There are several reasons why the F-35 program has more lines of code than the DDG-1000: 1. More weapons, sensors, and communication channels on the F-35 2. Tighter integration on the F-35 where everything is software driven 3. UAI – Universal Armament Interface in the F-35 where an additional layer for weapons control is created 4. F-35 contains a “Middleware” layer that mitigates changes in the hardware and allows for cheaper and faster hardware development 5. The PHM system is the largest part (lines of code) of the F-35 Program and does not actually run on the F-35 for the most part.
i'll have to check but the Combat Information Center on the DDG-1000 means that one of the weapon systems it will coordinate is the F-35! additionally what do you mean more weapons and sensors? it has an AESA array? have you seen the sensors on the DDG-1000? i'll get up with whoever will still talk to me but those seem bogus on the face of it.
The stream of info coming from F-35s would be considered “one source”, just like off-board sensors would be from one source in the F-35.
As far as “more weapons & sensors” goes, besides the radar, there is EOTS, EODAS, ESM, Comms, Off-board, etc. For weapons there are 5 at Blk 2B (gun, AMRAAM, 2k JDAM, 1k JDAM, and 500lb Paveway4) 8 at Blk 3F and more than 30 are already planned by Blk4/5.
Besides these, I completely forgot about the Flight Control computer software that would not be needed (in its level of complexity) for the DDG-1000.
everyone of those weapon systems you mention is slated for use by the F/A-18. that vaunted EODAS, EOTS etc is simply building into the airplane what is usually carried on pylons...LANTRIN, SNIPER pods etc....so forgive me if i continue to remain unimpressed
I was not trying to impress, only inform as to why there are so many lines of code associated with the F-35. It's the integration at a central software level that drives up the lines.
no what it is, is the biggest single point of failure on an airplane filled with failure points. the entire concept is a lie. quite honestly even the supporters of the airplane should be able to admit at this point that the only reason why it hasn't been canceled is because its been rigged and interwoven into everyones economy...or so people believe. its the most expensive boondoggle of a generation of boondoggles and will saddle this generations leadership as the most inept in the history of our nation.
people should go to jail over this fiasco. governments should fall because of the corruption that is obvious to anyone with eyes.
so tell me something Spudman. you're a smart guy. why can't you see what even a grunt can?
Spudman disingenuously compares six million lines on the Zumwalt to lines in "F-35 program" and then says most of the program lines aren't on the plane. True, but irrelevant.
Apples and apples: Six million lines on the destroyer compared to nine million lines on the unproven plane.
A weak, silver spoon fed baby. It's only role is naval gunfire support. At 3.5+ billion a ship, that's not exactly cheap for something that carries a whole 2 155mm rocket guns.
Let's see what else it can do, can it do area air defense? Nope. Can it perform Ballistic Missile Defense? Nope. Can it perform ASW? Yes, but it has weaker sonar power than a Burke, so it only does better in the littorals, though I doubt the navy is going to send it to go duel some SSKs. It can launch some Tomahawks, but so can Burkes, and you don't need to exactly sneak close to shore to launch those. It does have some large Peripheral Launch Cells, but we currently have nothing that needs the larger size, and nothing is under development as far as we know that requires them.
There's also the slight problem of it can't use it's AGS against naval targets, instead having to rely on a pair of 57mm guns, that also get to have fun being the ships only CIWS system.
It does have a large power reserve, for all those future rail guns and lasers we are going to have in the next 30 years, right on time for the Navy to sacrifice this class on the altar of new construction. :D
P.S. Heaven forbid it come under fire, because it's minimal crew is going to have one hell of a time trying to do damage control.
you're missing future events. this ship is the only one in the fleet (besides aircraft carriers) that will produce enough surplus electricity to power lasers at sea. the US Navy is pushing the blue green laser program and hopes to have them at sea by 2015...about the same time as the DDG1000 is to hit deck in a big way. i'm guessing here but my bet is that you're looking at the next generation Burke type ship for the US Navy. it will do air defense but better because it will be using lasers. with the right radar system we're talking about speed of light hits on enemy aircraft, missiles and uavs. it could easily make the burke class obsolete.
It would make missile based defense systems obsolete, this is true, as long as it's not BVR. We are still a long ways away from having combat capable lasers in the multi megawatt range though. Laser defenses could be overwhelmed by swarm attacks too.
