HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
News
Materials & Assembly

Navy Provides Sneak Peek of Next-Gen Warship

NO RATINGS
View Comments: Threaded|Newest First|Oldest First
Beth Stackpole
User Rank
Blogger
What's the life span for next-gen?
Beth Stackpole   5/2/2012 6:05:09 AM
NO RATINGS
Very sci-fi looking and the idea of shooting laser beams--that certainly puts the warship in a next-gen class. I'm curious as to how often the Navy rolls out a next-generation ship and what the typical life span is on these vessels. Any one have any clue?

naperlou
User Rank
Blogger
Re: What's the life span for next-gen?
naperlou   5/2/2012 9:45:18 AM
NO RATINGS
Beth, these are good questions.  Navy ships last a very long time.  In the 1990s we were still using battleships built during WWII.  They could still be in use, but the decision was made to produce new ships instead of keeping the old ones.  These are large machines and it is easy to fit them out with new equipment over time.  The battleships I mentioned, were outfitted with cruise missles and Phalanx gun system, which were not even concieved of when they were built.  Frankly, with something as large as a combat ship, putting laser weapons or rail guns is not a big deal.  They could be put on existing ships today, and probably would be.

NadineJ
User Rank
Platinum
Re: What's the life span for next-gen?
NadineJ   5/2/2012 11:19:03 AM
NO RATINGS
Good question.  I'm curious about the cost too.  The article says that less manpower can be used in these more powerful vessels.  Is the lower payroll balanced out by the higher cost or is there long-term savings?

This next-gen warship is sooner than expected but right on time given that we move faster through cycles-fashion, innovation, etc.-than ever before.  It's good to see the navy addressing noise pollution in the ocean.

TJ McDermott
User Rank
Blogger
Re: What's the life span for next-gen?
TJ McDermott   5/3/2012 3:27:04 AM
Beth, in 2007 the Washington State Ferry System retired the four ships of the Steel Electric class; they were built in 1927.  While the ferries did not go in harm's way, 80 years is still a HECK of a long time.  They had overhauls through the years, but not many.

One might argue that they saw harder service than a Navy destroyer; Navy vessels don't operate every single day with little down time.  6 months at sea, 6 months for maintenance is more common, I think.

Beth Stackpole
User Rank
Blogger
Re: What's the life span for next-gen?
Beth Stackpole   5/3/2012 6:36:26 AM
@TJ: Maintenance throughout the lengthy lifecycle of these ships is a huge issue during development in terms of specialized capabilities to ease the support problem. I'm assuming this ship has many such features, many purely software-based, to optimize its care and feeding over the course of its tenure.

Engineer_Critic
User Rank
Iron
Re: What's the life span for next-gen?
Engineer_Critic   5/3/2012 3:18:17 PM
NO RATINGS
Comparing commercial ships to naval vessels really is a case of comparing apples and oranges.  Your point about up-tempo operations and daily availability is well taken.  Certainly, the people of Washington got their money's worth out of those ferries.  Modern cruiseships are a similar case.  Time at the dock is time spent NOT making money for the operator. 

Naval ships, as you pointed out, spend MUCH of their life at the dock.  However, time at the dock doesn't necessarily mean that ALL of the systems on the ship go unused as the ship still houses a crew.  Even if depleted due to leaves, and some sailors opting to live ashore when in port, the 'hotel' systems still must be on-line.  These systems don't ever get a rest.

There's another aspect to naval vessel lifespan that hasn't been addressed: technical obsolescence.  While a USN ship likely has a 50 or 60 year design life, advancing technology may shorten it's useful life to the Navy by decades.  A recent example of this is the MHC-51 (USS Osprey) class.  Commissioned in 1991 through 1999, all 12 Ospery-class ships were decommissioned in 2006-2007, representing service lives of only 8-13 years.  Economics, technological obsolescence (and yes, politics, as the Osprey's mission was given to the new LCS ships) are the principal reasons that these ships now serve with the Greek, Egyptian, Lithuanian, Turkish, Taiwanese and Indian navies.

JDT
User Rank
Iron
Next Warship Durability / Reliability
JDT   5/2/2012 11:49:57 AM
Naval warships take a lot of beatings, whether it be from Mother Nature, pounding seas, storms, etc. of from NGS. I worry about automation, and builders trying to cut corners to save on the budgets. It will be the crews that pay the price for their oversight.

These ships MUST be tested in all types of conditions to the fullest extent possible, and the longest time possible.

