Italy DDX, the new destroyer of the Italian Navy

[TR_123456]

Credit to D-Mitch Navalanalyses.com

 

[Azeri441]

Needs more VLS for a 11,000 ton destroyer

 

[Lordimperator]

Tomorrow destroyer is yesterday cryiser, might be the heaviest detroyer from the euro sphere. Yep it will need more vls

 

[chiphocks]

No CIWS??

 

[Lordimperator]

No CIWS??

Italian using Strales as CIWS, 76 mm with guided ammo DART

 

[chiphocks]

Italian using Strales as CIWS, 76 mm with guided ammo DART

ya, that's what i thought, a guided munition from a quite rapid enough cannon
it's not designed to make hits like a normal CIWS, like it was 3km to 500meters while Phalanx, Oerlikon and ext is 2km to 180meters

 

[Lordimperator]

not designed to make hits like a normal CIWS,

They hit the target tho even with 1 or 2 shot per target, whats the problem? Even 57 mm for the constelation ffg designed similiar as DART. The benefit using larger mm is the bigger for the longer range engagement. Even phalanx and oerlikon are using different method as ciws, one is one barel the other is gatling gun

 

[Nilgiri]

Needs more VLS for a 11,000 ton destroyer

Tomorrow destroyer is yesterday cryiser, might be the heaviest detroyer from the euro sphere. Yep it will need more vls

VLS number is fine....given things like armour, suvivability, endurance and accommodations made for future weapon systems, sensors and propulsion.

It is trade-off decision depending on the doctrine/role you have picked for your naval assets and navy at large... in a batch of 30+ years or so.

This for example makes difference between italian and french FREMM and part of the underlying doctrinal suitablity US opted for with FFG(X) in picking italian FREMM as basis.

i.e factoring what other kind of ships/allied ships they will be part of in likeliest contingencies and battle groups...and what role is planned for these future planned assets.

What does @Anmdt think?

 

[Lordimperator]

This for example makes difference between italian and french FREMM and part of the underlying doctrinal suitablity US opted for with FFG(X) in picking italian FREMM as basis.

Care to elaborate the difference rench and italian fremm?

 

[McCool]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1481335217231171591

 

[Anmdt]

VLS number is fine....given things like armour, suvivability, endurance and accommodations made for future weapon systems, sensors and propulsion.

It is trade-off decision depending on the doctrine/role you have picked for your naval assets and navy at large... in a batch of 30+ years or so.

This for example makes difference between italian and french FREMM and part of the underlying doctrinal suitablity US opted for with FFG(X) in picking italian FREMM as basis.

i.e factoring what other kind of ships/allied ships they will be part of in likeliest contingencies and battle groups...and what role is planned for these future planned assets.

What does @Anmdt think?

We are on the same page. Also they seem to spare a space for at least 2x8 at most 4x8 more VLS in the forward position.

So 64 to 96 seems sufficient after stripping some of the tonnage out, which have been added for longer endurance and range, as well as low-maintenance.

 

[McCool]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1481335217231171591

@T-123456 @Test7

this is clearly not an Italian DD(X) but American ones

 

[Fairon]

@T-123456 @Test7

this is clearly not an Italian DD(X) but American ones

Yes, too few guns. You need at least 3 to call a ship Italian.

 

[TR_123456]

@T-123456 @Test7

this is clearly not an Italian DD(X) but American ones

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Nilgiri]

Care to elaborate the difference rench and italian fremm?

IIRC, the Italian ones overall have more toughness + protection, especially below the waterline.

The watertight integrity in the machinery spaces were some part of its final selection by USN for FFGX....as USN sees this class needing to be more survivable along with high range/endurance for a frigate.

This is part of their greater final tonnage compared to the French version.

So it's not surprising Italy continues along this line for its DDX too.

More "niche" approaches somewhat away from cookie cutter scaling are not new to NATO. Certain member navies during thick of cold war had very optimised roles (which influenced their new ship requirements) once you look into their assets + training in detailed way.

 

[McCool]

How did you come to that conclusion?

umm, because this is clearly a USN ships displayed for the SNA 2022.

What kind of Italian DDX uses MK-41 VLS and AN/SPY-6 as we all can see in the picture ??

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1481335217231171591

 

[TR_123456]

umm, because this is clearly a USN ships displayed for the SNA 2022.

What kind of Italian DDX uses MK-41 VLS and AN/SPY-6 as we all can see in the picture ??

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1481335217231171591

@Naval Analyses ,care to answer this question??

 

[Lordimperator]

umm, because this is clearly a USN ships displayed for the SNA 2022.

What kind of Italian DDX uses MK-41 VLS and AN/SPY-6 as we all can see in the picture ??

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1481335217231171591

I guess this is an answer for the type 55

 

[belloc]

Needs more VLS for a 11,000 ton destroyer

100% right.

 

[Lordimperator]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1516817556023259156

Pretty much the same like the previous design.