Home » Budget Industry » Zumwalt Destroyer Leaves Bath Iron Works for Builder’s Trials


Zumwalt Destroyer Leaves Bath Iron Works for Builder’s Trials

Destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is underway on Dec. 7, 2015. US Navy Photo

Destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is underway on Dec. 7, 2015. US Navy Photo

The guided missile destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-1000) left today for a final set of builder’s trails ahead of an expected delivery to the U.S. Navy next month, a spokeswoman with the service told USNI News on Monday.

The ship left the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipyard in Maine, down the Kennebec River to the Atlantic Ocean for the builders trails ahead of additional tests once the ship is fully in the possession of the service.

“DDG-1000 departed Bath, Maine, today to conduct builder’s trials, during which many of the ship’s key systems and technologies will be demonstrated including on the Advanced Induction Motor (AIM), Integrated Propulsion System (IPS), Boat Handling and auxiliary systems,” read the statement from Capt. Thurraya Kent.
“In addition to systems testing, the Navy-industry team will be conducting numerous operational demonstrations in preparation for Acceptance Trials in April, as well as crew familiarization and counterpart training in support of crew certification, sail away milestones and commissioning October 15, 2016.”

The ship left its pier for the first time in December for a short set of sea trials.

The ship is expected to deliver to the service in April with the completion of its hull, mechanical and electrical systems (HM&E) ahead of a transit to California where the ship will be outfitted with its combat system and sensors.

Constructing and testing Zumwalt’s complicated integrated power system – which use the ship’s gas turbines and diesel generators to power a complex electrical grid inside the ship instead of a direct mechanical connection to the ship’s props – has taken more time than expected and the schedule has slipped past its expected delivery date.

BIW is currently building three of the ships as part of a $22 billion program for the class and well the restarted Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers (DDG-51).

Saving the combat system upgrade for San Diego was a decision the Navy made to free up manufacturing space at the Maine yard, USNI News understands.

  • old guy

    Maybe this blog has some desirable affect. For years I have been citing the fact that the DD1000 capsized in the DTNSRDC TURNING BASIN TESTS, DUE TO A STUPID TUMBLEHOME HULL, WHICH REDUCED ITS RIGHTING MOMENT AS IT ROLLED. As I viewed the picture I believe they have eliminated the tumblehome idiocy. I hope I’m right.

    • Ctrot

      I don’t know what picture you’re seeing, but she still has a tumblehome hull.

      • old guy

        Thanks, I guess it was just wishful thinking

      • Not to worry – balsa wood floats.

      • Secundius

        ALL NAVAL SHIP’S are “Tumblehome” Designed, It’s just a Matter of Visual Perception that Separate How We View Them…

        • Ctrot

          No, they are not.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            The First “Tumblehome’s” were Bireme’s and Trireme’s of Ancient Greek and Roman design’s. Invert a Arleigh Burke, and you get a “Tumblehome”. A Tumblehome, is basically a Bowed-In or Bowed-Out Hull Design. As I said, a Matter of “Visual Perception”

          • Ctrot

            I know what tumblehome is.

            All naval ships are NOT tumblehome designed as you claimed.

          • Secundius

            @ Ctrot.

            Believe What You Want, Then…

          • Ctrot

            Are you nuts? Tumblehome is a specific design style of hull; your claiming that all naval vessel hulls are “tumblehome” is the same as someone claiming that all naval vessels have catamaran hulls.

            If all naval vessels were already utilizing tumblehome hull design why would the DDG-1000’s use of tumblehome be a point of contention?

            Disqus, please add an “ignore” feature so I hide the posts of those who insist on posting lunacy.

          • old guy

            NAH, that would take the fun out of it.

          • old guy

            CORRECT. I don’t know of ANY ships, other than some squat barges that have a tumblehome.

          • Secundius

            All Wooden Sailing Ship’s produced in 17th, 18th and 19th Century were Tumblehome design’s. Birene’s and Trirene’s were Tumblehome design’s. Ship’s with a 45(deg) Inward or Outward Hull Plan are Tumblehome design’s. Canoe’s are Tumblehome design’s…

          • old guy

            SORRY, you proved our point. Canoe vs. rowboat.

          • old guy

            NO, tumble home is when the deck’s beam is narrower than the waterline beam.

