It's a bit too early to be asking that question. So far, only some major weapons systems slated for Zumwalt have a track record that would likely be used in future combatants; namely ESSM and Tomahawk. Otherwise, everything else, AMDR (which replaced the original dual band spec), Mk. 57 VLS, the AGS, the long range shells, tumblehome hull and a lot more is all new tech that doesn't have a real-world baseline yet.
Yea i've heard the Zumwalt couldnt mount SM-3's so i dont know if there will be alot of difference in its armament.
I don't know that it could or could not use SM-3s. Presumably it could because AMDR is supposed to be available once Flight III Burkes are being built, based on the recent DDG-51 Program Management report. But the point of Zumwalt was (at last check) to provide Naval Gunfire Support as well as fill the role of the defunct Arsenal Ship concept. So a lot of the major fires will be oriented towards Strike capability instead of AAW. It could carry SM-3s to help bolster BMD capable hulls, but seems redundant given the total number of Burkes being retrofitted plus the construction restarts following the Monsoor completion.
Just wanted to point something out. AFAIK tumblehome hull-forms are not actually "new" technology, rather they have not really been used much in the last century. IIRC some of the early "dreadnoughts", the steel-hulled coal-fired steamships that began to appear in the post-(US) Civil War period and were the precursors to the battleships of WWI and WWII, had tumblehome hull-forms. Due to stability issues, the tumblehome ended up being abandoned for the more stable raked bow.
The tumblehome is a horrible hull design stability wise. I've seen several articles where various NAVSEA engineers have stated that was the most difficult hullform they have ever worked with. One of the main criticisms of the hullform is that it will be less stable if for whatever reason the ship starts to flood.
I don't think AGS in its current for has a future, it is very big, very heavy and the ammo is much more expensive than planned.
You mean like if someone starts shooting holes in it? Hardly an ideal trait for a warships whose primary role is supposed to be NGFS.
What did they expect when they started designing what is effectively a launcher for barrel missiles and which cannot fire conventional ammunition?
The IEP propulsion (like that in the T45 and QE class carrier, would hopefully drag the USN kicking and screaming into the 21st century in terms of propulsion. SPY-3 is similar in concept to Sampson isnt it? And I thought they just had an Aegis derivative for their combat system?
It's too late to cancel the class - contracts have been signed, monies have already been paid and spent - there's a lot of work underway at Raytheon and Caderock. The litigation around the not building it would be awful and immense. Heck, Nunn-McCurdy didn't stop JSF or the LCS, so this one's damn the torpedos...
Don't forget Juan Carlos 1 & the Canberra class.
Actually if one looks back, the idea of removing the main gun from frigates/destroyers has been done already. The RN did it on the (Type 22) Broadsword-class frigate prior to the 1982 Falklands War. After then end of the conflict, and as a result of operational experience (re)gained from it, later batches of the Broadsword-class were fitted with the standard Vickers 4.5" naval cannon used by the RN.
Hmm - history repeats itself? That's the kind of thinking that occurred in the late 60s and early 70s when aviators said the gun is dead, long live the guided AA missile.
Then came Vietnam and the F4s had to start mounting SUU gun pods because they were getting jumped by Frescos and Fishbeds that retained decent internal cannons. Ok well the 5in just cant do the job and the AGS looks to be as bad fiscally as a missile......what just face the facts and redesign for a larger gun system?Hmm - history repeats itself? That's the kind of thinking that occurred in the late 60s and early 70s when aviators said the gun is dead, long live the guided AA missile.
A good sized caliber cannon is eminently useful in SuW. Let's face it, even in OOW, most navies are thinking about what it takes to complete the mission. Is a missile really needed when a gun will do? Do you expend a mulit-million dollar round or fire a couple of shells worth a thousand bucks each? Stores management and cost matter. If it's a major surface combatant and you want it dead right now, sure, pop off those Bulldogs. Otherwise, if it's a small boy - why waste the missile? Knock him out with the forward 57mm mount.
It seems silly to think about costs in times of warfare, but the reality is that we will never see the prolifigate expenditures that characterized WWII ever again. Efficiency and cost management now reign equally with lethality in the mind of the warfighter when they're about to pull the trigger.
In terms of "footprint" within a ship, a 5"/127mm seems to take up ~the same amount of space as an 8- or 16-cell Strike length Mk 41 VLS. However, it is capable of firing far more than just 8 or 16 missiles (or even 32 or 64 if Quadpacked ESSM). IRRC the magazine can hold something like 700 rounds. Granted the missiles can deliver more ordnance quickly, if need be a gun can deliver more ordnance over time and at lower costs.