F-35C participates in aerial photo with USS Zumwalt

Discuss photos, special paintschemes and serial numbers of the F-35
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 641
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 01:12

PHOTO RELEASE: VX-23 F-35C participates in aerial photo with USS Zumwalt

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6394
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7699
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 02:14

Dawn of a new age.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5950
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 02:34

The future is here.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7699
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 03:12

That's a funny looking fishing boat... :D
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 861
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 03:50

zerion wrote:PHOTO RELEASE: VX-23 F-35C participates in aerial photo with USS Zumwalt

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6394


Yeah, but the F-35 took years and thousands of missions to do that. The Triton UAV did it on only it's 100th mission! /sarc
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6391

Seriously cool photos for both. I am quite proud of my role(s) on both planes, so thanks for pointing to them!
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline

gc

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 02:12

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 08:35

Wondering if the Zumwalt and F-35C had difficulty finding each other for the rendezvous. A good time to test their radar system's ability to track low RCS targets.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5381
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 11:55

XanderCrews wrote:The future is here.


A shame the USN, in their infinite wisdom, pulled an F-22 fiasco and cut the number of ships to 3. It was suppose to be the follow on to the Burkes and then be the hull for the Ticonderoga replacement. Think Spruance/Ticonderogas. But no. Can't have that. Spend all the money to develop them then cancel them with few units built (insuring a sky-high unit cost), restart the Burke line (whos cost also exploded because you f--ked with the line, and you're trying to stuff even more into a 5 pound sack), and likely replace the Ticonderoga class with inferior Burkes. :doh: :bang:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 679
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 15:17

sferrin wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The future is here.


A shame the USN, in their infinite wisdom, pulled an F-22 fiasco and cut the number of ships to 3. It was suppose to be the follow on to the Burkes and then be the hull for the Ticonderoga replacement. Think Spruance/Ticonderogas. But no. Can't have that. Spend all the money to develop them then cancel them with few units built (insuring a sky-high unit cost), restart the Burke line (whos cost also exploded because you f--ked with the line, and you're trying to stuff even more into a 5 pound sack), and likely replace the Ticonderoga class with inferior Burkes. :doh: :bang:


The hull of Zumwalt is all wrong for the main mission of most US destroyers. The part potentially worth keeping is the power plant and three is plenty to see how it works out. The Burke Flight III option makes sense to get the important piece of the future (AN/SPY-6) into service quickly. You can then design a new cruiser which is what is really needed anyway based on the AN/SPY-6 and the power plant concept of Zumwalt if it works out.

It is a cool tech demonstrator but just kind of not where we need to go. Cutting it off was the right call.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7699
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 22:35

bigjku wrote:
The hull of Zumwalt is all wrong for the main mission of most US destroyers

How and why?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2016, 19:51
  • Location: Ireland

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 23:33

popcorn wrote:How and why?


Too few VLS cells perhaps?
80 seems quite modest for such a massive vessel.
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 679
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post20 Oct 2016, 23:52

popcorn wrote:
bigjku wrote:
The hull of Zumwalt is all wrong for the main mission of most US destroyers

How and why?


The stealth shaping is not all that useful in company with a carrier which really can't be hidden that well. The internal structures are heavily influenced by the need to support the two guns and their mechanisms that feed them which are quite large. At best in a fleet unit you might want one of those guns. Redesigning to remove a gun and emplacement more useful things would be expensive. I don't worry about them capsizing but they aren't really designed with open seas in mind either. The mission set is litorral with the guns.

The long and short is that I highly suspect someone looked at this thing and said that if you decide stealth is less important and that you certainly don't want the two heavy guns then a tumblehome type hull shape just isn't worth the tradeoff anymore. By the time one messes around with removing the gun and rejiggering the internal structure for more VLS cells you have spent a lot more money. Then you have to integrate AEGIS and a new radar into the thing. It just made more sense to build more Burkes.

