Military Review

American destroyers Zumwalt as an example of the application of new technologies

33
American destroyers Zumwalt as an example of the application of new technologies

The newest American destroyers of the Zumwalt type, although they suffer from the "childhood diseases" inherent in all new developments, are, in essence, ultra-modern ships, created using modern technologies. Criticized even by the US Navy for constant breakdowns and excessive high cost, they still found application in the American navy.


The American program for the construction of promising destroyers called SC-21 (Surface Combatant for the 21st century) started in 2007. Within the framework of this program, it was planned to supply the fleet with a number of new generation "invisible" surface ships. Initially, the command of the US Navy expected to receive 32 ships of this type for service, spending no more than $ 40 billion on this. However, the increased cost of new destroyers first led to a decrease in the planned number to 24 ships, then to seven, and in the end everything was limited to three: the lead one - USS Zumwalt, USS Michael Monsoor and USS Lyndon B. Johnson.

The high cost of new destroyers, as well as constant breakdowns, are primarily due to the use of the latest technologies in their design.

Destroyers of the Zumwalt class were created as "invisible" ships, therefore the ship's hull was created using "stealth" technology. Unlike traditional ships, the bow of the destroyer is tilted down towards the waterline, and all the sides of the ship's hull are directed towards the sky, this shape is also called "Tumblehome". The ship's superstructure with all other equipment is enclosed in one giant trapezoidal tower of six smooth flat surfaces. Thus, the Zumwalt has a radar cross-section 50 times smaller than it actually is. According to the developers, thanks to the design, absorbing materials and the passive cold air system, the destroyer is perceived on the radar as a small fishing trawler.

The second advanced technology used on the destroyers is its power plant, or rather the Integrated Power System (IPS). Thanks to this system, the Zumwalt destroyers can be described as a completely "electric ship". The ship's main energy sources are two 30 MW MT36 gas turbines from Rolls-Royce; auxiliary - two GTPs RR4500 of low power (3,9 MW each) of the same company. As propellers, two fixed-pitch propellers with short shaft lines are used, which are rotated by asynchronous propulsion motors used at low and medium speed. The power plant is similar to that used on strategic nuclear submarines of the Ohio class.

On the one hand, this technology saves fuel, reduces ship noise, but on the other hand, it significantly increases the cost of the propulsion system, reducing its reliability.

Another breakthrough in the construction of destroyers was to be the Advanced Gun System (AGS), developed by BAE Systems Armaments Systems. The 155 mm caliber gun was supposed to fire high-precision ammunition at a distance of over 100 km while maintaining a high rate of fire. This installation was planned as the main weapons destroyers, however, the high cost of shells for it, reaching 1 million dollars, forced the US Navy to abandon this installation.

It is possible that the Zumwalt-class destroyers have some other innovations, which are not reported due to their secrecy, but the technologies already listed above distinguish these destroyers from the background of traditional ships. Can Russian designers apply any of these technologies on warships for the Russian Navy? With a high probability I can say that they can. And I can even argue that something like this is being developed in our country, it is simply not announced on every corner. But to implement, as they say, "in hardware", to our great regret, we will not be able to do something like that soon due to lack of funds.
Author:
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The popuas
    The popuas 13 September 2020 06: 22 New
    0
    Clearly understood
    1. Temples
      Temples 14 September 2020 12: 35 New
      0
      and all sides of the ship's hull are directed to the sky

      Is it different? winked request

      One end to the sky, the other to the water. wink
      1. Job74
        Job74 15 October 2020 12: 41 New
        -1
        Yes, back in the 70-year-old shaggy year, on Project 1143 aircraft-carrying cruisers of the "Kiev" type, they installed inclined superstructure walls precisely in order to reduce radar visibility, i.e. ours, as always, were the first to invent, and they promoted star-striped mattress covers as their invention.
  2. KCA
    KCA 13 September 2020 06: 34 New
    -1
    All the statements about which technological super destroyer Zamwalt is akin to Trump's statement that "Our missiles are 17 times faster", faster than what? Than others ... And other things "We have such a weapon that Russia and China do not have", how can you not recall "Mango Mango" - "We have such devices, but we will not tell you about them," Zamwalt probably got under the radar of our warships or "peaceful trawlers", but they will not tell us about the results, but I doubt that they confused him with a motor boat, despite the plywood hull
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 13 September 2020 06: 50 New
      +4
      wink Nobody saw Trump's fast rockets. And "Zamvolt" here it is.
    2. dauria
      dauria 13 September 2020 11: 04 New
      0
      however, I doubt they confused him with a motor boat


      The point is not "beguiled", but the distance from which the Tu-22m will be able to launch a missile at it with an active radar seeker. At sea, unfortunately, there are no other real ways to "shoot" at the ship. Passive GOS only as auxiliary ones when an air defense order is broken.
      It is possible to distinguish a barge with corner reflectors from an aircraft carrier using various clever methods such as signature analysis, but this is completely different. What is called "there is no reception against scrap." The EPR of this shape is small, even if it is all metal. So you have to fly much closer. If they say "50 times less EPR", then 2,7 times less range.
      It was 300 km, it will be 120 km.
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 13 September 2020 19: 14 New
        -4
        Quote: dauria
        It was 300 km, it will be 120 km.

