The Navy's Colossal Stealth Destroyer Heads Out to Sea
 

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

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...9/uss-zumwalt/

Is it stealthed against sonar?

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.

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

I wonder if the Exec is Vulcan. :03:

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?

The design is Vulcan!:yep:

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.

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

This.:/\\k:

She sure is one fugly broad. :down:

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:

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 :)

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

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

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

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...walt-destroyer

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

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

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.

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.