What about Navy's Stealth Destroyer - the Zumwalt

Arsenal Ship vs Zumwalt

BTW this is how the initial idea was suppose to work,...a semi submersible or low profile arsenal ship patrolling the shores of hostile nations with a barge of anti-missiles that could track right up the tailpipe of anything launched against the US. Much more effective than trying to hit the opposing missile head on.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/arsenal-ship-usn-46643.html#post786926

 

The only stealth ship is submarine. When you look at cost of this thing, I would rather have more and better subs. Surface ships will all be sunk in a war by missles from planes or subs, and new drones.

 

I agree. Except a aircraft carrier protected by an armada of ships and planes, with an exclusion zone of more than 600 miles around, plus a surveillance zone of more than 1000 miles, the survival of a surface ship in front of missiles is close to zero.
Stealth surface ships are as visible as a syphilitic boil on the nose of the bride before the ceremony.
You can hear them at 30 miles with a good microphone as they are noisier than an heavy metal rock band because of the engines and propeller, their magnetic signature is enormous, the wake is visible from miles specially at night, the infrared signature is big,etc... And they are too big and too high to be able to disappear from a radar screen, yes the radar signature is smaller but every navy has now the good soft to interpret this kind of distorted signature. Surely there is now somewhere a freeware able to do the job.
In front of an third world aviation with exocets, the capacity of survival of a solitary frigate is close to zero within the next 24 hours. Even in a group its chances are not better as illustrated by the loss of the Sheffield during the Falkland war.
A good pilot flying a jet trainer like the Yak 130 or Aermacchi M-348 with 2 Exocets M39 can disable a destroyer or a frigate. A group of 2 or 3 jets will fly at 80 feet above the sea level, making a small plane virtually undetectable even by an AWAC flying 30000 feet above.
The lone risk for the pilots is when they have to make a brief jump (less than 10 seconds, 5 seconds for a trained pilot) to 600 feet high to get by radar the exact position and speed of the ship. At 40 miles no ship can be hidden from a military radar.
They introduce the data in the missiles and fire at 30 miles from the ship. End of the story. The frigate has never seen in its radars the planes but it's disabled now with dozens of dead sailors and burning...
I have been said by former colleagues that the simulations gave to a group of 3 Yak 130 with 6 missiles a success rate of 85% at least against a destroyer or a frigate. It's shooting in a barrel.
And now we have the cheap drones...
It seems for me that all the blah blah about stealth frigates is an operation of the militaro-industrial complex to get money from the taxpayer.

 

Agreed, its the language that all the contractors utilize up on the hill of Congress. That language plus the political contributions.

 

That arsenal ship was a much better idea.

 

Littoral Ship debackle

This littoral ship selection process is another fine example of bull__.

The trimaran version is so much more superior in overall capabilities that you have to ask why there is such a big deal about making a final selection for one type over another.

The problem is the lesser capable vessel is a product of Lockheed corp. They have probable the absolute strongest lobby in DC, so they get a lot of contracts with just this capability,....not necessarily on the merits of the product itself.

 

I have been said by former colleagues that the simulations gave to a group of 3 Yak 130 with 6 missiles a success rate of 85% at least against a destroyer or a frigate. It's shooting in a barrel.
And now we have the cheap drones...
It seems for me that all the blah blah about stealth frigates is an operation of the militaro-industrial complex to get money from the taxpayer.[/QUOTE]
That is interesting but perhaps some what dated data? Ships defense include radar jamming capability against incoming missiles and a phalanx antimissile gun these days? Radar capability has advanced considerably in 30 yrs also since the Falkland incident.

 

When you see these things up close, it is extremely difficult to find the bang for the buck in them. Scuttlebutt about sea keeping from sea trial is not reassuring either. As one who served on a Gearing class "Tin Can" destroyer, I wish they had called them something else. Crew on Zumwalts are enclosed just like in a Boomer under the sea.

A would be political novice says we don't spend enough on the military. We love to swat a flies with barn doors. Such as a B52 flying thousands of miles to drop bombs on vegetation.

I sincerely hope there is more to the Zumwalts than is visible to us. Maybe the assigned task is to cruise in the Sea Of Japan (or as Koreans call it, The Eastern Sea) and knock out anything hostile coming out of N. Korea.

 

Semi Submersible Arsenal Ship

That task could be accomplished with two arsenal ships that were rotating duty,...one off, one on duty at any one time. The off duty one could be close at hand in Japan.

