US Navy launch Zumwalt class Destroyer

[Paul Bradley]

He should have enough command experience to be the first captain of this in 2025....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-80)

Aaarrrgghhh - it keeps dropping the final ) from the link so it doesn't link properly. Should link to the Wikipedia CVN-80page...

Edited October 31, 2013 by Paul Bradley

[Alan P]

It's actually more of a warship than any nation has made in the last 40 years. Whatever you think it looks like, it's going to be something you'll really want in your NATO task force for the next 30.

Al

[paganpete]

Too right! I would prefer to have her on my side than against; over 30 knots speed easily, and quite possibly railguns and electron free laser arms in the future -shame they are only commissioning 3 of them!

1;350 scale please.

Pete

[Shar2]

The Zumwalt build is coming along nicely. Some good pics here.

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/06/zumwalt-ddg-1000-the-future-is-nearly-here/

[Max Headroom]

Am I the only one thinking to paint it in a dazzle scheme?

Trevor

[Mike Esposito]

It looks like a real dogs dinner and actually makes the Type 45 look menacing and purposeful.

Ugly has found itself a new definition.

Really? I think it looks way better than the type 45. Edited July 7, 2015 by Mike Esposito

[Rickpadwick1801]

It really is a strange design, according to my fiction preferences this thing and its sister ships are very reminiscent of the USS Cunningham designed by the late American author James Cobb in his Amanda Garrett series of books, right down to the anchor being recessed in the bottom of the hull, electric propulsion, the works.....

[Alan P]

Interesting article HERE which the hi-tech weapons system bashers may find illuminating.

There's a reason that quality is better than quantity when it comes to the technology age. Anyone who buys a bigger, cheaper smart TV over a smaller, but better one these days should know the feeling!

[Mike Esposito]

Interesting article HERE which the hi-tech weapons system bashers may find illuminating.

There's a reason that quality is better than quantity when it comes to the technology age. Anyone who buys a bigger, cheaper smart TV over a smaller, but better one these days should know the feeling!

Great article. Thanks for posting.

Agree completely. Our stupid shortsighted government (Obama) not seeing the Chinese/Russian threats, and trying to save money.

Another foolish cost-saving method was to substitute the 30mm chain gun for the BAE 57mm. Giving the Zums less close in defensive capabilities. http://news.usni.org/2014/08/05/navy-swaps-anti-swarm-boat-guns-ddg-1000s

Oh well. Hope the next administration will see the folly in this.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Mike Esposito

[Alan P]

It's not all civilian bureaucracy - the age-old conflict between air vs gun admirals is still raging at the Pentagon.

Any objective person would recognise that naval gunfire is a faster, safer, more efficient and much cheaper means of putting accurate ordnance on a target than using aircraft. Unfortunately, the USN is dominated by air-mindedness at staff level - it guarantees a large budget share, large personnel requirements and looks very impressive, but most of all air power gives the Navy a stake in future COIN operations for inland wars alongside the USAF. (Since Vietnam, most USAF staffers have recognised that their real enemy is the US Navy!)

You start putting 8-in guns back on warships and these budget-savvy admirals get all skittish. DDG-1000s are getting back to the cruiser concept - large, fast and heavily armed, capable of operating as flagships in any seaborne environment and putting large-calibre shells on sea and land targets worldwide whilst operating with a crew of just 150 sailors. It doesn't make great budget sense in the long term, even if each ship costs $3bn to build - it's a lot cheaper and more efficient to operate compared to a Ford-class carrier and its attendant battlegroup.

No wonder certain sections of the Navy were so glad to give away the Zumwalt despite the massive advantage it offers in today's littoral and scattered warfare environment. The pressure to cancel would have found plenty of help within the Navy's own brass.

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

It's not all civilian bureaucracy - the age-old conflict between air vs gun admirals is still raging at the Pentagon.

Any objective person would recognise that naval gunfire is a faster, safer, more efficient and much cheaper means of putting accurate ordnance on a target than using aircraft.

