Introducing the USS Zumwalt, the Stealth Destroyer

After much concern and speculations about the program's survival, the delivery date has been set sometime in 2013. The cost however is 7 billion a piece for the 3 that were approved by the Navy. Though we complain at times about the DOD budget, think about how much money is pumped back into the economy in the manufacturing sector or how many jobs are sustained/created by such projects.

The expanded U.S. presence will include the Navy’s next-generation warship, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer, named after the former chief of naval operations Adm. Elmo Zumwalt Jr. The first of these 600-foot, 15,000-ton vessels is being built by General Dynamics in Maine at the Bath Iron Works, which had to construct a $40 million facility to accommodate the project.

LINK
ATS_THREAD
USS_ZUMWALT
Your opinions/viewpoints/comments/concerns please.

I'm confident one missile from a sub/plane/boat, would disable it?

I would love to know how a 15,000 ton ship could be classed as stealth, surely any airpilot will be able to see it from miles away. I am unsure of the point of this craft as a nuclear submarine could surely be just as affective. maybe spending the money on renewable energy sources might be a better option.

Totally stealth....





Like all military vehicles, it has a specific niche and i am sure it does its role quite well to warrent the & billion dollar price tag

I think 21 Billion Dollars for 3 of these is about 3 billion more than they figure NASA's worth as an entire agency with all it's people taken together.

I wonder....was there THAT desparate a need for yet another warship when we already possess the largest (BY FAR), most powerful and most far reaching Blue Water Navy in the world?

...boys with their toys on an international level.

While we're at it, here is another weapons system designed for absolutely nothing BUT Battle, yet SO expensive, we literally cannot afford to risk them where they are like to be destroyed. Oh, like say, a real WAR. There is something about weapons too valuable to risk fighting with that blows my mind for logic.... Meanwhile Russia and China churn out weapons at such a staggering number when they get going, they can lose 10x's what we can even joke about...and barely be bothered by it. Umm.... Priorities.. lol

Maybe its a destroyer of stealth rather than a stealthy destroyer.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think 21 Billion Dollars for 3 of these is about 3 billion more than they figure NASA's worth as an entire agency with all it's people taken together.

I wonder....was there THAT desparate a need for yet another warship when we already possess the largest (BY FAR), most powerful and most far reaching Blue Water Navy in the world?

...boys with their toys on an international level.

While we're at it, here is another weapons system designed for absolutely nothing BUT Battle, yet SO expensive, we literally cannot afford to risk them where they are like to be destroyed. Oh, like say, a real WAR.

There is something about weapons too valuable to risk fighting with that blows my mind for logic.... Meanwhile Russia and China churn out weapons at such a staggering number when they get going, they can lose 10x's what we can even joke about...and barely be bothered by it. Umm.... Priorities.. lol

Well the price went up after the numbers were drastically reduced to 3 from twenty something. I do agree however that most of the cost on our side is usually the development and costly labor.

Every new technology, should logically have a counter-technology. Stealth tech was good 10 years ago, now everyone seems to have it.

I hope this vessel is acting more of stealth detecting plateform as previously mentioned.

I guess someone just needs to remind me when the last 2 sided Naval battle occurred to justify the continued development of ..not just a respectable Navy fully capable of defense at ANY level.....but ALSO capable of control over the oceans of our entire Planet AT THE SAME TIME.

Ugh.... Oh well... I guess war just isn't fun anymore. Over 10 years of it...and I'm one tired, weary and heart sick Rabbit. Enough with the weapons, killing and conquest when our nation is in tatters and falling...while the world needs just about anything BUT brand new super-warships to sail the largely empty high seas.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I'm confident one missile from a sub/plane/boat, would disable it?

I think the idea is the missile will miss

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I guess someone just needs to remind me when the last 2 sided Naval battle occurred to justify the continued development of ..not just a respectable Navy fully capable of defense at ANY level.....but ALSO capable of control over the oceans of our entire Planet AT THE SAME TIME.

Ugh.... Oh well... I guess war just isn't fun anymore. Over 10 years of it...and I'm one tired, weary and heart sick Rabbit. Enough with the weapons, killing and conquest when our nation is in tatters and falling...while the world needs just about anything BUT brand new super-warships to sail the largely empty high seas.

The reason we have no naval battles now is because they are impossible to win for any country other than the US. If that ever changes, you WILL see them. Being able to control ALL oceans prevents wars, and makes any war against the US impossible as there is no way for any country to project their forces. If you hate war, make sure the US Navy is never rivaled.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I'm confident one missile from a sub/plane/boat, would disable it?

I think the idea is the missile will miss

Exactly, they will be unable to get a lock on the ship, and unable to launch against it. The idea of an airplane spotting the ship is laughable, we control the skies.

reply to post by lewman


The Arleigh Burke class is actually rather stealthy. If you take a close look at them they have quite a few stealth features. The laid back mast, which is angled so it splits the beam of the radar instead of reflecting it, down to the poles that hold the cables along the side of the ship being turned at an angle so no flat surfaces show.

