| rustymusket | 02 Apr 2016 4:50 a.m. PST |
Just saw a picture on Yahoo news. I grew up in the 1950's with battleships and destroyers with guns on them. I know the Zumwalt is not the first to look like it does, boxy an angular with no guns or even rockets on launchers visible, but when I looked at it I thought, "the Merrimack" has been updated. I am going to get into modern ironclad gaming and use my ACW ships. Just thought I would post it. |
| vtsaogames | 02 Apr 2016 5:21 a.m. PST |
I've seen it floating in front of Bath Iron Works. It is a strange looking beast, the size of a cruiser. The hull is designed to cut under waves rather than through them. |
| hocklermp5 | 02 Apr 2016 5:25 a.m. PST |
It looks like a disaster waiting to happen. |
| Cardinal Ximenez | 02 Apr 2016 6:27 a.m. PST |
This is probably a dumb question but what about close defense? Seems like you could run a small, fast explosive-laden craft right into the stern. What am I missing? DM |
| vtsaogames | 02 Apr 2016 7:10 a.m. PST |
Wikipedia says that along with all the missiles and the possible rail gun, the Zumwalt has two Bushmaster II automatic cannon. I have no idea which way they face. |
| Generalstoner49 | 02 Apr 2016 8:10 a.m. PST |
No evolved SeaRAM or phalanx CIWS? What is it supposed to do to the incoming missiles? Have the crew spit at them? And don't tell me it is so stealthy is can not be targeted. |
| Cosmic Reset | 02 Apr 2016 8:53 a.m. PST |
You guys are negative. Next you'll be saying that the F-35 won't be on time and on budget. |
| cwlinsj | 02 Apr 2016 9:02 a.m. PST |
It is supposed to be so stealthy that it will be difficult to target! The radar signature is just the size of a fishing boat… so it really will be difficult to find, identify and target. It also has 80 VLS cells so it can carry SM2 and SM3 missiles in addition to a wide package of offensive missiles -not that it is designed for BMD. In the future, it will incorporate lasers which will serve as additional close-in air defense. It will have an impressive battle capabilities, too bad there wont be enough built (3) to make a difference if the US really goes to war. |
| Sudwind | 03 Apr 2016 9:53 a.m. PST |
The rail gun tech seems very close….and that will be a game changer. Hard to shoot down Mach 7 bolts and the rounds are very cheap compared to guided missiles. Hard to electronically spoof a shell too…. I remember all the negativity about new weapons before. The M-1 tank was a fine example and now, it still ranks at or near the top. Sure the Leopard 2 is good, but not when you cut your tank fleet to a tenth of what it was to pay for crippling social programs. Meanwhile, Russia is building up its military and nuclear weapons. Oh, and Russian think tanks talk of using nukes in a limited fashion in future war fighting scenarios. |
| Lion in the Stars | 03 Apr 2016 1:26 p.m. PST |
This is probably a dumb question but what about close defense? Seems like you could run a small, fast explosive-laden craft right into the stern. That's a problem for all warships, compounded by the rules of engagement. You need a rather large weapon to stop a boat, and you also need standoff distance. 7.62mm NATO is the bare minimum for stopping a small boat, and that's strictly by killing any crew on board. You need a .50 or bigger to take out the motor. Basically, we're back to the early 1900s, needing small-caliber rapid-firing cannon to deal with the "torpedo boats". I'd recommend something at least 35mm caliber, and the 50x330mm Bushmaster III is probably the best option. |
ponders nirvana.