U.S.S. ZIMWALT departure.

CapnMac82

LCS was, and is, an experiment, to see if ships can be built, like legos, in modules.  The jury remains out.

Now, abck to DD-1000.

They designed the DD-X/DD-1000 concepts out without much examining the modern role of destroyers.  Which is why DD-1000 is really more of a Crusier than a DDG.

So, we are unlikely to see a Zumwalt class as a plane guard in a CBG.  Operating as an Aegis hub for coordinated air defense, maybe, but not as plane guard.  Probably not going to be on the forfront of ASW, either (VDS gear is not stealthy).

For 2¢, I think we need an independant cruiser class, CG; an escort class, EE (suitable for both convoys and CBG); and a fire support ship FS, a ship truly designed to operate in the littoral, while being ocean-going.  But, I'm old, sensible, and done on 11 NOV 16, so any opinion I have is just that.

 

BTW it's Admiral Zumwalt McCaine. And the project was started by his son Senator John McCaine and the Zumwalt class's main mission will be anti-Piracy patrols. These are designed for shallow water combat hence the name littoral combat ship.

LCS was, and is, an experiment, to see if ships can be built, like legos, in modules.  The jury remains out.

Now, abck to DD-1000.

They designed the DD-X/DD-1000 concepts out without much examining the modern role of destroyers.  Which is why DD-1000 is really more of a Crusier than a DDG.

So, we are unlikely to see a Zumwalt class as a plane guard in a CBG.  Operating as an Aegis hub for coordinated air defense, maybe, but not as plane guard.  Probably not going to be on the forfront of ASW, either (VDS gear is not stealthy).

For 2¢, I think we need an independant cruiser class, CG; an escort class, EE (suitable for both convoys and CBG); and a fire support ship FS, a ship truly designed to operate in the littoral, while being ocean-going.  But, I'm old, sensible, and done on 11 NOV 16, so any opinion I have is just that.

I agree! I'm very confused by the LCS program.  Most of the former officers and crew of these ships of my acquaintance call them "Little Crappy Ships".  But, we digress.  This thread is about the Zumwalt.

I am waiting to hear about how well she lives up to her expectations.  If so, then she should be an extraordinarily powerful ship.

Bill

Yeah, the 5" main deck of the Iowas would be 5 times more metal than most USN vessels have.  That 16" armored belt from forward turret to aft turret, bould like be enough steel to build a spru-can.  Then again, Iowa turrets weighed as much as pre-war Fletchers displaced, too.

Yeah, I know the TraDoc--if it's more than 5 miles inshore and an area target, you send an a/c with area-denial munitions.  If it's a point target, you use precision-guided weapons.

All good if the a/c are flying, or the guidance doe the PGM are up.

The ultimate LCS were the Iowa Class BBs. And still would be.  Bet you could hole one of these new ships with a slingshot.

16" of fire and brimstone!!

Hmmm.

 You know I have some reservations about LCS type vessels . Haven't figured them out yet . T.B.

I like the "upside-down Spruance with a dixie cup on top" description! Like most of you, I see these ships as "chew off your arm" ugly.  But, I feel the same way about the Ford class carriers and the LCS toy boats.  However, if they work (LCS aside), . . .

Bill

Ya Know , CapnMac 82 :

    When I first saw her I thought it was a sub .I saw a partial profile and gees louise !  I though Electric Boat had done and got it all wrong !

    Besides , When I destroyered we were smaller than a Forrest Sherman class and could still Kick Bootie and Take names ! . We were only 365 feet L.O.A. before FRAM , same after . But either way we didn't take kindly to another argumentative opponent !

      Although ancient by today's standards ( one 5" - 38 closed mount  , twin gun ) and not quite as fast . You get a bunch of Folks from Loiusiana and Arkansas in one 5" - 38 mount and a free fire order and watch out .There won't be much left to give anyone grief .We just shoot straighter !

 Rail Gun ? That is science fiction come true .I bet they Kick Bootie T.B.

I saw some video of her leaving on my Cadet Corps alumni f/b page.

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable on a bridge only a deck higher than the foc's'l deck; I really would not like not being able to go out on a bridge wing and see down the side right aft.

But the kids driving these beasts are comfortable enough with them, and the way the Navy assigns tugs to get them to the harbor pilot, and that's good enough.

That being said, I'd still like to be aboard when they light off one of those rail guns.

I was hoping that Capt Kirk next command will be the new carrier CVN-80 USS Enterprise but she's not schedule for commisoning until 2025. Hmm maybe Admiral Kirk??

goldhammer

Like clothes styles, ships come back as well.  Clothes tend to go a 30/40 year cycle.  Looks like ships run about 120 years.  "Wave piercing hull", bow goes back to just at the end of the "pre-Dreadnaught" era. 

 

B 2's and F117's are not that pretty either, but they work.  Remains to be seen how it works out, but it looks like an erector set gone bad........... 

 

When I first saw it, my impression was that someone flipped the profile of Spruance class hull upside down and stuck a dixie cup on top and said "finished".  Or maybe the concept was to fool a submarine into thinking they were looking at a ship already capsized?

Anyway, jokes aside, yes, the design goes back the the pre-dreadnaught era, or even much longer, say, pre Greek and Roman era.  I hope the new cocepts will work out good.  It is fun to see our Navy being innovative, even if the design is a little odd.

Like clothes styles, ships come back as well.  Clothes tend to go a 30/40 year cycle.  Looks like ships run about 120 years.  "Wave piercing hull", bow goes back to just at the end of the "pre-Dreadnaught" era. 

B 2's and F117's are not that pretty either, but they work.  Remains to be seen how it works out, but it looks like an erector set gone bad........... 

I'm reminded of something Pepys wrote, in response to the  Kings announcement that  expenditures would only be third rates or higher,

"if only they all would be third rates".

A $22 billion destroyer?

An Arleigh Burke currently costs about $1.8 billion,

in itself a sum far beyond my comprehension. And those are pretty ships.

I apologize, I did spell the ship name incorrectly.

jtilley

 But I've gotta say that this is one of the ugliest ships I've ever seen. 

Functionality is in the eye of the beholder! But, I have to agree with you, this ship is not only ugly, but, fugly!

Dragon makes a Zumwalt in 1/700 scale. Given that the real ship has so few visible details, 1/700 seems plenty big enough.

If you google "USS Zumwalt" you'll open up lots of pictures and articles. The design is remarkable, though not without its controversial elements. (The project has had more than its share of delays and overruns.)

I wouldn't mind building that Dragon kit, as a means of learning about the ship and to contrast with my other models But I've gotta say that this is one of the ugliest ships I've ever seen. Considering all the slab-like cargo vessels and all the hideous cruise ships, I have to wonder if this generation of naval architects has abandoned the concept that ships ought to be beautiful.

i had the good fortune some years back to attend a lecture by Admiral Zumwalt, at a Barnes and Noble store in Raleigh. One of the most interesting evenings I've spent in a long time. The admiral died a year or two later. 

Dragon's Black Label series has a 1/700 scale kit of the USS Zumwalt. Not a bad little kit, my son built it.