Jump to content

New Stealth destroyer is junked - can't use missiles!


Recommended Posts

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/navys-stealth-d.html

5 BILLION per ship, scrapped now.

I have a friend who works in the Beltway Bandit field, and the whole thing is tragic/funny/wasteful to hear about...

"The Navy's most advanced warship is all but defenseless against one of its most common threats. We already knew that the older, cheaper, Burke-class destroyers (pictured) are better able to fight off anti-ship missiles -- widely considered the most deadly (and most obvious) hazard to the American fleet. Specifically, the old Burkes can shoot down those missiles using special SM-3 interceptors; the new DDG-1000 cannot."

What about retrofitting the two ships with these special SM3 interceptor missiles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And can someone explain how a ship with a Raytheon MK57, a Raytheon Dual Band Radar, and with Raytheon as the prime mission systems integrator for all electronic and combat systems, the ship cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile, which of coarse is built by... Raytheon! If there was ever a question for Congressional oversight, I can think of thirteen billion reasons why that would be a good question to add to the list.

That'll leave a mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the ship isn't designed to fire any kind of long-range air-defense missile

sounds like a bit of a disconnect betwen the design team and reality??

Redwolf the "Ballistic anti-ship missile" is probably this:

The new threat, which­ didn't exist a couple years ago, is a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile.

But if it converts to a cruise missile (however improbable that may sound) then what is it about the cruise-missile phase that makes it un-interceptable??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Area air defence was to be the purview of the CG(X). I never really understood the point of the DD(X), and now it will be interesting to see what happens to the CG(X) and CGN(X) families as well. In my opinion, fewer larger and more expensive ships are not necessarily better than more smaller and cheaper ships, especially when the small ships are more effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember covering the DDX way back when for Beyond 2000! IIRC there was some pretty revolutionary concepts aside from the stalth, mainly in the electric drive system. But I haven't followed the project since then.

I know ships have to be designed to counter missile threats, but i was wondering on how many occasions (aside from the Falklands) have anti-ship missiles actually been fired and been successful? I know an Israeli vessel took a hit from something off the coast of Lebanon in 2006, but what else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Israeli ship was sunk in '67 by the Egyptians.

In '73 a couple of Syrian ships were sunk by the Israelis.

The Tanker War in the Gulf.

A US ship was hit by an Iraqi exocet in '87.

The US sank a couple of Iranian ships in '88.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Israeli ship was sunk in '67 by the Egyptians.

The el Mina. I think it was bombed rather than attacked with a missile. However, I see that an Israeli destroyer was sunk by Egyptian fast missile attack boats in the same war. Possibly the first successful ship to ship missile engagement.

In '73 a couple of Syrian ships were sunk by the Israelis..

The Tanker War in the Gulf.

A US ship was hit by an Iraqi exocet in '87.

The US sank a couple of Iranian ships in '88.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The el Mina. I think it was bombed rather than attacked with a missile. However, I see that an Israeli destroyer was sunk by Egyptian fast missile attack boats in the same war. Possibly the first successful ship to ship missile engagement.

lol :)

Yes, in response to a question about ships being sunk by missiles, I was referring to the Israeli ship sunk by Egyptian missiles, not the Egyptian ship sunk by Israeli bombs. Hence the sentence structure ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/navys-stealth-d.html

5 BILLION per ship, scrapped now.

I have a friend who works in the Beltway Bandit field, and the whole thing is tragic/funny/wasteful to hear about...

