Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.
Cruise ship off Cape Horn... brilliant idea. Just like scuba in the shark-infested waters or trying to wrestle with Kodiak bear.. Hmm can we send there LCS for sea trials? But you dont really need to sail down there to find such waves, I think... Scilly islands, Cape Wrath, Biscay, there are some spots that even in moderate climate are dangerous enough. One Polish tall ship lost 2 masts off the Scilly islands lately...
In the upper left hand corner, click Salty ship pages, and find her under C, of course. The click the US page, and compare her to the PAUL R TREGURTHA, which is filed under P.
I've been only half-joking in saying that India would likely be getting P-8 aircraft BEFORE our own Navy. Well, the Navy has taken a large chunk of P-8 funding and transferred it to the DDG-1000 program, slowing down the P-8 development and acquisition timeline.
Now comes a press release from Boeing that it has started production work on the first P-8i for the Indian Navy.
The Clelia seems to be a rather small cruise ship for such heavy seas. Looks more like a littoral cruise ship to me.
Anyway...
... I'm not a sailor, but the more I look at the Zumwalt design the more I am flabbergasted - FLABBERGASTED - how this travesty was ever able to come off the design boards and into production. If I 'feel' that this thing can't take a killer wave, so you sailors out there must be able to feel it that much better. Why was there no protest???
Whenever i read something about the DDG-1000 I just see some accountant/engineer/politician standing their going. Well it seemed like a good idea. How were we supposed to know it was going to have to fight a war or go to sea in anything but the bahammas.
Lets count a few flaws.
Weapons and such arent ready, Extremely unstable, Ill suited for its supposed combat enviroment, Extremely expensive, Under crewed, Very poor CIWS when its supposed to be designed for work.......close to shore....
Sauce for the Goose: locate all those Naval Surface Warfare Center, CARDEROCK (NSWC CD) so-called "naval architects", and have them ride DDG-1000 on her first long trip.
Since DDG-1000 is being given life in Maine, and her homeport is San Diego, have all those NSWC CD hull designers ride USS ZUMWALT all the way down the East Coast of South America, around the Horn, and then back up the West Coast of South America. In the past decade, USS NIMITZ, USS Reagan, and USS MAKIN ISLAND have all done this magnificent voyage, averaging about 57 days at sea. Of course, since we have heard about DD-21 and DDG-1000 since we were all in college :) we may have to assume that the NSWC CD HM&E designers are all "retired now" just like me. And no, I never participated in designing a ship that looks like it was part the GREAT WHITE FLEET around the world cruise over a 100 years ago.
Although DDG-1000 is not powered by coal, it is without a doubt going to be an exceptionally thirsty ship. Her propulsion plant must push 15,000 tons thru the water, with a great deal of the volume and mass beneath the surface ( think of a half sunk overloaded canoe almost filled with water, it takes a great effort to row such a boat). Let's only hope that DDG-1000 has slightly longer legs than LCS-1 has. (that's not hard to beat).
Wonder if an ancient albatross will follow USS ZUMWALT where 'ere she steams ?
Gosh, this sounds just like a promotional film script! Will it be on the Military Channel soon? Tell me, Mr. ZSME, is the deck house sound enough to take the pounding of waves against it? Will it spring holes and flood the house? I'm just a dumb shipfitter, but I thought we'd already learned this lesson over a hundred years ago...
Doesn't matter if any of that is correct or not. TheDD-1000 is a Frankemship, designed as a jobs program for BIW and unable, in all likelihood to survive contact with the enemy.
It is a destroyer of limited warfighting capability, little armor and built to the same size as the Graf Spee. It's only purpose, militarily, is to provie to the rest of the wqorlds Naval Powers that ours is bigger than theres, and costs more.
At least the Graf Spee could reasonably engage in surface warfare. I have yet to be convinced of that from what I have read of DD-1000.
Yea, Yea, Yea. Just all us kids who are calling the emperor naked should just shut up and sit down huh?
All your wiz-bang vunder toys are great, but what happens when one of your precious DDG's has to stay near the beach protecting the gators and a typhoon comes up against the beach. That never happens right?
What about trying to sail through the South Atlantic in the summer time, when a couple of major weather fronts are moving through the area, so that you can reondevous with the rest of your fleet prior to moving to an war zone. That never happens.
What about trying to maintain manuvering cause your fleet admiral got bad weather guesser gouge and now your low on fuel and pulling both the bow and the stern out into the air cause of the wave and winds. Like that never happened, right?
That bow is going to dig in and under. In a storm the weather deck is going to be wet as hell. With any speed at all, in a storm, the front edge of the superstructure is going to slam - HARD- in any kind of a head sea. The gun will be next to useless in such conditions. She'll corkscrew for sure. With a fifteen degree plus roll the bridge is going to be an E-ticket ride.
If you ballast her to be stiff as a church any thing on the bridge not bolted down with bolts rated to hold that wt as a suspended load is going to fly.
Now, going into a big head sea with a long fetch, with that bow and that tumblehome, sooner or later she'll poke her nose out at about zero trim as the crest passes 1/3 of the way aft. Then when the crest passes the CG she'll snap pitch down, and the screws will drive the bow under. She will have zero or possibly negative net vertical vector due to hydrodynamic lift, quite unlike a conventional bow. With that length the Bosuns Locker will be at about 100 feet in something like 30-45 seconds at, say, 15 knots. At what PSI will the hull plating buckle?
You say you've got that all planned for. How, EXACTLY? I'm just intensely curious.
Just a routine refueling, when a rogue wave appeared out of nowhere. Did those sailors on the forecastle all get swept overboard ?
Nope. This ship has a HURRICANE BOW ! DDG-1000 will not be able to steam from point a to point b and just pick and choose her zig zag route based upon seas.
DDG-1000 has CAPSIZE ALERT SOFTWARE on the Pilot House ? Well.... that don't impress me much ......
The DDG 1000 power systems design is highly robust and survivable in high sea states (>8).
Yeah. Keep believing those spiffy powerpoints. The huill won't leak, and salt water won't get to where you never thought it would. It won't burn up just on its own accord. And the lack of redundancy already being built into the sytem to save money won't come back and bite you (or somebody) one dark and stormy night.
Uh-huh
Sure.
Storm avoidance software would have notified the watchstanders well in advance of deterioating conditions and recommended an alternate voyage plan to steer around the storm.
BWAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Haven't spent much time at sea have yah.
You just keep hoping those modern electronic sirens (I would expect that reference will escape you as its too "old fashioned") will keep you from calamity.
Excuse me, my mistake. That's just a 20 year old AEGIS CG, not the modern DDG-1000.
My bad. Notice that this old, obsolete, ancient, affordable, working, AEGIS CG has a Hurricane Bow !!!
Otherwise, her entire forecastle would be submerged right now. Maybe DDG-1000 can change to a traditional HURRICANE BOW for say, around, another $2 billion and 3 years ???
How can it be washed overboard when your walking in those tunnels that connect Crystal City to the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom to the White House? Where the closes he gets to water might be over near the Anacosita River by the Washington Naval Yard?
Mind you, there was a ship once in the USN so advanced it was revolutionary, and it successfully defeated the age's most fearsome opponent. Unfortunately she wasnt so impervious to the Neptune's wrath... Her name? USS Monitor...
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — A large winter storm out of the northwest will likely affect the operating schedules of 2nd Fleet ships training in the Atlantic beginning Sunday afternoon, with seas in excess of 15 feet and wind gusts of nearly 52 mph expected to lash a large portion of the East Coast for several days, the Navy’s top regional oceanographer said Friday. The 26 fleet ships underway, all of which could be impacted by the severe weather, include two of the five Norfolk-based aircraft carriers — Enterprise and the George H.W. Bush, the Navy’s oldest and newest flattops, respectively — fleet spokesman Lt. Brian Badura said. A “very significant” low pressure system coming from the Great Lakes and Canada, combined with more southerly atmospheric conditions, will send a “really distinct, sharp front” through Hampton Roads on Sunday afternoon. More broadly, the system will generate high winds and heavy seas from Port Canaveral, Fla., to well north of Maine, according to Cmdr. Sean Memmen, 2nd Fleet oceanographer. The impact of this “classic winter storm,” he said, will be significant. “We’re clearly looking at seas in excess of 15 feet out there, and winds gusting to 30 to 35 to 40 knots in a large portion of the East Coast,” said Memmen, identifying an area ranging from the North Carolina-South Carolina border up through Maine. Winds could gust as high as 29 mph south of that area, he said. The task for Memmen and his team of meteorologists and other regional forecasting elements is trying to “time” the storm in order to provide 2nd Fleet commander Vice Adm. Daniel Holloway the best guidance for how long to continue operations, the best window for getting returning ships back into Norfolk and when to send those not returning — depending on where they’re operating — out to where conditions are less severe. “We’re trying to balance safety with operations,” Memmen said.
<p><span><span>Subject:<span> </span>USS ZUMWALT equipped with CAPSIZE WARNING SOFTWARE:</span></span> </p><p><span><span>A day in the life of DDG-1000.<span> </span></span></span> </p><p><span><span>Somewhere in an ocean,<span> </span>later this next decade…..</span></span> </p><p><span><span>Underway….. 21:00 local time ……</span></span> </p><p><span><span>Ship has been rolling<span> </span>15 to 25 degrees for over 30 hours.<span> </span></span></span> </p><p><span><span>Quartering Seas.<span> </span>Occasional rolls now exceeding<span> </span>30 + degrees.</span></span> </p><p><span><span>1MC,<span> </span>“Captain to the Bridge !”</span></span> </p><p><span><span>Local time 21:00:28 ….</span></span> </p><p><span><span>CO (panting):<span> </span>What’s going on ?<span> </span>Why didn’t you just call me in the Wardroom ?<span> </span></span></span> </p><p><span><span>Officer Of the Deck (OOD):<span> </span>Captain, the Capsize Alert Light (CAL)<span> </span>just changed color from Yellow to Red.<span> </span>I’ve checked the latest weather reports and as per your Standing Orders, I recommend we slow to 7 knots and alter course directly into the seas at this time, sir.<span> </span>End of Part #1 ..<span> </span>Continued ……</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>CO: Very well.<span> </span>Call the<span> </span>Navigator and have him replot a decent sleeping course for the rest of the night.<span> </span>I’ll be in my Sea Cabin.<span> </span>Call me when<span> </span>Nav has worked out our PIM for the next 8 hours.<span> </span></span></span> </p><p><span><span>Local time 21:26 ….<span> </span>Ship<span> </span>still consistently rolling 12 to 18 + degrees despite the new C/S. </span></span> </p><p><span><span>OOD on phone to CO:<span> </span>Captain, the Navigator and I cannot maintain present course directly into the seas for more than 4 hours, sir.<span> </span>We’ll be too close to the coastline.<span> </span>The Capsize Alert Computer System (CACS) recommends that we jibe at this time, Captain.</span></span> </p><p><span><span>CO: What ?<span> </span>Disregard that ****<span> </span>CACS.<span> </span>I’ll be right there.<span> </span>Local time 21:26 prime.</span></span> </p><p><span><span>NAV:<span> </span>Captain, the only solution that CACS recommends<span> </span>to provide one decent night’s sleep for the crew is CACS Procedure Charlie, sir.<span> </span>Navigator concurs with CACS solution and I have verified<span> </span>that the resultant new PIM would be clear and safe for up 14 hours, sir.<span> </span>Recommend implementing CACS Procedure Charlie at this time, Captain.<span> </span>End of Part # 2 …<span> </span>Continued ……..</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>CO:<span> </span>Very well.<span> </span>(Now seated<span> </span>in Captain’s Chair).<span> </span>OOD, Carry out CACS solution “C” at this time. </span></span> </p><p><span><span>OOD:<span> </span>Aye, Aye, sir.<span> </span>OOD to Helmsman and Lee Helmsman:<span> </span>Commencing CACS Procedure Charlie.<span> </span>All engines Stop. Rudder amidships.<span> </span>(pause).<span> </span>All engines back one-third.<span> </span>Helmsman, maintain<span> </span>sternway.<span> </span>Steady on course 135 True astern.<span> </span>Bosun’s Mate, post the second after lookout.<span> </span></span></span> </p><p><span><span>Local time 21:45.<span> </span>DDG-1000 now rolling 6 to 10 degrees, backing down with stern directly into the seas. Speed over ground (SOG) = minus 4 knots. </span></span> </p><p><span><span>CO to NAV:<span> </span>I want you in the chart house every 2 hours to monitor our PIM.<span> </span>CO to OOD:<span> </span>Call me at 05:00.<span> </span>I’ll be in my Sea Cabin.<span> </span></span></span> </p><p><span><span>Many thanks to the foresight of NAVSEA PMS-500 for providing DDG-1000 with the innovative<span> </span>Capsize Alert Computer System.<span> </span><span> </span>NAVSEA PMS-500 is a GOLD and PLATINUM<span> </span>ISO 9001 certified dispenser of<span> </span>Navy corporate welfare for almost a fifth of a century. <span> </span>End of Part #3.</span></span></p>
Let me see..., or rather raise your sim, my experience... Phillipine Sea in a typhoon. Southwest Pass channel between the oil rigs - NO sea room, running balls out (that refers to the flyball governor, a bit antique but expressive), nearly the last ship down the channel with Katrina inbound. Gulf of Alaska max SOA transpac headed for the warzone (hardy perennial, that). Norweigan Sea late December half way between North Cape to the SE and the Pack to the NW, wind Nly 80 kts. East med in a white squall. N Lant great circle for Lands End, average winter. Patroling GIUK gap in Feb. Hell, Lake Superior in early January. Call. Or raise you ICE, anywhere.
I'm from Missouri (well, not really, but that bucket looks poorly thought out, as far as seakeeping goes.) I could be wrong. But...
The Lakes (soon to be my sailing grounds) can get right mean and ugly.
Not unlike the Baltic ewok. But unlike there, the Mesoscale Convective Systems of the North American plains sweep across those bodies of water with violent force during the summer. And during the fall and winter, the chaotic sea states can be true killers.
Well, even English Channel is famous for being little mean body of water, down to the destruction wrought on the Mulberry ports in 1944 (and all the logistics trouble it gave Patton...) In war, not only enemy has a word, nature too!
Twenty men working on the 614-tonne toothfish boat No 1 In Sung were rescued from the water by nearby fishing boats. At least five were confirmed dead, including two Indonesians, two South Koreans and one Vietnamese. The boat sank at 6.30am (1730 GMT) about 620 miles north of Antarctica and 1,700 miles south of New Zealand, the country's Rescue Coordination Centre said.
A Royal Caribbean cruise ship carrying about 1,000 Americans was jolted by high seas in the Mediterranean over the weekend, causing some damage and minor injuries onboard, but as CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports, it was a nightmare they are luckily still able to talk about.
It was the latest in a series of dramas at sea, reports Phillips. The massive ship, the Brilliance of the Seas, was caught in a ferocious winter storm which pounded the eastern Mediterranean with hurricane force winds and thirty foot waves.
Problem is, Nothing....<span>NOTHING</span>....can perfectly predict the future.
