you're paying that cost per unit?

>>31711332
Zumwalt is shit, LCS is shit, F35 is shit, Ford is shit, USN is incompetent and shit.

Bring back BuShip

>>31710763

>tumblehome
>AGS
>scrapped sensor systems
>plywood
Good, but also meme.

The FRP class that follows will be much better.

File: 9ddcd284114a5964a170fd43ec418f19cc3c34e3.jpg (19KB, 399x299px)

19KB, 399x299px

>>31710763

It needs at least 5 feet of armour added to it for it to complete its role. A nuclear engine and a new propeller. Gun Tourette s all over. Black helicopter gunships. A pair of torpedo tubes. A rail gun upgrade later, maybe.

>>31716096
The lines are labeled backwards. Switch the labels and it makes sense and is true.

>>31710763
It's a meme, anyone would be suspicious of a fucking fishing boat on the radar in a battlefield.

>>31716987
>anon believes boats paint like little silhouettes and the key objective for the Zumwalt class was for enemy crews to think "Oh look, I can see the itty bitty green returns handling lines and bringing in nets - let's not fire at them"

Child.

>>31716681
>Gun Tourettes

File: agreed.gif (474KB, 220x165px)

474KB, 220x165px

>>31715729
So every ship should be a mini-drone carrier as well as a surface combatant?!
... I like the way you think!

>>31710763
As far as I can tell, the intention is to outfit it with some kind of rail gun. It has a pretty sweet targeting system and can operate in shallow waters.
That's all I know.

>>31717470

BANG BANG BANG BANG ...... nnnnnnnnnnnBANGBANGBANG

>>31710993
This was almost an intelligent question. You should start with that, because "is x a meme" is meaningless, weapons-grade idiocy fit only for shitposting.