Beth Stackpole
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Next Warship Durability / Reliability
Beth Stackpole   5/2/2012 11:57:32 AM
@JDT: I agree. I bet there was and still is a serious simulation aspect to this ship to test all types of conditions whether related to the weather or to different types of at-sea battle scenarios. It would be interesting to inside the war-room of sorts to see what is being conducted.

Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Blogger
Factory-like Ship
Rob Spiegel   5/2/2012 12:11:27 PM
Nice article, Elizabeth. When Bath rattles off details such as  "electric drive/integrated power systems, automated ship control and damage control systems, and a totally integrated, ship-wide command and control system," it sounds like a modern factory.

Larry S.
User Rank
Iron
Amazing Technology
Larry S.   5/2/2012 4:32:17 PM
NO RATINGS
It looks like something out of Star Wars!  Does it need a crew or can it be operated like a remote control video game?

Is there any information on who developed and tested the materials used for the hull?

 

LouisDE
User Rank
Iron
Straight line?
LouisDE   5/2/2012 4:54:14 PM
NO RATINGS
I should think that both the laser and rail gun are line of sight "straight shooting" weapons, while naval battles can be fought over the horizon, so perhaps these are defensive weapons. 

@NadineJ   I can't see where the military was ever concerned about cost control, why start now ;-) 

As for deplying these weapons on older ships, @naperlou  had it right - it should not be an issue.

tekochip
User Rank
Platinum
Rail Gun
tekochip   5/2/2012 5:03:56 PM
NO RATINGS
Does anybody know if this is the first ship outfit with a rail gun?  ANy details on the projectile?

Jerry dycus
User Rank
Gold
Re: Rail Gun
Jerry dycus   5/2/2012 8:38:22 PM
 

 i seriously doubt a rail gun will ever be deployed as a standard weapon as it tends to destroy itself in a few rounds.  With all the problems with it guided rockets are a far better weapon.

An the real future weapon should be a low pressure cannon launching guided projectiles or missles  we already have, just modied to launch from th 50-80', 24'' dia fixed at 45deg or so gives  warheads 100-500 mile range at a % of the cost of a cruise missle.

Next we just can't afford the oil to run these. They need a small nuke like the Hyperion 100Mw heat source steam generator powering the propulsion and house. When docked can supply the base with electric.

Facts are this too big and easily damaged. Better go to a Tri hull with the outer ones protecting the inner one from fighting damage.  Other advantages is on a 500' Tri you can do  an aircraft carrier as so much deck.  Destroyers, Cruiser like above only 250-300' long.

No Navy can bring up 10% of ours so greatly increasing size, numbers, tech makes no sense when smaller, more economical,  survivable craft able to put far more ordnance on target farther away run on mini inherently safe nukes would make a better future we might be able to afford. 

And maybe a gov that stops starting wars over oil so the navy can do things like diaster relief, etc instead so we might be better received in other lands and less wanting to kill us. Just a thought.  PS Saves a lot of money too.

tekochip
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Rail Gun
tekochip   5/2/2012 10:07:26 PM
NO RATINGS
"PS Saves a lot of money too."

 

and a few sons and daughters.....

Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Real stealth?
Charles Murray   5/2/2012 8:53:30 PM
The article notes that the quiet hull tumblehome makes the ship "stealthy." But can a ship that size travelling through the sea really be very stealthy? Or is that just a comparative term, i.e., more stealthy than predecessors? 

Jerry dycus
User Rank
Gold
Re: Real stealth?
Jerry dycus   5/2/2012 10:40:22 PM
 

 That depends on the opponents tech capabilities.

  They don't really depend on it, just gets them closer before being detected, hopefully not before the attack starts. They are very capable of defending themselves against about anything.

  The problem with tumblehome is if the ship rolls more than 25deg or so it keeps rolling over!!  In certain length wave trains this isn't that uncommon in long slim boats. This can ruin your whole day.

 This rolling in monohulls is a major reason I went to multihull boat design, building.

PS Our sons and daughters are far more valuable than fighting for big oil, oil dictators.

ChasChas
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Real stealth?
ChasChas   5/3/2012 10:31:35 AM
 

I agree, Charles. And it looks like they "missed the boat".

Note how much it looks like a submarine. This ship could be made to settle or draft itself to just near or below the surface and and be truly "stealthy". 

BigDipper
User Rank
Iron
Re: Real stealth?
BigDipper   5/3/2012 1:42:01 PM
NO RATINGS
Unfortunately, unlike aircraft which are only required to be stealthy in air, a ship is required to operate in two environments - air and water - and be stealthy in both simultaneously.  We have proven that it's possible to be almost invisible to radar, but anyone out there who has read 'Blind Man's Bluff' knows that the Russians never could figure out how to build submarines quiet enough that we couldn't find them.  It continues to be very difficult to truly be the Silent Service.