Thanks for all your humerous and off-the-wall scenarios. Nice to know all the amatuer naval architects, mechanical and software engineers out there are alive and kicking. Let me start my response by stating that we just don't "make stuff up". There are no "wizz-bang" miracle performing software and systems out there. Everything has it's limitations. There is no such thing as a ship that is unsinkable. Even the supposed invincible Aegis cruisers and destroyers have a hull SOE that once exceeded will result in capsize. The DDG 1000 hull design has different performance characteristics than a traditional CG/DDG hull. This is a known fact backed up by significant research and analysis of the DDG 1000 hull in numerous computer models and scale testing too numerous to list nor discuss in the context of this forum. We understand these characteristics and based on the hull performance, developed additional capabilities to assist the ship in staying within it's SOE. There are no miracle cures for sea conditions that exceed any ship's SOE. In the case of DDG 1000, because it's a tumblehome hull and doesn't "look like" what the typical Navy FFG/CG/DDG hull, there are immediate assumptions by the SWO community that it will not perform well in higher sea states. Fortunately the engineering data and analysis does not back up their assumptions. Also keep in mind that this is no small ship. DDG 1000 is 610 feet long and displaces 14K tons. While tank and scale testing does have it's limitations, indications are that full-scale performance will be similar. Lastly, any SWO worth their salt should tell you that they'd avoid a storm whenever possible vice riding it out. I think we all learned that lesson long ago under the miscommand of ADM Halsey.
PS - Just for the record, I'm a retired SWO. While you may have all drunk too much of the CNO's kill-DDG 1000 koolaid, the evidence in the design and execution of the DDG 1000 program indicates it will be an outstanding ship.
Dude - you should visit more often. We were way ahead of the CNO on this ... by years. Ditto on the size issue. We have long talked about our Pocket Battleship sized "Destroyer" that is to littoral stealth what Jenna Jameson is to chastity.
Test tanks are nice - but there is also the simple fact that they have limitations - and to argue them here as your touchstone is folly. As with all hull designs such as DDG-1000, I am more interested in reserve buoyancy and the ability to fight hurt than anything else ... and to make it home after significant bow damage as warships have been forced to do for centuries.
Also, from a stylistic standpoint - insulting the front porch in such a broad manner may not be in your best interest. First of all, good points that you make may not be read as people turn your opinion off - but also as a new person you don't know the background of many of the people commenting here. I do. You may want to be a bit less confident in your superiority. Be a humble, but knowledgeable guest.
Refine your style and stay. We have a chair for you - we don't mind sharp elbows - just don't be a boor.
Saw those a few years ago. Thats goona be one wet helo deck for such a big ship. Also,, will those guns work after being completeley sumberged in seawater, as those shields will very surely "smile"...
Those models look right cute in that pool, and out on that lake and bay....
Glad that you have conquered all the seakeeping challenges which have vexed mariners for millenia.
Man, computer models suggest the planet's going bust because of MMGW. I suggest the CDR or anyone out here copies what you just wrote. Stay in touch so that we can ask your POV when the first DDG-1000 joins the submarine force.
'Lastly, any SWO worth their salt should tell you that they'd avoid a storm whenever possible vice riding it out'
WTF??? 'They would avoid a storm whenever possible'??? Like, six Fairey Swordfishes would avoid Me 109's and Me 110's whenever possible when Gneisenau and Scharnhorst slipped north thru the Channel, but they had to go anyway and all were shot down? Sounds like you think hope is a plan.
ZSME, I've paid off half a house and bought four cars fixing "SMEs" and Naval Architects screw ups. Please do not lecture me on the rigor of your analysis; reality and the real world have an unfriendly way of proving your settled science incredibly wrong. You can dismiss me all you want; when the Zumwalt pulls up the pier with all manner of buckled plating and various stove in fittings, I'll be waiting to go aboard to do the inspection so people can get to work fixing it. In case you didn't get it, I'm a yardbird who's been fixing screwups created by people like you or at least adored by people like you for going on 40 years now. I expect I'll still be making a decent living at it till I finally retire.
Let's take it line by line. 1-5: Save the Jr Hi Introduction, we know. 6: We've got eyes, glad all the calculation confirms what is obvious at a glance. 7-8 Computer models? Tank testing? As well you should. Too numerous to list or discuss. mmmph. Try us...just the high points. Additional capabilities? For example...?
Shifting to the attention getting lines in the last half: " There are no miracle cures...".That is our point. "While tank and scale testing have their limitations"...they are far more reliable than computer models, which are just calculations, which can be full of "simplifying" assumptions which turn out to unwarranted in the real ocean and require major shipalts at great expense to correct, and somehow never get done on all of the class. Little things like the hurricane bow on the Essex class, the bow bulwark for the Knoxes, STREAM headaches, the catamaran ASR's and others "too numerous to list nor discuss in this forum."
610 feet is cruiser size, but the hungry ocean can overwhelm any ship, eapecially a battle damaged one.
Finally, Halsey didn't try to ride it out. He tried to bull through. The ships that exercised independent judgement and took a course to ride it our came through. The ones who let authority override what they saw with their own eyes, died. So did their crews. Not the best example for your panglossian epistle.
<p><span><span>Go and research more then Halsey's Typhoon Shipmate!</span></span> </p><p><span><span>"your wiz-bang vunder toys are great, but what happens when one of your precious DDG's has to stay near the beach protecting the gators and a typhoon comes up against the beach. That never happens right?<span> " Go and see the remains of the Fleet that came to stay when some WW1 era and inter-war era DD's had to stay in Buckner Bay and selected other ports when Typhoon Louise came up on Okinawa in October of 1945. If I remember right more then a few were wash ashore that they were decomissioned where they laid and sold off to scrappers in Okinawa. Then there was the attempt yet again by 3rd fleet to ride out a Typhoon off Okinawa in June of 1945, See here for the offical filed damage report. 13 Destroyers (all classes) with some sort of major damage. FYI: Take a look at the USS Pittsburg, CA-72, Baltimore class, 13,600 long tones, 673ft long, 70ft wide, 20ft draft. Lost her bow forward of frame 26 or approximately 104 ft of her total length due to the storm. </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>"What about trying to sail through the South Atlantic in the summer time, when a couple of major weather fronts are moving through the area, so that you can rendezvous with the rest of your fleet prior to moving to an war zone. That never happens.<span> "</span></span></span> </p><p><span><span><span>Go and take a long look at what the RN had to do to project power from the UK into the Falklands. Switching from a summer time North Atlantic to a stormy winter time Southern Atlantic. Sandy Woodward's fleet had to dodge a couple of TS and TD's on their way to Acession island to meet up with the Invasion fleet and re-distrupute the escorts (along with combat load the civilian merchies with war stuffs). Then Woodward's fleet was stuck trying to manuver along a known PIM to protect the beach head from the Argentine Navy. Dealing with rough weather. I can't find it right now but there were pictures of the HMS Hermes (a WW2 era Carrier) and a Type 42 DDG taking water over the bow and a Type 22 broaching her sonar bow and portions of her rudder and props just trying to maintain escort postion near the HMS Illustrious as inner ASW. Something I read later said that most of those ships afterwards caught up in a few of those winter storms had suffered significate structural damage or intergerity questions that were still being solved for years afterwards.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>"What about trying to maintain maneuvering cause your fleet admiral got bad weather guesser gouge and now your low on fuel and pulling both the bow and the stern out into the air cause of the wave and winds. Like that never happened, right?"</span></span> </p><p><span><span>This is Halsey's Typhoon, but it could also be the RN's engagement of the German Scharnhorst during the Battle of the North Cape. Bad weather cause the weather guessers, guessed wrong. Then trying to engaged at long range with equivalent or lesser ships thier your own in a sea state of 4. Your escorts peeled away cause they were low on gas and couldn't maintain manuvering. What are you going to do Admiral Bey?</span></span></p>
All points taken and acknowledged. My apologies for being a little headstrong, after all, as I previously mentioned, I'm a retired SWO, which doesn't wash off easily with water nor time.
For the record, I'm a long time reader but first time contributor. I've watched silently as DD(X)/DDG 1000 is bashed by everyone and anyone who ever claimed to have walked on steel decks. I even kept quiet when ADM Roughead sent out his PR bubba's with outrageous claims that DDG 1000 is "nothing but a gun boat that can't even shoot missile." But enough is enough. I am personally on the deckplates of the DDG 1000 program. I've been to the yards and walked through the modules under construction. I've been in the computing labs running tests of the TSCE. I've developed use cases, UML and requirements for DDG 1000. I've briefed the PMs at numerous CDRs. I've been at the LBTS in Philly for the IPS installation lightoff. Basically I'm deep into the design and construction details of Zumwalt and it pains me to no end when people with no knowledge of the program come off half-cocked with acusations of poor design and program performance. Last I checked we were on budget (what's left of it which is running CPI/SPI >1.00) and we're meeting program objectives. Now if someone out there can provide solid proof that we're not meeting our customer (U.S. Navy) requirements and can back it up with a credible sources ie. works for PMS 500, OPNAV N86, etc. then I'll shut up and turn in my resignation.
I really enjoyed "Halsey's Typhoon" as I'm sure you did too. However that was 56 years ago and technology has changed significantly since. Everything you stated here also applies to every surface ship in the fleet as well as DDG 1000.
The 20th scale at the 00:54-55 makes my point as does the 1/4 scale at the 00:44-47 point. Those don't even come close to sustained time at sea - and the physics are very different upscaled - you know that.
No - these validate concerns. The GAULOIS, BOUVET, SUFFREN, IRRESISTIBLE, and OCEAN looked pretty good underway as well.
"I'm a yardbird who's been fixing screwups created by people like you..."
I don't appreciate your broad characterization of naval engineers as "screwups" anymore than you'd like my characterization of yardbirds as "drunken lazy slobs". I've built ships at Ingalls, BIW and been through overhauls in NNSY and CNSY. I've seen more than enough crappy work by those "yardbirds" than I care to recount. You might be very good at what you do and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I would appreciate you doing to same for me. Thanks.
I'm a simple yardbird, but I do know how to parse a sentence. I did not say that engineers and naval architects were screw ups...I said I repaired their screw ups. To wit: the FFGs and the persistent cracking problem. I know the cause, I know why it persists today and I know it could have been fixed when the ships were built. Ditto the cracking problem showing up on CGs now...
Sorry ZSME, but the current ill considered trend of "engineering away the weather" is a a real problem in my world, and it transcends into yours, as evidenced by your remarks
<span>Storm avoidance software would have notified the watchstanders well in advance of deterioating conditions and recommended an alternate voyage plan to steer around the storm. </span>
Yes, agree when it comes to weather forecasting, nothing is perfect and that applies to all ship classes. However within the TSCE software, DDG 1000 is designed to notify the watchstanders of deteriorating weather conditions. This does not replace a seasoned "seamans eye". The CO/XO/NAV/TAOs/OODs will still review the weather reports and make adjustments to track accordingly.
Preaching to the choir, brother. I've had 5 afloat USS surface combatant tours in my +20 years of active duty with plenty of run-ins with very bad weather. I understand all too well the need to secure for sea and set material condition zebra main deck and below.
"And please don't throw out that ridiculous argument that SPY-3 will be able to fill in for SPY-4. Some of us know this is false."
However, SPY-3 (MFR) is designed to support missile engagements so the "G" in DDG stays. If this were not the case, then PMS 500 would be deleting PVLS from the design.
What if your mission tasking requires you to stay in a box, say for shooting down missiles? Do you stay in the box and get hammered or do you leave and let the missile go through?
Funny thing about designing and building complex weapon systems and ships...the contractors only do what the customer (U.S. Navy) tells them to do.
For example:
- U.S. Navy tells contractor "Build me a ship to do A thru Z" - U.S. Navy writes requirements (ORD) to detail what A thru Z is. - U.S. Navy and contractor work together to develop system level specifications. - System level specifications get decomposed into element and component specifications. - Contractor submits designs for equipment and software and U.S. Navy reviews designs at Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR). - Based on results of PDR/CDR, U.S. Navy tells contractor what to build. - U.S. Navy (DCMA) monitors contractor performance in meeting design requirements throughout the construction process.
So you see, the contractor does not have the freedom to go off and just "make stuff up" and build whatever they feel like because it's "cool wiz bang" and will make us lots of $$$. We do what the customer says. If the customer specifies to develop storm avoidance software, we don't tell them "...you don't want all those little baubles...", we respond with a hearty "Yes Sir".
Where do you work? Are you at NAVSEA or OPNAV? PMS 500 maybe? Where did you acquire the facts that justify DDG 1000 as a "Frankenship" that is designed as a "jobs program for BIW" and "unable to survive contact with the enemy"?
If you knew even the very basics about DDG 1000 total protection systems, armor, fire suppression, damage decision assessment, etc, then I suspect you'd want to modify your initial assessment.
If what you're read on DDG 1000 originates from the misinformation spread by Navytimes and other media, I'm not surprised with you slanted view.
I know that the main propulsion diesels on LPD-17 are computer monitored with the latest and greatest software...and I know from the recent JAGMAN investigation that EN Timmy did not understand what he was seeing and caused a diesel to destroy itself. Is this the kind of software that the wetware will have to interpret and live and die by?
Last but not least, ZSME, you have a lot of dogs in this hunt; we have none. Our only concern is that the Navy doesn't get stuck with another floating money pit like LCS and LPD-17. So far the Navy new construction for surface warfare record sucks and the odds that DDG-1000 won't are pretty slim. So excuse our reluctance to believe every word we've heard from you, because we've already heard it all.
True and needlessly expensive, in all too many cases. The problem with computers processing data is that the inexperienced tend to believe the display as ground truth. Example: USS Port Royal....crunch.
I read that history to be that NavSea deleted a requirement to stay on cost, not that they deleted a requirement to achive a bargain.
That's what NavSea/NavAir should do more of.
What is it that a S-band radar can do that an X-band can't? Volume search is an imcomplete answer when the X-band radar has electronically formed beams in phased arrays and can do volume search on this face, surface search on that face, and periscope detection on the third. Or some time-shared mixture of all three on all faces.
Apparently, the PVLS is the best new feature designed into the DDG-1000. Room for future AEGIS variant larger missile growth, and it's also very reassuring to have around 2 inches of steel all along the sides of this new warship. As compared to most Navy ships having either 0.5 inches of steel or sometimes 0.25 inches of steel in their sides.
Wondering if the Navy gets a price reduction of $600,000,000 for not having a long range air search radar, SPY-4 ? It must be planned to be a fantastic new air search radar since it is the same RF freq's as the SPY-1 which is installled onboard more than 100 ships worldwide. How many SPY-3 MFR radars are installed on ships ? So, far, zero is the correct answer.
Does NAVSEA mitigate risk by putting all its DDG-1000 search radars into one basket ? Not too smart. SPY-3 when paired with SPY-4 would have made an excellent DBR Dual Band Radar, which is still (hopefully) going onboard CVN-78, and DDG-1001, 1002. Putting SPY-3 out there all alone is not best decision for a major, capital warship like USS ZUMWALT.
And it cannot be back-fit later. So, how come DDG-1000 doesn't get a large $600 plus million dollar price reduction ? That's what the NAVSEA PR release stated last Spring 2010, when they announced that DDG-1000 would forego SPY-4 to save money. Or.... Was NAVSEA fibbing (again) to American citizens ?
As a met guy I can tell you that we are pretty good at forecasting and routing, but to design your ship around the OTSR capabilities is not the best idea. Every once in awhile, operational requirements, bad luck, or geography put you in seas that you don't want to be in. Your ship must be able to handle weather. Full stop.
"The contractors have been driving the requirements game for the better part of two decades."
sid, you've made the accusation, now back it up with facts. I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not within my power to add requirements onto the DDG 1000 program. Show me concrete proof to the contrary, please.
