DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer

Subfixer,

I agree with you about the technology of the original CGN's.  I just believe, however, that ending nuclear power for surface combatants was the wrong way to go.  Technologies, and weapons outfits, improve over time; witness the various SSN programs, especially within the SSN 688 class and its subflights.  Believe me, I in no way intended to imply that those particular CGN's should have remained in commission.

Bill Morrison

I really like the tone of this thread!  I remember Adm. Zumwalt and appreciate that a class of DD has been named after him.  However, I served in Rickover's submarine navy, never witnessing any problems with the reactor.  I believe firmly that it was a mistake to end the surface nuclear program except for the CV's.

Bill Morrison

The Zumwalt's been cancelled after three ships. Too expensive. They'll build more Arliegh Burke's instead.

Now, is the time to find a non-petroleum based fuel for the Burke's. 

I also served during Zumwaldt's reign and still wear the beard that he allowed us to grow in one of his many Z-Grams

After 20 some years of trimming, and shaving around it, I got rid of mine...that was fifteen years ago! 

Navy nuclear systems are much more efficient and cleaner than commercial nuclear power plants by a very large margin. And that is the truth! Rickover was fanatical about this.

I've heard stories about Hymie's fanaticism. There's no denying that our nuclear navy is the safest, and most efficient, because of his not yielding one bit in his demands. Technology, construction, and training all combined to produce the best of the best. 

I served during Elmo Zumwalt's tour as CNO. I still have respect for his attitude towards letting Navy Reg's, and not "Command Perogative", determine a number of changes that he made. Good to see a ship class is named for him, even better that it is a destroyer class. 

Pick up any civil war casemate ironclad as a starting point!
 

IIRC, Bruce took the artist's concept paintings along with design dimension data and sort of free-handed the model from block of wood.    At the time Bruce was a technical writer for a major defense contractor (he's now retired).  He may have had access to information which was not widely diseminated.

The theme of that group entry was 100 years of US Navy destroyers.  We went from 1902's DD-1 Bainbridge to the proposed Zumwalt class.    We had almost every destroyer class covered.   We scratchbuilt or converted kits where there were no commercial kits available.  

Hi Ed,

Do you know if there are at least diagrams with dimensions available to scratchbuild from?

This is an interesting concept, and every time I see it, I think "back to the future" as these are reminiscent (to my eye) of ironclads.

Thanks, Rick 

  I always knew that destroyers were "part submarine", but now they even "look" like one!!!!

  In the "Cost Table", has the "recycle cost" of the nuclear reactor been figured in?? I was there, in the days of Enterprise,Long Beach, Bainbridge,......Savanna (sp?), I have no doubts about the safety, and effectiveness of nuclear powered vessels. The only reason a ship has to return to port, now, is to make little sailors???........actually, I guess even that can be done underway, these days. THAT, would give a whole new meaning to the term "Plank Owner". 

You could always scratchbuild one, like Bruce Culver did for the IPMS-NCT's award winning 2002 National's Group Build Entry

http://smmlonline.com/members/shows/ipms_usa_nats2002/usnddcentury.html

There is a rumor going around here that the class is going to be cancelled except for the first two ships. Keep an eye out for a new class of nuclear powered cruisers to come out. Fuel cost is a key issue now.

Here is a chart that compares the initial costs and projected operating costs of different fossil fuel types as compared to nuclear power. The initial higher cost of a nuclear powered ship is offset by its flatline operating cost over a period of time and the rise of fossil fuel costs per barrel (bbl).