I've even heard of them slipping through a carrier group with no one the wiser until they showed up ahead of the group when the sun came up and had pics of the ships they passed as they went by.

Originally posted by hp1229
Well the price went up after the numbers were drastically reduced to 3 from twenty something. I do agree however that most of the cost on our side is usually the development and costly labor.

There is cost in development but the eventually cost price of these ships have much more to do with pentagon " cost price + fixed fee" philosophy than it has to do with especially expensive American labor or American technological prowess. These programs are often spread over as many states as possible ( a few senators will then get nasty calls from constituents when the congress in general wants to cut spending) thus decreasing efficiency in this way but also generally aiming to get as many small and large contractors involved as possible additionally expanding the cost. In a 'regular' country with at least some governmental oversight these ships could probably be built for half or a third of the cost but since the pentagon does not have to fight for it's budget it can build ships it does not need at the behest of industrial lobby groups... Since the navy isn't going to say no while their budget allocation is expanded by a similar cost they just stay quite and take what they can get but one should never be fooled into thinking that they always or often get the type of ships they need or even ask for!

Anyways this hardly changes the fact that i would not want to run into these things on the high seas...

Stellar

reply to post by CALGARIAN

I'm confident one missile from a sub/plane/boat, would disable it?

It's bad enough to make a statement and slap a question mark on it. Don't start it out saying you're confident.

The Navy already has stealth ships. Their own submarines keep ramming into their ships. Must be pretty stealthy.


Wouldn't it be cheaper to take an old aircraft carrier and put Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters on it??

Aim it at China and fire off the Rocket Boosters. Could the Chinese stop 60,000 tons of metal skimming over the sea at them? I think not.

Maybe we could weld some little wings on it so she skims over the water like the "Caspian Sea Monster" does.

Originally posted by lewman
I would love to know how a 15,000 ton ship could be classed as stealth, surely any airpilot will be able to see it from miles away. I am unsure of the point of this craft as a nuclear submarine could surely be just as affective. maybe spending the money on renewable energy sources might be a better option.

edit on 18-10-2012 by lewman because: typo wrote gow instead of how

You'd be absolutely stunned to know how hard it is to find a modern warship with the Mk 1 eyeball. As big as the ships are, the ocean is orders of magnitude bigger, and the human eye doesn't have nearly as great a range as you might think. Take a look back at the naval engagements in the Pacific during World War II, and you can find examples of highly trained, very motivated spotters (their lives might literally depend on their job performance) missing not only individual ships (too many instances to count), but entire task forces (both sides at Midway, multiple times, being the 'best' example).

Radar is far and away the best method for locating a surface ship, and you can mitigate its effectiveness with careful shaping (the Lockheed "Sea Shadow", and the Zumwalt class have stealth as primary drivers of the design, the Arleigh Burke class have some stealth shaping incorporated into more conventional hulls). Also, remember that "Stealth" isn't some Harry Potter style cloak of invisibility. It's a set of characteristics that reduces the range at which you can be detected, nothing more, and nothing less. It increases your ability to get off the first shot (given modern weapons and ships, that's probably going to be a decisive one), and / or gives you the ability to avoid engagements that you don't want to fight.

Personally, I think the Zumwalts are a tremendous waste of money, for a variety of technical and practical reasons...but spending the same amount of money on "renewable energy sources" doesn't seem like a good idea at this point either, given how well all those near-mythical renewable energy sources don't seem to be working out. Take a quick look at how wind power *actually* performs, as opposed to what wind turbine manufacturers publish in their sales brochures. Helpful hint, have a tall glass of bourbon on hand to dull the pain. Solar might work in the Southwest, but it's never going to be more than a regional power source. Hydroelectric isn't passing muster with the environmental movement at its current levels...good luck getting more stations built. I really don't want to hijack a Zumwalt thread, but at this point in time, "renewable energy" is, frankly, a crock of something I won't describe in polite society. Nuclear is a different story, but I know where that line of discussion is headed! (Dons flameproof suit)

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Exactly, they will be unable to get a lock on the ship, and unable to launch against it. The idea of an airplane spotting the ship is laughable, we control the skies.

We control the skies ... until we don't.

The arrogance of dismissing potential adversaries is the mark of history's next passing empire. I can only envision the look on the faces of Roman soldiers when the barbarian hordes appeared at the gates of Rome.

I've gotta admit though -- that ship looks kind of novel. In keeping with our "modern" war doctrine, I wonder how efficiently it can kill or maim civilians?

Reminds me of this old ship


USS Zumwalt


CSS Virgina

The deckhouse had been delivered. All 900 tons.

navaltoday.com...