Home » Budget Industry » Navy Swaps Out Anti-Swarm Boat Guns on DDG-1000s


Navy Swaps Out Anti-Swarm Boat Guns on DDG-1000s

By:
Published:
Updated:
he MK46 Mod 1 weapon system fires a round during a live-fire qualification exercise aboard the amphibious transport dock ship USS New Orleans (LPD-18). US NAvy Photo

he MK46 Mod 1 weapon system fires a round during a live-fire qualification exercise aboard the amphibious transport dock ship USS New Orleans (LPD-18). US NAvy Photo

The Navy has replaced two 57mm guns planned on the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer designed to fight off swarm boat attacks with a smaller pair of 30mm guns, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) told USNI News on Monday.

The trio of Zumwalt-class ships were originally designed to field the BAE Systems MK 110 close-in gun system (CIGS) — a gun used on both classes of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) — to provide the ship’s company options to fight off so-called swarm boat attacks of the ship as part of a 2005 critical design review (CDR).

“The basis of that decision was the expected performance of the gun and its munitions, coupled with desire for commonality in [Navy] and [the Coast Guard], according to a NAVSEA statement provided to USNI News.

But in order to save weight and costs, NAVSEA elected to install twin General Dynamics 30 mm Mk 46 Gun System instead.

NAVSEA said it continued to evaluate the Mk 110 after the 2005 CDR.

“Through 2010, various analysis efforts were conducted to assess the performance of potential cost-saving alternatives to the Mk 110 CIGS, for both procurement and life-cycle costs,” read the statement.
“The results of the analysis for alternative systems to the Mk 110 CIGS were not conclusive enough to recommend a shift in plan.”

The 57mm Mk 110 fires a 220 rounds/min at range of about nine nautical miles, according to information from BAE.

Following a 2012 review the Navy, “concluded that the MK46 was more effective than the MK110 CIGS,” according to NAVSEA.

“In addition to the increased capability, the change from MK110 to Mk 46 resulted in reduction in weight and significant cost avoidance, while still meeting requirements… that will provide a robust rapid fire capability and increased lethality against hostile surface targets approaching the ship.”

The 30mm Mk 46 has a range of 2.17 nautical miles and fires at a rate of 200 rounds/minute, according to the Navy.

NAVSEA did not elaborate on what the original requirements were the DDG-1000.

Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer DDG 1000 is floated out of dry dock at the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipyard on Oct. 28, 2013. US Navy Photo

Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer DDG 1000 is floated out of dry dock at the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipyard on Oct. 28, 2013. US Navy Photo

Representatives of BAE Systems — the company that also manufactures the Zumwalt’s 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS) — referred questions to the Navy.

The Mk 110 was to be integrated into the Raytheon designed combat systems of the minimally manned Zumwalt. It’s unclear how the Mk 46 — currently in use on the San Antonio-class (LPD-17) amphibious warship — will be integrated into the Zumwalts.

Messages left with Raytheon officials were not immediately returned.

Following the 2000 terrorist attack of USS Cole (DDG-67) and the rise in Iranian small attack boats, the Navy became acutely concerned with so-called swarms of small and fast surface craft that could overwhelm the existing defenses of a warship.

Systems like the Mk 110 CIGS and the Mk 46 were designed to more effectively combat a swarm threat.

The following is NAVSEA’s complete statement to USNI News:

At the time of DDG 1000 Critical Design Review in 2005, the MK110 (57mm) close-in gun system (CIGS) was selected to meet the DDG 1000 ORD Key Performance Parameter. The basis of that decision was the expected performance of the gun and its munition, coupled with desire for commonality in USN and USCG. Through 2010, various analysis efforts were conducted to assess the performance of potential cost-saving alternatives to the Mk 110 CIGS, for both procurement and life-cycle costs. The results of the analysis for alternative systems to the MK110 CIGS were not conclusive enough to recommend a shift in plan.

