Tango01 | 23 Oct 2014 9:25 p.m. PST |
"It features a radical design and next-gen gear. But the U.S. Navy's most advanced ship may have a wee problem: it just might fall into the sea.The U.S. Navy is slowly preparing the first of its massive, 15,500-ton Zumwalt-class stealth destroyers for sea next year. But questions remain about many of the technologies onboard the new ships. First and foremost: can the thing even stay afloat? The vessel—which is the largest American surface warship since the 1950s--brings a new untried "tumblehome" hull design, new power systems and gun technology that have not been used on a modern warship before. The ship is highly automated with a crew of just 142 -- compared to older ships that have a complement of about 300. But despite its massive size, the stealthy warship appears on an enemy's sensors as something no larger than a small fishing boat. The 600-foot long ship is armed with 80 missiles tubes, two massive 155mm guns that can lob guided shells 80 miles away and a pair of 30mm guns for self-defense. Theoretically, the ship can take on all comers in the air, sea, underwater or on land. In the future, the ship could be fitted with futuristic lasers and electro-magnetic rail-guns too. Additionally, the so-called DDG-1000 can also carry either a pair of helicopters or a single helicopter and a trio of drones…"
Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
doug redshirt | 23 Oct 2014 10:24 p.m. PST |
Since when is 155 mm considered massive in a naval vessel? That is only around 6" gun in size. I remember when 16 and 18 inch guns were massive. |
Mako11 | 23 Oct 2014 11:00 p.m. PST |
In heavy, following seas, my guess is no. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 24 Oct 2014 5:00 a.m. PST |
Do carriers not count as surface warships these days? |
tberry7403 | 24 Oct 2014 6:36 a.m. PST |
This is what happens when the ignorant write for an audience that is equally ignorant. 1) "… the largest American surface warship since the 1950s…" -- except for the Aircraft Carriers. 2) "…two massive 155mm guns…" -- 6" is not "massive" for naval vessels. 3) He used the work "massive" to describe both the ship and the guns. A sure sign of a lazy writer (and editor). 4) In the article he mentions the use of "…the ship's unique "integrated power system" — which dispenses with having the engines connected directly to the propeller and instead turns an electric motor." -- Subs have been using diesel-electric drive for years. I personally wouldn't want to serve on a ship that large with a crew of only 142. Maintenance alone will be a bitch. And don't forget the conclusion of the article: "Ultimately, the changing threat and enormous price tag doomed the program and only three ships will be built at exorbitant cost." |
PHGamer | 24 Oct 2014 6:38 a.m. PST |
|
GROSSMAN | 24 Oct 2014 6:51 a.m. PST |
CIWS is the 30mm I guess. This thing doesn't look like it could ride out a large storm. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 24 Oct 2014 8:03 a.m. PST |
I think it's fair to say that this article does not get a tick in the 'like' box. |
emckinney | 24 Oct 2014 8:26 a.m. PST |
1) "… the largest American surface warship since the 1950s…" -- except for the Aircraft Carriers. And when the Navy talks about "surface combatants," it doesn't mean CVs. No problem with this sentence--unless using "warship" in place of "combatant" is an unforgivable sin. 2) "…two massive 155mm guns…" -- 6" is not "massive" for naval vessels. It's ~104 tons all up, vs. ~24 tons for the 5"/54 cal Mk.2. LRAP shell weight is 225 lbs. vs. 70 for the 5" gun. Historically, it may not be "massive," but it's very heavy compared to anything currently deployed by the U.S. Navy. 3) … Literary criticism doesn't make the facts wrong. Absolutely concur on crewing. The concept has been a disaster on the LCS. |
DsGilbert | 24 Oct 2014 8:42 a.m. PST |
I have a strange feeling the Navy did some exhaustive tests on the sea worthiness of the hull. |
tberry7403 | 24 Oct 2014 9:14 a.m. PST |
DsGilbert: Please read the article. 1) The Navy WOULDN'T comment on the issue. 2) A presentation in April showed the Navy has not yet certified the stability of the design. 3) An Engineering Paper in 2007 shows the "tumblehome" design is more prone to capsizing especially when hit from behind. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 24 Oct 2014 11:31 a.m. PST |
'unless using "warship" in place of "combatant" is an unforgivable sin.' Roughly equivalent to everything with tracks being a tank in terms of sin, I would have thought. link Ignoring aircraft, 'Armament: Multiple NATO Sea Sparrow, Phalanx CIWS, and Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) mounts.' would still make them warships by my definition. Besides, it isn't the Navy talking in the article, is it? |
Lion in the Stars | 24 Oct 2014 11:46 a.m. PST |
I don't think the USN has ever called carriers 'surface combatants'. Carriers use airplanes to attack. Surface combatants use guns and/or missiles to attack. |
VonTed | 24 Oct 2014 1:49 p.m. PST |
Cwis would not be very stealth |
Bill Rosser | 24 Oct 2014 6:09 p.m. PST |
I guess the author never reviewed the Brooklyn. Significant tumblehome and ram type bow. |
David Manley | 25 Oct 2014 3:33 p.m. PST |
How many tumblehome warships did the USN build after Brooklyn? It is an interesting idea but one that, for a warship, was rightfully killed off after Tsushima. Intact stability is problematic, but damage stability is much worse as the ship loses waterplane area quickly when the hull is more deeply submerged. |
Lion in the Stars | 25 Oct 2014 10:00 p.m. PST |
Not to mention the really heavy building you need to do because of taking waves over the bow, though the new wave-piercing designs do better. Guess this means the only way to do much serious stealthing is to build something like the Sea Shadow (SWATH design) or maybe the LCS2 trimaran design… |
David Manley | 26 Oct 2014 12:33 p.m. PST |
You can build a stealthy ship on a traditional monohull if you are clever and careful about it. No need for fancy hullforms :) |