        or 400-500. ROFAR tests have been successfully completed wink
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 September 2020 08: 03 New
          +2
          Quote: SanichSan
          ROFAR tests have been successfully completed

          ??? Successfully completed tests of the demonstrator, before the radar station there as before China on all fours
  3. 501Legion
    501Legion 13 September 2020 07: 03 New
    +3
    if it reaches this ship, it is unlikely that some technology will save it. except that the dimensions that will help maintain buoyancy
    1. Sentinel-vs
      Sentinel-vs 13 September 2020 10: 21 New
      +7
      I remember that during the Falklands conflict, the Argentinean exocet missile defense unit fell into an English destroyer or frigate. Moreover, the warhead of the rocket did not work and there was no explosion. But the engine torch continued to work for some time, thereby causing a fire. Even the aluminum structures of the boat caught fire. In general, it was not possible to cope with the fire, the crew left the ship and it drowned safely.
      This is about the survivability of modern ships.
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 13 September 2020 19: 18 New
        +5
        Quote: Sentinel-vs
        This is about the survivability of modern ships.

        Well, they got into the helicopter compartment with a fueled helicopter. still there would be no fire ... but so yes. the flood also burned up. the team did not save.
        there the Norwegians have recently shown a class on a destroyer. what rockets !? he crashed into the tanker and sank.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 14 September 2020 09: 36 New
        +3
        Quote: Sentinel-vs
        Moreover, the warhead of the rocket did not work and there was no explosion. But the engine torch continued to work for some time, thereby causing a fire. Even the aluminum structures of the boat caught fire. In general, it was not possible to cope with the fire, the crew left the ship and it drowned safely.

        The unexploded Exocet hit the Sheffield EM. The death of this EM is often attributed to light-alloy structures, which, in fact, were not on the ship. Type 42 EMs were initially designed entirely in steel, as RN took into account the sad experience of fires in light-alloy ship structures in the 70s of the last century.
        There were two reasons for the death:
        1. Extremely successful hit by anti-ship missiles, as a result of which the main fire line was interrupted and two out of four pumps were out of order. The third one was under repair at the time of the hit, and the fourth worked for only a couple of hours - and also died (he could not raise the pressure in the damaged line). The team had only portable pumps and fire extinguishers at their disposal.
        2. Savings during construction, expressed in the use of theoretically low-combustible synthetics in the interior decoration of the ship, which in practice burned with the formation of a large amount of black poisonous smoke. As a result, the emergency crews from other ships that arrived to help the Sheffield simply could not get inside - the visibility inside the ship was zero, and it was impossible to navigate.
  4. Doccor18
    Doccor18 13 September 2020 07: 08 New
    +9
    With this ship, the Americans wanted to "jump over their heads." The result was not a serious series of unique ships, but a serious headache of unique value.
    However, it is almost impossible to calculate all the technological and financial risks when designing such complex systems.
    But something was initially dubious: TPK, located on-board, a fascination with composite materials that make the ship an "invisible" fragile "vase", too small a crew to fight for the survivability of this large ship ..
    1. Lord_Bran
      Lord_Bran 13 September 2020 23: 23 New
      +5
      Here the problem is different: the original wishlist and the post factum wishlist did not coincide. "We want a Gauss gun! And stealth! And electric motors! And we want more! .." As a result, Gauss by, total automation by, moody engines, stealth in question. And with such a cost per piece, the question immediately arises: will this wunderwaffle support the landing and shoot at the Papuans on the shore? Is that all? Seriously? Unreasonable and thoughtless. Zumwalt may be a de jure engineering miracle ten times over, but de facto shit.
  5. Deck
    Deck 13 September 2020 07: 17 New
    12
    As propellers, two fixed-pitch propellers with short shaft lines are used, which are rotated by asynchronous propeller motors used at low and medium speed. The power plant is similar to that used on strategic nuclear submarines of the Ohio class.

    On the one hand, this technology saves fuel, reduces ship noise, but on the other hand, it significantly increases the cost of the propulsion system, reducing its reliability.