A follow on 2012 assessment using the latest gun and munition effectiveness information, concluded that the MK46 was more effective than the MK110 CIGS. Based on that assessment, approval was received to change from the MK 110 CIGS to the MK 46 Gun System. In addition to the increased capability, the change from MK110 to MK46 resulted in reduction in weight and significant cost avoidance, while still meeting requirements. DDG 1000 is planned to have two medium range MK46, 30mm Close-in Gun Systems that will provide a robust rapid fire capability and increased lethality against hostile surface targets approaching the ship.

  • Gary Misch

    A 15K ton ship that needs weight savings at the beginiing of its life. Check. Replacing a nine mile gun with a 2.17 mile gun. Check. That starts the engagement inside the range of all sorts of easy to procure anti tank weapons. Another fine NAVSEA production.

    • http://www.usmc.mil @notrizzo

      I think the Brass is realizing that the issue leading to the USS Cole disaster wasn’t the hardware, but the rules of engagement. A 9 mile gun is all well and good, but only if you can actually fire the thing at range.
      In a realistic scenario the CO would have to wait till the enemy got within the closer range anyway, so why not save some topside weight (and a few dollars) going with the gun system that actually fits with reality, rather than the one the analysts back in the Pentagon imagined?

    • Secundius

      @ Gary Misch.

      Approximately 55% of of the ship’s tonnage, is it’s Propulsion Systems and Computer Electronics. Another 15% to 20% is going too be the Weapons Systems and Fuel. I don’t thing the Ship’s Superstructure could possiably exceed 15% of the entire ship’s weight.

      • TylerTotten

        When the superstructure is massively overweight on delivery, it’s pretty easy.

        • Secundius

          @ TylerTotton.

          The DDG-1000, Zumwalt class NX-Destroyers, are designed to take a 7+ on the Beaufort Scale, with wind speeds of between 30.6 to 36.1-knots and wave heights of between 4.7 to 6.4-meters. For a so called top heavy ship, that sounds pretty good too me!

          • TylerTotten

            Yes, that is what it is INTENDED to be able to do, but that doesn’t always work out. The Space Shuttle was intended to have a quick turnaround. LCS was supposed to be $220 million, have a core crew of 45, meet design speed, and change out its modules in 24hrs. The ship is already overweight, like FFG and numerous other Navy ship classes of the last 40 yrs. It’s top heavy not because there is an unusual amount of weight high, but because the hull form results in an even more sensitive design to weight above the water. If this was the same weight and systems in a non-stealthy, flared hull form, this would likely not be a problem. Besides, overweight is overweight, even if it is a manageable problem for the CG. Weight itself is a big issue in its own right.

          • Secundius

            @ TylerTotten.

            What is Congress currently funding as Naval ship replacements. I don’t see any new Frigate design’s out there, do you. No new Cruiser design’s either. So, you have to make do with what you do have to work WITH !!

          • TylerTotten

            Your comment makes no sense, I never suggested that they should do otherwise. I was simply explaining why this particular ship is so weight and VCG sensitive, much more so than any other current ship the Navy has or is procuring.

          • Secundius

            @ TylerTooten.

            The Frigate class in US Navy inventory is the Oliver Hazard Perry class. It weight 4,100-ton, gross. how is it top heavy.
            The Frredom class LCS, is 3,089-tons, gross and the Independence class LCS, is 2,790-tons, gross. What you idea and/or definition of Top-Heavy.

          • TylerTotten

            The displacement is irrelevant to the VCG in terms of it’s absolute value. FFGs are very top heavy, their radars create a massive moment on the ship, that’s why the deck-house is aluminum. Same with the Ticos. The independence is a good example of a ship that has a high tolerance to weight high, since it has nearly a 100′ beam. It can actually tolerate a higher VCG (or at the very least equal) to a DDG-1000. Beam is the primary driver on VCG, not total displacement. Do you understand the difference between displacement and VCG? I have a Nav Arch and Marine Eng background, what’s your’s?

          • Secundius

            @ TylerTotten.

            With the exception of the 1988 designed Metcalf class Arsenal Ship. I can’t of any ship, of any navy that even come close to you criteria Low-to-the-Hull Designs.

