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

[QUOTE=download;49270954]The only reason it cost $4.4b is because they planned for 30 and only made 3.[/QUOTE] Then cut that further until this one was proven [editline]8th December 2015[/editline] It's weird that lasers and railguns are actually a thing that this ship was built to accommodate

[QUOTE=Complifusedv2;49271671]Compared to a type-45, how do they compare?[/QUOTE] Zumwalt has nearly twice the displacement, much larger armament, smaller crew, similar aircraft complement, similar speed. though really calling the Zumwalt a destroyer and comparing it to the Type-45 is a little misleading. The Zumwalt is basically a guided missile cruiser size wise.

I actually got to see this in several stages during it's construction. Every year I travel across the country to visit family in Maine, and the Bath Iron Works is literally right off highway 1. So you get a great aerial view of whatever they're building when you're cross the bridge over the Kennebec River.

I still can't get around how they justified this thing carrying 18 fewer missiles than a Burke. They also sacrificed half of the sensor suite due to budget cuts in 2007.

[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] Its easier to detect a steampowered ship by listening to the correct frequencies than it is to detect an electric one.

It's radar cross section makes it similar to a fishing boat, according to Naval Sea Systems Command. The hull design reduces wake, and the way it's built makes it harder to see then a Burke. It's acoustic signature is comparable to that of the Los Angeles-class submarines, while water sleeting along the sides, along with passive cool air induction in the mack reduces infrared signature. A footnote also reads that "As of June 2014, the AGS the Zumwalt "can fire rocket-powered, computer-guided shells that can destroy targets 63 miles (101 km) away, three times farther than ordinary destroyer guns can fire."

I almost looks like it capsized in those pictures.

[QUOTE=Passing;49271580]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.[/QUOTE] Just like cars are getting bigger. The BMW 3 series is about the size that a 5 series was 20 years ago. It's probably just the safety features, like airbags and crumple zones making the difference.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49272676]That and the huge amounts of feature creep. Everyone got to stick their dick in the proverbial pie with the zumwalt, and that's why it's fuckhuge and fuck expensive. For example: Somewhere along the way, this thing was supposed to have an electrified hull, to keep shit like barnacles and stuff from sticking to it, so that you wouldn't need to paint it as much, so that it'd cost less to maintain. Great theory, except it hadn't been done on anything except small scale, and the tech was "meh" at best. So that feature never made it on board. Essentially everyone got to say "BUT IT'D BE FUCKING RAD IF IT HAD THIS!" and then no one said no, so everyone got to try and cram "this" on to a hull, only to realize that "this" didn't fit, or "this" didn't exist and wasn't mature enough to even go on a naval vessel.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;aXQ2lO3ieBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/video]

[QUOTE=The bird Man;49271140]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] Thats so futuristic, that I can hear machineguns doing futuristic rinky dink firing sounds like small firecrackers or black ops 3 guns.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;49272879]It's radar cross section makes it similar to a fishing boat, according to Naval Sea Systems Command. The hull design reduces wake, and the way it's built makes it harder to see then a Burke. It's acoustic signature is comparable to that of the Los Angeles-class submarines, while water sleeting along the sides, along with passive cool air induction in the mack reduces infrared signature. A footnote also reads that "As of June 2014, the AGS the Zumwalt "can fire rocket-powered, computer-guided shells that can destroy targets 63 miles (101 km) away, three times farther than ordinary destroyer guns can fire."[/QUOTE] I doubt it's that quiet, but no doubt it's pretty quiet. You can't really make something that runs on the surface as quiet as a submerged sub, even a streamlined shape will create a wake and screws create much more cavitation near the surface. American subs aren't as quiet as the electric subs other countries employ, but we are on top of the game when it comes down to manipulating our position in the water to avoid our sound getting very far. A surface ship doesn't really have the option of dipping out of a sound channel. It's undoubtedly quiet as shit for a surface ship, but it's not even in the same ballpark with the average submarine as far as acoustic detection goes.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49274359]I doubt it's that quiet, but no doubt it's pretty quiet. You can't really make something that runs on the surface as quiet as a submerged sub, even a streamlined shape will create a wake and screws create much more cavitation near the surface. American subs aren't as quiet as the electric subs other countries employ, but we are on top of the game when it comes down to manipulating our position in the water to avoid our sound getting very far. A surface ship doesn't really have the option of dipping out of a sound channel. It's undoubtedly quiet as shit for a surface ship, but it's not even in the same ballpark with the average submarine as far as acoustic detection goes.[/QUOTE] I understand, I quoted wikipedia, just tried looking and couldn't find a better source. It's a very quiet ship, but yea, you are right that it can't be as quiet as a submerged sub.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49272676]That and the huge amounts of feature creep. Everyone got to stick their dick in the proverbial pie with the zumwalt, and that's why it's fuckhuge and fuck expensive. For example: Somewhere along the way, this thing was supposed to have an electrified hull, to keep shit like barnacles and stuff from sticking to it, so that you wouldn't need to paint it as much, so that it'd cost less to maintain. Great theory, except it hadn't been done on anything except small scale, and the tech was "meh" at best. So that feature never made it on board. Essentially everyone got to say "BUT IT'D BE FUCKING RAD IF IT HAD THIS!" and then no one said no, so everyone got to try and cram "this" on to a hull, only to realize that "this" didn't fit, or "this" didn't exist and wasn't mature enough to even go on a naval vessel.[/QUOTE] its not as bad as the LCS that lockheed has been bumbling about with, the ships were designed to be modular with various suppliers developing individual mission modules, but then they decided not to do that. so massive amounts of development went into being able to swap out entire decks, and that meant the price went way up, but now that capability won't even be needed, and the ships themselves have had structural problems from the start, and they couldn't even decide on what kind of hull to build so they built all 3 designs. now they even are saying that the ships won't survive shock tests, or be effective in combat

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49272676] For example: Somewhere along the way, this thing was supposed to have an electrified hull, to keep shit like barnacles and stuff from sticking to it, so that you wouldn't need to paint it as much, so that it'd cost less to maintain. Great theory, except it hadn't been done on anything except small scale, and the tech was "meh" at best. So that feature never made it on board..[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about? Cathodic Protection? That's on just about any Modern ship including Zumwalt and Arleigh Burke classes. It also works very well, Destroyers going into dry dock have very little sealife attached to the hull.

