USS Zumwalt DDG-1000 Out For Sea Trials

[andrew123]

Her wave-cutting hull looks like a knife.  Also, the DDG-1002 has been confirmed as the first USN destroyer slated to receive railguns in place of the AGS.

http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=207006
http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=207005

Video: http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/uss-zumwalt-largest-destroyer-built-for-navy-heads-out-for-sea-trials/2256806

 

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by andrew123

[Noname117]

I will say she is quite a pretty ship. I hope she has a good service career.

[Flymetothemun]

She looks less like a ship and more like a snowcap. But since the thing cost 4.4 billion it better last a long time.

[Spaceception]

It's also going to have Lazers:D

[Red Iron Crown]

Her first captain's name: James Kirk. Not even kidding.

[adsii1970]

16 hours ago, Flymetothemun said:

She looks less like a ship and more like a snowcap. But since the thing cost 4.4 billion it better last a long time.

No, the most it will last is 40 years... that's the goals of our modern Navy.

5 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Her first captain's name: James Kirk. Not even kidding.

Yeah, I read that somewhere before.  Still pretty awesome!

[Flymetothemun]

9 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

No, the most it will last is 40 years... that's the goals of our modern Navy.

Yeah, I read that somewhere before.  Still pretty awesome!

Hopefully some museum will buy her or they'll turn her into a museum. 4.4bil is too much for 40 years in my opinion. And if they can keep the USS Constitution afloat for 200 years they can surely keep this new ship afloat for a little while.

[adsii1970]

9 minutes ago, Flymetothemun said:

Hopefully some museum will buy her or they'll turn her into a museum. 4.4bil is too much for 40 years in my opinion. And if they can keep the USS Constitution afloat for 200 years they can surely keep this new ship afloat for a little while.

This is where the historian in me comes out. Since 1914, naval technology has exceeded our production of state-of-the-art warships. Even by the time of the commissioning of the U.S.S. Arizona (Pennsylvania Class - the Arizona was the second ship within the class) she had already been outclassed by the New Mexico class before she was actually commissioned.

The U.S.S. Iowa (first ship of the new class in 1943) was outclassed by the Wisconsin class even before the completion of the second ship of the Iowa class, the Missouri, which was commissioned in 1944. What is neat about the Missouri is she is actually a hybrid class. She had characteristics of both Wisconsin and Iowa, which was why the Iowa was actually commissioned nearly three months (if memory serves me correctly) before the Missouri. 

With that said, this new stealth destroyer was probably out-classed the moment her keel was laid. 

[Noname117]

22 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

This is where the historian in me comes out. Since 1914, naval technology has exceeded our production of state-of-the-art warships. Even by the time of the commissioning of the U.S.S. Arizona (Pennsylvania Class - the Arizona was the second ship within the class) she had already been outclassed by the New Mexico class before she was actually commissioned.

The U.S.S. Iowa (first ship of the new class in 1943) was outclassed by the Wisconsin class even before the completion of the second ship of the Iowa class, the Missouri, which was commissioned in 1944. What is neat about the Missouri is she is actually a hybrid class. She had characteristics of both Wisconsin and Iowa, which was why the Iowa was actually commissioned nearly three months (if memory serves me correctly) before the Missouri. 

With that said, this new stealth destroyer was probably out-classed the moment her keel was laid. 

Well, I guess it is true that a future class of ship will always outclass the current class of ships, but I don't quite see what point you are trying to make here. Just because a ship is outclassed does not mean it is obsolete, and something isn't out-classed until something better is actually in service. The Arizona would've been one of the 2 best battleships of the US Navy from when she was commissioned to when the New Mexico was commissioned 1 1/2 years later. If the US had needed a battleship to do something in that time, then the Arizona and Pennsylvania would've been the 2 most powerful candidates.

In response to Flymetothemun's comment, the length of the USS Zumwalt's life will be decided by how long it takes for her to become obsolete, or for how long it takes her hull to wear down (If she isn't destroyed in an accident or combat first).

[Ten Key]

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

With that said, this new stealth destroyer was probably out-classed the moment her keel was laid. 

Most likely by something with dive planes and ballast tanks. 