          • TylerTotten

            It doesn’t have to be low to the hull, that is just sometimes the effect. The weight distribution is the main factor. As the weight of the deckhouse increases, it has a disproportionate effect on the CG. If additional weight is added low, you can add as much weight high as you would like. That said, the amount of weight you add low will have to be higher, since the effective lever arm is much lower. Often this is done. The Watson class Ro-Ro USNS Sisler was given a taller and larger superstructure to accomodate USMC aboard. To offset the change in VCG, several hundred tons of concrete ballast was added to keep the VCG from changing. The ship got taller and heavier, but the VCG was not compromised.

          • Secundius

            @ TylerTotten.

            You know what a Camel is, right. Its a Kentucky-Derby Thoroughbred Race Horse. Designed by a Congressional Sub-Committee. Just use that, as a example of what Congress wants the US. Navy to look like. It Ain’t Pretty, But It Works.

  • http://www.kcharlesbadoian/ Ken Badoian

    Two Billion ship w/o any mid-range defense. Oh well – looks like the Zummies will be the big gut LCS’s. I bet it was a manning issue not a weight or commonality issue. A ship as big as the original Dreadnaught, first all big gun BB, with 140 to 150 sailor crew. Anyone remember the CGN Long Beach – they added two 5’38’s admidships. MMCS(SW)(SS) USN Ret.

    • Rangefinder-22

      The Navy did the same thing on CG-10, 11, & 12. The Marines aboard manned them.

    • Secundius

      @ Ken Baboian.

      Your right, they did mount 5″38c on the Longbeach, I forgot all about that particular oddity. I guess they couldn’t mount Mk. 42’s on the ship, because they were too big. And If memory serves me right, those were the only gun’s aboard the class, too.

  • Daniel Shenise

    I think the mount positions were atop the hangar. So considering the “wonderful” (where is that sarcasm font when I need it) sea keeping characteristics of the tumblehome design, it’s totally possible that this decision kills a couple birds with one stone. I’d bet the 30’s weigh a lot less, reducing up-high weight. This lowers the COG, improving sea keeping. They are probably also quite a bit cheaper too, as is the ammo.

    • Ctrot

      The skeptic in me wonders if lowering the CG (and thus improving sea keeping characteristics) wasn’t the entire, or at least major, reason for this change anyway.

  • Weader

    I imagine that improvements on the old 40mm Bofors guns fore, aft and amidships might just do the trick for close up small boat attacks???

    • gunnerv1

      They are not “automatic/self loading” after the first 4 rounds and too much “man power” to operate. It would be a complete new system built around the 40 MM round. “Goalkeeper” would be nice.

      • Secundius

        @ gunnerv1.

        Goalkeeper would be nice, except it’s still a automated defense system. For Goalkeeper to be utilized effectively. You have program any/all possible, improbable,and unlikely threat values into the system. You would an A.I. system for that, and we (meaning the United States) don’t have that kind of technology yet. That’s where the human element comes into play. With two working and alert brains in the gun turret, you can process threat value (tell the difference between a REAL threat, and the difference between PARTY-GOER’s in a go-fast).

        • gunnerv1

          But we do have that type of defense, only a much shorter range, CISWS “Sea Wiz”, 20 MM Sabot Depleted U238 penetrator, short range, high volume, 1500 rounds plus “Gatling Gun” type system. Anywhere from 1 system to 6 or more on the vessel. The gun system has too short of range for our need. The A10 Vulcan system would do nicely, modified for shipboard use. Two of those systems trained on a “swarm” would leave boiling seawater after one burst per system (I’m retired Navy and a Gunner’s Mate also) The Oto Melira 76 MM system is also too slow on rate of fire unless there was 3 mounts to each side of the ship, and your boosting the Ship Manning Requirements and that’s what the Navy is trying to also avoid.

      • Weader

        Some of the ” improvements” mentioned would have solved the four round then reload problem. Of course we could have the gun crew as large as it was when the 40 mm had some degree of success during World War II.

  • Bill Berry

    DD 1000 could always have an LCS as an escort. That class of ship has a 57mm gun. [Scary!]