Believe me, I love the potential lasers have, and they are the future as far as defense goes, but that's all it is at the moment, potential. It's not a very good idea to build a fleet of these ships considering they just are not cost effective at this time. I think of it as building a whole fleet of aircraft carriers for WWI, with no planes for them. Three ships are going to average out at $3.9 billion each, and that's not including the Navys, "Goverment Supplied Equipment" credit card.
The DDG-1000s are arguably a test platform for new technologies, that may or may not be as great as we think they will be. I think we can both agree that the Navies lack of effective anti ship missile is pretty dumb.
i can agree with that but just have to throw this at you.
which is a better way to go. build 3 warships and see how they fit in your doctrine or contract to build 50 and try to figure out how you're going to use them? LCS equals mistake, DDG1000 equals common sense coming back to the Navy.
I'm not happy with any of our military's procurement plans. We have no grand strategy. We build for the sake of building, then we try and figure out if what we paid so much for is even useful. I blame the Russians for our lack of direction, and absolutely hate our politicians for ever having anything to do with communist China. :/
Kinda funny, but the DDG1000 is in the same boat as the F22. It suffered from a death spiral. Old report, but interesting nonetheless.
The National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007 (Report of the Committee On Armed Services House of Representatives On H.R. 5122 Together With Additional And Dissenting Views) stated the following: “The committee understands there is no prospect of being able to design and build the two lead ships for the $6.6 billion budgeted. The committee is concerned that the Navy is attempting to insert too much capability into a single platform. As a result, the DD(X) is now expected to displace over 14,000 tons and by the Navy’s estimate, cost almost $3.3 billion each.
Originally, the Navy proposed building 32 next generation destroyers, reduced that to 24, then finally to 7 in order to make the program affordable. In such small numbers, the committee struggles to see how the original requirements for the next generation destroyer, for example providing naval surface fire support, can be met.
The zumwalt can do air defense. Why the heck cant it use the AGS on naval targets, it can. its awesome at it. the problem its had is that the war was eating all the money before bush left and they have shorted it on R+D. It wont make an economical nasty burke obsolete but is going to be a great ddg class. We need to get through with the wars and lack of funding period and get into perfecting how we are going to outfit the boat.
I remember the cspan debates. The democrats hated the the zumwalt and set out to kill key capabilities on the ship to make it less effective so they could build cheaper burkes.
As for the LCS I specifically remember hillary clinton thwarting the installation of AN/SPY-1D radar. And from there it became a paperweight. its not the hulls fault, its not the navy's, thank ur fucking congress.
I have serious doubts you could squeeze a AN/SPY-1D inside an LCS, it would have to be really reduced in size....not only that but you are only firing a small missile not a Standard SM so sounds like radar overkill to me. Maybe you could squeeze it in the trimaran USS Independence GD version LCS, those big side panels does give you some room for 2 front radar panels but I still don't see why you put so much radar on a platform with no AA missiles to speak of. I haven't seen anything about VLS launchers for Standard missiles on a LCS.
That's even assuming you have enough space inside the LCS for the computers, monitors for the crew,etc and enough electricity for the AN/SPY-1D.
I stand corrected I looked up the variants, They were going to use AN/SPY-1F which has a slightly smaller set of aerials. The range is the same but the search pattern is a little slower. AN/SPY-1K is smaller enough to fit on something like a Visby class but while it would give the Visby a nice AAW capability I seriously doubt it would be powerful enough for the BMD mission,
Its basically the same capability on the smaller ship.
LCS is a 3,000 ton ship, if you go to the lock heed martin site, they have a virtual tour where you can see every square inch of the inside.
Having had that look inside, I'm telling ya'll there was room for a lot more capability in the ship if it had that radar and aegis combat system.
COMBATTS 21 is part of the lock heed martin software library and has 95% commonality. so it can be easily integrated into the existing software environment, but there are a lot missing pieces.
Basically if it doesn't have the radar it didn't need the software and so short cutting out the radar was truly the beginning of the reduced capabilities.
There are several reasons why the F-35 program has more lines of code than the DDG-1000:
ReplyDelete1. More weapons, sensors, and communication channels on the F-35
2. Tighter integration on the F-35 where everything is software driven
3. UAI – Universal Armament Interface in the F-35 where an additional layer for weapons control is created
4. F-35 contains a “Middleware” layer that mitigates changes in the hardware and allows for cheaper and faster hardware development
5. The PHM system is the largest part (lines of code) of the F-35 Program and does not actually run on the F-35 for the most part.
i'll have to check but the Combat Information Center on the DDG-1000 means that one of the weapon systems it will coordinate is the F-35! additionally what do you mean more weapons and sensors? it has an AESA array? have you seen the sensors on the DDG-1000? i'll get up with whoever will still talk to me but those seem bogus on the face of it.