"And... are the bridgestanders going to be so saturated that they can't figure this stuff out with existing methodologies?"
There have been several Bridge Usability Assessments (UA) by real, uniform-wearing, active duty officers and enlisted personnel. The Navy assessment (not contractor) is that they have sufficient resources to effectively navigate the ship.
"You mean the same people who brought us the LCS?"
Not certain what you mean here in regards to the original point concerning sufficient resources to navigate DDG 1000.
The hard facts are that real, uniform wearing, active duty United States Navy personnel from various commands including several precommissioning units from Bath ME, Pascagoula MS, and officers from the Naval War College have directly participated and provided critical feedback on the DDG 1000 Bridge CONOPs and have determine (they did, the Navy guys and gals, not the contractors) that the DDG 1000 Bridge design and CONOPs are sufficient to support safe and effect ship navigation.
If you don't like what U.S. Navy personnel have to say about the DDG 1000 Bridge design and CONOPs, then I suggest you take it up with them.
I can't speak for the LCS or F-35 programs. Again, as long as the government is paying the bills, DCMA provides oversight. Highly unlikely the contractors would be able to "make up" their own requirements outside of the approval of the contracting authority. It just doesn't work that way.
"Last but not least, ZSME, you have a lot of dogs in this hunt; we have none."
So what your telling me is that my only concern as a contractor working on DDG 1000 is to make money? Is that what you think this is all about? Let's set the record straight. I am here because of my +20 years of active duty U.S. Navy experience. I walk, talk and sleep U.S. Navy surface combatants. I'm a prior enlisted, college educated, Mustang officer who takes his job very seriously. I work alongside dozens of other retired U.S. Navy officers and senior enlisted. We are dedicated to providing the best possible ship to the Officers and Sailors of the U.S. Navy. When I work on different designs and CONOPs, I always try to look at things with end user in mind. I care more about how PO2 Jones or LT Smith will live, work and fight onboard DDG 1000 than I care about the programmatics involved in ACAT I procurement activities. Sure I have a lot of dogs in the hunt; I'm answering to every father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle and cousin who will ever wear the uniform of a United States Sailor and walk on the deckplates of a DDG 1000 class ship. We are all keenly aware of what has happened to other ship programs like LCS and LPD 17. No one can tell for certain how things will work out for DDG 1000 post delivery nor can we say the same for the DDG 51 restart and the Flight III. We can only do the best we can with the here-and-now of where we are at this stage of the program. We're building the ship. We're testing the software and hardware. We're working out CONOPs and logisitics details. We are serious professionals and we're doing our best for the U.S. Navy. I never loss sight of the fact that one my children or maybe even grandchildren could serve on this ship someday. I'm sorry you think less of us, but I still serve our Navy proudly in the capacity of an engineer working on DDG 1000.
James, where are you getting your info from? Sounds like your own "assumptions" based on no facts to back them up:
"Weapons and such arent ready"
- MK 110 BOFORs gun is already in service onboard LCS class, USCG, and various NATO Navies. Standard Missile, ESSM, Tomahawk and VLA are also already in service in the U.S. Navy.
"Extremely unstable"
- Based on what? We've already done extensive testing and nothing indicates the hull design being "Extremely unstable"
"Ill suited for its supposed combat enviroment"
- The U.S. Navy developed specifications for the DDG 1000 to operate in the littorals and the design meets the requirements...low RCS, radar designed for close ashore performance, shallow draft. "Extremely expensive"
- This is the result of the CNO truncating the program down to 3 ships. All the R&D cost would have been spread over 12 or more ships however when it was cut to 3 then the per unit cost grew.
"Under crewed"
- Manning objective is 126, threshold 175. This is specified by the U.S. Navy and the manning task load analysis supports these figures. "Very poor CIWS when its supposed to be designed for work.......close to shore...."
- Where did you get this info from? As previously stated, the MK 110 BOFORs gun is already in service.
With all due respect for you engineering skills but in WWII German engineers replaced the straight bows on their heavy cruisers with Atlantic bows for a reason.
With the Zumwalt has basically happened... just the OPPOSITE, and you seem to feel there's something stinking here yourself, because you add (hope) the Zumwalt will be out of the way in time when there's gonna be a heavy storm.
Hey, serious. C'mon.
Also, I fail to see the mere RATIONALE for the tumbledown design. It even reduces the ship's useful deck surface. I would almost think it was designed that way just because it looks cool.
"Also, I fail to see the mere RATIONALE for the tumbledown design. It even reduces the ship's useful deck surface. I would almost think it was designed that way just because it looks cool."
Please take a few minutes to research DDG 1000 design beyond what Navytimes says.
The tumblehome (not tumbledown) hull design is for lower RCS to operate in the littorals and improved fuel efficiency...not to "look cool".
How funny...the U.S. Navy gave us a requirement to build a "cool looking" ship. Common Outlaw Mike, seriously!
byron is talking about having to install aluminum armor plate on the 01, 02, 03 levels of all spruance class superstructures in service when it was discovered that a man with an "ought six" on the pier could pierce the cic compartment forom pierside,
he's talkiing about having to apply a main deck up "expansion joint" to all fig 7's in service.
he's talking about having to redesign/remanufacture the forward emergency diesel exhaust system on LHA1.... so that the exhaust from a 3700 hp diesel was not sucked into pilots stateroom areas. (bird farms are a bit touchy about losing pilots since the Oriskany fire).
there is a lot of other little "bubu's" that have fallen off of the design board.
IMO bath has built the best ships that we could get for more than a century, no getting around that, but you are truly in the world of
"if we are given orders that allow a certain amount of lotitude we will probably thunder along in our usual fashion but on occasion we will star like a world champion. but if we get orders to be stupid we have to be stupid".
as far as the contractors not driving requirements..... nahhhh that don't fly.
everyone that has drawn a paycheck that says department of defence on it has seen the aggessive salesman call and we say "don't need it" so they keeep going down the hall until someone sends the word down "buy some of this guys "sh&t" so we can get rid of him.
if it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, flys like a duck, and has to avoid backing down cause the flapper valve in its a$$ leaks it must be a duck
OK, I get it...you know far better how to design and build the perfect ship...us low-life contractors are just out to suck the money out of the poor U.S. Navy...got it.
So sid, be my guest, go right ahead and fix Navy shipbuilding...you're so smart, tell us how it's done...go ahead...
...wait to hear your perfect solution...this should be good... :-P
sid, see my previous comments...think you're darn good at shooting holes in every word that I write...now I want to see YOUR PERFECT SOLUTIONS for U.S. Navy shipbuilding....after all, I'm just a low-life greedy contractor trying to screw over the Navy...you on the other hand are the knight in shining armor coming to save the U.S. Navy from us evil contractors...OK, friendo, let's hear it...tell us ALL how you're going to fix Navy shipbuilding?
PK: An epistle is a letter. Get thee to the sanctuary next sabbath.
Look in wikipedia under "Best of all possible worlds" or Voltaire's "Candide". That must have been some hot babe sat next to you in 10th grade english.
URR: In general fighter pilots share more personality characteristics with Dr P than hard eyed, three fingered, eight toed old cannon cockers. Breech door timing while hand ramming and the coefficient of friction for large cylindrical brass objects in cold wet hands and muddy snow aside, artillery lends a note of dignified detachment to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl, so I'm surprised to find a minor omission in your knowledge of the classics.
<span>"...hull design is for lower RCS to operate in the littorals..." That is one of the original sins of DDG-1000 - one pointed out early by warfare qualified officers during staff review and they were told to shut up.</span>
There is more to littoral stealth and RCS. Part of that sin is the common abuse of the english language. First - define Littoral as the rest of the world does: <span>lit·to·ral</span> <span>(l<img></img>t<img></img><img></img>r-<img></img>l)</span> adj. Of or on a shore, especially a seashore: <span>a littoral property; the littoral biogeographic zone.</span>n.1. A coastal region; a shore.2. The region or zone between the limits of high and low tides. That definition covers roughly two out of three littoral zones, the supralittoral and the eulittoral. The third zone, the sublittoral is usually defined as to whereever the continental shelf ends. That can vary a lot depending on where you are - from hundreds of yards to hundreds of miles. In various documents Navy and otherwise, you can hear it defined as from 200' to 600' depth to shore. The way the CNO uses it though - as in the LCS operating where, ahem, "in a way we haven't operated before" (OT but given operations from Normanday to Vietnam to al Faw, that is just a silly statement) - he implies that littoral is within visual range of shore. That is also where a lot of the marketing material for DDG-1000 shows her in the "littoral" as well. If that is our defined term, then we must understand that the DDG-1000 is the size of the Pocket Battleship Graf Spee. She also is more visible than the Graf Spee due to the nature of her superstructure. If you can be seen by an illiterate peasant sitting in the back of a pickup loading his twin 23-MM - then you ain't stealth. If you are launching and recovering boats or trying to work your way through the very crowded sealanes in the littoral - then you ain't stealth. You can be a hole in the water 99% of the time - but the minute you are seen or leak RF - then it was for nothing. Stealth on a warship that sized (also, it is a light cruiser - not a destroyer, really) is a marketing ploy, not a serious or cost effective feature when you want to close the shore and inflict damage on the enemy.
Get the big contractors out of the shipbuilding business. Break them up like Ma Bell. Emphasize craftsmanship, and subsidize shipwright training. Put Byron in charge. If Blohm and Voss in expensive Germany can still crank out (quality) merchants, there is no reason we can't.
Not what I was driving at with my series of grunts and gestures. I used "panglossian" in a post over at USNI, and got an earful about it, and I mistakenly thought it was you. But it might have been SWMBO. Yes, Pangloss. From Candide.
<p><span><span>ZSME: You want requirements? </span></span> </p><p><span><span>sid: I think I'm entitled. </span></span> </p><p><span><span>ZSME: You want requirements? </span></span> </p><p><span><span>sid: I want the requirements! </span></span> </p><p><span><span>ZSME: You can't handle the requirements! </span></span> </p><p><span><span>ZSME: Son, we live in a world that has ships, and those ships have to be built by men with requirements. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Supship? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Aegis, and you curse the DDG 1000. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That DDG 1000's design, while brilliant, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the requirements because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in that lab, you need me in that lab. We use words like Use Case, XML, UNIX. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent designing something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very ships that I design, and then questions the manner in which I design them. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a calculator, and start writing algorithms. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. </span></span> </p><p><span><span>sid: Did you write the requirements? </span></span> </p><p><span><span>ZSME: I did the job I... </span></span> </p><p><span><span>sid: Did you write <span> </span>the requirements? </span></span> </p><p><span><span>ZSME: You're Goddamn right I did!</span></span></p>
Not funny at all, in fact, go ahead and tell that to Mike Monsoor's teammates and see how long you get to keep all your teeth. Seriously disrespectful.
"A shift in the ship’s navigation system led to erroneous information on the ship’s position. The switch from a Global Positioning System to a gyroscope caused a 1.5-mile discrepancy in the ship’s position and set off alarm bells that were continuously disregarded."
- Crew failed to properly set up the Navigation System IAW CSOSS procedures and then ignored alarms.
“Bridge watch team, navigation, and (Combat Information Center) team did not work together to assess situation and keep the ship from standing into danger.”
- Crew coordination failure and human error.
"The officer of the deck had been qualified for only three months, and had no experience operating at night in the vicinity of the reef."
"The quartermaster of the watch had stood three months of watch on a deployment a year earlier, but could not plot fixes in near-shore waters, so another sailor, a navigation evaluator, took over to plot the ship’s position."
- Inexperienced personnel not properly qualified to stand assigned watchstations.
"Qualified lookouts were on board for watch duty the night of the grounding, but they were working in the mess as food service attendants and were not allowed to assume the watch."
- Failure of senior watch officer to provide qualified personnel to man lookouts.
"Set and drift were not calculated."
Overall, a series of human errors and command leadership failures resulted in the grounding of Port Royal. Had the crew followed prescribed procedures and set up the NAV system properly and stood their watches properly the Port Royal would not have run aground.
So like Grandpa said, over reliance on technology caused the grounding. If everyone had done thier job and ignored the false and conflicting information, they would not have run aground.
I'm a contractor and A) I don't think you're greedy (if you were, you'd be in Congress) and B) or that you're trying to screw the Navy. I think you drank too much of the Kool Aid though... You got married to a design and now it's "till death do us part".
ZSME: Port Royal: They hung their hat on the ECDIS input from the GPS. The drop down menu had been clicked to the "turn it into a DRT" mode (or maybe it glitched to there - dunno), and it had been dead reckoning for about a day and a half. The Alarm alarms on too many things too often (when everything is important, nothing is important) and is not a usable alerting device in restricted waters. No A+ here for the Tom Swift electronic satellite computer graphic wiz bang auto-ironnav.
None of which matters a damn. They were in piloting waters, with the piloting detail set. The Navigation Plotter couldn't plot. The only experienced bearing takers (not lookouts, lookouts shall have no other duties by COLREGS) were mess cooking, those doing the job were doing their honest (slow, tentative) best. Danger bearings were either not laid down on the chart in use or not checked. So visual fixes were not being plotted proficiently. In the Pearl Harbor outer channel with a visual range in sight, and your choice of better than a half dozen reliable lights and day marks in sight! Set and drift can be computed with two fixes, if a hand dr is kept, with two plastic triangles and a set of dividers, in less than 30 seconds. The kids couldn't get two 3 line fixes down, so no set and drift, if they even knew the technique. They made it out of port on the computer screen, but couldn't check it with the 1925 vintage basic gear. Didn't know how.
The fact that there wasn't a working radar repeater on the bridge didn't help. CIC coulda shoulda, but didn't.
Plus a whole lot more.
Seaman's eye should suffice on that reach with a bushel of seamanlike caution. Command element got saturated watching the boat evolution. Not that somebody didn't want a CO and XO's head on a pike for NOT micromanaging putting a boat over, after a sailor in the boat crew got killed. CO's keep the big picture. XO's monitor. DH's supervise. Chiefs train, maintain, watch over and throw the BS flag as required, XO's and DH's back up and heed. Commodores and above should know all that. Too many act like they don't. But I digress.
As delineated above, I stand by my original one liner.
Bull Snipe, in general, Navy ships want to be searching with as many radars as possible. Using many frequencies, different PRF's, different Pulsw Widths, different scans, different processing, etc. If a ship or Battle Group only has radars searching in the X-BAND, they will not have the needed coverage, especially in different weather conditions. Detection ranges, range resolution, bearing resolution, range accuracy, bearing accuracy, etc. are all affected by both the radar's characteristics, as well as by temperature, humidity, ducting, etc. which all affect propagation.
Back in 2001-2002, NAVSEA wanted the DDG-1000 to have a search radar operating around 1,000 MHZ (SPY-4). But Lockheed Martin insisted that the contract requirements be moved to around 3,000 MHZ making SPY-4 very similar to SPY-1 frequencies. NAVSEA originally wanted SPY-4 to search in the low freq's around 1,000 MHZ because of the additional ranges this would provide to DD-21. All 100 or so AEGIS warships search using roughly 3,000 MHZ with their excellent SPY-1 radars. The new SPY-4 Raytheon radar searches (and does other functions) in the X-BAND somewhere around approx 10,000 MHZ frequencies. You want all ships to be searching using low, medium, and high freq radars. Goal is to detect all kinds of aircraft and missiles at greatest possible ranges, regardless of the weather conditions, and regardless of size of the air contacts and whether or not they are made of Low Observable LO materials.
