Help support TMP

"How 10 New U.S. Destroyers Will Change Surface Warfare" Topic

12 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board

Action Log

04 Oct 2018 10:53 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2007) board
  • Crossposted to Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) board

Areas of Interest


560 hits since 3 Oct 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP03 Oct 2018 9:12 p.m. PST

"Adding large numbers of new next-generation destroyers will substantially change the Navy's ability to conduct major maritime warfare operations by enabling surface forces to detect enemy attacks at much farther distances, launch long-range strikes with greater precision and destructive force and disperse offensive forces across much wider swaths of ocean.

The US Navy has awarded deals for 10 new high-tech DDG 51 Flight III Destroyers and built in options to add even more ships and increase the "build rates" for construction of new warships – all as part of a massive strategic push to accelerate fleet growth and usher in a new era of warfighting technology for the Navy…."
Main page


Lion in the Stars03 Oct 2018 9:47 p.m. PST

So, we have inadequate crew numbers and training for the number of ships we have, and we're going to have more ships coming into service than are leaving?

Sounds like a recipe for more Sailor-killing collisions.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP04 Oct 2018 1:44 a.m. PST

Nah, they'll just keep them tied up at the dock, as a fleet in being…….

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP04 Oct 2018 11:00 a.m. PST



d88mm1940 Supporting Member of TMP04 Oct 2018 6:57 p.m. PST

We could send press gang to England…

General Kirchner Inactive Member05 Oct 2018 11:01 a.m. PST

so we are building more upgraded arleigh burke destroyers

says volumes about the zumwalt doesn't it?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP05 Oct 2018 11:47 a.m. PST



28mm Fanatik05 Oct 2018 2:31 p.m. PST

so we are building more upgraded arleigh burke destroyers

says volumes about the zumwalt doesn't it

The Zumwalt is deemed to be too costly so the Navy opted for the cheaper alternative.

This is exactly the same situation as the Seawolf submarine deemed to be too costly which led to the Navy settling for cheaper Virginia class (latest improved Los Angeles class) fast attack boats instead.

StarCruiser05 Oct 2018 6:55 p.m. PST

The Zumwalt is having…issues…as is the Monsoor…

They are really looking like the boondoggle I thought they would be (along with the LCS program).

A lot of interesting ideas that should have been tried out extensively on MUCH less expensive platforms before getting shoved together way too soon.

StarCruiser05 Oct 2018 6:57 p.m. PST

I also should say – make sure that none of those wonderful new toys in the Flight III's are made from Chinese parts or… click, they're off when you really need…

28mm Fanatik06 Oct 2018 3:06 p.m. PST

The Zumwalt isn't close to the boondoggle the LCS is. What killed it is the continuous cost overruns which reduced the navy's order to just 3 ships (just like the Seawolf class sub) and led to its eventual cancellation.

Lion in the Stars06 Oct 2018 8:50 p.m. PST

Doesn't help that the super-long-range ammo for the guns was insanely expensive (on the order of Tomahawk missile per round).

Even more messed up, despite building the guns in 155mm, we didn't make them compatible with NATO-standard 155mm artillery in the first place.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.