Largest destroyer built for the US Navy - first of the Zumwalt-class - headed to sea for testing - Polidicks

[quote]BATH, Maine (AP) — The largest destroyer ever built for the U.S. Navy headed out to sea for the first time Monday, departing from shipbuilder Bath Iron Works and carefully navigating the winding Kennebec River before reaching the open ocean where the ship will undergo sea trials. More than 200 shipbuilders, sailors and residents gathered to watch as the futuristic 600-foot, 15,000-ton USS Zumwalt glided past Fort Popham, accompanied by tugboats. Kelley Campana, a Bath Iron Works employee, said she had goose bumps and tears in her eyes. "This is pretty exciting. It's a great day to be a shipbuilder and to be an American," she said. "It's the first in its class. There's never been anything like it. It looks like the future." Larry Harris, a retired Raytheon employee who worked on the ship, watched it depart from Bath. "It's as cool as can be. It's nice to see it underway," he said. "Hopefully, it will perform as advertised." Bath Iron Works will be testing the ship's performance and making tweaks this winter. The goal is to deliver it to the Navy sometime next year. "We are absolutely fired up to see Zumwalt get underway. For the crew and all those involved in designing, building, and readying this fantastic ship, this is a huge milestone," the ship's skipper, Navy Capt. James Kirk, said before the ship departed. The ship has electric propulsion, new radar and sonar, powerful missiles and guns, and a stealthy design to reduce its radar signature. Advanced automation will allow the warship to operate with a much smaller crew size than current destroyers. All of that innovation has led to construction delays and a growing price tag. The Zumwalt, the first of three ships in the class, will cost at least $4.4 billion. The ship looks like nothing ever built at Bath Iron Works. The inverse bow juts forward to slice through the waves. Sharp angles deflect enemy radar signals. Radar and antennas are hidden in a composite deckhouse. The builder sea trials will answer any questions of seaworthiness for a ship that utilizes a type of hull associated with pre-dreadnought battleships from a century ago. [/quote] [url]http://bigstory.ap.org/a8de5f47afa84886b229a14e28660fb1[/url]

Surreal [t]http://binaryapi.ap.org/aeb373939ab34a39a1c97a2ac59e6e6d/460x.jpg[/t]

The only reason it cost $4.4b is because they planned for 30 and only made 3.

[T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/USS_Zumwalt_%28DDG-1000%29_at_night.jpg[/T] It's a neat looking ship, the picture in the article does it no justice.

A bow that sticks out rather than angles in is so alien

Welcome back to the turn of the 20th century

[QUOTE=Mbbird;49270927]Surreal [t]http://binaryapi.ap.org/aeb373939ab34a39a1c97a2ac59e6e6d/460x.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Imagine being in the stone age and one of these drifted past you on the waterfront..

[quote]The ship has electric propulsion,[/quote] Should have been nuclear. Congress has long since been notified, by a report they requested, that all of our major warships will, at worst, break even with non nuclear propulsion in terms of cost, and benefit from drastically reduced logistical needs. We are also relatively near the point where rail guns and laser defense weaponry will begin being mounted on ships. The power plant becomes rather important at that point. [quote] new radar and sonar,[/quote] These are pretty novel. The VSR system is nifty. [quote]powerful missiles and guns,[/quote] Same missiles. The gun isn't bad in theory, it just uses a proprietary ammunition because reasons. [quote]and a stealthy design to reduce its radar signature.[/quote] Maritime search aircraft aren't about to be fooled, and if you are close enough for surface vessels, then you are on the horizon, and they probably aren't going to be fooled either. What scenario does this benefit the ship in? [quote] Advanced automation will allow the warship to operate with a much smaller crew size than current destroyers.[/quote] Half as many guys, which isn't too shabby. These things cost four billion dollars apiece (1.8 for their predecessor, who isn't stealth and has a worse naval gun, but carries more missiles and weighs 50% less) and nobody has been able to explain to me what the fuck they are even for. What stealth operations are you going to conduct where you can't use a submarine, which has 100 percent protection from surface radar and an extremely low radar profile when surfaced, and you are going to field a single destroyer by itself? I don't understand :(

[QUOTE=GunFox;49270998]I don't understand :([/QUOTE] Unknown to all, it can actually walk on land thanks to secret crab legs compartment not told about.