  • Secundius

    I think it more to do with the human factor, then with the gun system itself. The BAE 30x173mm (1.18-inch) Bushmaster II, Auto-Cannons have manned turrets, which means in the gun direction system goes down. There will be a direct human back-up team available on site. Plus the fact your not looking at a video screen and using Mk. 1 Eyeball’s instead. Another bonus is the turret can be turned faster and elevated/depresses faster then Bofors 57x438mm/70-caliber (2.24-inch),Auto-Cannon Mounts.

  • CaptainParker

    What other “secrets” are there about the DDG 1000 that are being soft-peddled? Could this be an even bigger dog that the LCS?

    • Secundius

      @ CaptainParker.

      Several days ago, I was looking through a current copy of Proceeding Magazine, a US Navy review magazine. Well, anyway, I saw a Bow to Superstructure view of supposedly one of the barrels of the Rail Gun System. I was thinking to myself, how odd the barrel looked. It was Long, Black, Cylindrical and Capped at the end of the Barrel. Which, was strange looking for a futuristic looking Rail Gun Barrel. And my first thought, was it looked a lot like the “Wooded, Black Painted, Telephone Poles Mounted Gun Emplacements, the US. Army soldiers found on the top of Omaha Beach. During the D-Day/Normandy Invasion of 6 June 1944. Maybe thats the way the actual Rail Gun System looks, or is it a Fake or Disguised, And why Disguise it at all, it’s going to be seen, sooner, or later anyway!

      • CaptainParker

        How about the “Quaker guns” the Confederates mounted to scare the Union Army during the Peninsula Campaign? Hint: “Quaker guns” were painted logs mounted on wheels.

        • Secundius

          @ CaptainParker.

          It’s possible! It didn’t look like it was mounted to some kind turret, or It could be some kind of protective covering. I don’t know long the barrels of a Rail Gun are suppose to be. But estimate these to be approximately 30-feet in length, from the angle I was looking at. It might be protective coverings for the Rheinmetall 6.1-inch (155mm/52-caliber) most foreword deck gun barrel, which is approximately 26 & 1/2-feet long. But, hey it could be anyone’s guess, what they might be.

    • Secundius

      @ USNI News.

      How can this be a OPEN discussion group. If the only open, is the word “Open”.

      Reddit the comment if you want, I no longer care!

  • http://www.windsofchange.net/ Joe Katzman

    “A follow on 2012 assessment using the
    latest gun and munition effectiveness information, concluded that the
    MK46 was more effective than the MK110 CIGS. ”

    Say what?

    The key difference is effectiveness against aerial attack. The Mk46 has none, while the 57mm MK110 rapid-fire with advanced fuzed ammo can be used as a close-in defense against UAVs, aircraft, and even missiles.

    Zumwalts don’t mount Phalanx CIWS or RAM, so its air defense will be
    SM-6 plus RIM-162 Evolved Seasparrow. In other words, weaker than
    Australia’s Hobart Class destroyers, which are about half of its
    displacement.

    Now throw in reduced range and hitting power for the new gun. In what universe is this more effective? That’s just untrue. Which really burns me, because they could have said that they were cutting capabilities to stay within budget and improve seakeeping. Why lie?

    • Secundius

      @ Joe Katzman.

      The Bushmaster II turrets are faceted, while the Phalanx and Goalkeeper systems are not. Which mean, with the Bushmaster II, Zumwalt remains STEALTHY, while with either the Phalanx or Goalkeeper system Zumwalt DOES NOT. Get it know.

      • http://www.windsofchange.net/ Joe Katzman

        BAE’s Mk110 is neither Raytheon’s Phalanx (Mk15) nor is it Thales Goalkeeper. It had the same stealth type cupolas as the AGS 155mm guns.

        Your comment is irrelevant.

        • Secundius

          @ Joe Katzman.

          I know that. The gun is not the problem. The problem is, it’s still an automated system. The human element come in to play, when what type of round to choose. There no direct human intervention with the gun system. It’s not intuitive enough to determine the difference between a Real Threat and a Possible Threat, It treats all possible targets, as a Real threat. While the Bushmaster II can be computer controlled and fired, it can also be controlled manually. The Mk. 110 can’t, at least not directly.

