They've been in active service for a decade now.Will they ever be taken seriously?
They will be when the hypersonic platform conversion is complete. Trust the PLAN
>>64448100There just aren't enough of them to be anything other than the USN Kirov-equivalent.
>>64448108>ok ok i know we've cancelled every other hypersonic program but THIS TIME it's for real
>>64448100I don't understand why wouldn't a submarine with Virginia payload modules do every task expected of a stealthy arsenal ship 10 times better already. The only thing I can think of is ABM, but Burkes can already do that
>>64448215Correct, that's why this monstrosity should have been strangled at birth. Think of the potential lost lethality involved in prioritizing the zum over larger SSN acquisition. Then think of the other avoided benefits we lost, like submarine workforce that quit or moved industries because too few SSN ship lanes.No matter how you look at it, the Zum is a failure at 10 different levels.
>>64448215>>64448312A submarine is double the cost of a surface vessel while being a fraction of the payloadNuclear propulsion is not cheaper than diesel either thanks to endless regulation
>>64448312Only face matters. Lets see anyone else's 6th-Gen destroyer.
Destroyers, not aircraft carriers, are the modern battleship. They are the most powerful surface combatants afloat. Many are approaching the weight of pre-dreadnought battleships. A modern guided missile destroyer could destroy a mid-20th century battlewagon with ease. If a carrier got into a gun battle with a destroyer, it would be destroyed easily. That is why they need destroyers to escort them.Any navy without destroyers, is like a early 20th century navy without battleships. Destroyers are the modern battleship, and all naval strength should be measured in destroyers, not carriers or SSBNs. They should be considered capital ships.The USN has over 100 destroyers and destroyer-based cruisers.
>>64448100What was their designated goal? Fighting drug smugglers around South America? Pirates around African coast?
>>64448331Zumwalt:>80 VLS cells + 2 VPMs = 94 missile tubes, half likely reserved for interceptors the ship absolutely needs since it's not a submarineRealistic tomahawk load: ~50Price tag: 8 billion including R&D, closer to 4 billion if mass production restarts in total, $160,000,000 - $80,000,000 per tomahawk tubeVirginia>4 VPMs + 2 VPTs = 40 missile tubes, all tomahawks, not counting torpedo tube launched harpoons Price tag: 2.8 billion for regular Virginia subs, 4 billion for VPM equipped onesin total, $100,000,000 per tomahawk tube
i will never see these.>t. halifax dweller
>>64448108>Trust the PLANYes, I do.I trust the PLAN to sink them quickly
>>64448100>*sharts*
>>64448100The USS ZumWaltDisney is a hilarious fail from the 1980s.The usa can't even design it like a warship to be repaired.They had to CUT THE SHIP IN HALF TO CHANGE THE ENGINE BLOCK THEN WELD IT BACK TOGETHER.kekThe usa is a collection of halfwits without nazi war criminals and European scientists to figure out how to do things for it.There's a reason almost nothing is produced in the CONUS in 2025. The usa can't...
>>64448572american dick-waving
I went to BAE on a high school field trip and got to walk around in the side missile tubes when they were still designing these. Bretty cool
>They've been in active service for a decade now.No they havent.>>64448164You can't even name an American hypersonic program.
>>64448572Sinking the PLAN during the eventual war over Taiwan.
>>64448577>>80 VLS cells + 2 VPMs = 94 missile tubesYou're wrong here.It's 80 Mk57 VLS cells + 4 APMs (3 missiles each) = 92 missile tubes.The VPMs do fit 7 missiles each, but those are Tomahawk missiles; the APMs of the Zumwalts are going to fire LRHW, which is a much larger missile, so the APMs only fit 3 missiles.Also, Tomahawks already fit in the existing Mk57 VLS cells on the Zumwalt.
Post your country's 6th-Gen destroyer.