I think some major assumptions underlining the DDG-21 and it's sisters just kind of got overturned. AEGIS developed with the BMD and open structure. Planing wise I am guessing there is a lot less risk, cost and you get AN/SPY-6 into service a lot sooner doing it on a Burke hull. DDG-21 would need its combat system replaced, at least one gun torn out and the power system (which I like in concept) is still unproved (see U.K. Type 45 experience). if the power system works out I would guess you see a new cruiser based around it with the new radar and AEGIS combat systems. But I would bet a nice lunch it won't be a wave-piercing design.

TLDR version...wrong combat system, too much of design dictated by guns, untested power plant system.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3282
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post21 Oct 2016, 00:31

bigjku wrote:
popcorn wrote:
bigjku wrote:
The hull of Zumwalt is all wrong for the main mission of most US destroyers

How and why?


The stealth shaping is not all that useful in company with a carrier which really can't be hidden that well. The internal structures are heavily influenced by the need to support the two guns and their mechanisms that feed them which are quite large. At best in a fleet unit you might want one of those guns. Redesigning to remove a gun and emplacement more useful things would be expensive. I don't worry about them capsizing but they aren't really designed with open seas in mind either. The mission set is litorral with the guns.

The long and short is that I highly suspect someone looked at this thing and said that if you decide stealth is less important and that you certainly don't want the two heavy guns then a tumblehome type hull shape just isn't worth the tradeoff anymore. By the time one messes around with removing the gun and rejiggering the internal structure for more VLS cells you have spent a lot more money. Then you have to integrate AEGIS and a new radar into the thing. It just made more sense to build more Burkes.

I think some major assumptions underlining the DDG-21 and it's sisters just kind of got overturned. AEGIS developed with the BMD and open structure. Planing wise I am guessing there is a lot less risk, cost and you get AN/SPY-6 into service a lot sooner doing it on a Burke hull. DDG-21 would need its combat system replaced, at least one gun torn out and the power system (which I like in concept) is still unproved (see U.K. Type 45 experience). if the power system works out I would guess you see a new cruiser based around it with the new radar and AEGIS combat systems. But I would bet a nice lunch it won't be a wave-piercing design.

TLDR version...wrong combat system, too much of design dictated by guns, untested power plant system.

All new ship designs look like the DDG-21. The decision to build Burks was just because the Navy needed more ships now, rather than more effective ones later. There was also some issue of a classified vulnerability, but that is likely to be something that the Burks are even more vulnerable to.
Frankly, the Zumwalt is functionally a modern Battleship or Battle-cruiser, regardless of what it's official designation is -- thus your point about most ships only needing at most one of the two main guns it has. The DDG-21 is probably going to be something like the Sea-Wolf class subs, and hopefully there will be something like a Virginia class follow-on for the surface fleet.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7699
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post21 Oct 2016, 01:20

bigjku wrote:
popcorn wrote:
bigjku wrote:
The hull of Zumwalt is all wrong for the main mission of most US destroyers

How and why?


The stealth shaping is not all that useful in company with a carrier which really can't be hidden that well. The internal structures are heavily influenced by the need to support the two guns and their mechanisms that feed them which are quite large. At best in a fleet unit you might want one of those guns. Redesigning to remove a gun and emplacement more useful things would be expensive. I don't worry about them capsizing but they aren't really designed with open seas in mind either. The mission set is litorral with the guns.

The long and short is that I highly suspect someone looked at this thing and said that if you decide stealth is less important and that you certainly don't want the two heavy guns then a tumblehome type hull shape just isn't worth the tradeoff anymore. By the time one messes around with removing the gun and rejiggering the internal structure for more VLS cells you have spent a lot more money. Then you have to integrate AEGIS and a new radar into the thing. It just made more sense to build more Burkes.

I think some major assumptions underlining the DDG-21 and it's sisters just kind of got overturned. AEGIS developed with the BMD and open structure. Planing wise I am guessing there is a lot less risk, cost and you get AN/SPY-6 into service a lot sooner doing it on a Burke hull. DDG-21 would need its combat system replaced, at least one gun torn out and the power system (which I like in concept) is still unproved (see U.K. Type 45 experience). if the power system works out I would guess you see a new cruiser based around it with the new radar and AEGIS combat systems. But I would bet a nice lunch it won't be a wave-piercing design.