Unfortunately, many rumors about DDG-1000 are probably true. Here's one heard often, and I was wondering if ZSME could reply:
Can DDG-1000 actually raise and train those two huge new gun mounts on the bow, if Sea State is greater than 3 ?
The rumor says that these two 155mm guns are not really well designed for shipboard use, and are really best elevated, trained and fired in mild sea states less than 3.
Any truth to this ? Marines ashore might need to have some gunfire support from DDG-1000 even is the weather is not mild and calm. Thanks.
Sid, No we don't forecast rogue waves. We know where there are some likely places they occur and understand how they form, but it is hard to model due to their very nature.
"You got married to a design and now it's "till death do us part".
Ever hear of a CDR (Critical Design Review)? Tell me, who approves the final design? It isn't me, I can tell you that. Actually, it's the Navy that approved every design aspect of DDG 1000. We have people called Ship Design Managers (SDMs) and they are DoN civilians, not contractors. I am under contract to execute the design that was chosen by the U.S. Navy.
If you want to blame someone for the DDG 1000 design that you all obviously have issues with, then blame the people who approved it...the United States Navy!
Sorry, but the Port Royal NAV team was screwed up from the get-go and never was able to establish an accurate fix throughout the entire underway evolution. The SPA-25G radar repeaters on the Bridge were OOC. The QMOW was not maintaining track on the NAV charts. Lookouts were not qualified nor taking bearings/fixes. The watch team was not manned per the approved watchbill with non-qual/inexperienced watchstanders on the NAV team. CO had slept 15 hours in the previous 3 days. I'd say the least of their problems was GPS error...
Good heavenly days! I think we just said the same thing, sorta. The Piloting Party couldn't get a fix down, so the OOD went to the computer screen, which was displaying the wrong input for the own ship position symbol (not the GPS). It "looked" all right to all the green hands, so they believed it.
The younger (than me, not all that young) generation trusts digital displays. I was taught "never trust a rudder angle indicator, a compass repeater, or a verbatim repeatback from a helm or lee helm" (by extension, any indication or report) without checking it early and often". Dovyea no provyea (please excuse my phonetic russian misspelling).
Not even a SWO who retired and went over to the dark side, errr, became a NAVSEA civilian. ;)
<span>"The tumblehome (not tumbledown) hull design is for lower RCS to operate in the littorals."</span>
(Snicker) In the littorals, lookouts on hilltops and on fishing boats with hand held tranceivers or improvised visual signals will suffice for detection. Optical sights for gun laying will work. A radar guided missile threat, ok. HARM? The first time you put a radar to transmit, the brass band starts playing a medley of the national anthem and "hit me with your best shot". I imagine the enemy will get a fuzz buster of some sort.
I guess I'm a hopeless contrarian, the cost benefit ratio of the whole concept remains a little unproven, to me.
<span> I am under contract to execute the design that was chosen by the U.S. Navy.</span>
Which consulting firms helped shape that Navy decision?
Are those same folks who, "<span>approved every design aspect of DDG 1000" still in the employ of us taxpayers, or have they moved on to "private industry"? </span>
You are right as rain. It bears repeating. The RCS considerations in the littorals are rather silly. There are thousands of 85mm and 100mm antitank guns out there in the hands of low-tech adversaries, and ammunition of all types is more than plentiful. How do they acquire? Lookouts. And the panoramic telescope on the weapon. With rates of fire for the D-48 and BS-3 well over 10 rounds per minute, and ranges out to 20km, they are lethal anti-boat guns that won't be acquired until they have fired a high number of very accurate and lethal rounds.
What is your LCS killer? And your DDG-1000 killer near shore? See below.
All the nasties would need to do is build a series of 150' fire towers along the coast, with night vision equipment, IR equipment, and good binoculars, and they would know any time a DDG 1000 would be within 25 miles of thier coast.
In Voltaire's Candide, there was a character named Dr. Pangloss, who belived that " all things turn out for the best, in the best of all possible worlds".
<span>Had the crew followed prescribed procedures and set up the NAV system properly and stood their watches properly the Port Royal would not have run aground.</span>
Had they looked looked out from the bridge wings and applied that old -but unsexy and old fashioned- seaman's eye they would not have run aground.
ASME the answer is not always more high tech baubles.
And the bottom line proof is the disaster that is USN ship and aircraft acquisition over the last decade.
The DDG-1000 with its implausible premise is but the latest example of a wrong headed program blundering along..."because it must"
OK, OK, enough...besides this is starting to get really boring...you all know sooooo much about how to design and build ships, fight in the littorals, and navigate in Sea State 10 and above, it's no use even continuing this volley.
I suppose this is nothing new. Everytime the Navy made a transition from what was considered the "norm" to a new technology, the nay-sayers dropped from the yardarms to pummel the visionaires. For example:
- Sail to Steam: "What are you crazy? Them high pressure boilers will blow up and kill everyone onboard" - Battleship to Aircraft Carrier: "Those silly little airplanes are no match for our mighty battleships." - Gun Ships to Guided Missiles: "You'll never get those missiles to launch never mind hit any target." - NTU to Aegis: "Antennas that don't rotate? How the hell is that supposed to work?" - MK 26 Launcher to MK 41 VLS: "It's way too dangerous to launch a missile from a canister inside the ship. That's just crazy. What are you going to do when there's a dud? With no dud jettison system, the whole ship will blow up." - All male crews to women on ships: "Women will just ruin crew cohesion and can't handle the physical demands onboard ship."
Funny how looking back on all the negativity associated with change and how those fears were never realized.
Don't know about the rest of that stuff but you can bet your sweet transom I know how to build one, bucko. I've been doing it for 40 years now, something had to rub off.
Okay ZSME, you went and tiptoed too far over the line.
I am a Marine, and by no means an expert at Naval Engineering, nor anything else with ship design. Never claimed to be. Respect is deep for those who are.
However, I do know more than a little about fighting in the littorals, buddy. And what can likely be brought to bear easily against the most sophisticated of the US Navy's vaunted technology.
Tell you what. You put together a scenario in any African/Third World littoral where persistent US Naval presence is required for mission accomplishment. Give me a reasonably realistic enemy capability and have me Red Team against you, your design team, ESG and CSG commanders, and anyone else.
I will tear you, your technology, your operational concepts, and your warships and sailors, to absolute shreds. Crippling, if not fatal damage to half-billion dollar warships, dead and wounded sailors, and pictures of the whole mess all over Reuters within the hour. And I will do it with improvised means, and weapons that have been in use since Stalin built them in the 40s. No ELINT signature, no nothing until it's too late.
So save the self-righteous BS for someone who doesn't have to fight in the littorals. That is MY mission. And that of my Marines.
<span>Funny how looking back on all the negativity associated with change and how those fears were never realized. </span>
Boy Howdy!
Talk about some serious conflation!
This isn't about resistance to change ZSME
I knew you were going to go there, which is why I brought something up that is in fact tangentially related in my day job, just to show that isn't the case.
Its is resistance to change just for the sake of dubious benefit.
Admit it too....You never have much seen the value in the study of history.
That is evident in some of your glaringly WRONG conclusions...like this one:
<span>- All male crews to women on ships: "Women will just ruin crew cohesion and can't handle the physical demands onboard ship." </span>
No blame really on the women no so don't go there as I don't want to be eviscerated by the fairer ones on the porch (or the SO who is tolerating me tapping on these keys)- but did you not read CDRs post next to this one?
Cruise ship off Cape Horn... brilliant idea. Just like scuba in the shark-infested waters or trying to wrestle with Kodiak bear.. Hmm can we send there LCS for sea trials?
ReplyDeleteBut you dont really need to sail down there to find such waves, I think... Scilly islands, Cape Wrath, Biscay, there are some spots that even in moderate climate are dangerous enough. One Polish tall ship lost 2 masts off the Scilly islands lately...
And a lot more of those cruise ships are doing the Antartica trips - expect more blown out bridges or worse.
ReplyDeletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/USS_Cowpens_%28CVL-25%29_during_Typhoon_Cobra.jpg
just remember: you gotta be nice to the snipes lest they lose something important.
ReplyDeleteC
The CLELIA roams the Great Lakes in the summer months. http://www.duluthboats.com/ As you can see, she lost a pretty decent sized launch.
ReplyDeleteIn the upper left hand corner, click Salty ship pages, and find her under C, of course. The click the US page, and compare her to the PAUL R TREGURTHA, which is filed under P.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of DDG-1000.......
ReplyDeleteI've been only half-joking in saying that India would likely be getting P-8 aircraft BEFORE our own Navy. Well, the Navy has taken a large chunk of P-8 funding and transferred it to the DDG-1000 program, slowing down the P-8 development and acquisition timeline.
Now comes a press release from Boeing that it has started production work on the first P-8i for the Indian Navy.
Way to go USN! Nice priorities you have there. ;)
Do you have a link for that?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2010/12/07/boeing-begins-building-indian.html
ReplyDeleteUSN has officially managed to keep up with Russian one - the best and newest tech is for export...
ReplyDeleteByron, sent you a FB message. The wife and I will be there Saturday and I think Xformed may come over to that side of FL as well.
ReplyDeleteCheck your FB, I replied this morning :)
ReplyDeleteThe Clelia seems to be a rather small cruise ship for such heavy seas. Looks more like a littoral cruise ship to me.
ReplyDeleteAnyway...
... I'm not a sailor, but the more I look at the Zumwalt design the more I am flabbergasted - FLABBERGASTED - how this travesty was ever able to come off the design boards and into production. If I 'feel' that this thing can't take a killer wave, so you sailors out there must be able to feel it that much better. Why was there no protest???
Will do when I get home. No access here.
ReplyDelete2:13 "You also want to, you know, cut the engines." <facepalm>
ReplyDeleteYeah, no engines in 30ft Seas. Fun... Exactly what you want to do.</facepalm>
Whenever i read something about the DDG-1000 I just see some accountant/engineer/politician standing their going. Well it seemed like a good idea. How were we supposed to know it was going to have to fight a war or go to sea in anything but the bahammas.
ReplyDeleteLets count a few flaws.
Weapons and such arent ready,
Extremely unstable,
Ill suited for its supposed combat enviroment,
Extremely expensive,
Under crewed,
Very poor CIWS when its supposed to be designed for work.......close to shore....
You know somebody chose that moment to go ".....is this normal?"
ReplyDeleteSauce for the Goose: locate all those Naval Surface Warfare Center, CARDEROCK (NSWC CD) so-called "naval architects", and have them ride DDG-1000 on her first long trip.
ReplyDeleteSince DDG-1000 is being given life in Maine, and her homeport is San Diego, have all those NSWC CD hull designers ride USS ZUMWALT all the way down the East Coast of South America, around the Horn, and then back up the West Coast of South America. In the past decade, USS NIMITZ, USS Reagan, and USS MAKIN ISLAND have all done this magnificent voyage, averaging about 57 days at sea. Of course, since we have heard about DD-21 and DDG-1000 since we were all in college :) we may have to assume that the NSWC CD HM&E designers are all "retired now" just like me. And no, I never participated in designing a ship that looks like it was part the GREAT WHITE FLEET around the world cruise over a 100 years ago.
Although DDG-1000 is not powered by coal, it is without a doubt going to be an exceptionally thirsty ship. Her propulsion plant must push 15,000 tons thru the water, with a great deal of the volume and mass beneath the surface ( think of a half sunk overloaded canoe almost filled with water, it takes a great effort to row such a boat). Let's only hope that DDG-1000 has slightly longer legs than LCS-1 has. (that's not hard to beat).
Wonder if an ancient albatross will follow USS ZUMWALT where 'ere she steams ?
My own record roll was 55 degrees on the USS Brumby in the spring of 87 off Cape Hatteras.
ReplyDeleteGosh, this sounds just like a promotional film script! Will it be on the Military Channel soon? Tell me, Mr. ZSME, is the deck house sound enough to take the pounding of waves against it? Will it spring holes and flood the house? I'm just a dumb shipfitter, but I thought we'd already learned this lesson over a hundred years ago...
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter if any of that is correct or not. TheDD-1000 is a Frankemship, designed as a jobs program for BIW and unable, in all likelihood to survive contact with the enemy.
ReplyDeleteIt is a destroyer of limited warfighting capability, little armor and built to the same size as the Graf Spee. It's only purpose, militarily, is to provie to the rest of the wqorlds Naval Powers that ours is bigger than theres, and costs more.
At least the Graf Spee could reasonably engage in surface warfare. I have yet to be convinced of that from what I have read of DD-1000.
Or even the North Wall off the east coast.
ReplyDeleteYea, Yea, Yea. Just all us kids who are calling the emperor naked should just shut up and sit down huh?
ReplyDeleteAll your wiz-bang vunder toys are great, but what happens when one of your precious DDG's has to stay near the beach protecting the gators and a typhoon comes up against the beach. That never happens right?
What about trying to sail through the South Atlantic in the summer time, when a couple of major weather fronts are moving through the area, so that you can reondevous with the rest of your fleet prior to moving to an war zone. That never happens.
What about trying to maintain manuvering cause your fleet admiral got bad weather guesser gouge and now your low on fuel and pulling both the bow and the stern out into the air cause of the wave and winds. Like that never happened, right?
That bow is going to dig in and under. In a storm the weather deck is going to be wet as hell.
ReplyDeleteWith any speed at all, in a storm, the front edge of the superstructure is going to slam - HARD- in any kind of a head sea. The gun will be next to useless in such conditions. She'll corkscrew for sure. With a fifteen degree plus roll the bridge is going to be an E-ticket ride.
If you ballast her to be stiff as a church any thing on the bridge not bolted down with bolts rated to hold that wt as a suspended load is going to fly.
Now, going into a big head sea with a long fetch, with that bow and that tumblehome, sooner or later she'll poke her nose out at about zero trim as the crest passes 1/3 of the way aft. Then when the crest passes the CG she'll snap pitch down, and the screws will drive the bow under. She will have zero or possibly negative net vertical vector due to hydrodynamic lift, quite unlike a conventional bow. With that length the Bosuns Locker will be at about 100 feet in something like 30-45 seconds at, say, 15 knots. At what PSI will the hull plating buckle?
You say you've got that all planned for. How, EXACTLY? I'm just intensely curious.
This just in. Name change to the first DDG 1000's. They will be named Price of Wales and Repulse.
ReplyDeleteStorm avoidance planning software?
ReplyDeleteI guess you are going to tell me that storms will only happen when convenient for the operation. Or that there won't be a time when a commander must weigh the risks and go anyway.
And that weather and sea states can be forecasted with perfect accuracy and 100 percent fidelity.
To hell with the weather then. lets plug that puppy into some online poker!!!!
Storm ballast functionality?
Uh huh, the USN has been soooo good at keeping their ships in great matrerial shape.
I'm so glad its a perfect certaintly that the system will work every time when needed.
I get the feeling you are intimating the DDG-1000 may need storm ballasting more than any ship class built in over sixty years?
Righting arm performance?
Hows about damaged?
Oh, I'm sorry, you're in the Modern USN where you won't take any damage....because...
You live by the motto:
We Are Too Good To Fight!
Eric, you beat me to it. Well done.