          • old guy

            Tumblehume of sailing ships has much less effect due to big keels and/or lots of ballast in the bilge, making a BIG KG

        • old guy

          ABJECT NONSENSE. You show me 1 (ONE) ship with a narrower deck beam than the waterline beam and I will apologize. The abortion of the CV-41 added “sponsons”, which were put on to increase its displacement proves the point ,spectacularly. Ask anyone who had to handle an A/C on it, after the mod. I had the job to correct it.

    • publius_maximus_III

      Seems like the unusual “reverse draft” tapering of the hull from traditional naval architecture places more of that hull below the waterline than above it, with an overall center of buoyancy lower down, too. I would think that would make the design incredibly stable against capsizing. What am I missing?

      • old guy

        Au contraire, What you say is true for squat barges and the like, but high L/B ships have very tight Pk (the distance between the center of gravity and the center of buoyancy). In a regular ship the offset righting moment INCREASES with roll (stable). In a tumblehome, it DECREASES with roll,(unstable). Ask any naval architect.

        • RobM1981

          We’ve all seen that, and the thought has certainly crossed everyone’s mind. Given the F35, LCS and other such things it’s getting harder and harder not to ask “what were they thinking?” but this time I really have to think… they can’t be THAT dumb, can they?

          • old guy

            Wanna bet? In other posts I wrote in detail of the desire to reduce the radar cross-section, which is a laudable objective…..25 years ago. Today, with satellite wake and bio-lumenascence tracking, autonomous missile targeting and laser designation, it is a futile effort.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Decades ago you saw these things in the naval proceedings. Now they have come to fruition as those youngins took command. Highly impractical solutions to real world problems.

        • publius_maximus_III

          Dear old guy,

          This is definitely outside my area of expertise. But I will try to reconcile what you are saying with what my gut is saying. For my attempt, please refer to a diagram in the Wikipedia article on Metacentric height.

          Let’s assume a very simple hull transverse cross-section shape — a wide rectangle, so that the “G” or center of gravity is simply at the intersection of the rectangle’s two diagonals. The “B” or center of buoyancy is the centroid of a smaller rectangle formed by the waterline, the hull’s two sides and the bottom — in other words it is the center of gravity of the water being displaced by the hull.

          The third point of interest “M” or metacenter lies along a vertical line drawn between the “G” and “B” points, when the ship is not listing to one side or the other. The vertical location of “M” cannot be determined yet from this neutral position, however. So assume the ship is tilted to one side using cables or jacks (-not- by using non-central weights, which would move the “G” position off center, too). Or better yet, do it using a scale layout on a piece of paper or computer screen.

          The hull shape and weight has not changed, so the “G” location remains unchanged relative to the structure’s contour. But as seen in the diagram at the top of the Wiki article, the “B” location has swung off center from the structural axis of symmetry, because the displaced water shape is no longer a rectangle but is now a trapezoid (the two parallel sides of the hull, the bottom of the hull, and the water line, which is no longer parallel with the bottom of the hull).

          Now from this new tilted hull position, the “M” metacenter vertical location can finally be determined by projecting a vertical line through the new “B” off-center location until that line intersects the structure’s axis of symmetry. “M” is at the intersection.

          In terms of forces, the upward vertical force (buoyancy) acting through point “B” must exactly equal the downward vertical gravity force (weight) acting through “G”. In the diagram, you can see the direction of rotation caused by the couple created by these two offset opposing forces would be a righting moment, opposing the direction of the initial hull rotation. This means that such a displacement would automatically be countered and corrected. Stability achieved!

          Now what happens when the hull shape changes from a wide rectangle to a trapezoid with the same area and height? Well for one thing, it seems like the vertical location of “G” would be lowered relative to the bottom of the hull. And that, to me, seems inherently more stable, since it is the opposite of what you would achieve if you started increasing the weight above the waterline, say by adding a very high superstructure or stacking a bunch of cargo containers above it.

          The initial shape of the displaced water for this new trapezoid shaped hull would also be a trapezoid, a subset of the hull’s contour with three sides the same and the fourth side the waterline. So “B” would also be lower in the water than with the rectangular shape. But if you look at the right side of the diagram, you can see that moving “G” and “B” further down their respective axes from “M” makes their offset increase in the horizontal direction, which creates an even larger righting moment (F-times-d) than before, because of the increased horizontal distance between the two opposing vertical forces – thus, even GREATER stability has been achieved!

