PDA

View Full Version : CNO on DDX



gc
07-20-2005, 09:32 PM
Interesting capability. US is going into stealth for everything. Fighters, bombers, UAV, Cruise missiles, ships, submarines and armoured vehicles. U can't defend against it if u can't detect it in the first place. woot

CNO to Congress - Fund DD(X)
From Chief of Naval Operations Public Affairs
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee's Projection Forces Subcommittee July 19, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Vern Clark strongly urged Congress to fully fund the Navy's next generation destroyer, DD(X).

Clark testified along with the Honorable Kenneth J. Kreig, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition John Young; and Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton, program executive officer for Ships.

The CNO began his opening statement by thanking those House members in attendance for their support.

"Thank you for the chance to be here, and I appreciate the fact that all of you are here, investing in this discussion, and by doing so, investing in the national security of the United States," he said.

He also said he felt it was a particularly important discussion, one that "we need to have, so we can get this very important ship and its tremendous combat capability off the drawing board and into the fleet."

The tone for the testimony was set early, as Clark stated that, "For the record, I am unequivocally in full support of the DD(X) program. It is time to get the next generation of capabilities to the fleet," he stated.

"The projected threats - both conventional and the ongoing war against terrorism - absolutely requires this kind of capability."

Clark made his strongest point when he said that failure to build this next generation of capabilities comes "at the peril to the future sons and daughters of America who are going to serve in the United States Navy."

He pointedly described the peril ships face while operating close to shore, describing those operations as taking place in "the most challenging maritime battle space, the contested littoral."

He explained that DD(X) differs from the Navy's current class of destroyer, DDG 51, as DD(X) will be built from the keel up for these littoral operations, while the DDG 51 class was built to operate on the high seas.

"We need DD(X) for the type of things it will bring to the fight," Clark explained. "These capabilities include persistent and long range power projection to the fight without a permission slip; 80 missile cells - and not just for today's tactical Tomahawks, but tomorrow's hypersonic missiles."

DD(X) is also automated to reduce crew size to 114 Sailors. "In addition to enabling the U.S. Navy to fight and win against future threats and reducing the combat risk to the men and women serving in our nation's Navy, the DD(X) manning reduction achieves operational cost savings of $13 million per year per ship compared to a DDG," Clark noted in his written testimony.

Other capabilities that DD(X) will bring to the fleet are a 10-fold improved capability against anti-ship cruise missiles, 10 times the operating area in shallow water regions against mines, and improved naval surface fire coverage.

According to Clark, one of the most critical capabilities DD(X) will have is a 50-fold radar cross section reduction compared to the current class of destroyer. Clark clearly spelled out what advantage this will bring to the battlespace.

"If you're an adversary of the United States of America, looking for a DD(X) will be like looking for the proverbial needle in an American haystack," Clark said. "With the capabilities inherent in DD(X), the enemy's going to have to be sucked into our network to ever find out who we are," he added.

Clark said that that he is more convinced now than ever before that DD(X) is a ship that the Navy must build, and that this kind of consistent combat capability is a must-have in the fleet.

"I'm also morally bound to do all I can do to provide for and protect the men and women in the United States naval service - those who are serving now, and those who will serve in the future," he emphasized, "and provide them with the means to win in combat, and that is what DD(X) is all about."

Clark finished his opening statement by stating for the record that "DD(X) is a warfighting imperative. The United States Navy needs it now, and the technological door that it opens to the future."
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=19273

AmericanDude04
07-20-2005, 11:29 PM
If I am not mistaken, they took all they learned from the Sea Shadow and applied it to the DDX and others. Someone if they have more information please post it, because all I have found is stuff about the Shadow and not the DDX.

JoaMei
07-21-2005, 12:38 AM
That cant be true, the russians here told me stealt is useless against russian super radars. :lol:

sp2c
07-21-2005, 12:54 AM
depends on your radar now leave 'the russians here' alone

JoaMei
07-21-2005, 01:23 AM
depends on your radar now leave 'the russians here' alone

No, doesnt depend on the Radar. Just on simple Physics.

Ballistic
07-21-2005, 01:48 AM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/ddx_2003_1014.jpg

Nice looking ship !! Australia should ditch the AWD's and go for these instead :D

sp2c
07-21-2005, 09:30 AM
depends on your radar now leave 'the russians here' alone

No, doesnt depend on the Radar. Just on simple Physics.
not really ... fly a stealth aircraft over the Netherlands and the crew will be looking at an F16 airshow in no time, there's no such thing as an invisible plane (yet)

ships aren't much different

JoaMei
07-21-2005, 09:36 AM
depends on your radar now leave 'the russians here' alone

No, doesnt depend on the Radar. Just on simple Physics.
not really ... fly a stealth aircraft over the Netherlands and the crew will be looking at an F16 airshow in no time, there's no such thing as an invisible plane (yet)

ships aren't much different

No, there are Many planes in the sky. High enough not to be identified. Do you think someone calls at a Radar station and asks if a white stripe in the sky is on the Monitor too? What about night?