ReplyDeleteZSME,
ReplyDeleteI agree the DDG-1000 will perform to the same excellence as the LPD-17 San Antonio. ;)
ok, so you can SIMULATE ! That don't impress me much .....
ReplyDeleteI have 7.3 years UNDERWAY ( not just attached to ships inport ). Look at this photo:
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/090707-N-9132C-207.JPG
Just a routine refueling, when a rogue wave appeared out of nowhere. Did those sailors on the forecastle all get swept overboard ?
Nope. This ship has a HURRICANE BOW ! DDG-1000 will not be able to steam from point a to point b and just pick and choose her zig zag route based upon seas.
DDG-1000 has CAPSIZE ALERT SOFTWARE on the Pilot House ? Well.... that don't impress me much ......
The DDG 1000 power systems design is highly robust and survivable in high sea states (>8).
ReplyDeleteYeah. Keep believing those spiffy powerpoints. The huill won't leak, and salt water won't get to where you never thought it would. It won't burn up just on its own accord. And the lack of redundancy already being built into the sytem to save money won't come back and bite you (or somebody) one dark and stormy night.
Uh-huh
Sure.
Storm avoidance software would have notified the watchstanders well in advance of deterioating conditions and recommended an alternate voyage plan to steer around the storm.
BWAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Haven't spent much time at sea have yah.
You just keep hoping those modern electronic sirens (I would expect that reference will escape you as its too "old fashioned") will keep you from calamity.
I'm sorry, but any ship driver who does not possess an inate weather eye with enough acuity to discern "deteriorating conditions" should get another day job before he drowns himself and or others...
But then again, of late the USN has had trouble navigating in the vicinity of the sea buoy...while relying on all that snazzy software you are touting.
Here's a photo of DDG-1000 USS ZUMWALT underway (in the future) in the North Atlantic or North Pacific or rounding the Horn ....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/090228-N-1082Z-004.JPG
Excuse me, my mistake. That's just a 20 year old AEGIS CG, not the modern DDG-1000.
My bad. Notice that this old, obsolete, ancient, affordable, working, AEGIS CG has a Hurricane Bow !!!
Otherwise, her entire forecastle would be submerged right now. Maybe DDG-1000 can change to a traditional HURRICANE BOW for say, around, another $2 billion and 3 years ???
Awww ... aren't engineers cute! Silly operational guys; what do you know about ships!
ReplyDeleteGee, Sal, that ZSME dude just got a gauntlet of truncheons, handspikes, and blackjacks!
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when his PPT projector is washed overboard?
Lets not forget about the cruise ship that sank off Antarctica a few years ago....
ReplyDeleteMust not have been designed by ZSME....
Anyway, such ABS standard ships will be perfectly fine to carry the likes of URR and his ilk though...
What worries me there are definitely some guys in the PLAN air arm training hard in ASuW to become next Genzan and Mihoro Air Groups...
ReplyDeleteAt least its built at Bath.
ReplyDeleteLipstick on a pig...
ReplyDeleteURR,
ReplyDeleteHow can it be washed overboard when your walking in those tunnels that connect Crystal City to the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom to the White House? Where the closes he gets to water might be over near the Anacosita River by the Washington Naval Yard?
He may span the mighty Potomac on the metro during his daily commutes!
ReplyDeleteAnd there are some real shady types who linger at the top of the escalators at the metro station near the Navy Yard late in the day ....
Who knows, ZSME might just be leading one heck of a swashbucklin' life!
Mind you, there was a ship once in the USN so advanced it was revolutionary, and it successfully defeated the age's most fearsome opponent. Unfortunately she wasnt so impervious to the Neptune's wrath...
ReplyDeleteHer name? USS Monitor...
How about the Safe Operating Envelope (SOE) Operating Guidance (OG) software functionality?
ReplyDeleteHow about good, old fashioned...SEAMANSHIP!
Here is my contribution to the Christmas Reading List
Recommend starting with the chapter, "Lifeboat Navigation"....
Oops showing my age...
ReplyDeleteNow its labelled "Emergency Navigation"
"Transformative" she was ewok!
ReplyDeleteSee Friedman for why the USN has traditonally eschewed active stabilization....
ReplyDeleteSucks real bad when it doesn't work for you.
Oh and ZSME....
ReplyDelete(glad its my "Friday"!!!)
Put this into your SOE OG.....
Violent storm could cause 2nd Fleet problems
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — A large winter storm out of the northwest will likely affect the operating schedules of 2nd Fleet ships training in the Atlantic beginning Sunday afternoon, with seas in excess of 15 feet and wind gusts of nearly 52 mph expected to lash a large portion of the East Coast for several days, the Navy’s top regional oceanographer said Friday.
The 26 fleet ships underway, all of which could be impacted by the severe weather, include two of the five Norfolk-based aircraft carriers — Enterprise and the George H.W. Bush, the Navy’s oldest and newest flattops, respectively — fleet spokesman Lt. Brian Badura said.
A “very significant” low pressure system coming from the Great Lakes and Canada, combined with more southerly atmospheric conditions, will send a “really distinct, sharp front” through Hampton Roads on Sunday afternoon. More broadly, the system will generate high winds and heavy seas from Port Canaveral, Fla., to well north of Maine, according to Cmdr. Sean Memmen, 2nd Fleet oceanographer.
The impact of this “classic winter storm,” he said, will be significant.
“We’re clearly looking at seas in excess of 15 feet out there, and winds gusting to 30 to 35 to 40 knots in a large portion of the East Coast,” said Memmen, identifying an area ranging from the North Carolina-South Carolina border up through Maine. Winds could gust as high as 29 mph south of that area, he said.
The task for Memmen and his team of meteorologists and other regional forecasting elements is trying to “time” the storm in order to provide 2nd Fleet commander Vice Adm. Daniel Holloway the best guidance for how long to continue operations, the best window for getting returning ships back into Norfolk and when to send those not returning — depending on where they’re operating — out to where conditions are less severe.
“We’re trying to balance safety with operations,” Memmen said.
Just gotta wonder what fun and excitement will be lurking about the Gulfstream walls.
ReplyDeleteAwesome sights your software will never "see" I'll bet ZSME.
Bet thats where the Brumby was when y'all got beam ended Shawn...
<p><span><span>Subject:<span> </span>USS ZUMWALT equipped with CAPSIZE WARNING SOFTWARE:</span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span><span>A day in the life of DDG-1000.<span> </span></span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Somewhere in an ocean,<span> </span>later this next decade…..</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Underway….. 21:00 local time ……</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Ship has been rolling<span> </span>15 to 25 degrees for over 30 hours.<span> </span></span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Quartering Seas.<span> </span>Occasional rolls now exceeding<span> </span>30 + degrees.</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>1MC,<span> </span>“Captain to the Bridge !”</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Local time 21:00:28 ….</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>CO (panting):<span> </span>What’s going on ?<span> </span>Why didn’t you just call me in the Wardroom ?<span> </span></span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Officer Of the Deck (OOD):<span> </span>Captain, the Capsize Alert Light (CAL)<span> </span>just changed color from Yellow to Red.<span> </span>I’ve checked the latest weather reports and as per your Standing Orders, I recommend we slow to 7 knots and alter course directly into the seas at this time, sir.<span> </span>End of Part #1 ..<span> </span>Continued ……</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>CO: Very well.<span> </span>Call the<span> </span>Navigator and have him replot a decent sleeping course for the rest of the night.<span> </span>I’ll be in my Sea Cabin.<span> </span>Call me when<span> </span>Nav has worked out our PIM for the next 8 hours.<span> </span></span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span><span>Local time 21:26 ….<span> </span>Ship<span> </span>still consistently rolling 12 to 18 + degrees despite the new C/S. </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>OOD on phone to CO:<span> </span>Captain, the Navigator and I cannot maintain present course directly into the seas for more than 4 hours, sir.<span> </span>We’ll be too close to the coastline.<span> </span>The Capsize Alert Computer System (CACS) recommends that we jibe at this time, Captain.</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>CO: What ?<span> </span>Disregard that ****<span> </span>CACS.<span> </span>I’ll be right there.<span> </span>Local time 21:26 prime.</span></span>
</p><p><span><span>NAV:<span> </span>Captain, the only solution that CACS recommends<span> </span>to provide one decent night’s sleep for the crew is CACS Procedure Charlie, sir.<span> </span>Navigator concurs with CACS solution and I have verified<span> </span>that the resultant new PIM would be clear and safe for up 14 hours, sir.<span> </span>Recommend implementing CACS Procedure Charlie at this time, Captain.<span> </span>End of Part # 2 …<span> </span>Continued ……..</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>CO:<span> </span>Very well.<span> </span>(Now seated<span> </span>in Captain’s Chair).<span> </span>OOD, Carry out CACS solution “C” at this time. </span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span><span>OOD:<span> </span>Aye, Aye, sir.<span> </span>OOD to Helmsman and Lee Helmsman:<span> </span>Commencing CACS Procedure Charlie.<span> </span>All engines Stop. Rudder amidships.<span> </span>(pause).<span> </span>All engines back one-third.<span> </span>Helmsman, maintain<span> </span>sternway.<span> </span>Steady on course 135 True astern.<span> </span>Bosun’s Mate, post the second after lookout.<span> </span></span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Local time 21:45.<span> </span>DDG-1000 now rolling 6 to 10 degrees, backing down with stern directly into the seas. Speed over ground (SOG) = minus 4 knots. </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>CO to NAV:<span> </span>I want you in the chart house every 2 hours to monitor our PIM.<span> </span>CO to OOD:<span> </span>Call me at 05:00.<span> </span>I’ll be in my Sea Cabin.<span> </span></span></span>
</p><p><span><span>Many thanks to the foresight of NAVSEA PMS-500 for providing DDG-1000 with the innovative<span> </span>Capsize Alert Computer System.<span> </span><span> </span>NAVSEA PMS-500 is a GOLD and PLATINUM<span> </span>ISO 9001 certified dispenser of<span> </span>Navy corporate welfare for almost a fifth of a century. <span> </span>End of Part #3.</span></span></p>
Let me see..., or rather raise your sim, my experience... Phillipine Sea in a typhoon. Southwest Pass channel between the oil rigs - NO sea room, running balls out (that refers to the flyball governor, a bit antique but expressive), nearly the last ship down the channel with Katrina inbound. Gulf of Alaska max SOA transpac headed for the warzone (hardy perennial, that). Norweigan Sea late December half way between North Cape to the SE and the Pack to the NW, wind Nly 80 kts. East med in a white squall. N Lant great circle for Lands End, average winter. Patroling GIUK gap in Feb. Hell, Lake Superior in early January. Call. Or raise you ICE, anywhere.
ReplyDeleteI'm from Missouri (well, not really, but that bucket looks poorly thought out, as far as seakeeping goes.) I could be wrong. But...
Lake Superior will happily kill you at any time she is afforded a chance.
ReplyDeleteIs it that Lake has superiority complex and likes to show off? :P
ReplyDeleteThe Lakes (soon to be my sailing grounds) can get right mean and ugly.
ReplyDeleteNot unlike the Baltic ewok. But unlike there, the Mesoscale Convective Systems of the North American plains sweep across those bodies of water with violent force during the summer. And during the fall and winter, the chaotic sea states can be true killers.
Well, even English Channel is famous for being little mean body of water, down to the destruction wrought on the Mulberry ports in 1944 (and all the logistics trouble it gave Patton...) In war, not only enemy has a word, nature too!
ReplyDeleteHey ZSME...
ReplyDeleteHere is more evidence of the rocks your miracle SOE OG will founder on...
Here...
Twenty men working on the 614-tonne toothfish boat No 1 In Sung were rescued from the water by nearby fishing boats. At least five were confirmed dead, including two Indonesians, two South Koreans and one Vietnamese.
The boat sank at 6.30am (1730 GMT) about 620 miles north of Antarctica and 1,700 miles south of New Zealand, the country's Rescue Coordination Centre said.
and Here....
(CBS)
A Royal Caribbean cruise ship carrying about 1,000 Americans was jolted by high seas in the Mediterranean over the weekend, causing some damage and minor injuries onboard, but as CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports, it was a nightmare they are luckily still able to talk about.
It was the latest in a series of dramas at sea, reports Phillips. The massive ship, the Brilliance of the Seas, was caught in a ferocious winter storm which pounded the eastern Mediterranean with hurricane force winds and thirty foot waves.
Problem is, Nothing....<span>NOTHING</span>....can perfectly predict the future.
Nowadays way too many ill ionfomed maritime -and aviation- users have been bamboozled into believing model data consitute a "forecast". When, in fact, its what is called "guidance" for someone savvy enough to understand the limitations of what they are staring at.
And, the more crip and precise the image, the more danger there is that it is in fact a modern Siren
Bet money, your software is predicated on such info, and if you rely on it to keep your ship upright, I'm just glad I will never sail on it.
Thanks for all your humerous and off-the-wall scenarios. Nice to know all the amatuer naval architects, mechanical and software engineers out there are alive and kicking. Let me start my response by stating that we just don't "make stuff up". There are no "wizz-bang" miracle performing software and systems out there. Everything has it's limitations. There is no such thing as a ship that is unsinkable. Even the supposed invincible Aegis cruisers and destroyers have a hull SOE that once exceeded will result in capsize. The DDG 1000 hull design has different performance characteristics than a traditional CG/DDG hull. This is a known fact backed up by significant research and analysis of the DDG 1000 hull in numerous computer models and scale testing too numerous to list nor discuss in the context of this forum. We understand these characteristics and based on the hull performance, developed additional capabilities to assist the ship in staying within it's SOE. There are no miracle cures for sea conditions that exceed any ship's SOE. In the case of DDG 1000, because it's a tumblehome hull and doesn't "look like" what the typical Navy FFG/CG/DDG hull, there are immediate assumptions by the SWO community that it will not perform well in higher sea states. Fortunately the engineering data and analysis does not back up their assumptions. Also keep in mind that this is no small ship. DDG 1000 is 610 feet long and displaces 14K tons. While tank and scale testing does have it's limitations, indications are that full-scale performance will be similar. Lastly, any SWO worth their salt should tell you that they'd avoid a storm whenever possible vice riding it out. I think we all learned that lesson long ago under the miscommand of ADM Halsey.
ReplyDeletePS - Just for the record, I'm a retired SWO. While you may have all drunk too much of the CNO's kill-DDG 1000 koolaid, the evidence in the design and execution of the DDG 1000 program indicates it will be an outstanding ship.
From the NAVSEA website:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/PEOS_DDG1000/Quarter_Scale_Video.aspx
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/PEOS_DDG1000/20th_Scale_Video.aspx
From the NAVSEA website:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/PEOS_DDG1000/Quarter_Scale_Video.aspx
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/teamships/PEOS_DDG1000/20th_Scale_Video.aspx
Dude - you should visit more often. We were way ahead of the CNO on this ... by years. Ditto on the size issue. We have long talked about our Pocket Battleship sized "Destroyer" that is to littoral stealth what Jenna Jameson is to chastity.
ReplyDeleteTest tanks are nice - but there is also the simple fact that they have limitations - and to argue them here as your touchstone is folly. As with all hull designs such as DDG-1000, I am more interested in reserve buoyancy and the ability to fight hurt than anything else ... and to make it home after significant bow damage as warships have been forced to do for centuries.
Also, from a stylistic standpoint - insulting the front porch in such a broad manner may not be in your best interest. First of all, good points that you make may not be read as people turn your opinion off - but also as a new person you don't know the background of many of the people commenting here. I do. You may want to be a bit less confident in your superiority. Be a humble, but knowledgeable guest.