[adsii1970]

1 hour ago, Noname117 said:

Well, I guess it is true that a future class of ship will always outclass the current class of ships, but I don't quite see what point you are trying to make here. Just because a ship is outclassed does not mean it is obsolete, and something isn't out-classed until something better is actually in service. The Arizona would've been one of the 2 best battleships of the US Navy from when she was commissioned to when the New Mexico was commissioned 1 1/2 years later. If the US had needed a battleship to do something in that time, then the Arizona and Pennsylvania would've been the 2 most powerful candidates.

 

My point is this... already the new class of the DDG has left the blueprint stage and is beginning production. It will use experimental rail gun technology, better steath technology, and a few more subtle changes that's been deemed mission essential for future possible threats.

One of the things that the Department of Defense does well is predict future mission asset needs and strategical changes as American technology increases (and the technology of eternal threats increase as well). For this reason, the Navy considers the "lifespan" of surface ships as being 40 years and a submarine as being 25 years, although there still may be functionality left in the ship (or boat). These guideline helps the Navy to determine if a ship is worth spending money on for a refit, simply placing her in the mothball fleet, or scrapped.

[andrew123]

I like to think of the Zumwalt as the Seawolf of American destroyers: She's the limited production testbed for thew future staple technologies of our destroyers. Once we learn some lessons and things we can improve from operating the Zumwalt, we'll integrate them in a Zumwalt-lite, aka the Virginia of our surface fleet.

Also, the Navy's attempting (kinda) to make these hulls last longer. The evidence is in the "modular" nature of the ship's computing architecture (it's using GE PPC7A, PPC7D, and IBM blade server computers stored in hardened containers) and the integrated power system. It should make it easier for them to "drop in" upgrades to the computers, install new EW suites, upgrade sensors, and upgrade the weapons to something more advanced. The new Gerald Ford class carriers are going the same route for hull lifespan expansion.

Also, I found a fun issue that needs to be addressed:

Quote

In addition, recent evaluations of the Cease Fire technology by the US Naval Research Laboratory recognized its value and instituted further testing and evaluation for use onboard large-scale capital ships of the US Navy. Currently, negotiations are underway between the US Government and Cease Fire LLC to place Cease Fire technology onboard the new DD-221 "zumwalt" class ships.

http://www.ceasefire.com/fire-suppression/fire-suppression-solutions-for-industrial-applications/

Apparently, the navy realized that halogen fire suppression systems for the Zumwalt's server and electricity rooms won't work in the event of a hull breach. At least it's a minor oversight in peacetime service.

Edited December 9, 2015 by andrew123

[War Eagle 1]

Im just waiting for someone to make this in KSP 1.0.5 at a part count that won't fry my computer

[Shpaget]

Relevant to the outclassing/obsolescence talk is the short story Superiority by Clarke. I recommend you guys read it.

[Randazzo]

I'm certain the appearance is deceptive, but it appears to be armored with paper.

What happens when it gets hit? No stealth system is perfect.

 

[Red Iron Crown]

17 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

I'm certain the appearance is deceptive, but it appears to be armored with paper.

What happens when it gets hit? No stealth system is perfect.

 

It's a destroyer, they don't call them "tin cans" for nothing.

[Flymetothemun]

53 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

I'm certain the appearance is deceptive, but it appears to be armored with paper.

What happens when it gets hit? No stealth system is perfect.

 

I'd think that the idea behind a destroyer is to destroy the threat before it can hit you.

[Nibb31]

The excessive price is mainly because of the ground-breaking design work that went into that stealthy hull and its active electronically scanned radar.

The problem is that nobody seemed to point out that a stealthy ship with a state-of-the-art active radar might be a bit pointless. Especially when it can be seen on the horizon with a pair of binoculars. And especially when destroyers are usually part of a larger task force that won't have anything stealthy about it.

There's also the fact that nobody has any experience with the stability of modern tumblehome ships, and especiallyin cases where the hull is damaged...

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Nibb31

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm not so sure, Nibb31. Low radar cross section improves survivability against anti-surface missiles, most of which are radar guided; almost every modern Western destroyer and frigate has bgun implementing it. State of the art air defence radar has been pretty useful on destroyers, permits deployment of non-capital ships to provide antimissile defense in sensitive places (the US Arleigh Burke class gets parked in a lot of hotspots for just this reason).

