Reviving Cruisers? (And cruisers from non-US naval doctrines)

[Feanor]

Or visit our very own image gallery.

EDIT: gf0012 this isn't necessarily directed to the original prompt but, how do you think the lack of a true universal VLS will affect Russia's ability to design future destroyer-class vessels? As it stands they have two separate VLS designs, one for SAMs and the other for land-attack and anti-ship. And to top it off their current SAM VLS isn't compatible (to the best of my knowledge) with the S-300/400 family (unclear whether it has any compatibility with the S-500). Essentially you can see it in the design for the 22350s where they have to plan for two separate areas with VLS cells of different type and size.

 

[gf0012-aust]

EDIT: gf0012 this isn't necessarily directed to the original prompt but, how do you think the lack of a true universal VLS will affect Russia's ability to design future destroyer-class vessels? As it stands they have two separate VLS designs, one for SAMs and the other for land-attack and anti-ship. And to top it off their current SAM VLS isn't compatible (to the best of my knowledge) with the S-300/400 family (unclear whether it has any compatibility with the S-500). Essentially you can see it in the design for the 22350s where they have to plan for two separate areas with VLS cells of different type and size.

always found it surprising that russians hadn't dealt with this formally

having a standard VLS also forces them to design a core missile family - and that's probably why they haven't done it as they has such a broad range of missiles and not a lot of dimensional commonality

seemed strange to me that for a country that had a good missile development history that they hadn't managed to sort out standardised launchers etc.....

 

[Volkodav]

I was thinking more the VLS set up on the DDG 1000 and proposed for the San Antonio (LPD-17) based CG proposal, located starboard/outboard or the (starboard located) island, to physically separate the VLS from the flight deck. Also an after located VLS situated in a notched out quaterdeck, would aslo separate those units from the flight deck as helicopters and even USMC F-35 (as far as I am aware) are planned to come in along side the deck on the port side then move starboard for landing.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I need to read more, but it strikes me as being a total PITA as, as you say, reloading isn't possible, eveything is at an angle, making general work on the ship just that much harder, and then you end up with issues beacause the CofG is up that much higher. The only way around it is to then introduce other design compromises.

also made worse by the fact that when they retrofitted old vessels with flank launchers they also invariably had power generation problems and had to add extra generation.

expensive refits for basically a hail mary response

 

[Feanor]

always found it surprising that russians hadn't dealt with this formally

having a standard VLS also forces them to design a core missile family - and that's probably why they haven't done it as they has such a broad range of missiles and not a lot of dimensional commonality

seemed strange to me that for a country that had a good missile development history that they hadn't managed to sort out standardised launchers etc.....

Yes, yes, of course, but my actual question is, how would this impact their ability to design a destroyer? Could the lack of a standard missile family and universal VLS be the reason that they're forced to go so large with the OKR Leader?

OKR Leader started out, very definitely, as a destroyer concept, in the 8000-1000 tonn range.

EDIT: Actually this is now relevant to the original topic. I'm wondering if Russia is again ending up with a heavy cruiser because of the inability to accommodate the necessary contents within a smaller hull.

 

[protoplasm]

Yes, yes, of course, but my actual question is, how would this impact their ability to design a destroyer? Could the lack of a standard missile family and universal VLS be the reason that they're forced to go so large with the OKR Leader?

OKR Leader started out, very definitely, as a destroyer concept, in the 8000-1000 tonn range.

EDIT: Actually this is now relevant to the original topic. I'm wondering if Russia is again ending up with a heavy cruiser because of the inability to accommodate the necessary contents within a smaller hull.

Whilst having a standard VLS imposes restrictions upon your missile designs, leading to potential compromises in the capability of the missile, it does allow for the ship designers to package the ship efficiently, instead of having to leave excess margins to cope with whatever the missile designer comes up with. If I know that I need to leave enough space for a 6m x 6m box, 8m deep with a maximum mass of 300t, and that won't change, I can then design my ship around that in the most efficient way possible.

It's easy to see how a ship designer ends up with a 10,000t ship design that can cope with 4 different launch systems stuck all over it

 

[gf0012-aust]

EDIT: Actually this is now relevant to the original topic. I'm wondering if Russia is again ending up with a heavy cruiser because of the inability to accommodate the necessary contents within a smaller hull.

I suspect that this is the case - but it also wouldn't be seen as a conflict of design purpose in that it conforms to the soviet/russian philosophy of fitting the maximum weaponary possible on and inside the hull. They do have this mindset of turning every platform into an arsenal.

ie saturate to overwhelm etc.....

 

[barney41]

The CNO is keen on identifying what the Navy wants in terms of it's Major Surface Combatant which is intended to succeed the Ticos and Burkes. The DDG 1000 hull form would seem to be a good fit for the MSC but CSBA's Bryan Clark appears to question it's stability in certain sea conditions. I would guess those who actually involved with the DDG 1000 program would disagree with him having subjected the design to extensive testing. In any case, experience gained in operating 2 DDG 1000 ships may dispel any persisting doubts in this area.

Navy’s top officer lays out aggressive new cruiser replacement approach

WASHINGTON – Buoyed by rapid progress on the next-generation frigate, the U.S. Navy’s top officer is ready to quickly move out on the long-debated replacement for the Navy’s aging cruisers.

In an exclusive interview with Defense News, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson laid out a strategy for a new large surface combatant that uses some of the tricks the Navy is employing on the FFG(X) program: looking at existing hull forms as a base for a tailor-made future combatant that can evolve over time.

“We’re going to start putting the pedal to the metal on the next major surface combatant,” Richardson said Wednesday afternoon. “I think we learned a lot in the frigate discussion and turned around the major surface combatant discussion in record time.

 

[spoz]

There have been reports, or possibly rumours is the right word, that the DDG 1000 hull form has stability issues in some sea states, with the sea on certain bearings, and that it’s damaged stability is suspect. Be that as it may, the USN has a number of extant hull designs it could develop as the basis for a new CG.

 

[ASSAIL]

Surely the hull form was tested for all sea states from all directions? It's not as if this is revolutionary practice.
Detractors have doubted the hull form from day one, knowing that, the Naval architects must have made extensive tests before committing to the design.
I view the criticism with a large dose of scepticism.

 

[barney41]

This link addresses the concerns of the doubters and the assurances from the tumblehome hull's proponents. Detractors' arguments seem to be largely based on gut feel formed over years of experience designing and operating traditional hull forms vs. empirical test data from proponents.

Instability Questions About Zumwalt Destroyer Are Nothing New

 

[B.Smitty]

The DDG1000 hull may be fine in its current configuration, but may not be able to handle a 20+ft BMD radar.

It can't cost that much to design a new ~15,000t, conventional cruiser hull. Take the propulsion plant from DDG1000.

 

[barney41]

The DDG1000 hull may be fine in its current configuration, but may not be able to handle a 20+ft BMD radar.

It can't cost that much to design a new ~15,000t, conventional cruiser hull. Take the propulsion plant from DDG1000.

The Zumwalt's superstructure is huge, approximately 160 ft long by 70 ft wide by 65 ft high (48.8m by 21.3m by 19.8m). Surely a notional DDG-1000-based CG-X would offer a broad enough canvass to designers looking to integrate a larger AMDR?

 

[B.Smitty]

The Zumwalt's superstructure is huge, approximately 160 ft long by 70 ft wide by 65 ft high (48.8m by 21.3m by 19.8m). Surely a notional DDG-1000-based CG-X would offer a broad enough canvass to designers looking to integrate a larger AMDR?

The size may not be the issue.

They made the first superstructure out of a balsa composite to save weight. Without the weight of VSR, they could afford to make the others with a steel superstructure.

The problem may be topside weight without the righting moment of a flared hull.

 

[ASSAIL]

The size may not be the issue.

They made the first superstructure out of a balsa composite to save weight. Without the weight of VSR, they could afford to make the others with a steel superstructure.

The problem may be topside weight without the righting moment of a flared hull.

The second and third ships have steel Super structures so weight is obviously not an issue beyond normal stability considerations.
I believe the composite superstructure was designed for LO not stability.

 

[B.Smitty]

The second and third ships have steel Super structures so weight is obviously not an issue beyond normal stability considerations.
I believe the composite superstructure was designed for LO not stability.

AFAIK, the use of composites in the superstructure had nothing to do with LO. The steel ones are just as stealthy

Navy’s Steel Deckhouse Decision for Final Zumwalt is a Blow to HII - USNI News

“The composite design was initially required to meet weight requirements. Subsequent to the award of DDG-1000 and 1001 superstructures, sufficient weight removal allowed for the opportunity to provide a steel superstructure, which is a less costly alternative,” NAVSEA officials said in a Monday statement to USNI News.

.

 

[John Fedup]

Also, the composite deckhouse was in fact used on DDG 1001 too. Only DDG 1002 has a steel deckhouse. The facility that built the composite deckhouses was closed in 2013, at a cost of $59 million. Like the AGS, the composite deckhouses weren't competitive when going from 30 ships to 3!

 

[ASSAIL]

AFAIK, the use of composites in the superstructure had nothing to do with LO. The steel ones are just as stealthy

Navy’s Steel Deckhouse Decision for Final Zumwalt is a Blow to HII - USNI News

“The composite design was initially required to meet weight requirements. Subsequent to the award of DDG-1000 and 1001 superstructures, sufficient weight removal allowed for the opportunity to provide a steel superstructure, which is a less costly alternative,” NAVSEA officials said in a Monday statement to USNI News.

.

Thanks for setting me straight on that, never assume