          …Or so it seemed in our ancient Roman galleys. “RAMMING SPEED — boom, boom, boom, boom — crunch.”

          Speaking of which: William F. Buckley, Jr. liked to come into port under sail, instead of dropping sail and motoring in like everybody else. The first time he attempted such a feat, he took out a substantial section of dock, not to mention the damage to his yacht’s hull. You see, there’s no “reverse engine” while under sail. After the incident, he became affectionately known to his crew as Captain Crunch.

          Regards,
          publius_maximus_III
          (Landlubber)

          • old guy

            Great analysis, but it really is simpler than that. The righting moment is the the horizontal distance from the center of gravity to the center of buoyancy. In a ROLL, a conventional design this distance INCREASES with a consequent increase in righting moment. STABLE. With a tumblehome this distance DECREASES with a consequent reduction in righting moment. UNSTABLE. In the case of the DD1000 this was sufficient to allow it to capsize in a turn.

          • publius_maximus_III

            An extreme example of an unstable hull shape would be that of a round log. Its center of buoyancy would always be directly beneath its CG, so there would never be a righting moment whenever you “tilted” its vertical axis, it would just roll… and roll… and roll. You could never achieve a horizontal distance between those two opposing vertical lines of action, gravity downward and buoyancy upward. Hence the lumberjack log rolling contest.

            The further you get from that highly unstable round shape, say a rectangle… or even better, a trapezoid, the more horizontal distance you gain between the vertical axes passing through “G” and “B” points when the axis of symmetry tilts sideways. Think about it this way. A ship’s ballast is placed at the very bottom of the hull, not up on the deck. That way, it shifts the CG of the hull lower than it would be without any ballast. The trapezoidal shape does something similar, more metal further from the water’s surface.

            Throwing in the moment from a lateral inertial force during a turn adds to the forces trying to capsize a hull, true. But it does so regardless of the shape of the hull.

          • old guy

            Right. A cylindrical or square crass-section (or spherical or cubical) body has neutral roll stability because the C.G. and the C.B. are co-located.

          • publius_maximus_III

            Not to be too picky, old guy, but I need to correct two of your points.

            A square cross-section, although symmetric about a point (it’s CG) just like a circular section is, is not as “unstable” as that circular cross-section. If the square cross-section is partially submerged, the weight of water displaced by its submerged rectangular cross-section below the water line equals its weight. It has a CB that is directly below and vertically in line with, but not co-located with, that CG.

            Now tilt that square cross-section a little to one side and that rectangle of displaced water becomes a trapezoid of displaced water, with a CB shifted off-center from the CG, thus providing a restorative couple or moment, at least up to a point. Tilt it too far, and it does get unstable and keeps going. I’m thinking of the case where the square looks like a diamond, with the waterline parallel to one of its diagonals, when the CB would once again be directly underneath the CG. Not sure exactly where that transition would be.

            The only time a cylindrical cross-section’s CG and CB would be co-located is if the weight of the cylinder was exactly equal to the water its entire cross-section displaced (waterline tangent to the top of the log). But for such a water-logged log, you could not have a lumberjack contest, because the instant Paul Bunyan stepped onto it, both he and the log would go to the bottom.

          • old guy

            You are absolutely correct on the first part, but not the second. The two are always collocated or they would not roll so easily when the relatively small addition of the logger’s weight moves the CG up.

          • publius_maximus_III

            For a round section, either partially or completely submerged, the CG and CB are always vertically in line. That’s what makes the log roll easily, you cannot get a lateral shift between the two to generate a righting moment. The only time they are collocated (I’m assuming you mean coincident by this term) is if the log is fully submersed, so that the log cross-section and the shape of the water being displaced are identical.

          • old guy

            Not so, try it. All equal dross section bodies from square to circular have co-located CG & CB

          • publius_maximus_III

            Yes so, take a round cross-section “hull” (log), half submerged, as an example. The hull cross-section shape is a circle, the displaced water cross-section shape is a semi-circle. The CG of the circle lies on its diameter, the CG of the semi-circle does not.