Refine your style and stay. We have a chair for you - we don't mind sharp elbows - just don't be a boor.
Saw those a few years ago. Thats goona be one wet helo deck for such a big ship. Also,, will those guns work after being completeley sumberged in seawater, as those shields will very surely "smile"...
ReplyDeleteThose models look right cute in that pool, and out on that lake and bay....
Glad that you have conquered all the seakeeping challenges which have vexed mariners for millenia.
Man, computer models suggest the planet's going bust because of MMGW. I suggest the CDR or anyone out here copies what you just wrote. Stay in touch so that we can ask your POV when the first DDG-1000 joins the submarine force.
ReplyDelete'Lastly, any SWO worth their salt should tell you that they'd avoid a storm whenever possible vice riding it out'
WTF??? 'They would avoid a storm whenever possible'??? Like, six Fairey Swordfishes would avoid Me 109's and Me 110's whenever possible when Gneisenau and Scharnhorst slipped north thru the Channel, but they had to go anyway and all were shot down? Sounds like you think hope is a plan.
ZSME, I've paid off half a house and bought four cars fixing "SMEs" and Naval Architects screw ups. Please do not lecture me on the rigor of your analysis; reality and the real world have an unfriendly way of proving your settled science incredibly wrong. You can dismiss me all you want; when the Zumwalt pulls up the pier with all manner of buckled plating and various stove in fittings, I'll be waiting to go aboard to do the inspection so people can get to work fixing it. In case you didn't get it, I'm a yardbird who's been fixing screwups created by people like you or at least adored by people like you for going on 40 years now. I expect I'll still be making a decent living at it till I finally retire.
ReplyDeleteMr SMEE, err ZSME,
ReplyDeleteLet's take it line by line. 1-5: Save the Jr Hi Introduction, we know. 6: We've got eyes, glad all the calculation confirms what is obvious at a glance. 7-8 Computer models? Tank testing? As well you should. Too numerous to list or discuss. mmmph. Try us...just the high points. Additional capabilities? For example...?
Shifting to the attention getting lines in the last half: " There are no miracle cures...".That is our point. "While tank and scale testing have their limitations"...they are far more reliable than computer models, which are just calculations, which can be full of "simplifying" assumptions which turn out to unwarranted in the real ocean and require major shipalts at great expense to correct, and somehow never get done on all of the class. Little things like the hurricane bow on the Essex class, the bow bulwark for the Knoxes, STREAM headaches,
the catamaran ASR's and others "too numerous to list nor discuss in this forum."
610 feet is cruiser size, but the hungry ocean can overwhelm any ship, eapecially a battle damaged one.
Finally, Halsey didn't try to ride it out. He tried to bull through. The ships that exercised independent judgement and took a course to ride it our came through. The ones who let authority override what they saw with their own eyes, died. So did their crews. Not the best example for your panglossian epistle.
<p><span><span>Go and research more then Halsey's Typhoon Shipmate!</span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span><span>"your wiz-bang vunder toys are great, but what happens when one of your precious DDG's has to stay near the beach protecting the gators and a typhoon comes up against the beach. That never happens right?<span> " Go and see the remains of the Fleet that came to stay when some WW1 era and inter-war era DD's had to stay in Buckner Bay and selected other ports when Typhoon Louise came up on Okinawa in October of 1945. If I remember right more then a few were wash ashore that they were decomissioned where they laid and sold off to scrappers in Okinawa. Then there was the attempt yet again by 3rd fleet to ride out a Typhoon off Okinawa in June of 1945, See here for the offical filed damage report. 13 Destroyers (all classes) with some sort of major damage. FYI: Take a look at the USS Pittsburg, CA-72, Baltimore class, 13,600 long tones, 673ft long, 70ft wide, 20ft draft. Lost her bow forward of frame 26 or approximately 104 ft of her total length due to the storm. </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>"What about trying to sail through the South Atlantic in the summer time, when a couple of major weather fronts are moving through the area, so that you can rendezvous with the rest of your fleet prior to moving to an war zone. That never happens.<span> "</span></span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span><span><span>Go and take a long look at what the RN had to do to project power from the UK into the Falklands. Switching from a summer time North Atlantic to a stormy winter time Southern Atlantic. Sandy Woodward's fleet had to dodge a couple of TS and TD's on their way to Acession island to meet up with the Invasion fleet and re-distrupute the escorts (along with combat load the civilian merchies with war stuffs). Then Woodward's fleet was stuck trying to manuver along a known PIM to protect the beach head from the Argentine Navy. Dealing with rough weather. I can't find it right now but there were pictures of the HMS Hermes (a WW2 era Carrier) and a Type 42 DDG taking water over the bow and a Type 22 broaching her sonar bow and portions of her rudder and props just trying to maintain escort postion near the HMS Illustrious as inner ASW. Something I read later said that most of those ships afterwards caught up in a few of those winter storms had suffered significate structural damage or intergerity questions that were still being solved for years afterwards.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span>"What about trying to maintain maneuvering cause your fleet admiral got bad weather guesser gouge and now your low on fuel and pulling both the bow and the stern out into the air cause of the wave and winds. Like that never happened, right?"</span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span><span>This is Halsey's Typhoon, but it could also be the RN's engagement of the German Scharnhorst during the Battle of the North Cape. Bad weather cause the weather guessers, guessed wrong. Then trying to engaged at long range with equivalent or lesser ships thier your own in a sea state of 4. Your escorts peeled away cause they were low on gas and couldn't maintain manuvering. What are you going to do Admiral Bey?</span></span></p>
cdrsalamander, Bryon, and Grandpa Bluewater,
ReplyDeleteAll points taken and acknowledged. My apologies for being a little headstrong, after all, as I previously mentioned, I'm a retired SWO, which doesn't wash off easily with water nor time.
For the record, I'm a long time reader but first time contributor. I've watched silently as DD(X)/DDG 1000 is bashed by everyone and anyone who ever claimed to have walked on steel decks. I even kept quiet when ADM Roughead sent out his PR bubba's with outrageous claims that DDG 1000 is "nothing but a gun boat that can't even shoot missile." But enough is enough. I am personally on the deckplates of the DDG 1000 program. I've been to the yards and walked through the modules under construction. I've been in the computing labs running tests of the TSCE. I've developed use cases, UML and requirements for DDG 1000. I've briefed the PMs at numerous CDRs. I've been at the LBTS in Philly for the IPS installation lightoff. Basically I'm deep into the design and construction details of Zumwalt and it pains me to no end when people with no knowledge of the program come off half-cocked with acusations of poor design and program performance. Last I checked we were on budget (what's left of it which is running CPI/SPI >1.00) and we're meeting program objectives. Now if someone out there can provide solid proof that we're not meeting our customer (U.S. Navy) requirements and can back it up with a credible sources ie. works for PMS 500, OPNAV N86, etc. then I'll shut up and turn in my resignation.
SAP,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed "Halsey's Typhoon" as I'm sure you did too. However that was 56 years ago and technology has changed significantly since. Everything you stated here also applies to every surface ship in the fleet as well as DDG 1000.
I'm not impressed .... again, ditto Sid.
ReplyDeleteThe 20th scale at the 00:54-55 makes my point as does the 1/4 scale at the 00:44-47 point. Those don't even come close to sustained time at sea - and the physics are very different upscaled - you know that.
No - these validate concerns. The GAULOIS, BOUVET, SUFFREN, IRRESISTIBLE, and OCEAN looked pretty good underway as well.
Transformationalism trumps weather! War is new! Speed is life! We have always been at war with Oceanea!
ReplyDelete"I'm a yardbird who's been fixing screwups created by people like you..."
ReplyDeleteI don't appreciate your broad characterization of naval engineers as "screwups" anymore than you'd like my characterization of yardbirds as "drunken lazy slobs". I've built ships at Ingalls, BIW and been through overhauls in NNSY and CNSY. I've seen more than enough crappy work by those "yardbirds" than I care to recount. You might be very good at what you do and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I would appreciate you doing to same for me. Thanks.
I'm a simple yardbird, but I do know how to parse a sentence. I did not say that engineers and naval architects were screw ups...I said I repaired their screw ups. To wit: the FFGs and the persistent cracking problem. I know the cause, I know why it persists today and I know it could have been fixed when the ships were built. Ditto the cracking problem showing up on CGs now...
ReplyDeleteSorry ZSME, but the current ill considered trend of "engineering away the weather" is a a real problem in my world, and it transcends into yours, as evidenced by your remarks
ReplyDelete<span>Storm avoidance software would have notified the watchstanders well in advance of deterioating conditions and recommended an alternate voyage plan to steer around the storm. </span>
Lemme tell yah....Its a methodology fraught with failure.
While I am no Luddite, old fashioned principles and wisdom still do...and still will...apply.
Fair.
ReplyDeleteOh, here we go.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBYjZTdrJlA
Yes, agree when it comes to weather forecasting, nothing is perfect and that applies to all ship classes. However within the TSCE software, DDG 1000 is designed to notify the watchstanders of deteriorating weather conditions. This does not replace a seasoned "seamans eye". The CO/XO/NAV/TAOs/OODs will still review the weather reports and make adjustments to track accordingly.
ReplyDeletePreaching to the choir, brother. I've had 5 afloat USS surface combatant tours in my +20 years of active duty with plenty of run-ins with very bad weather. I understand all too well the need to secure for sea and set material condition zebra main deck and below.
ReplyDeleteActually, DDG-1000 is going to be completed (most likely) below the budget. Guess why ?
ReplyDeleteWell, the one and only long range air search radar (SPY-4) is being deleted. Announced earlier this year, it was stated to save $600,000,000.00.
You obviously know that Lockheed Martin informed everyone about 2 years ago that they weren't going to meet the deadline for DDG-1000.
So, has anyone reduced the price of USS ZUMWALT by $600,000,000.00 ??
No, but NAVSEA will brag that they are on budget on cost (and forget the ugly fact above).
BTW, suggest you re-classify your large new ship: DD-1000, vice DDG-1000.
And please don't throw out that ridiculous argument that SPY-3 will be able to fill in for SPY-4. Some of us know this is false.
WOW! I haven't heard that song in a while!
ReplyDelete"And please don't throw out that ridiculous argument that SPY-3 will be able to fill in for SPY-4. Some of us know this is false."
ReplyDeleteHowever, SPY-3 (MFR) is designed to support missile engagements so the "G" in DDG stays. If this were not the case, then PMS 500 would be deleting PVLS from the design.
<span>However within the TSCE software, DDG 1000 is designed to notify the watchstanders of deteriorating weather conditions.</span>
ReplyDeleteBased on what?
And how far out?
The human brain is much more adept at pattern recognition than any software.
Again, you are trying to engineer out the weather, and it will be mighty expensive for the little bit of results you will get.
This is likely coming from the same folks who try to sell us similar snake oil.
There are much much better things to spend your limited funds on...
ReplyDeleteLike training engineers....
This ship will need top notch EM's
And the USN would do well to flesh out what gets taught as basic seamanship
What worries me too, is the percieved need for software to perform this very basic task.
Is it expected the watchstanders will be saturated with other duties than driving the ship?
What if your mission tasking requires you to stay in a box, say for shooting down missiles? Do you stay in the box and get hammered or do you leave and let the missile go through?
ReplyDeleteYou folks should tell Raytheon you don't want all those little baubles you are paying quite dearly for ZSME...Like that weather prediction crap.
ReplyDeleteI'm betting that yet again, another 21st Century USN ship design will hit the water over complicated, over budget, and under performing.
Hope I'm wrong, but doubt I will be
sid and all others,
ReplyDeleteFunny thing about designing and building complex weapon systems and ships...the contractors only do what the customer (U.S. Navy) tells them to do.
For example:
- U.S. Navy tells contractor "Build me a ship to do A thru Z"
- U.S. Navy writes requirements (ORD) to detail what A thru Z is.
- U.S. Navy and contractor work together to develop system level specifications.
- System level specifications get decomposed into element and component specifications.
- Contractor submits designs for equipment and software and U.S. Navy reviews designs at Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR).
- Based on results of PDR/CDR, U.S. Navy tells contractor what to build.
- U.S. Navy (DCMA) monitors contractor performance in meeting design requirements throughout the construction process.
So you see, the contractor does not have the freedom to go off and just "make stuff up" and build whatever they feel like because it's "cool wiz bang" and will make us lots of $$$. We do what the customer says. If the customer specifies to develop storm avoidance software, we don't tell them "...you don't want all those little baubles...", we respond with a hearty "Yes Sir".
AW1 Tim,
ReplyDeleteWhere do you work? Are you at NAVSEA or OPNAV? PMS 500 maybe? Where did you acquire the facts that justify DDG 1000 as a "Frankenship" that is designed as a "jobs program for BIW" and "unable to survive contact with the enemy"?
If you knew even the very basics about DDG 1000 total protection systems, armor, fire suppression, damage decision assessment, etc, then I suspect you'd want to modify your initial assessment.
If what you're read on DDG 1000 originates from the misinformation spread by Navytimes and other media, I'm not surprised with you slanted view.
I know that the main propulsion diesels on LPD-17 are computer monitored with the latest and greatest software...and I know from the recent JAGMAN investigation that EN Timmy did not understand what he was seeing and caused a diesel to destroy itself. Is this the kind of software that the wetware will have to interpret and live and die by?
ReplyDeleteLast but not least, ZSME, you have a lot of dogs in this hunt; we have none. Our only concern is that the Navy doesn't get stuck with another floating money pit like LCS and LPD-17. So far the Navy new construction for surface warfare record sucks and the odds that DDG-1000 won't are pretty slim. So excuse our reluctance to believe every word we've heard from you, because we've already heard it all.
True and needlessly expensive, in all too many cases. The problem with computers processing data is that the inexperienced tend to believe the display as ground truth.
ReplyDeleteExample: USS Port Royal....crunch.
Oh...Come On ZSME....
ReplyDeleteThe contractors have been driving the requirements game for the better part of two decades.
Ever since William Perry and his "dinner with the devil" or whatever it was called with the major contractors that ushered in this era of (Way Too OVer) consolidation...
What Raytheon is selling you has a familial resembalnce to the supposed predictive acumen of some of their other products.
And... are the bridgestanders going to be so saturated that they can't figure this stuff out with existing methodologies?
(hold that thought...off to Paris....wonder if the TSCE would tell me its gonna snow?)
I read that history to be that NavSea deleted a requirement to stay on cost, not that they deleted a requirement to achive a bargain.
ReplyDeleteThat's what NavSea/NavAir should do more of.
What is it that a S-band radar can do that an X-band can't? Volume search is an imcomplete answer when the X-band radar has electronically formed beams in phased arrays and can do volume search on this face, surface search on that face, and periscope detection on the third. Or some time-shared mixture of all three on all faces.
Grandpa, first time I saw that bow I thought the exact same thing.
ReplyDeleteApparently, the PVLS is the best new feature designed into the DDG-1000. Room for future AEGIS variant larger missile growth, and it's also very reassuring to have around 2 inches of steel all along the sides of this new warship. As compared to most Navy ships having either 0.5 inches of steel or sometimes 0.25 inches of steel in their sides.