ReplyDeleteThe stream of info coming from F-35s would be considered “one source”, just like off-board sensors would be from one source in the F-35.
DeleteAs far as “more weapons & sensors” goes, besides the radar, there is EOTS, EODAS, ESM, Comms, Off-board, etc. For weapons there are 5 at Blk 2B (gun, AMRAAM, 2k JDAM, 1k JDAM, and 500lb Paveway4) 8 at Blk 3F and more than 30 are already planned by Blk4/5.
Besides these, I completely forgot about the Flight Control computer software that would not be needed (in its level of complexity) for the DDG-1000.
everyone of those weapon systems you mention is slated for use by the F/A-18. that vaunted EODAS, EOTS etc is simply building into the airplane what is usually carried on pylons...LANTRIN, SNIPER pods etc....so forgive me if i continue to remain unimpressed
DeleteI was not trying to impress, only inform as to why there are so many lines of code associated with the F-35. It's the integration at a central software level that drives up the lines.
Deleteno what it is, is the biggest single point of failure on an airplane filled with failure points. the entire concept is a lie. quite honestly even the supporters of the airplane should be able to admit at this point that the only reason why it hasn't been canceled is because its been rigged and interwoven into everyones economy...or so people believe. its the most expensive boondoggle of a generation of boondoggles and will saddle this generations leadership as the most inept in the history of our nation.
Deletepeople should go to jail over this fiasco. governments should fall because of the corruption that is obvious to anyone with eyes.
so tell me something Spudman. you're a smart guy. why can't you see what even a grunt can?
Spudman disingenuously compares six million lines on the Zumwalt to lines in "F-35 program" and then says most of the program lines aren't on the plane. True, but irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteApples and apples: Six million lines on the destroyer compared to nine million lines on the unproven plane.
Wow.. how does the DDG-1000 rank a simple "destroyer", yet the F-35 gets an "unproven plane"?
DeleteIt's not like the DDS-100 has not had it's own share of development troubles.
You rank 'em by total cost, spudman. Take $1.5 trillion for the unproven jet for starters. --Nice change of subject, though.
DeleteI like the F-35 and the zumwalt and want both of them.
ReplyDeleteDDG 1000 is really badass. Iowa and burke got together and had a baby. A really mean baby.
Why talk about the F-35 in a zumwalt article though, why not talk about how awesome it is, and why the Navy should be getting more than 3.
A weak, silver spoon fed baby. It's only role is naval gunfire support. At 3.5+ billion a ship, that's not exactly cheap for something that carries a whole 2 155mm rocket guns.
DeleteLet's see what else it can do, can it do area air defense? Nope. Can it perform Ballistic Missile Defense? Nope. Can it perform ASW? Yes, but it has weaker sonar power than a Burke, so it only does better in the littorals, though I doubt the navy is going to send it to go duel some SSKs. It can launch some Tomahawks, but so can Burkes, and you don't need to exactly sneak close to shore to launch those. It does have some large Peripheral Launch Cells, but we currently have nothing that needs the larger size, and nothing is under development as far as we know that requires them.
There's also the slight problem of it can't use it's AGS against naval targets, instead having to rely on a pair of 57mm guns, that also get to have fun being the ships only CIWS system.
It does have a large power reserve, for all those future rail guns and lasers we are going to have in the next 30 years, right on time for the Navy to sacrifice this class on the altar of new construction. :D
P.S. Heaven forbid it come under fire, because it's minimal crew is going to have one hell of a time trying to do damage control.
you're missing future events. this ship is the only one in the fleet (besides aircraft carriers) that will produce enough surplus electricity to power lasers at sea. the US Navy is pushing the blue green laser program and hopes to have them at sea by 2015...about the same time as the DDG1000 is to hit deck in a big way. i'm guessing here but my bet is that you're looking at the next generation Burke type ship for the US Navy. it will do air defense but better because it will be using lasers. with the right radar system we're talking about speed of light hits on enemy aircraft, missiles and uavs. it could easily make the burke class obsolete.
DeleteIt would make missile based defense systems obsolete, this is true, as long as it's not BVR. We are still a long ways away from having combat capable lasers in the multi megawatt range though. Laser defenses could be overwhelmed by swarm attacks too.