sp2c
07-21-2005, 09:40 AM
No, there are Many planes in the sky. High enough not to be identified. Do you think someone calls at a Radar station and asks if a white stripe in the sky is on the Monitor too? What about night?

no the radar station sees something moving and investigates, usually they just ask friendly airforces whatsup and the Americans will say it's an aircraft heading for Norway and they're sorry about forgetting to contact them and then everybody goes in their own merry way (not that there's much stealth aircraft secretly passing through Dutch airspace but it's happened)

gc
07-21-2005, 09:31 PM
Any radar can detect stealth vehicles. Just that the detection range is much reduced, idiots. That leaves huge gaps in the enemy's radar coverage. The only way they can solve the problem is to saturate the area with radars, and that will be both economically impossible and socially undesirable. Imagine yourself walking in the city, and passing by a air defence radar every 4-5 KM. ;)

sp2c
07-22-2005, 05:23 AM
idiots.

excuse me?

mountainbear
07-22-2005, 05:36 AM
I’ve read about a radar technology where the electromagnetic wave reflects on the ionosphere. These radars have the capacity to detect any moving target at very long range but don’t give the altitude of it. Another problem is that the radar is composed of many antennas and take a lot of space.

JoaMei
07-22-2005, 06:07 AM
No, there are Many planes in the sky. High enough not to be identified. Do you think someone calls at a Radar station and asks if a white stripe in the sky is on the Monitor too? What about night?

no the radar station sees something moving and investigates, usually they just ask friendly airforces whatsup and the Americans will say it's an aircraft heading for Norway and they're sorry about forgetting to contact them and then everybody goes in their own merry way (not that there's much stealth aircraft secretly passing through Dutch airspace but it's happened)

Wrong, you have maybe ONE radar Station in the Nederlands that covers the whole country because it is small. That radar could detect a Stealth plane at say 10km.... so there is lots of airspace where it can do what it wants.... :lol:

sp2c
07-22-2005, 06:21 AM
yeah sure, believe whatever you want

JoaMei
07-22-2005, 06:56 AM
yeah sure, believe whatever you want

Well, you do that. Nobody invests Billions on something that doesnt work.

sp2c
07-22-2005, 06:57 AM
I'm not saying it doesn't work I'm saying it isn't flawless

JoaMei
07-22-2005, 07:06 AM
I'm not saying it doesn't work I'm saying it isn't flawless

For example?


Even first generation Stealth worked very well in Iraq.

sp2c
07-22-2005, 07:08 AM
as said, it depends on the radar

JoaMei
07-22-2005, 07:31 AM
as said, it depends on the radar

No, it doesnt. What part of "electromagnetic energy is absorbed or diffused to other directions than the receiver" dont you understand?

Im Studying electronics with a good part of high frequency technology. And you?

Even when you double the Power of the Radar it will only slightly improve detection range for stealth targets.

melon
07-22-2005, 08:14 AM
He is correct, stealth isnt fool proof, but it significantly reduces the effectiveness of a given radar platform. By knowing where they are, you can plan your flight around them, or between the coverage bubbles, where the return from your stealth platform will not return a radar echo.

The stealthier the object, the smaller the effective bubble around the radar is.

Nothing is invisable, but if your flashlight (radar bubble) only works out to 10 feet in the dark, the guy(stealth platform) who is 25 feet away can run by you in the night without being seen. The only current way to defeat it is to saturate an area with radar, but radar is only so good when SEAD is prowing the night sky to steal your flashlight right after you turn it on.

sp2c
07-22-2005, 08:22 AM
No, it doesnt. What part of "electromagnetic energy is absorbed or diffused to other directions than the receiver" dont you understand?

I do understand

it makes the aircraft harder to detect but it's still not impossible, if you know what to look for and have the technology to do so (Iraq obviously did not) you can detect stealth aircraft

every virus has an antivirus


Im Studying electronics with a good part of high frequency technology. And you?

airforce woot



Even when you double the Power of the Radar it will only slightly improve detection range for stealth targets.
it does not work that way, you don't just add more batteries to your radar, you improve the system

JoaMei
07-22-2005, 08:26 AM
airforce


And what? Im former Airforce too.


it does not work that way, you don't just add more batteries to your radar, you improve the system

Of course no batteries, you build a stronger emitter. On what level are we discussing here? :roll:

vryhpyammoadded
07-22-2005, 09:21 AM
The important thing is to reduce the RCS enough to launch your monition into said radar station before lock on can occur. Not being detected at all is nice too but if a SAM can’t be fired at you, you’re generally ok. Just bugger out before the interceptors come gunning for you.

gc
07-22-2005, 10:17 PM
idiots.

excuse me?

Take it easy man. Just joking. :fork: