Well, they may as well do it with a DDG, they're an orphan class and unlikely to generate much in terms of ops capability just now. If they can put a working rail gun on a ship, there's a couple of people on Warships that will have to STFU after carping for years that one will never work.
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
DDG-1000 underwent builder's trials last month and her Captain is praising it's performance. Looking forward to videos of the ship being put through it's paces.
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
Zumwalt Skipper: ‘This Ship Handled Marvelously’
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor
ARLINGTON, Va. — The commanding officer of the pre-commissioning unit for the Navy’s new class of guided-missile destroyer said the ship performed well on its initial builder’s trials.
“The ship handled marvelously,” said Capt. James A. Kirk, whose crew took the future USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) to sea Dec. 13-17.
Kirk answered questions Jan. 14 in response to reporters at a presentation at the Surface Navy Association National Symposium, appearing with several of his crew along with Rear Adm. (select) Jim Downey, program manager for the Zumwalt class.
During the trials, Zumwalt exercised its propulsion system, going to full power ahead and astern and making turns at full rudder.
Using photographs, Downey showed that the ship was stable through turns at full rudder at a 7.5-degree list, about half of what a typical destroyer would experience.
“I’ve been very confident about the hull, very stable,” Downey said. “The ship turns very quickly. The faster it goes, the better it responds.”
More at the link.
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
Zumwalt Skipper: ‘This Ship Handled Marvelously’
By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor
ARLINGTON, Va. — The commanding officer of the pre-commissioning unit for the Navy’s new class of guided-missile destroyer said the ship performed well on its initial builder’s trials.
“The ship handled marvelously,” said Capt. James A. Kirk, whose crew took the future USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) to sea Dec. 13-17.
Kirk answered questions Jan. 14 in response to reporters at a presentation at the Surface Navy Association National Symposium, appearing with several of his crew along with Rear Adm. (select) Jim Downey, program manager for the Zumwalt class.
During the trials, Zumwalt exercised its propulsion system, going to full power ahead and astern and making turns at full rudder.
Using photographs, Downey showed that the ship was stable through turns at full rudder at a 7.5-degree list, about half of what a typical destroyer would experience.
“I’ve been very confident about the hull, very stable,” Downey said. “The ship turns very quickly. The faster it goes, the better it responds.”
More at the link.
Good news, I fully expect the good reports to continue as BIWs MO is to get it right in the building halls, no matter the delay or pressure to meet mile stones, because they know it gets much harder to fix things later on. These ships should exceed expectations, as the RNs Type 45 did.
Here she is during tests last month. Nothing dramatic but really futuristic looking. I wonder if the Navy will go with the same hull design for the future Large Surface Combatant?
https://youtu.be/nSJ_uFZEuwo
https://youtu.be/nSJ_uFZEuwo
What did you want to discuss about it?Those sailors apprehended for violating iranian waters too boring news for you guys?:
Not really dont know enough to make an informed comment one way or the other and im not relying on any MSM articles to fill in the gaps.Those sailors apprehended for violating iranian waters too boring news for you guys?
From what I had read Iran was well within it's rights from there perspective when two US navy vessels entered iranian waters and came within a few miles of a naval base on Farsi island. Assuming this is true then any nation would have detained the trespassers with out a second thought, As it sit's considering how close they got to a naval base of Iran's the situation has been handled quickly and responsibly by both sides, No mess no fuss, just a few phone calls and the two boats and there crews sent on there way.
The fact that it was over in less then 24 hours makes it of no real importance beyond showing that clear lines of communication between the US and Iran have been established to avoid such situations getting out of hand.
The fact that it was over in less then 24 hours makes it of no real importance beyond showing that clear lines of communication between the US and Iran have been established to avoid such situations getting out of hand.
Cool looking ship, wether it is used for the future large surface combatant or not really depends on the next few years of test's and operations with it. Floating in calm waters is one thing, handling rough seas or full blown combat situations is another so time will have to be taken to fully evaluate it.