DeleteBelieve me, I love the potential lasers have, and they are the future as far as defense goes, but that's all it is at the moment, potential. It's not a very good idea to build a fleet of these ships considering they just are not cost effective at this time. I think of it as building a whole fleet of aircraft carriers for WWI, with no planes for them. Three ships are going to average out at $3.9 billion each, and that's not including the Navys, "Goverment Supplied Equipment" credit card.
The DDG-1000s are arguably a test platform for new technologies, that may or may not be as great as we think they will be. I think we can both agree that the Navies lack of effective anti ship missile is pretty dumb.
i can agree with that but just have to throw this at you.
Deletewhich is a better way to go. build 3 warships and see how they fit in your doctrine or contract to build 50 and try to figure out how you're going to use them? LCS equals mistake, DDG1000 equals common sense coming back to the Navy.
I'm not happy with any of our military's procurement plans. We have no grand strategy. We build for the sake of building, then we try and figure out if what we paid so much for is even useful. I blame the Russians for our lack of direction, and absolutely hate our politicians for ever having anything to do with communist China. :/
DeleteKinda funny, but the DDG1000 is in the same boat as the F22. It suffered from a death spiral. Old report, but interesting nonetheless.
The National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007 (Report of the Committee On Armed Services House of Representatives On H.R. 5122 Together With Additional And Dissenting Views) stated the following: “The committee understands there is no prospect of being able to design and build the two lead ships for the $6.6 billion budgeted. The committee is concerned that the Navy is attempting to insert too much capability into a single platform. As a result, the DD(X) is now expected to displace over 14,000 tons and by the Navy’s estimate, cost almost $3.3 billion each.
Originally, the Navy proposed building 32 next generation destroyers, reduced that to 24, then finally to 7 in order to make the program affordable. In such small numbers, the committee struggles to see how the original requirements for the next generation destroyer, for example providing naval surface fire support, can be met.
The zumwalt can do air defense. Why the heck cant it use the AGS on naval targets, it can. its awesome at it. the problem its had is that the war was eating all the money before bush left and they have shorted it on R+D. It wont make an economical nasty burke obsolete but is going to be a great ddg class. We need to get through with the wars and lack of funding period and get into perfecting how we are going to outfit the boat.
DeleteI remember the cspan debates. The democrats hated the the zumwalt and set out to kill key capabilities on the ship to make it less effective so they could build cheaper burkes.
As for the LCS I specifically remember hillary clinton thwarting the installation of
AN/SPY-1D radar. And from there it became a paperweight. its not the hulls fault, its not the navy's, thank ur fucking congress.
3d sea girafe my ass
DeleteI have serious doubts you could squeeze a AN/SPY-1D inside an LCS, it would have to be really reduced in size....not only that but you are only firing a small missile not a Standard SM so sounds like radar overkill to me. Maybe you could squeeze it in the trimaran USS Independence GD version LCS, those big side panels does give you some room for 2 front radar panels but I still don't see why you put so much radar on a platform with no AA missiles to speak of. I haven't seen anything about VLS launchers for Standard missiles on a LCS.
DeleteThat's even assuming you have enough space inside the LCS for the computers, monitors for the crew,etc and enough electricity for the AN/SPY-1D.
It would appear LMT made an offer a few years ago to Saudi Arabia but I don't think the Saudis went for it.
Deletehttp://www.arabianbusiness.com/lockheed-proposes-5bn-aegis-ships-sale-saudi-arabia-402233.html
I stand corrected I looked up the variants, They were going to use AN/SPY-1F which has a slightly smaller set of aerials. The range is the same but the search pattern is a little slower.
DeleteAN/SPY-1K is smaller enough to fit on something like a Visby class but while it would give the Visby a nice AAW capability I seriously doubt it would be powerful enough for the BMD mission,
Its basically the same capability on the smaller ship.
LCS is a 3,000 ton ship, if you go to the lock heed martin site, they have a virtual tour where you can see every square inch of the inside.
Having had that look inside, I'm telling ya'll there was room for a lot more capability in the ship if it had that radar and aegis combat system.
COMBATTS 21 is part of the lock heed martin software library and has 95% commonality.
so it can be easily integrated into the existing software environment, but there are a lot missing pieces.
Basically if it doesn't have the radar it didn't need the software and so short cutting out the radar was truly the beginning of the reduced capabilities.
DDG 1000, something the Navy really needs, and the Marine Corps is going to love for Fire Support!
ReplyDeleteHopefully, they won't make it a testbed for new technology and drive up the cost.
ReplyDelete