  • Jim DiGiacomo

    I wish the navy would take a page from the Russians when it comes to arming it’s ships. We should have kept one 57mm and added a 35mm millennium gun. Instead we are going to deploy two of the slowest firing 30mm guns on the planet. Incidentally our 5 inch naval gun also has the lowest rate of fire. Well at least the DDG-1000 should be able to hold it’s own against pirates.

    • Secundius

      @ Jim DiGiacomo.

      Not unless these same said pirates are using Trireme or Bireme of their own.

  • turkey

    NOBODY asked me, but I actually like the 30mm for close-in work. However, I wish the author would describe how a 3 mile gun meets the ‘requirements’ a 9 mile gun does.

    Fact is, one of the best ways to defeat a swarm is farther away, not closer. The Navy continues to procure newer, larger and less capable ships yet tells us the government is ‘rearming’ the fleet. That was BS when the term was applied to adding Sea Sparrow to SPRUANCE class destroyers (an excellent ASW platform) and it is BS now all in the name of lower cost and manning (important concerns). The DLGs (now CGs) and DDGs of the 60’s utilized aluminum superstructure to save on fuel costs. The KENNEDY/BELKNAP collision showed the folly of that decision. The aluminum steel interface works well in the lab but is a maintenance nightmare.

    We are definitely in a quandary. Technology is expensive as are people to operate our ships. However, fooling ourselves that air cover will be available and every ship needs a helo det aboard and a 75mm, 57mm or 30 mm gun can fill the requirement traditionally filled with even one 125; mm (i.e. 5″) gun. One requirement NOT be filled is the requirement to provide Naval Gunfire Support to the Marine Corps.

    So, needless to say I am glad I am no longer have to try and defeat the weapons of the cold war. Even the DLGs and DDGs of the 60’s AAW systems were not as good as the Soviet supplied North Vietnamese AAW systems; they shot down a lot of A-4 Skyhawks; seeing an A-4 was and is VERY difficult. However I I am concerned our sailors and marines are not being provided the combat systems required to defeat the current enemies’ weapons, which are worse than my time. However, if they ever recalled this old coot, I’d wanna be on a ship with two (count’em 2) 5″/54 rapid fire guns slowed down to 30 rounds per minute vs a 5″/60 at the blazing speed of maybe 15 rounds per minute. That way, I can provide 60 rounds per minute broadside and 30 rounds per minute attacking or withdrawing.

    • Secundius

      @ turkey.

      Your forgetting one thing, If a threat missile is traveling at Mach 2.0 or ~600-meters/second. The Rail Guns are also going to be used. And the Rail Gun Projectile traveling at around Mach 7.0 or ~2,065-meters/second, heading in the opposite direction and a combined closer rate of Mach 9 or ~2,265-meters/second. The threat missile isn’t going to get very far, and once the two objects (Rail Gun Projectile/Threat Missile) meet. The kinetic energy released when the two object meet, will eviscerate the Threat Missile, insistently turning the threat into plasma/vapor at the same time.

      • Ctrot

        Wow. It is amazing how you can talk about “the rail run” as if it were in the fleet today.

        It isn’t and may never be.

        • OLD GUY

          RIGHT! AND HOW WILL THIS GUN WORK AGAINS 40 OLD TIME EXOCET BIRDS, ALL AT ONCE. NAVY would have been better of using the prototype-tested Electro-Thermal Chemical (ETC) gun. It could have been operational in 1980. It was just not glamorous enough.

        • Secundius

          @ Ctrot.

          You mean the same way you guy’s talk about LASER’s. Their NOT in the fleet EITHER!

          • Ctrot

            I’ve not said anything about lasers, so don’t include me in “you guy’s”.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            I wasn’t referring to you specifically. I was making a “general reference observation”. People talk about Lasers, Mass Drivers/Rail Guns and Particle-Beam Weapons. As though they were in general everyday usage. The only ship’s in know of are “testing ship”. Yes their considered as, been part of the Active Fleet. Their Not technically, their being used as a “feasibility” study, for mounting solutions on various classes of ship’s. As well as their “salty air” compatibilities. I’m sorry if you think I was singling you out personally. I was’t, my bad!

    • Secundius

      @ Turkey.