...provided the target us within gunnery range if the coast, maybe. Oh, and even then you need a means of targeting your long-range gun accurately, which almost certainly means some sort of flying machine (manned or not), because real-time satellite targeting (OK in theory) isn't reliable enough for enough of the time.

Ironically, your post sounds exactly like a mirror image of the sort of thing that was being said a century ago: "any objective person would recognise that air power is the future and heavy gun ships have had their day, but the RN (in those days!) is dominated by gunnery officers at staff level, and they want their big boys' toys etc.".

It's not an either/or game; you need BOTH surface and air power, because that maximises your flexibility. There are dozens of examples in history of pundits who said how "obvious" it was that <technology/tactic x> was the only game in town for future wars, and who proved to be entirely wrong. Putting all your eggs in one basket - any basket - is foolish unless your crystal ball is a lot more effective than all previous models.

[Alan P]

Sigh. Of course I didn't mean ditch all naval aircraft in favour of battleships. For crying out loud, I'm not crazy! I'm just pointing out that until DDG-1000, no new naval ship had guns bigger than 5" calibre, and usually single mounts. Essentially, we have put all our eggs in the air basket.

The loss of heavy naval artillery has not helped in some modern conflicts, and its application would have had a very significant effect on the Falklands War, for example. At least as significant as the presence of the Ark Royal. Actions in Libya and Syria would have benefited from it at much lower cost than air power alone. That's the real point.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Brokenedge

[hacker]

interesting. looks like the bow was put on upside down ( reminds me of bows of early battleships) and it seems to be a cross between a sub and a destroyer. Question is is it effective?

[Aeronut]

it seems to be a cross between a sub and a destroyer

I believe the term they use to describe craft like these is 'wave piercing bows', so yes at times it will look like a sub. Its designed to 'take it green over the bows'.

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

The loss of heavy naval artillery has not helped in some modern conflicts, and its application would have had a very significant effect on the Falklands War, for example. At least as significant as the presence of the Ark Royal.

I have no wish to get into a squabble with you, or with anyone.

However, I fought in the Falklands War, and I can assure you that in this, at least, you are talking nonsense. Naval Gunfire Support from heavier guns might have made some difference in the speed of winning the land battle, sure - but equally, it might also simply have made deeper holes in the peat. I am not aware of any single incident in the land campaign in 82 where a heavier weight of shell would have made a decisive difference.

The war could have gone either way, but had the Brits lost it, it would have had absolutely nothing to do with shore bombardment that was too flimsy, and everything to do with unsustainable ship attrition at the end of a monstrously long supply chain. Airborne Early Warning and CAP with longer legs than the Sea Harrier (brilliantly though it did), not to mention BVR weapons, would have made a vast difference; the Argentine attackers would have had much greater difficulty in pressing home their attacks inshore (or even reaching the target area at all unscathed) and the carrier group would have been able to sit that much further East for much of the time, thus reducing the AM-39 threat (so Atlantic Conveyor far less likely to have been lost, which in turn would have transformed the land campaign because we wouldn't have lost almost all our heavy lift helos in one disastrous afternoon).

In short, with Ark the entire war would have been different, whereas a few ships with 6 or 8" (or even 15", for that matter) guns would not have had anything like the same effect.

[Alan P]

Fair enough (I could do with a bigger hole in the peat to hide in right now!)

Not arguing with anything written previously, in fact I feel very much put in my place! Just my wandering mind, however....! 1982 happened to be the year that the USS New Jersey was recommissioned in the USN. I still think the Marines and Paras would have been very happy if the battles for Stanley had seen 1500lb HE shells raining down on the ridge tops for three hours before they went up them.

On the other side, I don't think we'd have risked the diplomatic fallout by sinking the Belgrano (in violation of our own rules of engagement) if she had been a frigate or destroyer, rather than an armoured cruiser armed with 15 x 6-in guns. No-one likes the threat of big guns, which is why I'm very happy to see a couple of them on the DDG-1000s.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Brokenedge