Captain James Kirk to helm new stealth destroyer.

[Galane]

Yes, there's really a US Navy Captain named James Kirk. He's to be the first captain of the USS Zumwalt.

http://www.ktvb.com/news/regional/230135811.html

I wonder what his middle name is. Probably not Tiberius but if he parents were real Trekkies they would have made sure it began with T.

[magnemoe]

Guess he will get very bored by the response to "Captain James Kirk here:"

[Drunkrobot]

I really want the navy to transfer him to the U.S.S Enterprise...

EDIT: Dang it! the next American Enterprise won't exist until 2025

Edited November 4, 2013 by Drunkrobot

[ZedNova]

Zumwalt? What kinda name is that?

[cypher_00]

The artical says it's James A. Kirk so no T sadly.

[trvtannenberg]

Zumwalt? What kinda name is that?

Elmo Zumwalt.

[Canopus]

And that appears on news?

[Scotius]

What? Journalists are not allowed to be Trekkies?

[Tommygun]

Zumwalt? What kinda name is that?

Well they named a US cruiser Cowpens. I'm sure he got sick of the Captain Kirk jokes back at the Naval Academy.

I thought that ship class had been canceled.

At $3.5 billion a piece, I'm not surprised they are only building three of them and putting the Arleigh Burke class destroyer back into production.

[DaveofDefeat]

I'm rather confused as to what a stealth destroyer can do that a submarine can't. But man the jokes he must have received.

[Kryten]

It effectively was cancelled, when you look at what the DoD originally wanted; 32 of these and 19 more of a slightly different (larger, probably even more expensive) class.

[Galane]

Naming it Zumwalt is appropriate because Zumwalt spent most of his time afloat serving on or commanding destroyers.

[K^2]

I'm rather confused as to what a stealth destroyer can do that a submarine can't.

Operate a passive radar, receive communications via sat^*, carry ship-to-ship missiles, not have to worry about being detected while coming up for air, and still be cheaper to build and operate for the same offensive capability. There are a lot of advantages. Of course, they can't completely replace the subs either.

^* As a license diver I can tell you first hand that you can't even get cellphone coverage just 30 feet bellow.

[jwenting]

I thought that ship class had been canceled.

At $3.5 billion a piece, I'm not surprised they are only building three of them and putting the Arleigh Burke class destroyer back into production.

Production was cancelled, but 3 were too far along to make not building them more expensive than completing them.

And the 3.5 billion a pop is in large part due to that. The entire billions of development funds have to be spread out over just 3 ships now, rather than dozens, making each some 2 billion more expensive (if not more) than would otherwise have been the case.

[Galane]

That's a common tactic by opponents of various government projects. Force reduction after reduction in the number to be procured, then rant on endlessly about the "cost overruns" and how expensive the thing is per unit.

The ultimate goal of that sort is complete cancellation of the project, like they got done with the Comanche helicopter that would have replaced all the various attack helicopters used by the US military with a single type. They nearly got the F-22 Raptor killed off. The numbers that will be built are so small the plane will be next thing to useless should China decide to get militarily uppity - or if aliens with a bad attitude come calling.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is actually accomplishing what no previous multi-service aircraft plan has managed to do - have versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marines while maintaining a very high percentage of parts commonality. The Army isn't allowed small, fixed wing aircraft with the ability to blow #@%$ up. Burt Rutan designed the

as a CAS aircraft for the Army but they declined to buy it. If it doesn't have a wing that spins or a massive cargo hold, it's not for the Army.

Of course there are programs that need to be put down. One older one that suffered from massive feature creep was the Main Battle Tank 70 or MBT-70. Too complex and too expensive, even were it to be bought in large numbers. After its failure the military decided to pare down to essentials and got the M1 Abrams. In later years there was the Crusader Howitzer. Technically it was amazing. It had the capability of firing up to eight shells in series at differing trajectories so that they'd all land on the same target simultaneously. The downside? It was too large to transport on any military cargo plane (not even the C5A Galaxy) and was also too large and heavy to cross most of the bridges in its intended Eastern Europe theater of operations.

[Tommygun]

Operate a passive radar, receive communications via sat^*, carry ship-to-ship missiles, not have to worry about being detected while coming up for air, and still be cheaper to build and operate for the same offensive capability. There are a lot of advantages. Of course, they can't completely replace the subs either.

^* As a license diver I can tell you first hand that you can't even get cellphone coverage just 30 feet bellow.

The UGM-84A model of the Harpoon anti ship missile is a submarine-launched version.

It's pushed out a torpedo tube and it floats upright to the surface in an airtight container, then it fires itself.

Ships and subs have their own advantages and restrictions so often carry out different jobs.

I can understand the Navy wanting these ultra high tech ships, but the ones they have now will be fine with upgrade for a long time.

Right now the Navy should continue to concentrate on smaller inexpensive ships and automation on existing ships to reduce crew sizes.

[Kryten]

And the 3.5 billion a pop is in large part due to that. The entire billions of development funds have to be spread out over just 3 ships now, rather than dozens, making each some 2 billion more expensive (if not more) than would otherwise have been the case.

No it isn't. The 3.5 billion figure is pure unit cost without R&D; if you do factor it in, it's seven billion a pop.

[K^2]

The UGM-84A model of the Harpoon anti ship missile is a submarine-launched version.

Ok, fair enough. But it's still somewhat limited. Harpoon's warhead is "only" 221kg. Yeah, I know that's still a lot, but compare it to a typical missile cutter anti-ship which is typically in 400kg ranges. The LRAM's warhead is also expected to be in 1,000lb ranges. The fact that these things are being built, and indeed, still developed, suggests that the 200kg warheads of some anti-ship missiles just isn't getting the job done.

What surprised me was that I was unable to find any current anti-ship missile in U.S. service with a warhead heavier than Harpoon's. Tomahawk TASM seemed to be the weapon of choice, but it's been withdrawn in the 90's with no replacement.

And indeed, looking at Zumwalt's armament, there is absolutely nothing there for fighting larger ships. It carries some anti-sub missiles, the ESSMs which are good against FACs, and tactical Tomahawks. It doesn't look like U.S. plans to deploy their stealth destroyers against any serious navy. So any comparison to a sub is a flawed one to begin with. Zumwalt's mission is pretty clear. It's designed to engage military land installations using Tomahawk missiles. The rest of its armament is designed to protect it from a 3rd World navy.

Though, the fact that LRAM is being developed suggests that they are keeping other threats in mind, and it will be easy enough to retrofit ships like Zumwalt class with these.

[3_bit]

I wonder if he changed his name just to look cool being a captain. If Earth is ever invaded, just send him off to fight them, with his first officer.

[Seret]

Ok, fair enough. But it's still somewhat limited. Harpoon's warhead is "only" 221kg. Yeah, I know that's still a lot

It's more than enough to do the job. A hit from one of those is going to thrash anything it hits. Most stuff would be crippled outright. 221kg of HE is a lot of smash.

The real difference between surface combatants and subs isn't firepower. Subs have more than enough firepower to be a lethal threat to any size of surface ship. The difference is that they're capable of different missions. Surface ships are able to intercept shipping, act as a visible deterrant, carry a gun, operate helicopters, etc, etc. Likewise subs can do reconnaissance, insert and extract special forces, are less vulnerable to air attack, etc.

Horses for courses. It's not really q case of saying which is better. They're both useful.