"America’s Newest Destroyer Is Already Outdated" Topic
15 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
|
Tango01 | 09 Nov 2014 10:10 p.m. PST |
"Hie thee hence, sea fighters, to peruse Information Dissemination‘s take on the U.S. Navy's Zumwalt-class destroyer. Pseudo-pseudonymous pundit "Lazarus" gives a nifty profile of the newfangled vessel. That's worth your time in itself. Though not in so many words, moreover, he depicts the attention-grabbing DDG-1000 stories of recent weeks and months as a red herring. Sure, Zumwalt features a "tumblehome" hull that makes the ship look like the second coming of USS Monitor. (This is not a compliment.) The hull tapers where it should flare and flares where it should taper. Zounds! Yet more than cosmetics occasions commentary. Some navy-watchers voice concern about tumblehome hulls' seakeeping ability in rough waters. Others question their ability to remain buoyant and stable after suffering mishaps or battle damage. That's a worry in a "minimum manned" ship that relies on automated damage control. (The very idea of automated firefighting and flooding control, and sparsely populated fire parties, sits poorly with this former fire marshal.) In any event, time will tell whether the naval architects got it right. Even if problems do come to light, Zumwalt would be far from the first fighting ship to undergo modifications to remedy problems baked into her design. The flattop USS Midway, for example, underwent repeated change over her long life — including to correct such maladies. Plus ça change…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Mako11 | 09 Nov 2014 10:24 p.m. PST |
A cynic would think this is "planned obsolescence, so they can make even more money on the upgrades/replacements. |
Zagloba | 09 Nov 2014 10:53 p.m. PST |
That article is the biggest load of crap I think I've ever read- basically "this ship does not do the job I personally want it to do, therefore it's worthless". That's like saying a Bugatti is obsolescent because it can't haul 30 kids to school. Furthermore, the article the article is supposed to be discussing draws opposite conclusions. And that article discusses yet another article, which, given that it's posted to something called 'The Daily Beast' hardly seems like it will be definitive either. This is blog circle-jerkery of the highest order. Now, I have no idea if the ship will perform it's mission or sink like a stone, but somehow I doubt the idiot making this fourth hand analysis has any idea either. Rich |
PHGamer | 10 Nov 2014 6:25 a.m. PST |
I have done some research on the much ballyhooed "Tumblehome" sea worthiness, and was surprised at the large number of ships that use that architecture. Including one I visited recently. The USS Olympia, (6,000 tons) was such a design, and she traveled all over the world and probably experience all major sea states in her history. The Russian battleships during the Russo-Japanese war were largely built on that concept, and traveled around the world without a major mishap. I agree, it it looks very different, even ugly, and I suspect that is the major impetus for all the complaints. |
wminsing | 10 Nov 2014 6:35 a.m. PST |
Yet another example of poorly researched military 'journalism'. -Will |
GarrisonMiniatures | 10 Nov 2014 8:42 a.m. PST |
The French used tumblehome designs a lot in the pre-Dreadnought era as well, for example:
|
flicking wargamer | 10 Nov 2014 11:49 a.m. PST |
But it is on the internet, so it has to be true. |
Lion in the Stars | 10 Nov 2014 2:15 p.m. PST |
I will admit that the guy has a point on the minimal manning thing. I don't. trust. automatic. systems. for damage control. Humans can improvise and fix things on the fly, machines can't. |
emckinney | 10 Nov 2014 2:50 p.m. PST |
"I have done some research on the much ballyhooed "Tumblehome" sea worthiness, and was surprised at the large number of ships that use that architecture. Including one I visited recently." And there's a reason that it fell out of favor … |
Mako11 | 10 Nov 2014 3:55 p.m. PST |
I suspect the tumblehome on that pre-dreadnaught was much less of an issue for it, than it will be on the newer, much narrower (I presume, but didn't look it up), Zumwalt. And yes, I think the Zumwalt is in the running for one of the ugliest vessels the USN has ever designed, and built. |
tbeard1999 | 10 Nov 2014 4:31 p.m. PST |