ReplyDeleteWondering if the Navy gets a price reduction of $600,000,000 for not having a long range air search radar, SPY-4 ? It must be planned to be a fantastic new air search radar since it is the same RF freq's as the SPY-1 which is installled onboard more than 100 ships worldwide. How many SPY-3 MFR radars are installed on ships ? So, far, zero is the correct answer.
Does NAVSEA mitigate risk by putting all its DDG-1000 search radars into one basket ? Not too smart. SPY-3 when paired with SPY-4 would have made an excellent DBR Dual Band Radar, which is still (hopefully) going onboard CVN-78, and DDG-1001, 1002. Putting SPY-3 out there all alone is not best decision for a major, capital warship like USS ZUMWALT.
And it cannot be back-fit later. So, how come DDG-1000 doesn't get a large $600 plus million dollar price reduction ? That's what the NAVSEA PR release stated last Spring 2010, when they announced that DDG-1000 would forego SPY-4 to save money. Or.... Was NAVSEA fibbing (again) to American citizens ?
As a met guy I can tell you that we are pretty good at forecasting and routing, but to design your ship around the OTSR capabilities is not the best idea. Every once in awhile, operational requirements, bad luck, or geography put you in seas that you don't want to be in. Your ship must be able to handle weather. Full stop.
ReplyDelete"The contractors have been driving the requirements game for the better part of two decades."
ReplyDeletesid, you've made the accusation, now back it up with facts. I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not within my power to add requirements onto the DDG 1000 program. Show me concrete proof to the contrary, please.
"And... are the bridgestanders going to be so saturated that they can't figure this stuff out with existing methodologies?"
There have been several Bridge Usability Assessments (UA) by real, uniform-wearing, active duty officers and enlisted personnel. The Navy assessment (not contractor) is that they have sufficient resources to effectively navigate the ship.
OTSR has been around since Typhoon Cobra
ReplyDeleteLt B...Since you are one of those guys who gets paid tp be wrong... :-D
What is the forecast skill for "rogue wave" conditions?
Is there a "model" out there that can reliably do it?
OTSR has been around since Typhoon Cobra
ReplyDeleteLt B...Since you are one of those guys who gets paid tp be wrong... :-D
What is the forecast skill for "rogue wave" conditions?
Is there a "model" out there that can reliably do it?
sorry for the double posts...some issue with this "furrin" intertube.
ReplyDelete<span>Is there a "model" out there that can reliably do it?</span>
ReplyDeleteYou would not believe how much snake oil is being peddled to "solve" this other pesky breaking wave problem...
Thats why I'm askin'
"You mean the same people who brought us the LCS?"
ReplyDeleteNot certain what you mean here in regards to the original point concerning sufficient resources to navigate DDG 1000.
The hard facts are that real, uniform wearing, active duty United States Navy personnel from various commands including several precommissioning units from Bath ME, Pascagoula MS, and officers from the Naval War College have directly participated and provided critical feedback on the DDG 1000 Bridge CONOPs and have determine (they did, the Navy guys and gals, not the contractors) that the DDG 1000 Bridge design and CONOPs are sufficient to support safe and effect ship navigation.
If you don't like what U.S. Navy personnel have to say about the DDG 1000 Bridge design and CONOPs, then I suggest you take it up with them.
I can't speak for the LCS or F-35 programs. Again, as long as the government is paying the bills, DCMA provides oversight. Highly unlikely the contractors would be able to "make up" their own requirements outside of the approval of the contracting authority. It just doesn't work that way.
"Last but not least, ZSME, you have a lot of dogs in this hunt; we have none."
ReplyDeleteSo what your telling me is that my only concern as a contractor working on DDG 1000 is to make money? Is that what you think this is all about? Let's set the record straight. I am here because of my +20 years of active duty U.S. Navy experience. I walk, talk and sleep U.S. Navy surface combatants. I'm a prior enlisted, college educated, Mustang officer who takes his job very seriously. I work alongside dozens of other retired U.S. Navy officers and senior enlisted. We are dedicated to providing the best possible ship to the Officers and Sailors of the U.S. Navy. When I work on different designs and CONOPs, I always try to look at things with end user in mind. I care more about how PO2 Jones or LT Smith will live, work and fight onboard DDG 1000 than I care about the programmatics involved in ACAT I procurement activities. Sure I have a lot of dogs in the hunt; I'm answering to every father, mother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle and cousin who will ever wear the uniform of a United States Sailor and walk on the deckplates of a DDG 1000 class ship. We are all keenly aware of what has happened to other ship programs like LCS and LPD 17. No one can tell for certain how things will work out for DDG 1000 post delivery nor can we say the same for the DDG 51 restart and the Flight III. We can only do the best we can with the here-and-now of where we are at this stage of the program. We're building the ship. We're testing the software and hardware. We're working out CONOPs and logisitics details. We are serious professionals and we're doing our best for the U.S. Navy. I never loss sight of the fact that one my children or maybe even grandchildren could serve on this ship someday. I'm sorry you think less of us, but I still serve our Navy proudly in the capacity of an engineer working on DDG 1000.
"Haven't spent much time at sea have yah."
ReplyDeleteUh, yes, I have. As a matter of fact, 5 sea tours onboard USS surface combatants (CG/DDG/FFG) in +20 years.
Recommend you do a little more research outside of Navytimes on the DDG 1000 systems design and capabilities. You might learn something.
See previous comment...
ReplyDelete- Mustang Officer, U.S. Navy, Retired after +20 years and 5 sea tours.
Sorry, but I'm more than a "cute engineer"...I'm also a shipmate.
James, where are you getting your info from? Sounds like your own "assumptions" based on no facts to back them up:
ReplyDelete"Weapons and such arent ready"
- MK 110 BOFORs gun is already in service onboard LCS class, USCG, and various NATO Navies. Standard Missile, ESSM, Tomahawk and VLA are also already in service in the U.S. Navy.
"Extremely unstable"
- Based on what? We've already done extensive testing and nothing indicates the hull design being "Extremely unstable"
"Ill suited for its supposed combat enviroment"
- The U.S. Navy developed specifications for the DDG 1000 to operate in the littorals and the design meets the requirements...low RCS, radar designed for close ashore performance, shallow draft.
"Extremely expensive"
- This is the result of the CNO truncating the program down to 3 ships. All the R&D cost would have been spread over 12 or more ships however when it was cut to 3 then the per unit cost grew.
"Under crewed"
- Manning objective is 126, threshold 175. This is specified by the U.S. Navy and the manning task load analysis supports these figures.
"Very poor CIWS when its supposed to be designed for work.......close to shore...."
- Where did you get this info from? As previously stated, the MK 110 BOFORs gun is already in service.
With all due respect for you engineering skills but in WWII German engineers replaced the straight bows on their heavy cruisers with Atlantic bows for a reason.
ReplyDeleteWith the Zumwalt has basically happened... just the OPPOSITE, and you seem to feel there's something stinking here yourself, because you add (hope) the Zumwalt will be out of the way in time when there's gonna be a heavy storm.
Hey, serious. C'mon.
Also, I fail to see the mere RATIONALE for the tumbledown design. It even reduces the ship's useful deck surface. I would almost think it was designed that way just because it looks cool.
"Also, I fail to see the mere RATIONALE for the tumbledown design. It even reduces the ship's useful deck surface. I would almost think it was designed that way just because it looks cool."
ReplyDeletePlease take a few minutes to research DDG 1000 design beyond what Navytimes says.
The tumblehome (not tumbledown) hull design is for lower RCS to operate in the littorals and improved fuel efficiency...not to "look cool".
How funny...the U.S. Navy gave us a requirement to build a "cool looking" ship. Common Outlaw Mike, seriously!
zsme:
ReplyDeletebyron is talking about having to install aluminum armor plate on the 01, 02, 03 levels of all spruance class superstructures in service when it was discovered that a man with an "ought six" on the pier could pierce the cic compartment forom pierside,
he's talkiing about having to apply a main deck up "expansion joint" to all fig 7's in service.
he's talking about having to redesign/remanufacture the forward emergency diesel exhaust system on LHA1.... so that the exhaust from a 3700 hp diesel was not sucked into pilots stateroom areas. (bird farms are a bit touchy about losing pilots since the Oriskany fire).
there is a lot of other little "bubu's" that have fallen off of the design board.
IMO bath has built the best ships that we could get for more than a century, no getting around that, but you are truly in the world of
"if we are given orders that allow a certain amount of lotitude we will probably thunder along in our usual fashion but on occasion we will star like a world champion.
but if we get orders to be stupid we have to be stupid".
as far as the contractors not driving requirements..... nahhhh that don't fly.
everyone that has drawn a paycheck that says department of defence on it has seen the aggessive salesman call and we say "don't need it" so they keeep going
down the hall until someone sends the word down "buy some of this guys "sh&t" so we can get rid of him.
C
is it in the forecastle????
ReplyDeleteC
Grand pa:
ReplyDeletei'll take it for the crew:
WTF is a panglossian epistle?
C
remember:
ReplyDeletebloomers alwayse leak.
ancient gunnersmate saying.
C
hey:
ReplyDeleteif it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, flys like a duck, and has to avoid backing down cause the flapper valve in its a$$ leaks it must be a duck
C
<span> that the DDG 1000 Bridge design and CONOPs are sufficient to support safe and effect ship navigation</span>
ReplyDeleteZSME...You are dissembling here...
Sure they did...
Based on a demo set up by whom?
<span>Not certain what you mean here in regards to the original point concerning sufficient resources to navigate DDG 1000. </span>
ReplyDeleteNice try on deflecting the point.
Kinda like that tumblehome against a visually targeted weapon.....
<span>the U.S. Navy gave us a requirement to build a "cool looking" ship.</span>
ReplyDeleteWell, that pretty much sums up this money sucking hole in the water....
Oh. And while we're on that tired variation of the "just following orders" defense....
How come Lockmart didn't tell the Army and navy that there was<span> NO WAY</span> this program was going to work -GIVEN THE "REQUIREMENTS"- and say that it would be unethical to take the taxpayers' money and whizz it down a hole?
Was it because they saw that they would make money no matter what?
sid,
ReplyDeleteOK, I get it...you know far better how to design and build the perfect ship...us low-life contractors are just out to suck the money out of the poor U.S. Navy...got it.
So sid, be my guest, go right ahead and fix Navy shipbuilding...you're so smart, tell us how it's done...go ahead...
...wait to hear your perfect solution...this should be good... :-P
I dunno, but I WANT ONE.
ReplyDelete-from my chair out in the back 40
sid, see my previous comments...think you're darn good at shooting holes in every word that I write...now I want to see YOUR PERFECT SOLUTIONS for U.S. Navy shipbuilding....after all, I'm just a low-life greedy contractor trying to screw over the Navy...you on the other hand are the knight in shining armor coming to save the U.S. Navy from us evil contractors...OK, friendo, let's hear it...tell us ALL how you're going to fix Navy shipbuilding?
ReplyDeletesid, were you their at the Bridge UA? Were you part of the Navy Tech Team (NTT) that set up the demo? I have the results on my desk...do you?
ReplyDeleteSpeak facts and stop talking smack, bubba!
pk,
ReplyDeleteMy money is it is a gentle nudge in the ribs to the Marine Artilleryman who occasions the porch from time to time.
If nothing else, GB is a highly educated man.
PK: An epistle is a letter. Get thee to the sanctuary next sabbath.
ReplyDeleteLook in wikipedia under "Best of all possible worlds" or Voltaire's "Candide". That must have been some hot babe sat next to you in 10th grade english.
URR: In general fighter pilots share more personality characteristics with Dr P than hard eyed, three fingered, eight toed old cannon cockers. Breech door timing while hand ramming and the coefficient of friction for large cylindrical brass objects in cold wet hands and muddy snow aside, artillery lends a note of dignified detachment to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl, so I'm surprised to find a minor omission in your knowledge of the classics.
ReplyDeleteZSME,
ReplyDelete<span>"...hull design is for lower RCS to operate in the littorals..." That is one of the original sins of DDG-1000 - one pointed out early by warfare qualified officers during staff review and they were told to shut up.</span>
There is more to littoral stealth and RCS. Part of that sin is the common abuse of the english language. First - define Littoral as the rest of the world does:
<span>lit·to·ral</span> <span>(l<img></img>t<img></img><img></img>r-<img></img>l)</span>
adj. Of or on a shore, especially a seashore: <span>a littoral property; the littoral biogeographic zone.</span>n.1. A coastal region; a shore.2. The region or zone between the limits of high and low tides.
That definition covers roughly two out of three littoral zones, the supralittoral and the eulittoral. The third zone, the sublittoral is usually defined as to whereever the continental shelf ends. That can vary a lot depending on where you are - from hundreds of yards to hundreds of miles. In various documents Navy and otherwise, you can hear it defined as from 200' to 600' depth to shore.
The way the CNO uses it though - as in the LCS operating where, ahem, "in a way we haven't operated before" (OT but given operations from Normanday to Vietnam to al Faw, that is just a silly statement) - he implies that littoral is within visual range of shore. That is also where a lot of the marketing material for DDG-1000 shows her in the "littoral" as well.
If that is our defined term, then we must understand that the DDG-1000 is the size of the Pocket Battleship Graf Spee. She also is more visible than the Graf Spee due to the nature of her superstructure. If you can be seen by an illiterate peasant sitting in the back of a pickup loading his twin 23-MM - then you ain't stealth. If you are launching and recovering boats or trying to work your way through the very crowded sealanes in the littoral - then you ain't stealth.
You can be a hole in the water 99% of the time - but the minute you are seen or leak RF - then it was for nothing.
Stealth on a warship that sized (also, it is a light cruiser - not a destroyer, really) is a marketing ploy, not a serious or cost effective feature when you want to close the shore and inflict damage on the enemy.
<span>Supralittoral zone</span>
From: Gramps
ReplyDeleteTo: G-potomus
Subject: Panglossian epistle; forwarding of
1. Your request has been granted. See para 2.
2. God loves you, because you are so damn cute.
3. Now you have one.
Optimistically yours, warm regards,
Respectfully, G BW
Ain't no perfect ships ZSME. It sure looks like you are the one touting a "perfect" ship driven by this awesome TSCE software.
ReplyDeleteThe place to start when building a "good" ship is with an emphasis on the basics, not the exotic.
First off reestablish an objective, long term requirments definining body in the USN, something like what exsisted from the results of the early missteps in the "New Steel Navy" until WWII Read Friedman's design histories, and you can clearly trace the increasingly muddled path shipbuilding has taken since the demise of that way of doing business.
Get the big contractors out of the shipbuilding business. Break them up like Ma Bell. Emphasize craftsmanship, and subsidize shipwright training. Put Byron in charge. If Blohm and Voss in expensive Germany can still crank out (quality) merchants, there is no reason we can't.
Tell us more about that demo ZSME....
ReplyDeleteNot what I was driving at with my series of grunts and gestures. I used "panglossian" in a post over at USNI, and got an earful about it, and I mistakenly thought it was you. But it might have been SWMBO. Yes, Pangloss. From Candide.