      I like it too, but, even with the Goalkeeper system your never going to exceed to 3-mile range. You need something like Metal Storm, which at 1,000,000-rounds/minute. Your actually building a metal wall between the threat and the ship. You don’t have to hit the threat directly, you just have to make sure the threat has too fly through the WALL to get too the TARGET.

  • blake

    4400 yards is a range exceeded by several anti tank missiles like the Kornet which could easily fit on any small boat.

    Not to mention the lost air defense capability. The 57mm guns were sold also as a replacement for Phalanx, because of their extended range (with the lower rate of fire* compensated with by heavier shells that had proxmity fuses). Now that capability has been lost, and the Zumwalt has nothing below ESSM. Which the Navy already admitted is not enough when it reinstalled Phalanx on the newer Burke Flight IIAs.

    *The Mk 110 57mm though actually has a higher rate of fire than the Mk 46 30mm gun, 220 versus 200 RPM.

    • Secundius

      @ blake.

      Considering only three Zumwalt are going to be built, I doubt there’s much chance of them operating independently. So if their going to be operating in a Carrier Battle Group, Their are going either Nimitz class Aircraft Carriers, Ford class Aircraft Carriers, Arleigh Burke class Destroyers, Freedom class LCS, and the list goes on, as far as other ship’s in the Carrier Battle Group. Not to mention Allied Naval Forces and alike, operating in the CBG as well. So, your talking upwards of 20-ship’s or more. Not to mention the Aircraft Carrier’s Air Wing as well. You’d have to be a blithering idiot or a complete imbecile with delusions of grandeur, to attack a force that size.

      • Ctrot

        History is full of “blithering idiot(s)” and “complete imbecile(s) with delusions of grandeur” starting wars.

        • Secundius

          @ Ctrot.

          I actually agree with you on all counts. But, the bottom line is the Zumwalt class in its current state of being a 3-ship class. Is not going to be operating independently. Now if you a class of 25%, or even 1/3 the size of the Arleigh Burke class of Destroyers, that would be a whole and completely otther story. But, you and I know that’s not ever going to happen. Until, either the per unit price tag of Zumwalt class Destroyer’s comes down drastically, or their a changing of the guard in Congress. Were looking in Pipe’s Dream and Living In A Fool’s Paradise.

  • Chesapeakeguy

    57mm? We don’t need no stinking 57mm? Besides, the ship is stealthy, right? So no way an enemy will ever be able to see it to target it!

    Right?

  • Sandy

    this a really bad idea….back during Vietnam, some of the new missile cruisers protecting the carriers from air attack had no guns, and they were attacked by small boats…the 57mm has a variety of rounds that can be used against swarms but also low slow flyers, which, the bad guys are developing…the 30mm gun in this configuration is not sufficient against that – there is already (I hope) a CIWS for final defense, but the 57mm gives more flexibility. “find’ balance, Danielson, go finda’ balance” – Mr Miyagi, Karate Kid….

  • Tony

    If NAVSEA was concerned with small boat swarms they probably should have designed a ship self defense system that could engage boats attacking from forward of the beam…

    • Robert Haschberg

      They have, the Zumwalt has a ram. Coupled with stealth technology its a powerful weapon.

      • OLD GUY

        AGAINST WHAT?

        • Robert Haschberg

          Against the inevitable chinese copy of the DDG-21. If its war, and they meet, its chicken race time.

          • Secundius

            @ Robert Haschberg.

            If an attack is coming, it better be really soon. While we have the ship’s to fight them with. Until that time, the ChiCom have time on their side. We DON’T.

          • Robert Haschberg

            The chinese know that time is on their side. The rise of China party parallels the rise of Japan, Japan would have been an iron age 3rd world nation today if it wasnt for some greedy american businessmen and Admiral Perry.
            The new Japan they indirectly created eventually ran afoul of american ambitions in the western pacific and then Pearl Harbor happened.

            If it wasnt for Nixon and greedy american businessmen the current, globalization boosted China would not exist. It would be a backwater 3rd world nation with a peasant army.
            The new China that they created will eventually run afoul of american ambitions in the western pacific and then…. well you can guess. The difference here is that America was about twice the size of Japan population wise and had a big resource advantage while China is four times the size of America and has no resource disadvantage.