          • old guy

            Yes it does. If it were lower, it would auto-rotate. Perpetual motion. Try it. Have fun.

          • publius_maximus_III

            A Center of Gravity (CG) and Center of Buoyancy (CB) can lie along the same vertical line of action and at the same time not be coincident, although they -could- be coincident in the waterlogged log example I cited earlier. Since the two opposing forces (weight and buoyancy) are always acting along the same line of action regardless of the log’s orientation, they can impart no torque to the round log. It is the spikes and the lateral force imparted by them by the logger’s feet that causes a log to roll, and also to stop rolling, not the “perpetual motion” myth.

            By the way, the U.S. Patent Office stopped accepting invention disclosures for perpetual motion machines without a working model years ago.

          • old guy

            Kidding you for your statement. I’ll try again. But first, a rolling log will stop due to 2 forces,
            1. water friction
            2. boundary layer water pick up on the roll up side moving the CG up.

            A Bi-axi-symetric cross section body (any polygon from square up to circle has co-located vertical CG and CB. This does NOT change with submersion. I know this may be difficult to picture but it is correct. That is why we can determine both and the displacement, by an inclining experiment.

          • publius_maximus_III

            I, too, will try once again.

            Check out the Wikipedia article “Buoyancy” and within it find the subtopic “Stability” which very clearly states that the Center of Buoyancy is the centroid of the displaced volume of fluid. Now if the axisymmetric body is a regular polygon (equilateral triangle, square, pentagon, …n-gon) or an infinite-gon, i.e. a circle, and that body is -completely- submersed, then the shape of the body and the shape of the displaced water are exactly the same, so it’s CG and the centroid of the displaced fluid are indeed one and the same location.

            But… if such a body is only partially submerged, as is the case with most surface vessels while still afloat, inclined or not, then the centroid of the displaced fluid is not “co-located” with the CG, as you’ve asserted without any authoritative reference or convincing logic.

            Please study the diagram in this Stability section of the Wiki article. It shows the same center of buoyancy for both the initially tilted stable and unstable illustrations (top row). That’s because the CB, which is a function only of the displaced water volume and shape, is unaffected by the changes which made the ship unstable — increasing the CG of the mass to an elevation higher than that of the CB.

            This “tumblehome” mythology must be debunked once and for all. Again, I am only a layman and not a naval architect, but I do hope one of the latter someday reads this thread and wades in.

            I do agree a rolling log gathers no moss.

          • old guy

            But respectful argument is instructional.

          • old guy

            NO, In a homogenious material body, like a log, they are ALWAYS coincidental.

          • publius_maximus_III

            Throws up hands in exasperation, mutters to himself, goes on with his life….

          • old guy

            WRONG, ME, not YOU. In a square cross section the Cb is above the Cg, towards the point, so the body will always float point down, If you roll it slightly it will return. If you roll it more than 45degrees, it will roll to the next point down. The more sides to the polygon (up to a circle,) The closer it is to my statement.

          • publius_maximus_III

            Aye, Sir. It would appear that anytime a ship’s CG winds up ANYWHERE above her CB, even by just a hair, she is headed for a tumble. We’ve both learned something new here, Ancient Mariner Guy. Thanks for the vigorous discussion.

          • old guy

            Intelligent discourse is, invariably, constructive.

  • RobM1981

    If this ship handles as well as designed, and if the propulsion is reliable, and the radar cross section small enough… then perhaps they can get rid of those absurd guns and replace them with VLS’s that turn this into an actual “terror of the sea.” I’d love to see this ship succeed – it really does offer a lot of possibilities, as a platform. Now let’s get it ABM-capable, and put a VLS on it that will be able to accept newer SSM’s and SAM’s. Maybe something that can be replenished at sea, too…

    I think it’s a really good looking ship. I sure hope it’s stable and successful, as a hull.

    • Bill

      Why are the guns “absurd?”

      • RobM1981

        The guns are an interesting “toy,” but their mission is kind of silly: long range shore bombardment. With a range of about 70 miles, the ships would be positioned about 60 miles offshore.

        Why do they have to be so far? Do we really intend on putting our most valuable assets 60 miles from a shore that hasn’t already been neutralized via air power or TLAM’s? Are we really sending the landing craft into that situation?

        What shore are we going to bombard that is too hot to get close too, but not so hot that they have SSM’s that will reach out and hit us from 60 miles?

