Somebody doesn't like the DDG-1000.

 

Explain the whole controversy over this, please, because I don't understand it.

Explain the whole controversy over this, please, because I don't understand it.

 

Difficult to put in a nutshell, but I suppose the controversy over DDG-1000 is rooted in the argument that it doesn't make sense to spend a huge amount of money (something like $3 billion per) to build ships that are so dependent upon stealth for survival (they aren't intended to act as part of a carrier strike group, for example), when that "stealth" may be more than a bit illusory.

 

And to explain that latter comment a bit more, there's a respectable argument to be made that the current emphasis on naval stealth (e.g. sloped surfaces to reduce radar signature, IR suppression, etc) - epitomised by DDG-1000 - perhaps misses the fact that the littoral environment is a very busy place with lots of eyes and ears. You are just as likely to be spotted visually (rather distinctive profile on that DDG-1000) by a passing fisherman, merchant cargo ship, sailboat, commercial aircraft, beachcomber, etc, etc. Once you've been spotted by someone, anyone, all of your efforts at stealth could go out the window in a hurry when operating off the shore of a hostile nation.

 

The caption to the image (which originally belongs to the program progenitors, iirc) was emphasizing the idea that this argument was made even more obvious by the fact that the image depicts the DDG-1000 operating during daylight hours within visual range of the shore.

Presented in that light, I think the planners mistook the DDG-1000 for something they had or could have in their arsenal for a lot cheaper :

A diesel/electric/AIP submarine with submerged ASM/SSM (and why not SAM) launching capabilities.

Use of cheap, buoyant, wire-controlled digital optics also come to mind, a variant on the no conventional periscopes on the upcoming Brit subs, which use hull and tower mounted cams, iirc : let camera + buoyancy frame leave the submarine, tethered by power/fiber optic cable, rises to the surface (or stays submerged for underwater filming...) could give multiple sets of eyes to submerged subs, both under and over the surface.

Plus digital processing, mostly in software (so you still have access to the raw data from the hw)

and does its job for a fraction of the cost

 

If to boot, there is barely any metal in the cams, some anechoic coating : you get the picture, neh ?

 

By design, it often operates alone, it's much less obvious to eyes, etc.

My sarcasm and cynicism for today.

Seriously, planning should think about giving the capability to improvise as well as juryrig/modify equipment in the field.

Easier if it's cheap and mostly off the shelf...

The current crop of civilian developed UAV (U*V of all kinds actually) gives credence to this.

 

Edit : bunch of stuff added, including little bit on cheap optics...

Explain the whole controversy over this, please, because I don't understand it.

 

Difficult to put in a nutshell, but I suppose the controversy over DDG-1000 is rooted in the argument that it doesn't make sense to spend a huge amount of money (something like $3 billion per) to build ships that are so dependent upon stealth for survival (they aren't intended to act as part of a carrier strike group, for example), when that "stealth" may be more than a bit illusory.

 

And to explain that latter comment a bit more, there's a respectable argument to be made that the current emphasis on naval stealth (e.g. sloped surfaces to reduce radar signature, IR suppression, etc) - epitomised by DDG-1000 - perhaps misses the fact that the littoral environment is a very busy place with lots of eyes and ears. You are just as likely to be spotted visually (rather distinctive profile on that DDG-1000) by a passing fisherman, merchant cargo ship, sailboat, commercial aircraft, beachcomber, etc, etc. Once you've been spotted by someone, anyone, all of your efforts at stealth could go out the window in a hurry when operating off the shore of a hostile nation.

 

The caption to the image (which originally belongs to the program progenitors, iirc) was emphasizing the idea that this argument was made even more obvious by the fact that the image depicts the DDG-1000 operating during daylight hours within visual range of the shore.

 

Oh, right. Thanks.

Presented in that light, I think the planners mistook the DDG-1000 for something they had or could have in their arsenal for a lot cheaper : A diesel/electric/AIP submarine with submerged ASM/SSM (and why not SAM) launching capabilities.

 

Far be it from me to denigrate the capabilities of a good diesel-electric/AIP sub, and while it has the stealth thing down pat, I would think it lacks two things that the proponents of DDG-1000 are looking for:

 

(1) Firepower. A sub, especially a relatively small conventional sub, can carry only a handful of weapons.

(2) Persistence. A function of firepower in many respects, a sub can't hang around and take shots at new and emerging targets.