    Why would a gross line diesel-electric propulsion system suddenly be considered unreliable? Two thirds of our icebreaker fleet is equipped with this. How do fixed pitch propellers help save fuel? Why does such a scheme lead to higher prices, compared to what? With oars. Is the author related to the Navy?
    1. thinker
      thinker 13 September 2020 08: 02 New
      +3
      As I understand it, Vladimir Lytkin is a Novostinik, this is some kind of collective pseudonym. 2500 publications and about a dozen every day! request
  6. ximkim
    ximkim 13 September 2020 07: 45 New
    +1
    It resembles an Egyptian pyramid .. Apparently the ship was made for centuries ..
  7. parusnik
    parusnik 13 September 2020 08: 04 New
    +3
    This installation was planned as the main weapon of destroyers, but the high cost of shells for it, reaching $ 1 million, forced the US Navy to abandon this installation.
    .... You bet ... 10 shots, 10 lamas ... Oats are expensive these days ...
  8. Avior
    Avior 13 September 2020 08: 07 New
    +6
    The decrease in the planned production volumes played a cruel joke on the ship.
    Less volume - the unit becomes more expensive, the cost of development and other things is scattered over the number of units. Therefore, the starads turned out to be monstrously expensive, and they did not even start designing missile weapons, despite the fact that the new MK57 cells potentially significantly exceed the MK41, especially for missile defense and air defense missiles, there is not a single unit for them.
    And Zamwolt has too much novelty and unique equipment.
    And any new development entails a lot of money - there are only three ships.
    And the ship turned out to be stopped in development in the middle.
    1. Motorist
      Motorist 13 September 2020 13: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      Less volume - the unit becomes more expensive

      Also, the rejection of the millionth shots - where now the "small" power of auxiliary turbines (2 to 3,9 MW) to do? And Babay (Rolls-Royce) took the money for the turbines ...
      1. Avior
        Avior 13 September 2020 13: 51 New
        +2
        They were either going to put a laser, or a railgun, or both - the energy was needed for it.
  9. iouris
    iouris 13 September 2020 11: 50 New
    +1
    The narrative should be as follows: the military-industrial complex produces military products for the development, "testing" and subsequent introduction into mass production of "advanced" technologies in order to promote them to the mass consumer.
  10. kit88
    kit88 13 September 2020 17: 22 New
    +9
    Somehow it resembles the program for the F-117 aircraft. There, the same glider design was not much like an airplane.
    1. dauria
      dauria 13 September 2020 23: 10 New
      +1
      Somehow it resembles the program for the F-117 aircraft.


      Yes, it looks like it. And there, and there projects were ruined by a large percentage of "novelty". But something will take root in the next series, not so radical. The F-117 eventually morphed into a great F-35, the rest swallowing dust after the leader of the race. It will be the same here. I think the forms of small RCS will take their place in the fleets. And the weapons and engines, they were in a hurry. There seems to be no "revolution" to be seen yet.
  11. garri-lin
    garri-lin 13 September 2020 20: 25 New
    0
    They are gaining experience in exploitation. Russia also needs to keep up. Hopefully modern Stirlitz are reporting. And somewhere in an inconspicuous mansion in the suburbs there are people who analyze those reports.
  12. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 13 September 2020 21: 08 New
    +2
    Their case is interesting. In terms of contours. They returned to the scheme of the late 19th century, instead of climbing the wave, such a body cuts it. I wonder why they considered it a more profitable option.
  13. EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 September 2020 09: 04 New
    0
    A cannon with shells in 1kk green can be made by ours, but they will not be due to senselessness.
  14. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 14 September 2020 09: 38 New
    -2
    If we look at the silhouette of ships, from the Russo-Japanese War to the First World War, we suddenly find this very Tumblhome there. Of course, the old ships are much better designed, but there is no doubt about the shape) Suddenly. The rest of the "innovations"? Turbines interlocked with power generators? Electric generators interlocked with propeller motors? Are you kidding me, damn it burnt ?! Easy hitch from surfaces supposedly covering from the radar. The defining shameful bummer "innovation"? Ugh...
  15. APASUS
    APASUS 14 September 2020 17: 02 New
    +1
    Can Russian designers apply any of these technologies on warships for the Russian Navy? With a high probability I can say that they can. And I can even argue that something similar is being developed in our country, it is just that it is not announced at every corner. But to embody, as they say, "in hardware", to our great regret, we will not be able to do something like that soon due to lack of funds

    Until the Americans themselves have decided on the use of these ships, so it makes no sense to unequivocally assert about the technologies of the future. So far, the only thing that the Americans could prove is that these technologies have a space price tag.
  16. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 15 September 2020 08: 51 New
    0
    When they go to the North Atlantic in winter, then I will say that they have made a boat trip. And so this is a rocket platform in calm and calm conditions. They sit there at bases in America and spread all sorts of fables about themselves. Let the sea go out as normal! tongue
  17. Kelwin
    Kelwin 16 September 2020 10: 11 New
    +1
    Well, in general, any rubbish can be used, especially if it costs money normally) Maybe zumwalts and advanced ships, but so far they have not shown any results in practice ... here is a personal opinion - this thing will suffer from an anti-ship missile hit much more than a ship traditional layout.
  18. Alexander Dubinin
    Alexander Dubinin 6 October 2020 01: 08 New
    0
    Yah?! In it that Mikhalych! Just that the Vyshi Americans abandoned such a "miracle" and will now build Italian frigates and put Norwegian missiles on them?
  19. Dimon Dimonov_2
    Dimon Dimonov_2 19 October 2020 17: 27 New
    -1
    This iron is more often hauled by tugboats ... than by its own power .. And the troughs will be grazed from the satellite long before approaching our zone of responsibility ... or exercises ...