        Shore bombardment is still valuable. Use an auto-loading 5″ gun with a 15 mile range (or thereabouts), and put it on a Frigate that isn’t so valuable.

        The Zumwalt, by size and other attributes, is our Capital Ship. It should have a terrific Surface and Air Warfare capability. Leave shore bombardment to the small guys.

        If we are really that concerned about shore bombardment, maybe we should build a modern but inexpensive gun-based heavy cruiser – complete with armor.

        • El_Sid

          With a range of about 70 miles, the ships would be positioned about 60 miles offshore.

          If they wanted to bombard something 10 miles inland. But where would you put your frigate if you wanted to bombard something 60 miles inland?

          What shore are we going to bombard that is too hot to get close too, but
          not so hot that they have SSM’s that will reach out and hit us from 60
          miles?

          Syria’s an example of somewhere that the US does not want to put boots on the ground, but which it would still like to beat up some. Being able to hit targets 70 miles inland that don’t need a $1m Tomahawk would be a useful capability. And the Hanit found out that even non-state actors in that region can possess Silkworms.

          Leave shore bombardment to the small guys.

          Yet the USN had lots of people telling them to “leave shore bombardment to the battleships”…. Trouble is that small combatants don’t have the combination of rate of fire and magazine depth that something like the Zumwalt offers.

          • RobM1981

            Hi. What are we bombarding 60 miles inland? Why not use air power for that? Or land the Marines and have them take it.

            It’s not that I can’t think of a use for a 70 mile ranged naval rifle, it’s just that I can think of many better uses for that space on such a large ship.

            If the Zumwalt’s had even 50% of that space re-purposed for a VLS that can handle everything – including the ABM Standard and whatever new SSM we come up with – I think it would be a much more valuable asset.

          • El_Sid

            Why not use air power for that?

            1) Cost
            2) Air power might not be available – qv recent carrier gaps in the Gulf, or the lack of carriers in Sixth Fleet
            3) It might not be Afghanistan, air supremacy is not guaranteed, the enemy get a say. The RQ-170 over Iran proves that drones are not immune to enemy action, and you’ve seen over Syria the problems caused by even weak air defences. Then scale up to the air defences of a peer enemy. It’s not just the direct effect on materiel, you also have the political implications of pilots getting captured like Gary Powers or Muath Al-Kasasbeh.

            I’m not saying air power doesn’t have a place, obviously it does, but there are real benefits from having other options.

            Or land the Marines and have them take it.

            Again, the enemy has a vote. There were plenty of targets in North Vietnam that the Marines would like to have taken – but they couldn’t despite an all-out effort. Imagine trying to destroy the Thanh Hoa bridge with landpower.

            Plus the politicans are pushing towards stand-off action and away from (officially declared) boots on the ground – Libya and Syria are good examples of this.

            If the Zumwalt’s had even 50% of that space re-purposed for a VLS that can handle everything

            It already has a VLS that can fire $1.8m Tomahawks. 80 of them. They’re great for big fixed targets, but they’re an incredibly wasteful way to do fire support. IIRC one of the AGS requirements was to destroy x% of an armoured column of y units. That’s the kind of support that is very important to a grunt on the ground, but which Tomahawk is not well suited to.

            Plus even your “repurposing” would only add a few dozen Tomahawks – and once those are fired the ship has to retire back to a land base to replenish them. In the Pacific that can mean weeks away from the front line. Compare with a magazine of 920 shots and the ability to UNREP – it solves one of the big problems with VLS in the Pacific.

            Then there’s cost. TacTom is $1840k/round in the FY16 budget, Excalibur is being delivered for <$70k/round, BAE are talking about ~$50k/round for the AGS projectiles. SDB is about $70k/round, but then you have to add on $50k/hour for the aircraft, $20k/hour for tanker support and so on.

            So you can have around 36 gun rounds for the cost of one Tomahawk. That means you either attack 36 targets for the price of one, or you can have 36 opportunities to get through the defences (albeit with a much smaller bang if you do get through, but that may be good enough for a mission kill).

            Don't get me wrong, I don't think the AGS is some kind of wonder weapon, but it has a place in the team.

          • RobM1981

            Remember, for shore bombardment we pick the time and place. The usmc isn’t landing ad hoc.

