New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer

[Footslogger]

Photos of the New Class of Destroyer.

http://www.cnet.com/pictures/next-gener ... -pictures/

[robinsa]

I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.

[LeeChard]

It may be invisible to radar but unfortunately it's not invisible to our eyes [:D]

[zuluhour]

It reminds me more of the Merrimack.

[Denniss]

As the second (confederate) incarnation.

[Dili]

Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Denniss

As the second (confederate) incarnation.

There was only one USS Merrimack. The second version was the CSS Virginia.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: robinsa

I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.

It's the traditionalist in you. Only matters how well she fights.

[AW1Steve]

Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]

[AW1Steve]

If we built warships on beauty alone we'd still be fighting with sailing ships. [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

If we built warships on beauty alone we'd still be fighting with sailing ships. [:D]

warspite1

Or better still, re-making the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships (late thirties re-build stylee).... [;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]

I prefer to think of the Virginias as a post-688 class.

The Seawolfs had a different mission that went away with the USSR. We had a private briefing with VADM White, then ComSubLant, in refit in 1982 (?) All the wardrooms in Kings Bay at the time attended. He described Seawolf, then on the drawing boards, as a recruiting tool for the nukes. Essentially his message was "once she penetrates into the SSBN bastion she has enough fish to stay a long, long time." At the time she wasn't named yet, and the exact sensor suite was in flux, but I still remember his grin when he said "fifty."

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]

I prefer to think of the Virginias as a post-688 class.

The Seawolfs had a different mission that went away with the USSR. We had a private briefing with VADM White, then ComSubLant, in refit in 1982 (?) All the wardrooms in Kings Bay at the time attended. He described Seawolf, then on the drawing boards, as a recruiting tool for the nukes. Essentially his message was "once she penetrates into the SSBN bastion she has enough fish to stay a long, long time." At the time she wasn't named yet, and the exact sensor suite was in flux, but I still remember his grin when he said "fifty."

It is a post 688 class. It came afterwards. Every boat we build from now on will be a "post 688" class. [:D] But the Virginia's , originally referred to as the "Centurion class" (a developmental name only) was built because it was felt the USN couldn't afford a 50+ buy of Seawolves. I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Virginia's owe a awful lot of their design features to the Seawolf. 688, not so much. [:D]

[Kull]

The CiC looks a lot like my vision of the WitP 2.0 interface:

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It is a post 688 class. It came afterwards. Every boat we build from now on will be a "post 688" class. [:D] But the Virginia's , originally referred to as the "Centurion class" (a developmental name only) was built because it was felt the USN couldn't afford a 50+ buy of Seawolves. I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Virginia's owe a awful lot of their design features to the Seawolf. 688, not so much. [:D]

By post-688 I meant an everyday, affordable (relatively) SSN. Sure they're modern and take many features from Seawolf. But Seawolf was not affordable in the post-Cold War environment in the numbers we need to fulfill tasking. And Seawolf was vastly over-designed for most SSN missions. Like using a Jaguar to haul plywood.

However, in a real sense the 688 was not a "post-637 design." I'm sure you know what the 637 was designed to do, and what the 688 was designed to do. Different. And that's all I'm saying about that here.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]

Destroyers are much bigger today.

[dr.hal]

It brings one back to the days of ram bows at the turn of the last century.

[crsutton]

They did not miss the mark by much....

[kaleun]

I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.

Does look like a giant submarine.

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Dili

Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]

Destroyers are much bigger today.

I know, just playing in the WW2 mode, hence the Wash. Treaty reference.