USS Zumwalt Heads to Sea

"Jcarr" (jcarr) 12/07/2015 at 13:13 • Filed to: Shiplopnik

3

35

The namesake of the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! class of guided missile destroyers !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Despite being more than 600 feet long and weighing around 15,000 tons, the Zumwalt has a radar cross section the size of a fishing boat.

Commanding Zumwalt is—no joke—Captain James Kirk. Whether or not his middle name is Tiberius remains to be seen.

Supreme Chancellor and Glorious Leader SaveTheIntegras > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 13:16

0

Wow..I haven’t seen any actual pictures of this thing. Crazy looking, but totally awesome.

Edit: this is suppose to have the rail guns correct?

ttyymmnn > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 13:18

2

What ship? I don’t see anything.

Jcarr > ttyymmnn 12/07/2015 at 13:18

0

Just a harmless trawler getting chased by a bunch of tugs...

ttyymmnn > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 13:20

0

And they plan to build 32 of them. Oh, wait, they canceled 29 of those 32. That would have been a shipload of money.

HammerheadFistpunch > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 13:21

0

I was just reading up on the Zumwalt and the TLDR seems to be: a hyper expensive one off that wont actually be much use. Sounds about right.

Jcarr > HammerheadFistpunch 12/07/2015 at 13:21

0

#lolNavy

HammerheadFistpunch > Supreme Chancellor and Glorious Leader SaveTheIntegras 12/07/2015 at 13:25

0

Its meant to be compatible with them when/if they are fielded.

PS9 > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 13:27

0

Meh. Call me when they can do this.

Sam > HammerheadFistpunch 12/07/2015 at 13:29

0

Looks cool, though.

Jcarr > PS9 12/07/2015 at 13:29

0

According to tin-foil folks, they already tried.

PS9 > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 13:31

0

#Area51
#WakeUpSheeple

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 13:35

1

I was supposed to be at Bath this week for an inspection on one of the DDG-51 class restart ships, but we got bumped due to some technical issues and this. Apparently everyone from the US Navy and their brother is up there to watch this thing start trials.

Jcarr > Snuze: Needs another Swede 12/07/2015 at 13:37

0

Did you get up there at all while they were building it?

Snuze: Needs another Swede > HammerheadFistpunch 12/07/2015 at 13:40

0

It doesn’t do anything any better than an Arleigh Burke class and costs about 2.5x as much money. On top of that, it’s harder to upgrade due to a number of poor design choices. They also never got any of the key technologies to work right, like the bearingless induction motor drive system. And, the tumblehome hull design have never really been proven in high sea states and a lot of people seem to think this thing is going to roll over and sink the first time it gets in a serious storm.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 13:41

0

Sadly no, I’ve been going to the other restart yard, Huntington Ingalls down in Mississippi. I was really looking forward to seeing this thing while I was up in Bath.

pauljones > HammerheadFistpunch 12/07/2015 at 13:43

1

Three off, I think, but yeah. Depending on what the Navy winds up doing with them, though, they could actually be good platforms for developing new technologies to go into the next batch of Burkes. If nothing else, we at least know that we can create such a ship. Now we have to work on making a ship with those capabilities for far less.

I am not a fan of any of the recent large defense acquisitions in the least - I think that the DD(X), LCS, and JSF programs were disgustingly bungled shitshows that will never be as effective or useful as claimed. That being said, I do still think that there is a silver lining to it all. Now that we know how not to effectively meet our goals with those programs, we have a pretty damn good idea what to do next time around, and we’ve done most of the footwork around developing the foundations for the tech that will be useful going forward. We just didn’t integrate it very well the first time around.

RallyWrench > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 13:56

1

What’s old is new again.

HammerheadFistpunch > pauljones 12/07/2015 at 13:57

0

I wish I had confidence in the statement that we’ll do better with procurement next time.

pauljones > Snuze: Needs another Swede 12/07/2015 at 14:00

0

To be fair, the Zumwalts were designed with a different mission profile in mind, and as a result, can probably do a few things notably better than a Burke can. Whereas Burkes were technically designed as miltu-role destroyers, in reality their primary focus has been AAW, and, now, ASW ships. The Zumwalts, on the other hand, were developed to be more oriented towards surface combat, particularly when it comes to naval gun fire support. That’s something that they will likely be able to do considerably better the preceding Burkes.

As for the tumblehome hull form, I don’t think that’s going to be a real issue. Many people forget that there was an entire era in naval history when ships had such bows, and no significant problems were had. Similarly, civilian craft, particularly transoceanic luxury yachts, are using similar hull forms with no problems in heavier weather.