>>64448100Not really, they'll never be able to do normal destroyer things since being canceled since it's not worth it for the Navy to change their procedures to accommodate three orphaned ships. They'll get used, but they'll always be oddballs.
>>64449267I think a more realistic "gen" classification for destroyers would put Zumwalt at 5th gen.>1st genEarly 1900s torpedo boat destroyers>2nd genWWI destoryers which focused more on anti-submarine warfare than earlier destroyers>3rd genTreaty/Early WWII destroyers which focused on higher top speed and efficiency for longer range operations, as well as larger guns and "modern" (for the time) fire control systems and early forms of radar/sonar>4th genpost WWII, early guided missile systems, higher caliber guns, and imrpoved sensorsThink Adams class or early Spruance class>4.5th genMid-Cold War timeframe, where they were just taking post-war designs and giving them more missiles and better sensorsthink late Spruance class, or early Burkes>4.5+ gen Late Cold War/Post Cold WarThink modern flight II or flight III burkes, Type 055A, Type 45, etc.Zumwalt was a failed "5th gen" destroyer, while DDG(X) will likely be a "true 5th gen" destroyer if we want to use that terminology.
>>64449330Sixth. Gen.
>>64449343white. elephant.the future is USVs anyway
>>64449253The VPM tubes are planned to fit 3 hypersonics or 7 Tomahawks, presumably the APM tubes will as well. Technically the hypersonic missiles are not LRHW, that's an Army program and the Navy hasn't committed to a particular boost stage, although they will be using the same Common Hypersonic Glide Body. They may end up adopting LRHW directly or developing their own boost stage.Also, technically the VPM and APM are both 4 tubes each. The Virginia class is planned to mount two VPMs for a total of 8 tubes, while the Zumwalt class is receiving a single APM each. So the Zumwalt class can be configured for up to 108 TLAMs, although obviously they'd always be equipped with some combination of air defense, surface strike, and hypersonic missiles.
>>64449330>Zumwalt was a failed "5th gen" destroyer, while DDG(X) will likely be a "true 5th gen" destroyer if we want to use that terminology.So is F-22 a failed 5th gen fighter because only ~150 were made compared to thousands of F-35s?
>>64449382No?The Zumwalt is a failure because the primary weapon system never had any ammo created beyond the initial test batch, and the fact not a single VLS missile has been developed to take advantage of its larger VLS cells. Removing the AGS and replacing them with hypersonic missiles is at least a step back to reality, but the program itself IS a failure.The F-22 program got cut down because Russia collapsed and the USAF didn't see the need for 700+ 5th gen fighters in the mid 2000s, the Zumwalt program got cut down because the gun system was a failure, the radar was a failure, and the Mk57 VLS cells have added no benefit over Mk41 cells.
>>64449352>the future is USVs anywayThe future is von Neumann machines.
>>64449330You can’t go and do two separate half gens between 4 and 5. Even then it doesn’t make any fucking sense because if the switch to vls alone doesn’t constitute a generational leap then it’s a bullshit classification. It feels like you’re making a contrived excuse to line up destroyer generations as closely as you can to jet fighter generations despite destroyers having been around much longer
>>64449382The F-35 is a failed plane too.
>>64449391not our futurevon Neumanns preclude us
>>64449371Go ahead and provide sources there bud.Everything I can find says LRHW and IRCPS use the same booster. In fact, the information I can find says the Army is using the Navy's 34.5" booster for CPS (LRHW). >Also, technically the VPM and APM are both 4 tubes each. The Virginia class is planned to mount two VPMs for a total of 8 tubesI just think you're wrong.VPMs are the "tubes", each one has 7 missile tubes for Tomahawks. Block V Virginia-class subs will get 4 VPMs (7 tubes each) PLUS the 2 that come standard on all Virginia-class (6 tubes each) for a total of 40 Tomahawks.>>64449401We do for aircraft>4th genEarly F-15/F-16>4.5th genF-16C/D and F-15E>4.5+ gen>F-16V and F-15EX
Everything the usa currently has behind the scenes is a weapon system for a type of war the world no longer has.>Azer-Armenia>Ukr-Rus>pakis-juden>afghanistan-usaThese wars demonstrate that all the expensive toys the usa had and has paid for to replace what it had are for wars that nobody fights any more or to solve problems that no longer exist.>Even the expensive 'black project' planes and 'black project' weapons the usa has are already obsolete in 2025 and the next war the usa will lose will clearly demonstrate this.