ReplyDelete<p><span><span>ZSME: You want requirements? </span></span>
ReplyDelete</p><p><span><span>sid: I think I'm entitled. </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>ZSME: You want requirements? </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>sid: I want the requirements! </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>ZSME: You can't handle the requirements! </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>ZSME: Son, we live in a world that has ships, and those ships have to be built by men with requirements. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Supship? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Aegis, and you curse the DDG 1000. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That DDG 1000's design, while brilliant, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the requirements because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in that lab, you need me in that lab. We use words like Use Case, XML, UNIX. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent designing something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very ships that I design, and then questions the manner in which I design them. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a calculator, and start writing algorithms. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>sid: Did you write the requirements? </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>ZSME: I did the job I... </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>sid: Did you write <span> </span>the requirements? </span></span>
</p><p><span><span>ZSME: You're Goddamn right I did!</span></span></p>
Not funny at all, in fact, go ahead and tell that to Mike Monsoor's teammates and see how long you get to keep all your teeth. Seriously disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteUh, not really the cause of Port Royal grounding:
ReplyDelete"A shift in the ship’s navigation system led to erroneous information on the ship’s position. The switch from a Global Positioning System to a gyroscope caused a 1.5-mile discrepancy in the ship’s position and set off alarm bells that were continuously disregarded."
- Crew failed to properly set up the Navigation System IAW CSOSS procedures and then ignored alarms.
“Bridge watch team, navigation, and (Combat Information Center) team did not work together to assess situation and keep the ship from standing into danger.”
- Crew coordination failure and human error.
"The officer of the deck had been qualified for only three months, and had no experience operating at night in the vicinity of the reef."
"The quartermaster of the watch had stood three months of watch on a deployment a year earlier, but could not plot fixes in near-shore waters, so another sailor, a navigation evaluator, took over to plot the ship’s position."
- Inexperienced personnel not properly qualified to stand assigned watchstations.
"Qualified lookouts were on board for watch duty the night of the grounding, but they were working in the mess as food service attendants and were not allowed to assume the watch."
- Failure of senior watch officer to provide qualified personnel to man lookouts.
"Set and drift were not calculated."
Overall, a series of human errors and command leadership failures resulted in the grounding of Port Royal. Had the crew followed prescribed procedures and set up the NAV system properly and stood their watches properly the Port Royal would not have run aground.
So like Grandpa said, over reliance on technology caused the grounding. If everyone had done thier job and ignored the false and conflicting information, they would not have run aground.
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
ReplyDeleteEarly favorite for funniest comment on this particular post!
BZ!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm a contractor and A) I don't think you're greedy (if you were, you'd be in Congress) and B) or that you're trying to screw the Navy. I think you drank too much of the Kool Aid though... You got married to a design and now it's "till death do us part".
ReplyDeleteZSME: Port Royal: They hung their hat on the ECDIS input from the GPS. The drop down menu had been clicked to the "turn it into a DRT" mode (or maybe it glitched to there - dunno), and it had been dead reckoning for about a day and a half. The Alarm alarms on too many things too often (when everything is important, nothing is important) and is not a usable alerting device in restricted waters. No A+ here for the Tom Swift electronic satellite computer graphic wiz bang auto-ironnav.
ReplyDeleteNone of which matters a damn. They were in piloting waters, with the piloting detail set. The Navigation Plotter couldn't plot. The only experienced bearing takers (not lookouts, lookouts shall have no other duties by COLREGS) were mess cooking, those doing the job were doing their honest (slow, tentative) best. Danger bearings were either not laid down on the chart in use or not checked. So visual fixes were not being plotted proficiently. In the Pearl Harbor outer channel with a visual range in sight, and your choice of better than a half dozen reliable lights and day marks in sight! Set and drift can be computed with two fixes, if a hand dr is kept, with two plastic triangles and a set of dividers, in less than 30 seconds.
The kids couldn't get two 3 line fixes down, so no set and drift, if they even knew the technique. They made it out of port on the computer screen, but couldn't check it with the 1925 vintage basic gear. Didn't know how.
The fact that there wasn't a working radar repeater on the bridge didn't help. CIC coulda shoulda, but didn't.
Plus a whole lot more.
Seaman's eye should suffice on that reach with a bushel of seamanlike caution. Command element got saturated watching the boat evolution. Not that somebody didn't want a CO and XO's head on a pike for NOT micromanaging putting a boat over, after a sailor in the boat crew got killed. CO's keep the big picture. XO's monitor. DH's supervise. Chiefs train, maintain, watch over and throw the BS flag as required, XO's and DH's back up and heed.
Commodores and above should know all that. Too many act like they don't. But I digress.
As delineated above, I stand by my original one liner.
Ah! Not I, for sure.
ReplyDeleteIt appears I thought I had misjudged you, in error.
I am greatly relieved.
All the best as always.
Bull Snipe, in general, Navy ships want to be searching with as many radars as possible. Using many frequencies, different PRF's, different Pulsw Widths, different scans, different processing, etc. If a ship or Battle Group only has radars searching in the X-BAND, they will not have the needed coverage, especially in different weather conditions. Detection ranges, range resolution, bearing resolution, range accuracy, bearing accuracy, etc. are all affected by both the radar's characteristics, as well as by temperature, humidity, ducting, etc. which all affect propagation.
ReplyDeleteBack in 2001-2002, NAVSEA wanted the DDG-1000 to have a search radar operating around 1,000 MHZ (SPY-4). But Lockheed Martin insisted that the contract requirements be moved to around 3,000 MHZ making SPY-4 very similar to SPY-1 frequencies. NAVSEA originally wanted SPY-4 to search in the low freq's around 1,000 MHZ because of the additional ranges this would provide to DD-21. All 100 or so AEGIS warships search using roughly 3,000 MHZ with their excellent SPY-1 radars. The new SPY-4 Raytheon radar searches (and does other functions) in the X-BAND somewhere around approx 10,000 MHZ frequencies. You want all ships to be searching using low, medium, and high freq radars. Goal is to detect all kinds of aircraft and missiles at greatest possible ranges, regardless of the weather conditions, and regardless of size of the air contacts and whether or not they are made of Low Observable LO materials.
Unfortunately, many rumors about DDG-1000 are probably true. Here's one heard often, and I was wondering if ZSME could reply:
ReplyDeleteCan DDG-1000 actually raise and train those two huge new gun mounts on the bow, if Sea State is greater than 3 ?
The rumor says that these two 155mm guns are not really well designed for shipboard use, and are really best elevated, trained and fired in mild sea states less than 3.
Any truth to this ? Marines ashore might need to have some gunfire support from DDG-1000 even is the weather is not mild and calm. Thanks.
Sid,
ReplyDeleteNo we don't forecast rogue waves. We know where there are some likely places they occur and understand how they form, but it is hard to model due to their very nature.
"You got married to a design and now it's "till death do us part".
ReplyDeleteEver hear of a CDR (Critical Design Review)? Tell me, who approves the final design? It isn't me, I can tell you that. Actually, it's the Navy that approved every design aspect of DDG 1000. We have people called Ship Design Managers (SDMs) and they are DoN civilians, not contractors. I am under contract to execute the design that was chosen by the U.S. Navy.
If you want to blame someone for the DDG 1000 design that you all obviously have issues with, then blame the people who approved it...the United States Navy!
Sorry, but the Port Royal NAV team was screwed up from the get-go and never was able to establish an accurate fix throughout the entire underway evolution. The SPA-25G radar repeaters on the Bridge were OOC. The QMOW was not maintaining track on the NAV charts. Lookouts were not qualified nor taking bearings/fixes. The watch team was not manned per the approved watchbill with non-qual/inexperienced watchstanders on the NAV team. CO had slept 15 hours in the previous 3 days. I'd say the least of their problems was GPS error...
ReplyDeletealmost fell of the chair reading this...
ReplyDeleteGood heavenly days! I think we just said the same thing, sorta. The Piloting Party couldn't get a fix down, so the OOD went to the computer screen, which was displaying the wrong input for the own ship position symbol (not the GPS). It "looked" all right to all the green hands, so they believed it.
ReplyDeleteThe younger (than me, not all that young) generation trusts digital displays. I was taught "never trust a rudder angle indicator, a compass repeater, or a verbatim repeatback from a helm or lee helm" (by extension, any indication or report) without checking it early and often". Dovyea no provyea (please excuse my phonetic russian misspelling).
Not even a SWO who retired and went over to the dark side, errr, became a NAVSEA civilian. ;)
<span>"The tumblehome (not tumbledown) hull design is for lower RCS to operate in the littorals."</span>
ReplyDelete(Snicker) In the littorals, lookouts on hilltops and on fishing boats with hand held tranceivers or improvised visual signals will suffice for detection. Optical sights for gun laying will work. A radar guided missile threat, ok. HARM? The first time you put a radar to transmit, the brass band starts playing a medley of the national anthem and "hit me with your best shot". I imagine the enemy will get a fuzz buster of some sort.
I guess I'm a hopeless contrarian, the cost benefit ratio of the whole concept remains a little unproven, to me.
Dittoes for that "other" anomalous breaking wave issue.
ReplyDeleteNo matter the multimillion dollar megasooperdooper doppler solutions that may be offered...
You might get a 90 second warning.
Gimme some decent GOES imagery, and I can identify the synoptic and mesoscale patterns many 10s of minutes out in time....
So easy an ankle bitin' sand crab like me can do it.
The whole point being that high tech should never subjugate the inherent high ingenuity between one's ears.
Dittoes for that "other" anomalous breaking wave issue.
ReplyDeleteNo matter the multimillion dollar megasooperdooper doppler solutions that may be offered...
You might get a 90 second warning.
Gimme some decent GOES imagery, and I can identify the synoptic and mesoscale patterns many 10s of minutes out in time....
So easy an ankle bitin' sand crab like me can do it.
The whole point being that high tech should never subjugate the inherent high ingenuity between one's ears.
Sorry for the double posts...
ReplyDeleteSorry for the double posts...
ReplyDeleteNow thats right funny!!!
ReplyDelete<span> I am under contract to execute the design that was chosen by the U.S. Navy.</span>
ReplyDeleteWhich consulting firms helped shape that Navy decision?
Are those same folks who, "<span>approved every design aspect of DDG 1000" still in the employ of us taxpayers, or have they moved on to "private industry"?
</span>
Grandpa,
ReplyDeleteYou are right as rain. It bears repeating. The RCS considerations in the littorals are rather silly. There are thousands of 85mm and 100mm antitank guns out there in the hands of low-tech adversaries, and ammunition of all types is more than plentiful. How do they acquire? Lookouts. And the panoramic telescope on the weapon. With rates of fire for the D-48 and BS-3 well over 10 rounds per minute, and ranges out to 20km, they are lethal anti-boat guns that won't be acquired until they have fired a high number of very accurate and lethal rounds.
What is your LCS killer? And your DDG-1000 killer near shore? See below.
All the nasties would need to do is build a series of 150' fire towers along the coast, with night vision equipment, IR equipment, and good binoculars, and they would know any time a DDG 1000 would be within 25 miles of thier coast.
ReplyDeleteIn Voltaire's Candide, there was a character named Dr. Pangloss, who belived that " all things turn out for the best, in the best of all possible worlds".
ReplyDelete<span>Had the crew followed prescribed procedures and set up the NAV system properly and stood their watches properly the Port Royal would not have run aground.</span>
ReplyDeleteHad they looked looked out from the bridge wings and applied that old -but unsexy and old fashioned- seaman's eye they would not have run aground.
ASME the answer is not always more high tech baubles.
And the bottom line proof is the disaster that is USN ship and aircraft acquisition over the last decade.
The DDG-1000 with its implausible premise is but the latest example of a wrong headed program blundering along..."because it must"
Badge: Very good. Now if you can spot the other literary allusion nobody mentioned, you can go to the head of the class.
ReplyDeleteHow did you avoid 10th grade brain housing group shutdown on low BP above the lower torso?
Your neck of the goods is teeming with beautiful women.
<span><span>Had the crew followed prescribed procedures and set up the NAV system </span></span>
ReplyDeletehad the crew applied the simple concept of a visual danger bearing, they would have known they were drifting ionto that reef...
But thats the flaw in your "transformative" way of seafairing ASME.
Rely on a box instead of your eyes...
And you can bet a low tech enemy with some ingenuity will find a way of defeating all that RCS reduction in the Littorals one day too.
You don't get the sad irony of a ship capable of conducting exoatmospheric warfare foundering just off the entrance to its home port?
You don't see a probelm in the -your- process that got them there?
OK, OK, enough...besides this is starting to get really boring...you all know sooooo much about how to design and build ships, fight in the littorals, and navigate in Sea State 10 and above, it's no use even continuing this volley.
ReplyDeleteI suppose this is nothing new. Everytime the Navy made a transition from what was considered the "norm" to a new technology, the nay-sayers dropped from the yardarms to pummel the visionaires. For example:
- Sail to Steam: "What are you crazy? Them high pressure boilers will blow up and kill everyone onboard"
- Battleship to Aircraft Carrier: "Those silly little airplanes are no match for our mighty battleships."
- Gun Ships to Guided Missiles: "You'll never get those missiles to launch never mind hit any target."
- NTU to Aegis: "Antennas that don't rotate? How the hell is that supposed to work?"
- MK 26 Launcher to MK 41 VLS: "It's way too dangerous to launch a missile from a canister inside the ship. That's just crazy. What are you going to do when there's a dud? With no dud jettison system, the whole ship will blow up."
- All male crews to women on ships: "Women will just ruin crew cohesion and can't handle the physical demands onboard ship."
Funny how looking back on all the negativity associated with change and how those fears were never realized.
Merry Christmas. AZME signing off. BT//
Don't know about the rest of that stuff but you can bet your sweet transom I know how to build one, bucko. I've been doing it for 40 years now, something had to rub off.
ReplyDeleteOkay ZSME, you went and tiptoed too far over the line.
ReplyDeleteI am a Marine, and by no means an expert at Naval Engineering, nor anything else with ship design. Never claimed to be. Respect is deep for those who are.
However, I do know more than a little about fighting in the littorals, buddy. And what can likely be brought to bear easily against the most sophisticated of the US Navy's vaunted technology.
Tell you what. You put together a scenario in any African/Third World littoral where persistent US Naval presence is required for mission accomplishment. Give me a reasonably realistic enemy capability and have me Red Team against you, your design team, ESG and CSG commanders, and anyone else.
I will tear you, your technology, your operational concepts, and your warships and sailors, to absolute shreds. Crippling, if not fatal damage to half-billion dollar warships, dead and wounded sailors, and pictures of the whole mess all over Reuters within the hour. And I will do it with improvised means, and weapons that have been in use since Stalin built them in the 40s. No ELINT signature, no nothing until it's too late.
So save the self-righteous BS for someone who doesn't have to fight in the littorals. That is MY mission. And that of my Marines.
URR--RAAHHH!
ReplyDelete<span>Funny how looking back on all the negativity associated with change and how those fears were never realized. </span>
ReplyDeleteBoy Howdy!
Talk about some serious conflation!
This isn't about resistance to change ZSME
I knew you were going to go there, which is why I brought something up that is in fact tangentially related in my day job, just to show that isn't the case.
Its is resistance to change just for the sake of dubious benefit.
And that pretty much sums up the whole tenor and tone of the TSCE being incorporated into the Aresenal Ship/DDX/DD21/DDG-1000
Admit it too....You never have much seen the value in the study of history.
That is evident in some of your glaringly WRONG conclusions...like this one:
<span>- All male crews to women on ships: "Women will just ruin crew cohesion and can't handle the physical demands onboard ship." </span>
No blame really on the women no so don't go there as I don't want to be eviscerated by the fairer ones on the porch (or the SO who is tolerating me tapping on these keys)- but did you not read CDRs post next to this one?
Anyway to your general premise though, its one that is worth exploring, and there is a very good book about it.