It looks like a modern Ironclad.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49270998] These things cost four billion dollars apiece (1.8 for their predecessor, who isn't stealth and has a worse naval gun, but carries more missiles and weighs 50% less) and nobody has been able to explain to me what the fuck they are even for. What stealth operations are you going to conduct where you can't use a submarine, which has 100 percent protection from surface radar and an extremely low radar profile when surfaced, and you are going to field a single destroyer by itself? I don't understand :([/QUOTE] from how I imagine, these are not to be used for war, but as deterrent. the more flashy features your destroyers list, the better. the stealth functions do not have to be so useful.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49270998]Should have been nuclear. Congress has long since been notified, by a report they requested, that all of our major warships will, at worst, break even with non nuclear propulsion in terms of cost, and benefit from drastically reduced logistical needs. [/quote] Should have been, but the US Navy hasn't built a nuclear boat that wasn't a carrier or a sub in a long time. [quote]Same missiles. The gun isn't bad in theory, it just uses a proprietary ammunition because reasons. [/quote] I thought it used 155mm ammunition so it was compatible with land-system shells. [quote]Maritime search aircraft aren't about to be fooled, and if you are close enough for surface vessels, then you are on the horizon, and they probably aren't going to be fooled either. What scenario does this benefit the ship in? [/quote] They have both over the horizon radar systems and many anti-shipping missiles use radar guidance.

[QUOTE=download;49271030] I thought it used 155m ammunition so it was comfortable with land-system shells.[/quote] Me too, until I looked it up. It is 155mm, but doesn't use the same shells. [url]http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2012/12/ags-ddg-1000-gun-system.html[/url] Excellent range though. The gun system alone would have been worth retrofitting some of the Arleigh Burke destroyers. It really just needed some backwards compatibility. [quote] They have both over the horizon radar systems and many anti-shipping missiles use radar guidance.[/QUOTE] I can see it fooling over the horizon systems, this is true. I get the feeling anti ship missiles won't be fooled though. The thing still has a pretty big radar cross section.

I suspect the anti-ship missiles are designed to identify the most valuable ship to strike from it's radar return (larger is generally more valuable). If it has a smaller radar cross-section the missiles might go for something less valuable or go for chafe.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49270998]Should have been nuclear. Congress has long since been notified, by a report they requested, that all of our major warships will, at worst, break even with non nuclear propulsion in terms of cost, and benefit from drastically reduced logistical needs. [/quote] It isn't that easy. Not just from an engineering standpoint, but logistical as well. An aircraft carrier is so massive, you can easily roam around the ship and never come across one of the reactors due to barrier plans. Not quite the case on something like a destroyer, it would be similar to a submarine in the sense that the reactor would be a point people constantly walk by, so pretty much everyone on the ship would need a top secret clearance. Plus, steam turbines are loud, and you can't really turn the reactor on/off willy nilly like a diesel engine can. This ship is designed for stealth, so it wouldn't make much sense to have loud turbines running that can be heard from miles away. Submarines get away with it because of an extremely thorough sound silencing program. [quote]These things cost four billion dollars apiece (1.8 for their predecessor, who isn't stealth and has a worse naval gun, but carries more missiles and weighs 50% less) and nobody has been able to explain to me what the fuck they are even for. What stealth operations are you going to conduct where you can't use a submarine, which has 100 percent protection from surface radar and an extremely low radar profile when surfaced, and you are going to field a single destroyer by itself? I don't understand :([/quote] It's for dick waiving, plain and simple. Power projection is a core goal of the navy, it's why we shove a carrier near any country trying to show off. It isn't about actually having a mega killing machine, it's about showing everyone else we have a mega killing machine. Doesn't have to be super functional, just has to be intimidating. If shit actually hits the fan, submarines will be conducting nearly all naval warfare. Which is why this ship wants to be quiet, its enemies will be submarines, not surface ships.

Swedish style's still better, come at me America! [SP]I know it's not a destroyer[/SP] [T]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--0byVVOVO--/18mkohec58hqljpg.jpg[/T]

[QUOTE=GunFox;49271063]I can see it fooling over the horizon systems, this is true. I get the feeling anti ship missiles won't be fooled though. The thing still has a pretty big radar cross section.[/QUOTE] That's the thing though, the purpose of stealth technology is to essentially hit and run. Launch your attack and then move before you are detected so that the enemy doesn't have a target to fire back at.