Engineer_Critic
User Rank
Iron
Re: Real stealth?
Engineer_Critic   5/3/2012 2:15:27 PM
NO RATINGS
"Stealth" is ALWAYS a relative term.  There's no such thing as 'undetectable', only undetectable under *what* conditions.  The tumblehome hull is designed to deflect surface radar upward rather than back to it's source, but the ship is far from undetectable.

Similarly, the noise specifications (I have equipment aboard the Zumwalts) are quite stringent having been lifted in part from the Seawolf (the submarine) program.  This makes the ship less easily detected by coastal patrol submarines (remember, Zumwalt's mission has a large fire-support component).

I fully agree that the tumblehome design presents a significant rollover risk, even at the 600' length of Zumwalt.  But what's really shocking about this ship is it's overreliance on automation.  Zumwalt was designed to reduce operational costs by reducing crew size (the biggest cost driver for ship operation).  Now assuming that the shipbuilder and it's vendors can sort out the myriad technology conflicts and deliver an operational ship on time (I have deep reservations about this) the fact remains that in combat, should one piece of the automation system fail there's a significant risk that the remainder of this house of cards will fall.  And that the tiny crew will be neither technically savvy enough, nor numerous enough, to save their vessel.  For comparison, I give you the 505' Arleigh Burke destroyers, a much less automated ship, with a crew of approximately 280.  Zumwalt, a larger ship, will sail with only HALF that number.

Ukkopekka
User Rank
Iron
Re: Real stealth?
Ukkopekka   5/21/2012 9:58:07 AM
NO RATINGS
Would disagree with your assertion regarding 'over-reliance' on technology.  As part of the original design team, I have my opinion and you will have yours. Also, your assertion that the systems are essentially single-point-of-failure systems is false.  There is more redundancy in these systems of systems than you are aware.  You also apparently underrate the skill level of the sailors in attendance.

Regarding tumblehome; do you think we just sat down one day and said 'Gee, this looks cool, let's build one"?  This surface combatant has been studied and modeled in more ways than you can imagine and many more that simply aren't known outside the industry.  Some of the finest naval designers in the business(our own Navy Laboratories) as well as professional 'naysayers' to test the model/concept were employed.  She has been simulated, scale-modeled, poked and prodded.  Rest assured this design is no guess. 

To answer someone else's question: the railgun and ship-borne laser capabilities were indeed studied and currently are not part of the design.  The point the article was trying to make was that both of these weapon systems require immense amounts of power.  Zumwalt has the ability to generate these power levels.  The radar systems alone consume enough energy to light up a small city. 

It is just sad that after all our efforts, we will only build a couple ships.  Certainly they are costly but, they do things other ships can't do.  Very much like the B-2 but, that is another story for another day.

Ukkopekka
User Rank
Iron
Re: Real stealth?
Ukkopekka   5/21/2012 4:20:20 PM
NO RATINGS
The sail, or deckhouse (essentially the bulk of the structure above the waterline), is all C/F composite.  Plus 'stuff'.

JimT@Future-Product-Innovations
User Rank
Blogger
Looking forward to learning more
JimT@Future-Product-Innovations   5/14/2012 6:51:18 PM
NO RATINGS

Considering how aviation technology has dramatically updated the look and performance of fighter jets over the past few decades, it seems that this radical departure from a conventional battleship paradigm might even be overdue.  The look and description of some of the performance enhancements sound very interesting, and I'm looking forward to reading more about the project .  Looks like already 2 weeks late on this one -- More, please!

Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
The new draw-it-on-a-napkin is the CAD program. As CAD programs become more ubiquitous and easier to use, they have replaced 2D sketching for early concepting.
These free camps are designed for children ages 10 to 18. Attendees are introduced to 3D CAD software and shown how 3D printers can make their work a reality. Here we check out the stops in California and Utah.
A University of Chicago graduate has invented a compact elliptical trainer that lets people work out at their desk while they work.
Dean Kamen told an audience at MD&M East 2014 that FDA regulators aren't to blame for stalling innovation in the medical device industry. Hear what he had to say.
Battery maker LG Chem Power Inc. plans to offer a new cell chemistry that could serve as the foundation for an affordable electric car with a 200-mile driving range by 2017.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/17/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
6/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
5/13/2014 10:00 a.m. California / 1:00 p.m. New York / 6:00 p.m. London
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Aug 4 - 8, Introduction to Linux Device Drivers
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: August 12 - 14
Sponsored by igus
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service