I say semi-submerssible,.... Imagine such a vessel that was not totally a submarine, but rather floated so low in the water that just the 'coning tower' stuck out above the water surface,....decks awash most of the time. It would really present a minimal 'signature' to detection. It could be diesel-electric powered and loiter for days on end. It doesn't need great speed, or even great maneuverability. And it doesn't need a big crew. (perhaps it could be disguised as an iceberg....ha...ha)

It could be armed with multiple non-nuclear missiles designed specifically to run up the tailpipes of any ICBM launched in that part of the world. It would likely have an effectiveness of 100% in that mode.

Think of how much more effective, and far less expensive that would be compared to that giant anti missile system 'shield' they built up in Alaska

 

That is interesting but perhaps some what dated data? Ships defence include radar jamming capability against incoming missiles and a phalanx antimissile gun these days? Radar capability has advanced considerably in 30 yrs also since the Falkland incident.
I have no data, that was an informal conversation with former colleagues on 2014. There is nothing secret, NATO is very worried about these "cheap" small jet multipurpose fighters (in fact trainers) armed with also "cheap" missiles, able to fly rather fast at very low altitude.
Cheap missiles are immune to electronic countermeasures as they use an inertial system guidance programmed just before firing, and infrared, laser and magnetic sensors when close enough. A ship is unable to move fast enough to escape to a missile.
Radars are unable to reliably spot a fast "small" plane or an exocet skimming just over the waves, even in 2016. And no anti missile system on a ship is able to see, lock, calculate the trajectories and finally fire to destroy 3 missiles arriving at the same time at 600 mph just 15 feet over the top of the waves.
When a "skimming" missile is "seen", it's too late...Most of the blah blah about anti missiles systems on ships is bulls*** at present day. They work only on missiles arriving from "high" altitude with predictable trajectories.
The worst is that the total price of the planes and missiles is nothing compared to the price of a frigate...
You have the same problem with the tanks. No tank is able to survive to the coordinated attack of 3 teams of foot (and some times barefoot) soldiers equipped of anti tank missiles, which are indecently cheap compared to the price of a tank. The active shield will work for the first, maybe the second missile but not to the third one as there is no more active shield. In mountain or in rugged land a tank is doomed by a few decided guys who have the right tool for opening the can.
Most of the advertisings made by the militaro industrial complex are as reliable as the promises of a politician...Do not believe all the bulls*** posted in the news and You Tube. Most of the military videos uploaded in You Tube are pure poetry.

 

Ilan Voyager,

I doubt much has changed in the way we look at military hardware in the many years since I was involved with it. Major changes in the hardware itself but not in the way it is put before the public. The complete absence of how people think and act generally guarantees that most are always misled. Everything works perfectly well until it is actually used and then, not so much as unforeseen glitches appear. No single complex weapons system has ever performed as advertised out of the box.

As for hiding in the Eastern or Yellow Sea, that is someone else's lake and they have it pretty well covered. Entrances and exits are very limited in all directions. I seriously doubt that a Zumwalt or any other surface vessel could escape a concerted attack by a swarm of relatively cheap low flying cruise missiles or even maned aircraft. The one thing I feared above all else operating off that coast in 1951 - 52 was that the N. Koreans might commit a few Migs to attack a destroyer when isolated like mine often was. We might have put up a fight but we would have been severely damaged or sunk.

 

It is all about number send several dozen drones or missiles, any ship is dead. This is not beyond the capability of many countries, and it is cheaper than trying to defend against them. Or it can be one lone pilot/missile flying real low. Technology has changed the whole concept of war, but we are still fighting like WWII.

 

That you said remains very true on 2016, and the informed guys know that.
A "skimming" very stealth missile able to damage seriously a frigate or a destroyer costs less than 200 K bucks. The price of a luxury car. It weights only 650 kg with a charge of 140 kg of explosives. The missile pierces the hull and the charge explodes inside. It can fly 150 miles at 600 mph, and it's very effective at 30 miles. Any plane able to take off with a load of 650 kg can use it. Add a decided pilot, and a little luck like a fog over the sea and that can hurt badly.
The manual is far simpler than the Windows 10 manual...So 200K dollars sinks a half billion ship with no big problem. A lonely surface ship is a sitting duck.
Tanks have the same problem. A cousin of mine, officer in the French Cavalry, told me half jokingly, that rabbit's feet, horseshoes, crosses, salt, pieces of wood and monkey's skins should be standard equipment in tanks in case of real conflict in front of well equipped decided guys. As he told me, before you needed a big gun and 10 servant guys, plus the trucks and all the logistics to stop a tank, now 2 barefoot guys with a good missile bazooka can open a 50 millions bucks tank like a beans can.

 

Not very reliable the floating thing....Lots a problems and the Zum broke down at Panama Canal.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...pensive-destroyer-breaks-down-in-panama-canal

 

Shaft freezing, water intrusion via seals, both engines dead. Sounds like a lemon.