[QUOTE=Ta16;49275251]What the fuck are you talking about? Cathodic Protection? That's on just about any Modern ship including Zumwalt and Arleigh Burke classes. It also works very well, Destroyers going into dry dock have very little sealife attached to the hull.[/QUOTE] And it was first employed in 1824 :v: Though the electrified copper hull plates actually increased marine growth and reduced the ship's performance, that's a property unique to copper.

-snip was wrong-

[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] Missile defense. The lower the radar cross-section of the ship, the more effective chaff and jamming are. This ship isn't covered in CIWS so I'm guessing it's designed to soft kill incoming ordnance.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49275962]Missile defense. The lower the radar cross-section of the ship, the more effective chaff and jamming are. This ship isn't covered in CIWS so I'm guessing it's designed to soft kill incoming ordnance.[/QUOTE] its supposed to have that laser thingy that the navy's been testing around right now to zap missiles quickly

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49271503]Missiles are far more effective than a massive ass gun...[/QUOTE] not when said massive gun is most likely going to be the railgun we have been developing, i believe they said this ship will be equipped with it when its complete

As far as I know, missiles and railguns have similar effectiveness. The difference between the two isn't the damage they can cause, but the economy behind each system. Missiles cost a lot of money, each one is a pretty decent sized investment, so a platform using a missile system is going to incur a relatively steady moderate cash drain. The railgun platform is designed to be a large initial investment, followed by much lower (relative to missiles) costs for actually implementing it. Missiles have a lot of testing that goes into them before they can be put out into service, and they can't sit in tubes for too long before being switched out/undergoing maintenance. Whereas a slug of tungsten costing a small fraction of what a missile does can sit in an ammo rack until the end of time itself and still have the same killing power as the day it was put on the ship. Overall, both systems end up costing somewhat the same amount of money. It's just a trade-off between a steady cost or initial investment followed by low ammunition costs. A lot of logistics at play here.

[QUOTE=gufu;49271007]Unknown to all, it can actually walk on land thanks to secret crab legs compartment not told about.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070503231551/supcom/images/1/1f/Salem_Class_Amphibious_Landing.jpg[/IMG] Spooky

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49290747]As far as I know, missiles and railguns have similar effectiveness. The difference between the two isn't the damage they can cause, but the economy behind each system. Missiles cost a lot of money, each one is a pretty decent sized investment, so a platform using a missile system is going to incur a relatively steady moderate cash drain. The railgun platform is designed to be a large initial investment, followed by much lower (relative to missiles) costs for actually implementing it. Missiles have a lot of testing that goes into them before they can be put out into service, and they can't sit in tubes for too long before being switched out/undergoing maintenance. Whereas a slug of tungsten costing a small fraction of what a missile does can sit in an ammo rack until the end of time itself and still have the same killing power as the day it was put on the ship. Overall, both systems end up costing somewhat the same amount of money. It's just a trade-off between a steady cost or initial investment followed by low ammunition costs. A lot of logistics at play here.[/QUOTE] Well it's also a lot harder to shoot down a slug of tungsten than a missile, so there's that.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49290747]As far as I know, missiles and railguns have similar effectiveness. The difference between the two isn't the damage they can cause, but the economy behind each system. Missiles cost a lot of money, each one is a pretty decent sized investment, so a platform using a missile system is going to incur a relatively steady moderate cash drain. The railgun platform is designed to be a large initial investment, followed by much lower (relative to missiles) costs for actually implementing it. Missiles have a lot of testing that goes into them before they can be put out into service, and they can't sit in tubes for too long before being switched out/undergoing maintenance. Whereas a slug of tungsten costing a small fraction of what a missile does can sit in an ammo rack until the end of time itself and still have the same killing power as the day it was put on the ship. Overall, both systems end up costing somewhat the same amount of money. It's just a trade-off between a steady cost or initial investment followed by low ammunition costs. A lot of logistics at play here.[/QUOTE] Plus you can store far more tungsten darts than you can missiles. You can show up and drop a ridiculous number of darts on a target and still have more to give.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49291119]Plus you can store far more tungsten darts than you can missiles. You can show up and drop a ridiculous number of darts on a target and still have more to give.[/QUOTE] They also cost less per unit, I'd imagine.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;49270964]A bow that sticks out rather than angles in is so alien[/QUOTE] [T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Future_USS_Zumwalt%27s_first_underway_at_sea.jpg[/T] It truly does look quite alien.

It looks like a submarine that drunk too much protein shake.

mmm yes massive wastes of money going towards symbols of America imperialism can you feet it baby

[QUOTE=Aldawolf;49292422]mmm yes massive wastes of money going towards symbols of America imperialism can you feet it baby[/QUOTE] I'd rather have you guys be "imperial" than the Russians or Chinese

but can it fly???

[QUOTE=Complifusedv2;49271671]Compared to a type-45, how do they compare?[/QUOTE] They specialize in different areas, the T45 is primarily focused on anti-air and anti-submarine operations, this thing is more for ship to ship and land bombardment.