            Going to war against an opponent placed on the asian landmass (instead of a few large islands just outside it) who also is more populous and have more production facilities for all kinds of weapon systems will not be winnable unless NBC weapons are deployed. I doesnt help that while american weapon systems are powerful, they are also cripplingly expensive due to a bad procurement system and awfully expensive to maintain. F.ex the F-35 is 2nd only to the Luftwaffe in reducing the numbers of planes in several european air forces.

          • Secundius

            @ Robert Haschberg.

            The ChiCom are already “terraforming” the Continent of Africa. In 100-years, it’s going to be a ChiCom Colony or the most eastern part of ChiCom Empire. And the indigenous Africans already living their. Are either going to be displaced refugees or ???

          • Robert Haschberg

            I think the chinese projects in Africa is going to fail. Why? Easy! Infrastructure improvements lead to better living conditions which leads to a monster wave of new africans which leads to worse living conditions which eventually leads to civil unrest and later civil war aaaand there goes Chinas african projects. A tiny elite of chinese cannot control a sea of raging africans. I dont think the Chinese have heard of R/K-selection theory and they dont understand what it implies for their african ventures.

          • Secundius

            @ Robert Haschberg.

            But, there’s also the Chinese population mass over African population theory to contend with too.

          • Secundius

            @ Robert Haschberg.

            At the end of WW2, the United States Navy Frleet Strength stood at 71,009-ship of various classes. In 2014 it stands at less 430-ship, and shrinking. The same concept that applies with the Army, holds true with the Navy too. Fi you don’t have ship’s in place to hold an objective, than you won nothing.

          • Secundius

            @ Robert Haschberg.

            Sir, the DDG-21 and the DD-1000 class destroyers, are the same class of ships.

  • OLD GUY

    MOST COMMENTS HERE VALID, ESPECIALLY THE RANGE REDUCTION. HOWEVER,
    My previous comments to Secundius still stand.
    1. The DD100 is a turkey. Dumb “tumblehome” design. Read the new SNAME and ASNE papers out on its idiocy.
    2. What we must have to counter SWARM is distributed, fast small attack ships
    (READ PHM). Single point defense is almost useless against swarm (READ NAVY DISASTER AGAINST BARBARY PIRATE 19th century DHOW SWARM).
    3. Requirement pull MUST trump Shipbuilder/ Congressional push.

    • Secundius

      @ Chesapeakeguy & OLD GUY.

      Apparently you tow never got the chance to read my last posting from earlier this morning, approximately around 2 AM. I see it somehow got mysteriously REEDIT buy parties unknown to this forum.

      • OLD GUY

        I find you a cogent and coherent writer. I, too have had items disappear. IT MUST BE “THE FOG OF WAR”.

        • Secundius

          @ OLD GUY.

          You just have too Love the Fo-Police and Work That They Do.

  • Secundius

    I found a good home, for those (3) Zumwalt class Advanced Destroyer’s. In the Black Sea, because Ukraine is going to getting some unwanted company in the way of the French-built Mistral’s. I think Russia is going to Homeport then in Crimea. Why, your asking yourselves, because the Montreux Convention prohibits Aircraft Carrier’s from entering the Straits to get into the Black Sea. If the Russian put the Mistral class Gator-Freighters in the Black Sea. They could conceivably pull-off a Doolittle type raid against the Ukraine. And the planes though not capable of landing on those ships, they probably could take-off, those ships. Then strike their targets and land back in Crimea or Eastern occupied Ukraine. Thank for giving me the idea Robert Haschberg.

  • OLD GUY

    Too bad our Chief “blame everything on previous administrations” Executive and his minions don’t read the USNI NEWS. They just might learn something.

  • Secundius

    People of the Discussion Group.

    The first Laser Defense System, mounted to an ACTIVE US. Navy Ship. Is going to be a 42 & 1/2-year old ship, the LPD-15, USS. Ponce. There going to install it in a Rusted-Out Gator-Freighter. Whoopie!