USS Monitor didn't have a tumblehome hull. In fact, its hull rose only 18 inches above the waterline. Given that the Monitor's iconic shape is well-known to anyone familiar with naval history, I'm less than impressed at the author's knowledge base. The Zumwalts do vaguely recall some of the Confederate ironclads -- CSS Richmond or CSS Tennessee. Anyhow, the primary assertion of the author seems to be that Zumwalt is a poor design because it is a specialized platform that focuses on shore bombardment. Uh…what? Zumwalt's main armament is 20 Mk 57 vertical launch systems containing 80 vertical launch cells that can hold any combination of SAMs (RIM-66 Standard and Sea Sparrow), antiship missiles (Tomahawk), land attack missiles (Tomahawk) or ASW missiles (RUM-139). This is slighly fewer cells than the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, but the Mk57 system can accomodate missiles 40+% larger. This makes the author's key assertion factually incorrect. While opinions can vary on whether a 30mm system is preferable to a 5" gun, the reality is that this is a very secondary armament. The ship's main armament is the Mk57 VLS. Most critically, the ship is stealthy, which should dramatically improve survivability. I'd note that the Zumwalt class appears to have at least comparable capabilities to the Arleigh Burke class. However, it requires less than half the crew and should be far harder to hit or see. The Burke class is also relatively old -- it's been 25 years since the first ship was commissioned. The cost of upgrading the platforms may not be superior to deploying a new class of ship. Oh, and the tumblehome design (presumably a stealth issue) does reduce a ship's excess bouyancy a bit. However, most ships would be destroyed or burned out by missile hits. Sinking isn't really the problem, unless you're facing torpedoes. The Zumwalt *is* a lot bigger than the Burke class. Given the fact that the armament is similar and the crew size is smaller, I wonder what's using up all of that tonnage? Lots and lots of missile reloads would be one possibility. If so, that would dramatically improve its usefulness. |
Lion in the Stars | 11 Nov 2014 12:35 p.m. PST |
Oh, and the tumblehome design (presumably a stealth issue) does reduce a ship's excess bouyancy a bit. However, most ships would be destroyed or burned out by missile hits. Sinking isn't really the problem, unless you're facing torpedoes. And given that modern heavyweight torpedoes are keel-crackers and literally blow a ship in half with a single hit, it doesn't matter how much excess buoyancy you have! We've seen that ASMs can do a number on a ship (Stark, plus the Exocet attacks during Falklands, and in the Persian Gulf). But what killed the ships during the Falklands was their inability to stop the fire. Minimally manned ships don't have a lot of Damage Control crew available, which requires a MAJOR change in surface fleet culture. Every time the surface fleet has tried to adopt a submarine-style operation, it has blown up in their face. The Zumwalt *is* a lot bigger than the Burke class. Given the fact that the armament is similar and the crew size is smaller, I wonder what's using up all of that tonnage? Lots and lots of missile reloads would be one possibility. If so, that would dramatically improve its usefulness. The point of a VLS is to have every missile immediately ready launch, no magazine. So I would be very surprised indeed if the Zumwalts carried reloads not in the VLS. I honestly suspect that a big part of the massively increased displacement is habitability for the crew. More berthing space per person, plus recreation spaces. Not to mention the engineering stuff for trash disposal and needing double the number of heads and shower facilities due to a mixed crew. |
tbeard1999 | 12 Nov 2014 4:07 p.m. PST |
Lion, you might be right that the displacement difference is in habitability. But we're talking about a big difference -- 8300-9300 tons displacement for the Burke class DDs vs 14,500 tons for the Zumwalt. I suspect that, like most ship classes, the Zumwalts will see an increase in displacement during the ship's lifetime. (The Burke class shows that increase). Given that the Zumwalts have half the crew size, I don't think that habitability is the only major reason. And yes, I dunno how you'd go about reloading the VLS, now that I think about it. So I wonder what's filling up that extra 6200 tons? My bet is redundant systems and survivability enhancements. Maybe a significantly larger powerplant (so that gauss weapons can be mounted later). |
Murvihill | 13 Nov 2014 11:05 a.m. PST |
I doubt the shape of the hull contributed to habitability. Most of a ship is open space, surrounded by a metal skin. A ship that flares out from the waterline will have more open space than one that goes inward. I'll bet the gun systems took up a bunch of extra weight, considering that they are more powerful, bigger and there are two of them. |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Nov 2014 11:25 a.m. PST |
The 155mm guns are a lot heavier than the 5" guns. 155s are about 100 tons when the 5" are maybe 20. So that doesn't really account for 6200 tons. |
|