The US Navy’s lead Zumwalt-class destroyer, USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000), has successfully completed builder’s sea trials following a major modernisation programme that will see the ship become the U.S. Navy’s first operational platform for hypersonic weapons.
The trials were conducted off the coast of Mississippi by HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding division, marking a key milestone in the integration of the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) weapon system. The ship entered the Pascagoula shipyard in August 2023 for an extensive availability focused on converting the class from its original surface-fire support role into a long-range strike platform. During the modernisation, the destroyer was moved ashore to enable large-scale structural and systems work.
As part of the upgrade, the ship’s two 155mm Advanced Gun Systems were removed and replaced with large missile tubes designed to accommodate the CPS hypersonic weapon. The system is intended to provide the US Navy with the ability to strike high-value targets at long range at speeds exceeding Mach 5. Following completion of the main installation work, USS Zumwalt was undocked in December 2024 and underwent further preparations ahead of sea trials to validate propulsion, combat systems and platform performance after the conversion.
Brian Blanchette, president of Ingalls Shipbuilding, said the milestone set an important precedent for the rest of the class.
“We have achieved a pivotal milestone with our Navy and industry partners to advance this complex modernisation work that will set a precedent for the Zumwalt class,” he said. “I’m very proud of the team effort and their critical role to advance the U.S. Navy’s first warship with hypersonic capabilities.”
The Zumwalt-class destroyers feature an integrated electric propulsion system, stealth-optimised tumblehome hull and extensive automation, enabling a significantly reduced crew compared with earlier US surface combatants.
Two sister ships are also progressing toward hypersonic capability. USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) is currently undergoing CPS integration at Ingalls, while USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) is scheduled to receive the system during a future maintenance availability. Once operational, the class is expected to provide the US Navy with a survivable, long-range strike option capable of contributing to deterrence, power projection and sea control missions, while serving as a testbed for emerging technologies and future weapons systems.
A the Zumwalt class, the gimmick that keeps on giving.
No matter what the latest buzz word or half assed concept in naval warfare is you can bet the Zumwalt will be “fitted” with it to justify the epic cost of such a failed program.
Now the $5 billion dollar destroyer will be loaded up with $100 million missiles and it can cruise around the battle field being immune to any enemy counter measures except submarines and mines. It often amazes me how the USN can have such a well developed submarine force and yet its surface force seems completely oblivious to anti submarine warfare.
They were far from most Soviet subs during the cold war and believed their own submarine force could deal with it.
Currently the UK covers almost all the Russian subs and Chinese ones are loud so don’t require much specialist equipment. Of course however China will eventually make good submarines and they do have a lot.
There’s also just arrogance and the belief big ship is always better.
That Russian submarine that was on the cusp of sinking an American destroyer in the west Atlantic during the Cuba crisis and very possibly start WW3 must have been a mere aberration.
The US seemed to take the submarine threat much more seriously in the Cold War than it does today, look at the Perry Class. One only has to look at the serious renders of sticking a towed array out the back of a legend class cutter or LCS to do “secondary” missions like ASW, to see the distain the surface navy seems to attach to the under surface threat.
Much the same in WW2 when the argument was always how many guns they could cram on any surface ship then the Germans waltzed in and sunk 400 ships on the East Coast.
The US Submarine service is a total different kettle of fish, it’s immensely cable, well trained and seems to know just how serious submarines are in a modern battlefield. However the two seem from the outside to operate as different services.
Missiles put holes in ships. Hypersonic missiles are likely to put small holes in ships as they pass through. Torpedos sink ships, even an aircraft carrier is easily sunk by a single torpedo.
The US cared more about submarines during the cold War than they currently do. Perry class for instance being a very nice ASW platform.
But Russia isn’t the USSR, far fewer submarines and with most in the Arctic the US believed the UK could deal with the Russian submarine threat.
With the US no longer believing that submarines were much of a threat as the UK would deal with it they focused on air defence and weapons, the swap from TASM to TLAM on ships signifies part of this as they were focusing far more on offensive operations against other countries than actual naval fights. And predictions of a fight against China involved huge numbers of missiles and aircraft on both sides.
The Chinese make electric boats as good as anyone and they have now cracked the issue around SSN manufacturing so it’s generally expected the T095 will be a peer or close to peer SSN… the T093B is reckoned to be a close peer to a flight 2 LA and the O93B has 2 major flaws 1) it’s a duel reactor design as china could only build a SSN sized reactor with a power output of around 50MW so it needed 2 and that only gave it 100MW.. leading it to be small so it could not have a full deck raft.. two reactors are noisier than one and no full deck raft hammers your ability to isolate noise.. but even then they got it to the level of an LA flight 2.. which is an achievement.. sadly Putin swapped the design for a modern 150MW reactor about 8 years ago.. so the new SSN design they are building ( US sources estimate it will be commissioned 2028-2030j will have a single reactor and is going to be big enough to have a full deck raft.. that will make it a peer.
All told it’s got
50-60 electric boats..all pretty good
3 type 91 SSNs… the worst submarine in the world.. and it would have even been the worst in the 1970$.. they are awesome in being so bad.
2 type 93 SSNs.. very bad boats, about the sound level of a soviet victor 1
4 type 93A SSN.. each of these is different and essentially has slightly different and new silencing with the first couple at the level of a victor 2 and the last a late victor 3 ( the worst of the present operational Russian SSNs)
8 launched and 8 building ( for 16 ) type 93B these are about an Akula or flight 2 LA level SSN.
