The Navy's Colossal Stealth Destroyer Heads Out to Sea

[cdrsubron7]

The Navy's newest DD heading out to sea for sea-trails.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a18449/uss-zumwalt/

[Cybermat47]

Is it stealthed against sonar?

[Oberon]

Yup, it's deliberately designed to be so expensive that it'll never be put to sea, thus making it undetectable by enemy submarines. :yep:

EDIT: I kid, although supposedly she's supposed to have the noise signature akin to a 688 boat, so that's pretty darn quiet for a skimmer.

[Sailor Steve]

Is it stealthed against sonar?
With James Kirk as her captain, does she need to be? :O:

[cdrsubron7]

With James Kirk as her captain, does she need to be? :O:

I wonder if the Exec is Vulcan. :03:

[Schroeder]

Wow, so you got a destroyer for the price of a Nimitz class super carrier.....:doh:

BTW isn't it a bit large at 15,000 tons to be labeled a destroyer?

[Reece]

I wonder if the Exec is Vulcan. :03:

The design is Vulcan!:yep:

[Sailor Steve]

BTW isn't it a bit large at 15,000 tons to be labeled a destroyer?
That is indeed in the same size range as a pre-dreadnought battleship. I believe the name comes from the designed job rather than the size, though. On the other hand, the destroyer has pretty much changed job descriptions with every succeeding generation since the first.

[August]

I'm told that there just two basic types of warships. Submarines and Targets. :D

[nikimcbee]

I'm told that there just two basic types of warships. Submarines and Targets. :D


This.:/\\k:

[em2nought]

She sure is one fugly broad. :down:

[Jimbuna]

She can't project power anyway like that of a Nimitz carrier so I'm wondering where the value for money aspect comes in :hmm2:

[Catfish]

... so I'm wondering where the value for money aspect comes in :hmm2:

Hardware, software, special materials and a healthy greed from the military industrial complex, supports the economics generally..

Seriously, I like the general idea and concept, but i am really not sure about the outcome, and its seaworthyness :)

[HunterICX]

What ship? I only see a floating pyramid :dead:
they ain't getting prettier with each generation.

[Catfish]

^ what you see is the beginning of the evolution, of what is to become a "star destroyer", in a few centuries :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

The best looking thing to leave the naval shipyards but if you can't see her....

[Mr Quatro]

Maybe not this one, but perhaps the third in the Zumwalt class could get a railgun :up:
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Engineering studies to include an electromagnetic railgun on a Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000) have started at Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA’s head said Thursday.

The work will do the math to determine if the Zumwalt-class will have the space, power and cooling to field a railgun – likely replacing one of the two 155mm BAE Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) ahead of the ship’s deck house

[Oberon]

We might not have the platforms any more, but at least Britain still has BAe.

Damn, Railguns, now that'll be something to see.

[Skybird]

The looks violate my sense for visual aesthetics, and the price tag violates my sense for reason. Easily the ugliest ship I've seen so far.

[Platapus]

As a lubber of land, I need some learnin' here. :88)

Why is this a destroyer and not a cruiser?

Does it have to do with its mission? But I would think that a cruiser is more likely to be used independently whereas a destroyer is probably supporting something else.

One website I visited hinted that cruisers were on the way out and that the future is in these more capable destroyers. Does that sound right?

Is it a funding issue? We got funding for a destroyer and ain't got no funding for cruisers?

or is there a logical reason? Could it be called a destroyer simply because the Navy wants to call it a destroyer?

Lubbing minds want to know.

[Mr Quatro]

It is odd that they classify this ship as a destroyer ...

Doesn't Japan have two new asw aircraft looking carriers that they also call a destroyer?

[Nippelspanner]

That thing is so disgusting, I hope it gets into an accident and sinks to a depth where it can't be recovered - with everyone aboard surviving safe and sound of course.

[darius359au]

That is one Ugly ship! ,though if it does end up with a rail gun you wouldn't want to tell the crew that anywhere within line of sight of her :03:
:)

[Wildcat]

It's odd considering we've had almost 200 years to develop something better and it doesn't look much different from the old ironclads:
http://yabichet1.wikispaces.com/file/view/SuperIronclad.jpg/343260400/560x355/SuperIronclad.jpg

[MaDef]

That is one Ugly ship! ,though if it does end up with a rail gun you wouldn't want to tell the crew that anywhere within line of sight of her :03:
:)
More like 200+ miles. ;)

[Mike Abberton]

Since the '70s (look up the 1975 USN class redesignation), the line between cruisers and destroyers became seriously muddled. Cruisers had more of an offensive role and destroyers/frigates more of a defensive role. But in reality, neither class had much in the way of long-range offensive firepower (a few harpoons and maybe some Tomahawks) because they were intended deploy with carriers, which is where the USN concentrated it's offensive strike platforms.

The assignment of class designations became more about the original project/appropriation source than displacement, weapons, crew size, etc. (Ticonderoga CG was based on the Spruance DD hull).

Right now, I think for various reasons, both politically and for simplification purposes, the USN is calling all the new task force (carrier and amphib) escorts "destroyers". Convoy/secondary escorts will be frigates again (now that the followup LCS has been reclassed as a frigate).

I doubt we will see any new ships being classed as a cruiser unless it had a seriously different weapon fitup (e.g., lots of big guns for shore bombardment or something).

Mike

[Gargamel]

Meh, every new class of weapon has it's startup costs. If the prototype proves successful, then subsequent ships will be at a must cheaper price.

I think it's pretty cool looking myself.

[Platapus]

Right now, I think for various reasons, both politically and for simplification purposes, the USN is calling all the new task force (carrier and amphib) escorts "destroyers".
Mike

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining it.