Hey, this makes our budget snafu at the Census Bureau look like pocket change. Thanks, Navy! :D:D

Anyone familiar with Arthur C. Clarke's story "Superiority" from the collection "Tales of the White Hart"? It's a short story about two civilizations at war who were more or less technologically even when the fighting began. One side began devoting all of their resources to building fantastic wonder weapons - only they were horribly expensive so they couldn't afford many and they never quite worked. The other side simply kept building more and more of their tried and true weapons. The book is about 50 years old and may have been based on Germany's super-duper missiles and airplanes and tanks versus the USSR and the US that just produced floods of everything with generations of upgrades. Anyway this news reminds me of "Superiority" just like the B-2 does and the F-22 does and the JSF does and the Army's Crusader did and the Sgt. York did and the Comanche did and combat robots do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Aff:

Ya, but then how often have M1s, or Challengers, or Leopards, or LeClercs, or Merkavas, ot T-90s faced top-notch enemy armour? Why does the US Army spend so much on ADA when the last time the USAF had to fight for air superiority over it's own ground forces was in ... early 1943? Etc.

Isn't the best cost benefit to be found in defence spending on stuff you never have to use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One side began devoting all of their resources to building fantastic wonder weapons - only they were horribly expensive so they couldn't afford many and they never quite worked.

Mr Picky would note that - based on admittedly suspect memory - the main problem was not so much the cost, but that The Next Great Thing was never quite ready when it was needed. Once started on the spiral, the protagonists found that they were falling further and further behind as the enemy continued to rely on - and win voctories with - Tried And True against an ever dwindling quantity of friendly Tried and True. This mean that the friendlies were "forced" to rely on The Even Better Next Great Thing in order to catch up and then overtake their enemy. And thus they continued to slide down the slippery slope.

It's an amusing tale, written as a quite engaging AAR, and it's relevance to Nazi Germany is obvious. However, any perceived relevance to the US is a bit sdtrained, I think, because the US already has a tremendous military and military technology lead over anyone else - or even over the next 3-or-4 anyone elses combined. The US could certainly spend itself into penury and servitude - and currently appears to be making a pretty damn good attempt at it - but that's a somewhat different mechanism for defeat :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Aff:

Ya, but then how often have M1s, or Challengers, or Leopards, or LeClercs, or Merkavas, ot T-90s faced top-notch enemy armour? Why does the US Army spend so much on ADA when the last time the USAF had to fight for air superiority over it's own ground forces was in ... early 1943? Etc.

Isn't the best cost benefit to be found in defence spending on stuff you never have to use?

Oh I'm not seriously pursuing this line. It was just an idle thought. I guess at least the MBTs were deisgned at a time when they were expecting a big arse armoured battle. The DDX is a post Cold-War concept really.

I think in most countries the navies really have to work harder and harder in justifying their combatant ships. But they seem to be pretty successful! Here in Australia we're sinking billions into an air warfare destroyer that is all geared up to fight the Soviet Pacific fleet from 1982.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realised it was idle ... my comment about cost benefit and stuff you don't use was following down that line :)

Here in Australia we're sinking billions into an air warfare destroyer that is all geared up to fight the Soviet Pacific fleet from 1982.

The good news there is you have a pretty good chance of winning that engagement now :) The current gen of super fighters (F-22, F-35) strike me as being in that same category: so OTT advanced that they are all but guaranteed never to be used in their intended role.

Are the Indos still seen as the strategic bogeyman? They have - or had - a fairly substantial airforce last time I checked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in most countries the navies really have to work harder and harder in justifying their combatant ships. But they seem to be pretty successful! Here in Australia we're sinking billions into an air warfare destroyer that is all geared up to fight the Soviet Pacific fleet from 1982.

India and Spain are building new carriers. If France follows their tradition of maintaining a two-carrier navy they'll add something to supplement de Gaulle. Italy will commission her second next year. I'm sure India could find someone to fight without looking very hard, but who are France, Italy, and Spain going to fight or even deter with these platforms. There's just something about a warship that focuses nationalistic pride into a tangible thing. South American nations are always on the lookout for new ships, and hell, Peru has more cruisers afloat than any nation other than the US, the UK, and Russia. Naval spending worldwide does not seem to be jeopardized to any great extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

India and Spain are building new carriers. If France follows their tradition of maintaining a two-carrier navy they'll add something to supplement de Gaulle. Italy will commission her second next year. I'm sure India could find someone to fight without looking very hard, but who are France, Italy, and Spain going to fight or even deter with these platforms. There's just something about a warship that focuses nationalistic pride into a tangible thing. South American nations are always on the lookout for new ships, and hell, Peru has more cruisers afloat than any nation other than the US, the UK, and Russia. Naval spending worldwide does not seem to be jeopardized to any great extent.