? Building T95 expected first 2 for 2030.. 16 will be laid down in the present SSN slips and they may be building another 12 SSN slips.. from 2030 they may be able to launch 6 a year.. these for all intent and purposes will have everything a present generation western SSN has… will they reach the standards of a ASUTE or Virginia ? But they will be close enough not to matter much and by 2040 they will likely have a fleer of around 50-60
The fact the USN will probably drop to a fleet of around 35 SSNs for the mid 2035s and not get above that ( it only builds 1 a year.. and they are getting older faster than they are building them) is a problem.. add to that the Burkes are not high end ASW platforms as they have collapsed their ASW frigate programme.. ( China has about 50 ASW frigates and will likely build another 30+ for the mide 2035s).. the USN in the mid to late 30s is going to be so out numbered by PLAN submarine and ASW forces ( maybe 100+..50% SSN 50% electric) and 80ish ASW frigates vs 35+ SSNs and 2 ASW frigates…( not forgetting all the PLAN destroyers.. of which they will probably have a good 100 will have tails as will the 60+ ASW corvettes)… who would want to be a USN submarine skipper in the late 2030s..
Personally I have heard that their submarines are still fairly loud, or at least the designs a few years ago. The latest might be quiet, but there is also more to how loud a submarine is than just whether it has one or two reactors. But China is definitely improving.
And that leads onto the arrogance part, the USN plan for ASW seemingly relies on the belief that because China isn’t currently great at submarines they will never be great. It also relies on arrogance to believe that the USN SSNs can simultaneously deal with the Chinese submarines whilst also hunting the amphibious vessels, the later being the USN big hope to win a war in the South China Sea. But as you not, numbers are very much not on their side, and it’s only going to get worse whilst China is catching up on the tech front quicker than the west is pulling away.
To be honest it doesn’t even matter if China makes submarines as good as the Astute (agreed by most to be the quietest), all they need is for something to be quieter than what a loud destroyer like a Burke can deal with and that effectively means they can target any USN ships not in a CSG, but even their carrier borne ASW is falling with the Viking gone. And making a sub quiet enough to deal with a Burke is hardly an impossible task, I’d be willing to bet the revamped Kilo’s can probably do it and if not, certainly an older western design like the Trafalgar.
The 1 or 2 reactors and their density is actually massively important..two reactors is double the cooling and cooling is a major part of an SSNs sound profile also low power means a small narrow boat.. small narrow boats mean no full deck raft and the full deck raft is very very important. it’s the single reactor and full deck rafting that move it from a 1980s equivalent SSN to a 21c equivalent SSN.. because they already had everything else in place.. they had the tiles and the isolation pads as well as the propulsion tec and the precision engineering/CNC they got the tiles and isolation tec from Russia, they stole the propulsion tec from the UK and the west set them up with the precision lathes and engineering equipment so they could make all our stuff for us…
And yes numbers are key.. because the only way the US can win in the western pacific is to concentrate its entire power..if it has no world wide allies then china can scatter its CBGs and SSNs into the pacific and Indian Ocean.. the USN then has a loss loss set of choices.. chase the more numerous PLAN assets across the globe at which point the PLAN would defeat in detail the USN forces left in the western pacific or ignore the CBGs and SSNs and concentrate in the western pacific.. the PLAN would then be able to attack US interests and infrastructure at will…
Most people have forgotten maritime conflict is and alway has been a numbers game.. it’s not the side with the biggest or best ships that wins it’s the side with the most ships that wins.. it’s alway been the case, the oceans are vast and a ship can only be in one place in time and space.. if your opponent can be in 4 places to your 1 you will loss the war.
US Numbers might be even more Important If Trump actually Pisses off anymore Allies.
With a Chinese Super Embassy In London, this Labour government will be offering the PLAN a base In Scotland next !
Oh and,(OT) reading about the Coalition of Gaza peace Members, i’m thinking, How about calling it the “CCP” … Coalition of Corrupt Polititions 🤔😁
In fairness, ASW is the province of frigates and carriers (helos and fixed wing aircraft), not large destroyers/cruisers.
Unfortunately the USN appears to have given up on ASW frigates and decommissioned its S3 Vikings without replacement.
Perhaps a golden fleet has no need of ASW capability.
Maybe the Trump class have some super weapon us dumb Europeans are unaware of to stop torpedoes. Apparently they are 500 times more power than the Iowa class.
🇺🇸🫡
😀
Because they used to have plenty of good friends who were very good at ASW. The Norwegians, the Dutch and the RN all specialised in sub-surface warfare during the Cold War and into the Peace Dividend.
It is perplexing. 12 Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missiles to reach anywhere in the world in less than an hour. In that case, why not make them a land based system that could be driven around on a large truck for a lot less money? (Like the Chinese do.) And at $100 million a pop the missiles are only going to be used against large surface ships. Is this a nod to the fact that they won’t be stationed anywhere near a potential enemy? The Zumwalt class destroyer and the new ‘Battleship’ concept are really designed to stick relatively close to the US coast, safe from harm, and yet remain relevant by being able to pose a global threat to large enemy ships?
They aren’t ICBMs, they’re presumably the same missile as the US Army’s Dark Eagle which has a range around 2000 miles.
You’re right. The ‘global’ in the name has been dropped. And unit price is $41 million per unit.
actually the zumwalt is better equipped to deal with underwater threats than the Burke really.
Or maybe the US has means they don’t speak about which makes them not as worried about the enemy submarine problem as we do. Wouldnt surprise me if they have satellites that can track them, there are plenty of theories for how that can be done and perhaps the US has cracked it. It would be one of their most closely kept secrets though.
Add in a massive fleet of anti sub helicopters and P-8s and all the drones coming about recently. Also the arleigh burke is a very underrated ASW platform, mainly due to its AEGIS suite combining all the info from multiple sources and ASROC which is something the RN desperately needs again. If youre launching torpedos out of the side of your sub or destroyer its probably too late. ASROC lets you reach out 20+ km.
Asroc doesnt match the range of sub launched torps