>>64449390>The Zumwalt is a failure because the primary weapon system never had any ammo created beyond the initial test batch, and the fact not a single VLS missile has been developed to take advantage of its larger VLS cells. Those aren't failures of the program, they're just the result of being canceled. Why make a production line to make shells for a total of 6 guns?>the Zumwalt program got cut down because the gun system was a failure, the radar was a failure, and the Mk57 VLS cells have added no benefit over Mk41 cells.The gun worked but the ammo wasn't made because the ships were canceled. The radar worked but the horizon search system wasn't installed because the ships were canceled, meanwhile the next generation of the dual band radar system designed for the Zumwalt was hacked down to fit on Burke Flight III and hacked down again to fit on carriers. The Mk.57 cells are still strike+ length VLS tubes that can fit the Navy's entire arsenal of VLS launched missiles.
>>64449423No, it’s bullshit marketing that I’ve never seen get wide adoption. 4.5th gen is fair for high performance non stealth jets or major upgrades to legacy platforms but all the other nonsense past that is asinine
>>64449423>>F-16V and F-15EX>F15 and F16 derivatives>B52sEverything the usa relies on was designed half a century ago.This old crap is based on old crap ideas for wars that were never fought and the usa couldn't win anyway, then used inappropriately in halfassed ways for wars the usa ended up losing.I expect everything the usa has and will have will be likewise a waste of time and treasure.But the usa must have them or it cannot brag real hard.
>>64449423F-16C and F-15E are just better 4th gens. F-16V and F-15EX are 4.5 gen.
>>64449442>winning a war is having your country partitioned and leaders tried in international court
>>64449446You mean like in Afghanistan, little usa?
>>64449448Holy retard. Ban browns from the internet
>>64449435>meanwhile the next generation of the dual band radar system designed for the Zumwalt was hacked down to fit on Burke Flight III and hacked down again to fit on carriersSPY-6 isn't a "hacked down" DBR. Go ahead and find me anywhere in the SPY-6 development where they took direct inspiration from the dual-band radar program.
>>64449446They were fighting for partitioning Yugoslavia, dumbass.In that respect, they won.
>>64449464The shoot down occurred when they were fighting to keep control over Kosovo. They lost control over it and it became hostile to one of America’s largest overseas military bases. It was an absolute defeat.
>>64449423https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/4/10/virginia-payload-module-to-give-subs-more-firepowerI was wrong about the two VPMs. The Virginia class is getting one VPM installed that adds 4 tubes, in addition to the 2 tubes they already have. The tubes are large enough that Tomahawks can be 7-packed in them the same way that ESSMs can be quad-packed in a normal VLS cell. The future CPS missiles are expected to be able to be triple-packed in the same tubes. Zumwalt's APM is essentially the same system as Virginia's VPM, with 4 tubes that can be triple-packed with hypersonic missiles.
>>64449479(me)*host to. Fucked up when redoing that sentence from “one of a hostile power’s largest bases”
>>64449407Our future is machine and mind.
>>64449459AN/SPY-6 is the next generation of DBR, originally designed for CG(X). It was hacked down from a 20 foot aperture to a 14 foot aperture in order to fit on the Burke, and then to 9 feet to fit on carriers.
>>64449506romantic nonsense
>>64449522Fucking source it.CG(X) was going to use a larger version of SPY-6 with 69 RMAs, but it's not a fucking extension/development from the DBR made for Zumwalt, it's a totally different program with a totally different set of requirements and not at all related to or based on the DBR program. The work done on the CG(X) program and the larger SPY-6 did eventually lead to the smaller SPY-6 versions being deployed on various ships, including Flight III burkes (37 RMAs) and future carriers (9 RMAs), and will also be backfitted to some Flight IIA burkes (24 RMAs)Again, how the fuck are you tying the DBR and SPY-6 into the same development program? Show a source. The ONLY real relation between the DBR and SPY-6 is they were both successors to SPY-1. But SPY-6 wasn't developed FROM the DBR.
>>64449546>Raytheon carefully sequestered their SPY-6 engineers so they wouldn't have any knowledge of the workings of Raytheon's previous SPY-3 systemSurely you have a source for a claim of this magnitude.
>>64449553Nigger, no one is saying they didn't learn something from the DBR and apply that to future programs, what i'm saying is the SPY-6 radar is NOT a direct hardware development from the DBR and in fact it was basically forced to be a clean sheet new design by the navy requirements specifically to AVOID the problems found with the DBR program. The reality of the defense procurement is that the AN/SPY-6 (AMDR) was developed under an entirely new, separate, and fiercely competitive program with dramatically different requirements (scalability, affordability) that effectively forced Raytheon to design a clean-sheet system, independent of the lessons, and specifically the architectural choices, of the prior DBR/SPY-3 program.Again, calling the SPY-6 radar a "hacked down DBR" just makes you look stupid.
>>64449573I never said that SPY-6 is a hacked down DBR. I said that the SPY-6 that was actually installed was a hacked down version of SPY-6 as originally designed. Raytheon made half of the DBR radar system as well as the software suite that fused the two together. You don't actually believe that the systems are wholly unrelated, you're just arguing technicalities to win an internet argument. Go ahead, give yourself a gold star or whatever. You win.
>>64448722BRAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPFHHHHHH
>>64449632I simply take exception to framing things as direct hardware developments when it's CLERALY a clean sheet fully modular design.DBR had to be custom-made for each shipSPY-6 has modular RMAs that can simply be put together to fit on any ship in any number of configurations and was built to be modular from the ground up.It's also why SPY-4 will be getting replaced on the USS Gerald R Ford by SPY-6 and the SPY-3 is getting replaced with the SPQ-9B, despite that radar being ancient in comparison.It's not even accurate to say SPY-6 is a direct hardware development of SPY-4. Their architecture is fundamentally different even if they're both AESA S-band multifunction radars.
>>64448100No, but they basically exist to stop Congress's retarded fixation with reactivating the Iowas.
>>64448215It was meant to do all the shit that a burke could do without being as vulnerable on the modern battlefield. Try and intercept shipping in a submarine to detain the crew.
>>64448100>Will they ever be taken seriously?They introduced a lot of cool technology that got adopted by newer ships for cheaper. Also ZUMS look cool and that alone is enough reason to build more.
>>64449522SPY-6 is made of modules, you can scale it pretty freely.
>>64449426these wars demonstrate that every other military on the planet is full of incompetent retards who can't fight like America fights
>>64449980>who can't fight like America fights
>>64450003Fair enough but now the Talichads are at risk of getting curb stomped by Pakistan who in turn will get curb stomped by India who in turn will get curb stomped by China...Why? Pakistan doesn't even have to pretend to care about committing le war crimes and it seems only Saudi Arabia is trying to pull strings to prevent that war since that's their unofficial nuclear arsenal given all the cash the royal family injects into Pakistan to prevent it from going full Yugoslavia which is probably inevitable but they sure do want to delay that it would seem and black market nukes sure will be interesting to say the least.