            We’d have air supremacy, or we wouldn’t land.

  • publius_maximus_III

    It’s is a very impressive looking ship, just think it’s wrong to call it a “destroyer” — if for no other reason than its E-e-e-uge displacement compared to that of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burkes. How about a new class, Death Star — DS-1000?

    • El_Sid

      There’s a perfectly good existing classification, the BM series of monitors that ended in BM-10 Wyoming.

      • publius_maximus_III

        The floating citadel does look a bit constipated, Rodrigo.

  • Secundius

    It CAN’T Be a Stealth Test, New England Boater Magazine, SHOW’s so many Exposed Navigational Radar Antenna’s and Exposed Rigging on the Ship. That Simple Civilian Grade Marine Radar could Pick-It-Up from 48nmi Out…

  • Murray

    I’m curious why this class are classified as DDGs. My understanding is that they were designed to replace the long departed Iowa class BBs as gunfire support ships. Shouldn’t the correct classification be CGHM?

    • John B. Morgen

      No. It should be refer as a CGH; you don’t need the M for missile because the G refers to guided missile. Why say it twice?

    • Secundius

      No Really! What the Iowa class Battleship was akin to the Bombardment Ship of the 18th-19th Century. The Zumwalt class Guided-Missile Destroyer, is to a Post Cold-War Arsenal Ship…

  • John B. Morgen

    That is one [gold plated] warship, I hope the tax payers get their monies’ worth. The class needs to be reclassify as a cruiser [frigate], and not as a so-called destroyer.

  • AKPatriot

    Politics is the sport of the Military-Industrial complex. Goodnight and Good Luck

    • old guy

      GO TRUMP!!!

  • KillerClownfromOuterspace

    Remind me again when this ship was suppose to be delivered? Nine years to get to builder’s trials????

    • old guy

      WHADDAYA’ IMPASHUNT, er SUMPIN’? It takes a LOOONG time to milk a low ball bid contract into a big profit naker.

      • KillerClownfromOuterspace

        That bid was never low ball. It was the most expensive way to create the most expensive ship. The navy paid cost plus for the design and cost plus for the construction.

        • old guy

          I believe that we are now 150,000,000 over the original estimate. I hear that the contract is a non-sharing overrun pay, and not a fixes fee. Is that wrong?

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            Which estimate?

            Cumulative change from FY2009 budget submission (all three hulls)
            +3,761.1 (+41.9%)

            Cost growth avgs about 30% growth each year so who knows.

          • old guy

            THANK YOU. I PLAYED A SMALL ROLE IN REDUCING THE NUMBER OF DD1000 CLASS AND THE LCS (WHICH I NOW THINK WILL BE LOBBYED BACK IN). Too bad I can’t get commission on the savings. Pardon the caps. I only wanted them for the thanks.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            It’s hard to justify the LCS except on personnel cost and having a “presence”. The problem right now is virtually everything is in follow on construction and the parts that allow the navy to build new ships is starting to die on the vine. It’s one thing to keep the yards working, it’s another to redevelop the initial construction capability.

          • old guy

            The best move would be to STOP building more and use them as replacements for the MSOs.

          • KillerClownfromOuterspace

            They are like the F35 designed to do everything but nothing well. Plus the new mine sweeping gear is still have issues after more than a decade of development.

            I do think LCS 2 offers some benefits due to the flight deck size and cargo deck area. LCS 1 is basically an expensive gun boat without much fire power.

        • Secundius

          I’ve Never Heard of a “Low Ball Bid” on EITHER An Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier or a Nuclear-Powered Submarine of Either Attack/Ballistic Types Before…

          • old guy

            I, respectfully request that you check the cost history of any USN ship, nuclear, non-nuclear or man-powered.

  • OLDNAVYVET

    The only thing this “elephant” needs is a coat of white paint.

    • Secundius

      When it EVER Get’s “Yellowed” to Persian Gulf Duty, it Probably will Get Whitewashed…

    • old guy

      Did you notice that if it were inverted (which the model did in the DTNSRDC turning basin) it would look much better?

  • old guy

    Did i hear someone say,”……and good riddance!”?

  • publius_maximus_III

    Hope it’s on a straight course with no turns, you Tumblehome Naysayers…