Think you need to add cost to that as well. The Zumwalts have proven to be a tad expensive, however I would hazard to suggest that the major technology breakthroughs will have been accomplished and are probably now an engineering issue with areas identified for ongoing research and development. The Zumwalts will definitely make a good foundation upon which to base the next generation of future large surface combatant. Not necessarily the hull form, but more what has gone into it, weapons, sensors, C5ISR, stealth, propulsion, energy generation and storage etc.
Why would the USN naval architects produce a ship which would handle poorly in whatever sea state? I would suggest that the designers have already "evaluated" the performance as they have with every other warship, these things can be predicted by calculation.
Just because it has a slight tumblehome does not mean it will handle poorly. There is no great variation in displacement other than normal fuel and stores, there is little top weight compared with other designs and there are nice beamy flat sections aft.
Looking different doesn't equate to being a poor sea boat. Ships have had this hull form for centuries.
While cost per a unit ex R&D was great does any one have any idea on cost difference between the 1st ship and the following ones? As with the Aussie Hobart's the cost continued to fall from hull to hull (As it did with the Anzac's) so I'm wondering if the same could have occurred if given the chance?
One should take into account this was a new type of vessel being built and as such had the associated learning curve attached to it.
An interesting concept that is being mooted for a sea based ABM defence by modifying the LPD 17 hull design. The well dock would be enclosed and the vessel would be outfitted with a 10 - 12m multifaceted S Band radar which would give a far greater coverage than the current SPY-1 radar. The proposed armament is lasers, rail guns and double the missile capacity of the AEGIS cruisers. It looks like an interesting concept and one would think that the power generation requirements would necessitate a nuclear reactor. Speaking of which of I wonder if that would be a solution for the power generation requirements of the future large surface combatant.
CG-(X) was supposed to feature a similarly large radar but was cancelled. This LPD-based design would be a formidable addition to a CSG but I doubt it would be able to keep up with the carrier and other escorts.
Last edited:
Would be a great addition to the fleet. Up to 288 MK 41 cells, nearly 3x a DDG and with enough power to consider emerging tech like rail guns and Directed energy systems.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...ssile-defense-ship-based-on-lpd-17-class.html
Last edited:
The speculations about the Zumwalt's stability in rough seas goes way back. Questions were also raised about the value of the LO arising from the tumblehome hull. AFAIK none of the doubters have come up with any serious study or data that would refute the results of extensive testing that has gone into the design.In many ways I see parallels to the criticisms hurled at the F-35.
Instability Questions About Zumwalt Destroyer Are Nothing New
Instability Questions About Zumwalt Destroyer Are Nothing New
True but that was the compromise when they took an in service hull design (Spruance) and loaded it up to stability limits.
The lessons learnt from Spruance are the very reason that the USN chose to increase beam (away from traditional destroyer sleek designs) for the ABs
Had the pleasure of working with a team of senior ABS surveyors several years ago, one of whom was also ex NAVSEA SUP SHIPS (USNs in house marine survey and quality organization), who all had recent experience of AB, Zumwalt and/ or LCS. The story they told me about the DDG-1000s stability was that in early tank testing they slammed it up the stern with an almost tsunami equivalent wave to see what would happen, the results were noted and the design adjusted, which is exactly why they do tank and model testing in the first place.
Anyone who honestly believes the USN would identify a problem in testing, long before any steel is cut, and then do nothing to fix it, probably needs to have a rethink. These days stability problems come from capability creep and the extra high up weight associated with it, or sadly from unqualified people trying to save money by insisting on sexing up a small platform rather than specifing a more suitably sized one in the first place, not from professionals developing new and innovative designs.
* not trying to tell anyone how to suck eggs, just trying fill in a bit for those who don't know shipbuilding
Maybe it is not envisioned as being part of a CSG. Who knows at this present point in time.