Well you could say the Spanish aircraft carrier is a good investment! By keeping up their ship-building capability they were in the market to tender for other countries. It's Spain who will sell us the hulls for our new Aegis ships and they are in the run-off to be the supplier for our two amphibious warfare 'mini carriers'.

But hell, it's not like supplying the Australian navy is the road to riches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't look like credible information to me.

"Ballistic anti-ship missiles"? Right...

The reason for canceling is probably that we don't need them because stealth or not didn't make a difference in recent attacks on U.S. destroyers.

Actually, this article makes the cancellation make a bit more sense:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20080804.aspx

Ballistic Missile defense is one thing the Navy can currently do better than almost anyone else, so they are apparently wanting to capitalize on the capability and increase the number of platforms that are BMD capable. Makes sense given current trends. The Navy can station BMD capable ships in a number of regions and provide some coverage for friendly forces, high-value targets and civilian population centers.

Given the amount of resistance from the Russians to stationing BMD assets in Europe, the Naval deployment option would be a viable alternative that may pose fewer problems to all parties. If the Navy can get the administration aboard the idea, then the shipbuilding program for more BMD capable ships is pretty well guaranteed. That's my theory, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, fewer larger and more expensive ships are not necessarily better than more smaller and cheaper ships...

Yeah. There is something about the seeming abandon with which the USN places its eggs in so few baskets that makes me uncomfortable. The presumption is that the baskets can be defended to the point of being almost impervious, something they've managed to get away with for the last 60 years or so. But what happens when someday somebody dreams up a weapon or tactic that suddenly renders your impervious fortress afloat not so impervious? Oops!

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still can't believe the DDG-1000 can't fire any Standard SAM's at all, but the deputy CNO did say so, even though it goes against every piece of info released so far. Who builds a 14,000t general purpose destroyer without a hefty air defense suite? Who? That would be like removing Tomahawks from the Tico's and Burkes because "it's an air defense platform, not a cruise missile platform". Pure insanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israeli ship sunk by Egyptian fired Styx SS-N-2 cruise missiles was the destroyer Eilat, in an event which rocked the world's navies, especially the U.S. Navy. The article's author is the guy who wrote the excellent piece on the EMP bomb.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Warship-Hits.html

The Israelis returned the "favor" with interest during the Battle of Latakia in the Yom Kippur War.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-4279.html

During my aerospace days I heard about a Russian film in which a cruiser or similar was hit by a cruise missile so powerful that afterwards a torpedo boat passed clean through the resulting hole. Never saw it myself or stills therefrom, but a mechanism exists to do just that and is called reactive follow-through. There's a description below of one way to get there from here, but here's the one pertinent to our case. If you hit a ship with a big shaped charge equipped missile and detonate it, any unused fuel gets added to the explosion as a de facto FAE as it's squeezed into the penetrated hull. (May also be true for SAP warheads, as seen by the Sheffield Exocet case, where the fuel fire was what really did the damage. ) The resulting contained explosion is spectacular, far eclipsing what, say, a Harpoon can do. Of course, Russian cruise missile warheads make ours look anemic to begin with.

Compare the subsonic Harpoon, for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Harpoon

with the very scary supersonic SS-N-22 SUNBURN

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=263&linkid=1687

or even the much older SS-N-9 SIREN

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=312&linkid=2560

One reactive follow-through concept

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/6308634.html

If the story about the critical defect of the Stealth destroyer is true, then someone screwed up royally. A Hughes colleague of mine and I once managed to head off a missile guidance design which wouldn't have worked against the designed threat, but I doubt even we could've stopped a train wreck of the magnitude alleged in the article. Egad!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...