The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!) > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 14:01

0

So, did they actually install the proposed 6” (?) guns, or are those just stealth 5” mounts?

Jcarr > The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!) 12/07/2015 at 14:03

0

Couldn’t tell you. Somebody mentioned that they would be ready for railguns whenever they might actually come to be.

pauljones > HammerheadFistpunch 12/07/2015 at 14:07

0

Those programs were the last of the Cold War philosophy, and came around late enough to be modified, but not early enough to be designed independently of Cold War philosophies. As a result, they’re something of a hot mess. A huge part of the problem that these programs have encountered, and why they wound up being so damned expensive, is the constant shifting of requirements that they were subjected to. It’s hard to design something to suit one set of requirements, then be told to take that design and make it work for an entirely different set of requirements, and have to do so multiple times.

Now that we’ve finally moved past thinking about the world in a strict Cold War mentality, our design will also change in teim.

jariten1781 > HammerheadFistpunch 12/07/2015 at 14:10

0

I haven’t been following them at all...but the big disconnect for me is:

Stealth Ship...Submarines Exist

Such an odd thing to build compromises around.

They look badass though...and not just saying that, that’s legitimately a boon politically.

HammerheadFistpunch > pauljones 12/07/2015 at 14:10

0

just in time for a new cold war...

HammerheadFistpunch > jariten1781 12/07/2015 at 14:12

0

Stealthy isn’t just about RCS, these ships (at least as initially configured) where supposed to be about as quite running as an Ohio class sub.

jariten1781 > HammerheadFistpunch 12/07/2015 at 14:25

0

Sure, I’d figure as much...but you still have the issue of trawlers/shippers just visually spotting them, especially in crowded areas like SCS, SOJ, and Med. Just seems like an odd basket to put your eggs in when you could have invested in advanced ASUW/land attack for submersible platforms and stuck with traditional destroyers. Not that it’s bad, but it’s obviously a central tenant of the design which means most subsystems were compromised to one degree or another to meet it.

But again, my knowledge of the surface navy is severely lacking so I could be totally off base, just doesn’t pass the ‘common man’ test for me.

deprecated account > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 14:26

0

THAT is menacing.

spanfucker retire bitch > HammerheadFistpunch 12/07/2015 at 14:31

0

It fell into the ‘ole death spiral where the production numbers were cut in order to save cost, but because you reduce the numbers, the cost per unit skyrocketed - rinse and repeat and we end up where we are now with only like 3 or 4 units.

It could have been much, much better.

spanfucker retire bitch > Snuze: Needs another Swede 12/07/2015 at 14:32

0

Harder to upgrade in what way? The whole thing was designed with modular control rooms so hardware could be swapped in and out with (relative) ease compared to any other navy ship out there.

Frank Grimes > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 14:36

0

its got those cray looks but what can this thing do better?

Frank Grimes > RallyWrench 12/07/2015 at 14:36

0

that thing sunk the titanic because stealth. CONSPIRACY THEROYS!!!!

Krx90 > Jcarr 12/07/2015 at 15:59

0

Outer Haven

Snuze: Needs another Swede > pauljones 12/07/2015 at 17:05

0

I think you’re right, the Zumwalt was designed with a surface combat mission in mind, but I’m not sure how useful direct fire capability is these days. Though as missile defense systems become more advanced it could mean an increased reliance on direct fire. Still, I think it would have been a lot cheaper to update an Arleigh Burke with the same or similar capabilities.

I’m less confident in the tumblehome hull than you are, I think. While they were common, current hull shapes have also been historically prevalent and have much more time and research invested in them. Up until about 50 years ago, maybe less, hull design was a lot of guess and test and evolution of proven designs. It hasn’t been that long that we’ve had the computational capabilities to model and test different hull forms. A lot of the naval architects I work with are quite skeptical of the design, and I tend to trust their judgement.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > spanfucker retire bitch 12/07/2015 at 17:12

0

I should have been more specific, but I think life cycle support is going to suffer. They were actually very smart in designing the modular control rooms - if they perform as advertised I think you’re going to see that concept rolled into future surface combatants. But with such a small number of ships being made I fear it’s going to always be on the back burner in terms of receiving upgrades. I mean, if it costs $200 million to develop some new combat system or something, would you rather spend that on 3 DDG-1000 class ships, or on 62 active Arleigh Burke class destroyers?

Deltatango > Jcarr 12/09/2015 at 15:51

1

This is mightily ugly. Yet it’t for a purpose. Looks quite sinister though ...