[QUOTE] For the crew and all those involved in designing, building, and readying this fantastic ship, this is a huge milestone," the ship's skipper, [B]Navy Capt. James Kirk, said before the ship departed.[/B][/QUOTE] I bet he got the command because of his name.

[QUOTE=Angua;49270957][T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/USS_Zumwalt_%28DDG-1000%29_at_night.jpg[/T] It's a neat looking ship, the picture in the article does it no justice.[/QUOTE] looks like something i would make in [I]From The Depths[/I].

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49271416]looks like something i would make in [I]From The Depths[/I].[/QUOTE] Missing a massive ass gun to be exact!

[QUOTE=GunFox;49270998]nobody has been able to explain to me what the fuck they are even for.[/QUOTE] [I]"Because they look fucking cool." - Congress[/I]

[QUOTE=Orki;49271430]Missing a massive ass gun to be exact![/QUOTE] Missiles are far more effective than a massive ass gun...

The bow looks like an ironclad [t]http://steamboattimes.com/images/civil_war/ironclad_ussstlouis_firsteadsironclad_cityclass_renamed_baron_de_kalb_oct1862_1581x971.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=GunFox;49270998] Maritime search aircraft aren't about to be fooled, and if you are close enough for surface vessels, then you are on the horizon, and they probably aren't going to be fooled either. What scenario does this benefit the ship in? [/QUOTE] This is a common misconception, radar stealth is not designed to make a craft 100% invisible, that's impossible for a craft that has to be functional. Radar stealth features such as RAM or 15 degree angles simply reduces the range in which a radar can reliably detect or even identify the object in question. In the Zumwalts case it allows it to get MUCH closer to shore without fear of detection and engagement by a AshM battery that is fielded by the PRC or any other military. That's really it, I can tell you the Hull mounted sonar isn't anything beyond what Burkes have. The gun couldn't go on any other ship because of the shear size of the mount, it doesn't help that the main gun on a Burke sits directly in front of VLS. The Primary purpose is land attack, which I think we can both agree is 'meh'. But you got to admit it's still an awesome science experiment, and it's most certainly going to be a test bed for Rail Guns and weaponized lasers.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49271522]The bow looks like an ironclad [t]http://steamboattimes.com/images/civil_war/ironclad_ussstlouis_firsteadsironclad_cityclass_renamed_baron_de_kalb_oct1862_1581x971.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumblehome[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_bow[/url] How to look like a bond villain: [img]http://i.imgur.com/9Gjm6w1.jpg[/img] [I](The boat is named the M/Y A if you want to look into it.)[/I] This is also getting more and more relevant. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-piercing_hull[/url] Future ships are going to look pretty cool.

So, Larger and larger destroyers. Hang on. Didn't they stop building battleships because of this? A small ship such as the destroyer could out flank a battleship and destroy it.

Compared to a type-45, how do they compare?

So glad they wised up and capped this program at three vessels. The Flight III Arleigh Burke will be much more useful, not to mention cheaper. This "Destroyer" (should be called a cruiser) weighs 14,000 tons. Absolutely insane.

This thing is more of a guided-missile cruiser than an actual destroyer. The weird thing is, for our navy here, they're only just getting Arleigh Burke Flight II-equivalent destroyers just now, even though it's basically an upsized Álvaro de Bazán-frigate turned guided missile destroyer. I really wonder if the Zumwalt really was worth the $22 billion investment, even if they're only building just 3.

[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;49271858]This thing is more of a guided-missile cruiser than an actual destroyer. The weird thing is, for our navy here, they're only just getting Arleigh Burke Flight II-equivalent destroyers just now, even though it's basically an upsized Álvaro de Bazán-frigate turned guided missile destroyer. I really wonder if the Zumwalt really was worth the $22 billion investment, even if they're only building just 3.[/QUOTE] Funny you mention that. My ship was in Sydney in 2011 as a demo ship for your Navy as they had just purchased the AEGIS system. Even have a ball cap from the Manoora I traded for right before they scrapped her. To answer that last bit, I don't know. Alot of the stuff on the Zumwalt is pretty bleed edge shit, Mk 57 VLS, TCE, Plants, automation etc. but the issue is, it's really difficult to adapt some of the important bits to a Burke Flight. The Arleigh Burke is completely built AROUND AEGIS, the flights would have to be drastically different to integrate this systems and even so I doubt they would make the move away from Aegis because it's a mature BMD system and it's proven. It'd be interesting to see a entirely TSCE Burke though.