We should ban browns from the internet
>>64450003How le epic talichads fight>invaders come>hide behind children, token resistance>get assfucked, hide in caves, return when invaders loose interest>claim victoryCurrently they are in the token resistance phase
>>64449676>SPY-3 is getting replaced with the SPQ-9B, despite that radar being ancient in comparison.Why would they do this?I get not building more of them, but why replace it if it's already built and installed?
>>64450328SPY-3 was designed to work with SPY-4They're replacing SPY-4 with SPY-6 and thus also need to remove SPY-3 as the software it was written for doesn't work with the SPY-6. The software that works with the SPY-6 uses the SPQ-9B. So even though the SPY-3 is much newer, and frankly far superior to the SPQ-9B, the navy will be replacing the SPY-3 on CVN-78 with the SPQ-9B when the SPY-6 gets installed.Hopefully FXR (Future X-band Radar) is developed fairly quickly, though even then it'll likely be 10-20 years until we see it deployed at any decent scale. In the meantime the US plans to rely on the EA-18G to provide jamming/spoofing protection against sea-skimming threats so the SPQ-9B isn't overwhelmed by a massive swarm of sea skimming contacts.
>>64450034at the end of the day, a winner is a winner and a loser is a loser no matter how we got here
>>64450011What happened to being able to live off sand and prayer?
>>644487570 snapped in half. You have no moon flag.Next.
>>64449051AIM-9
>>64449051halo was cancelled literally a few months ago
>>64448610chinkoids on YouTube won't stop spamming and cumming all over their little ricedicks over the Type 55.
>>64450712HALO was not a hypersonic missile either which is a big part of why the USN chose to continue with LRASM.
>>64450810>uhh that doesn't even count because the hypersonic air launched offensive anti-surface (halo) was not even hypersonicbravo america
>>64450886> However, at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space conference's April 2023, Rear Admiral Stephen Tedford, Program Executive Officer for unmanned aviation and strike weapons at NAVAIR, said that HALO might be "a little bit of a misnomer" because it might not reach hypersonic speeds. Tedford said that HALO may reach only supersonic speeds, (high Mach 4-plus) rather than hypersonic speeds (over Mach 5)
>>64450408so the navy is... retarded?
>>64448100They? There's been one in kinda service for a few years. But it's mostly been tied up to the dock. One kinda commissioning, but not really. And one still being built.
>>64450408>the US plans to rely on the EA-18G to provide jamming/spoofing protection against sea-skimming threats And if your ship isn't a CVN or in a CVN battlegroup?
>>64451397>even the cancelled hypersonic programs aren't hypersonicembarrassing
>>64452310Hope you're a Flight IIA/III burke with AN/SLQ-32(V) 6 or 7.
>>64451551Ehhh, they're cost cutting. They're not making more SPY-3s, and they're not going to pay to support a 1 off ship for 40+ years due to the continuous software development that needs to happen with these systems. So they'd much rather get all ships in that class on the same radar hardware/software stack to make planning/development/upgrades applicable to every CVN in the class.Would you rather them spend $300-500m now ripping it out and replacing with common hardware, or keep it and spend several billion on software for the next 30+ years?
Surface combatants are outdated, they are reduced to using all their firepower just to protect themselves while not being able to get anywhere near a conflict. They're just way too vulnerable, and having humans on them is a huge liability. A small stealthy unmanned submarine with a few vertical launchers is superior as a distributed threat that can pop up in an actual conflict zone. The only reason surface combatants still exist is that a sufficient war hasn't wipe them out on day 1. While not being combatants, maybe they can be platforms for SM-6 half the world away from the conflict just to interdict ICBMs but that's about it.
>>64452455They're still incredibly useful in peacetime and would likely be a headache even in a modern full blown conflict, even if they're not the big dog like they once were.
>>64448100>Will they ever be taken seriously?By whom? The general public? Probably only if they can successfully pull off some highly public strategic use of the new hypersonic missiles they're getting that makes the ships look heroic/powerful to the public at large.If you're asking if other militaries will take them seriously, I'd say they already do.