The tumblehome and wave-piercing features I agree are risky and not really necessary.

[Noname117]

7 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I'm not so sure, Nibb31. Low radar cross section improves survivability against anti-surface missiles, most of which are radar guided; almost every modern Western destroyer and frigate has bgun implementing it. State of the art air defence radar has been pretty useful on destroyers, permits deployment of non-capital ships to provide antimissile defense in sensitive places (the US Arleigh Burke class gets parked in a lot of hotspots for just this reason).

The tumblehome and wave-piercing features I agree are risky and not really necessary.

Well, I'm going to guess that the tumblehome hull was for stealthiness reasons, to make the enemy not realize that a destroyer was on top of them until they could see it with binoculars, which is quite important when you can sling shells at them from 72 miles away.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Noname117

[GoSlash27]

The Zumwalt class is basically the replacement for the Arleigh Burke class. As such, it is not intended to fight by itself, but rather integrate it's weapons and sensors with an entire carrier battle group. Any enemy is going to have a very difficult time getting anywhere near one of these, and an even harder time hitting it if they can even find it.

I'm personally not a fan. It's too expensive for what it does. *But* it can't be evaluated on the basis of 1v1 combat (they don't fight that way) and a submarine wouldn't be able to do the job.

Best,

-Slashy

[Noname117]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

The Zumwalt class is basically the replacement for the Arleigh Burke class. As such, it is not intended to fight by itself, but rather integrate it's weapons and sensors with an entire carrier battle group. Any enemy is going to have a very difficult time getting anywhere near one of these, and an even harder time hitting it if they can even find it.

I'm personally not a fan. It's too expensive for what it does. *But* it can't be evaluated on the basis of 1v1 combat (they don't fight that way) and a submarine wouldn't be able to do the job.

Best,

-Slashy

I think it is more a replacement for the Iowa class battleship, as it can provide artillery bombardment to coastlines. Maybe the "Zumwalt lite" thing Andrew's talking about will more be the successor to the Arleigh Burkes.

[GoSlash27]

5 minutes ago, Noname117 said:

I think it is more a replacement for the Iowa class battleship, as it can provide artillery bombardment to coastlines. Maybe the "Zumwalt lite" thing Andrew's talking about will more be the successor to the Arleigh Burkes.

Noname117,

 This is not correct. The Arleigh Burke class also provides shore bombardment. In both cases, the guns are tiny compared to the monster 16" guns of an Iowa class battlewagon. Moreover, there's no need for such heavy shore bombardment anymore. That's what air power and cruise missiles are for.

 For the moment, the Arleigh Burke is the replacement for the Arleigh Burke. They've cancelled all the Zumwalts (except the ones that were already under construction) and restarted production on the Arleigh Burkes.

Best,

-Slashy

[Noname117]

15 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Noname117,

 This is not correct. The Arleigh Burke class also provides shore bombardment. In both cases, the guns are tiny compared to the monster 16" guns of an Iowa class battlewagon. Moreover, there's no need for such heavy shore bombardment anymore. That's what air power and cruise missiles are for.

 For the moment, the Arleigh Burke is the replacement for the Arleigh Burke. They've cancelled all the Zumwalts (except the ones that were already under construction) and restarted production on the Arleigh Burkes.

Best,

-Slashy

Although it doesn't have the same abilities of the Iowa class, it was still intended to replace it in shore bombardment, so that the Iowas don't have to be reactivated in the future. Although they doesn't have the same capabilities and may be specialized differently, it still fills the role left open.

The second part is partially correct, though it contradicts the statement you made in your first comment. I think it was intended on being so, but then wound up being too expensive and risky to do so. So far, I don't think there is yet a replacement for the Arleigh Burke, though I do think that the future "Zumwalt Lites" could wind up partially being one.

[GoSlash27]

Noname,

 The Iowa class boats are all museum ships now. They're not getting reactivated.

Furthermore, shore bombardment has never been "left open".  All of our destroyers have had the same guns that are on the Zumwalt for the exact same purpose. Nothing in the fleet since the end of WWII has been considered a "replacement for the battleships".

Best,

-Slashy