TLDR version...wrong combat system, too much of design dictated by guns, untested power plant system.

AFAIK the Navy realized the mission had changed, the emphasis would place greater weight on BMD than previously and the Burkes would be the right way to go going forward. It was a pragmatic choice. I think the next Large Surface Combatant will adopt the tumblehome hull along with the peripheral VLS layot to go with SPY-6. Ditto with the Zumwalt's power plant. LO will provide definite benefits regardless of whether there's a CVN in the area or not.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5381
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post21 Oct 2016, 02:03

bigjku wrote:TLDR version...wrong combat system,


Nothing wrong at all about it. The fact that they limited it to 3 hulls is going to bite us in the a$$ in a huge way when it comes time to replace the Ticos.

bigjku wrote:too much of design dictated by guns,


Railguns are going to be huge in the near future. Guess which design could have them dropped in and guess which one wouldn't have a hope in hell. If you said, "Zumwalt and Burke" you'd be correct.

bigjku wrote:untested power plant system.


And that's different than every other powerplant the first time it went to sea how? That seems to be the go-to strategy for those with not much of an argument. "It's bad because it's unproven." As if every other system on the planet left the factory for the first time a "proven" design. BS. NO new design is "proven" until it is. Was the F-15 "proven" when we started buying them? Nope. The F-16? Nope. Obviously we should still be flying F-4s until they find out a way to make the F-15 and F-16 prove themselves without ever buying any.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 679
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post21 Oct 2016, 04:51

sferrin wrote:
bigjku wrote:TLDR version...wrong combat system,


Nothing wrong at all about it. The fact that they limited it to 3 hulls is going to bite us in the a$$ in a huge way when it comes time to replace the Ticos.

bigjku wrote:too much of design dictated by guns,


Railguns are going to be huge in the near future. Guess which design could have them dropped in and guess which one wouldn't have a hope in hell. If you said, "Zumwalt and Burke" you'd be correct.

bigjku wrote:untested power plant system.


And that's different than every other powerplant the first time it went to sea how? That seems to be the go-to strategy for those with not much of an argument. "It's bad because it's unproven." As if every other system on the planet left the factory for the first time a "proven" design. BS. NO new design is "proven" until it is. Was the F-15 "proven" when we started buying them? Nope. The F-16? Nope. Obviously we should still be flying F-4s until they find out a way to make the F-15 and F-16 prove themselves without ever buying any.


It is absolutely the wrong combat system. AEGIS has had continued heavy investment to make it all aspect system that now can do BMD and air defense at once. Sure you could build a new system but now that AEGIS is opened up why bother? Better to focus your development and training resources on one system to do that job. There was never a good reason to switch the system.

With regard to propulsion I think you don't know how the navy has traditionally done things. Most often new power plants were tested in proven ship designs. Turbo-Electric Drive back in the 1910's and 20's is a great example of this. It was deployed onto an otherwise stable platform (the standard series of battleships). Same thing if you look at nuclear submarine evolution. Generally it came together in pieces and over time. Like it or not DDX had a ton of risk.

As I stated I quite like the propulsion system and I expect it to be the basis for whatever the next major combatant is, unless they go nuclear, but there may well be lessons to learn in operation and when the decision was made about where to deploy AMDR (AN/SPY-6) there was (and still isn't) any operational history for the system. It is undeniably lower risk to get the first radars operational on a known power plant and with a combat system already integrated with CEC.

As for rail guns and guns in general we will see. It seems they are getting closer on rail guns but just how many you would actually want and what their role would be seems very much up in the air still. I agree the Burke isn't the platform for that. It was just he best and cheapest way to get the new radar system to the fleet as rapidly as possible. The DDG-21 just was not in a place to reliably field new capabilities that were seen as very important. It or something based on it might have its time come but right now the base design is a deadend because of the two guns occupying so much space. It was already hellishly expensive. No one was going to go for an expensive redesign to make them into air defense ships with a unit cost of $5 billion a pop or so even if you don't include R&D.
Next

Return to F-35 Spotting & Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests