Home » Budget Industry » Next Generation Destroyer Zumwalt Delivers


Next Generation Destroyer Zumwalt Delivers

Destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-1000) transits the Atlantic Ocean during acceptance trials with the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV). US Navy Photo

Destroyer Zumwalt (DDG-1000) transits the Atlantic Ocean during acceptance trials with the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV). US Navy Photo

General Dynamics Bath Iron Works delivered the first Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer to the Navy on Friday, Naval Sea Systems Command announced.

The delivery of the 16,000-ton Zumwalt (DDG-1000) optimized for stealth and operations close to shore follows last month’s successful acceptance trials of the ship overseen by the service’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV), Navy officials told USNI News.

INSURV evaluated the ship’s hull, mechanical and engineering (HM&E) systems during the underway testing period last month.

Zumwalt’s crew has diligently trained for months in preparation of this day and they are ready and excited to take charge of this ship on behalf of the U.S. Navy,” said Capt. James Kirk, commanding officer of Zumwalt in a statement. “These are 143 of our nation’s finest men and women who continue to honor Admiral Zumwalt’s namesake with their dedication to bringing this ship to life.”

Now that Zumwalt is delivered, the ship’s crew will move aboard and begin an about four-month training process to operate the ship ahead of the ship’s planned commissioning in Baltimore on Oct. 15.

Following commissioning, the ship will transit to San Diego to complete the combat systems activation in a post-delivery maintenance availability. The move will free up additional space in the BIW yard allowing more room for the construction of other ships at Bath.

Zumwalt is the first hull delivered in the $22 billion, three-ship class. The second and third ships — Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) and Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) – are currently under construction at BIW.

The ships are built around a first-ever electric drive system in which the main engines power an electrical grid instead a direct link to the ship’s props allowing more margin to add additional systems to the ships.The ships’ main weapons are twin 155mm BAE Systems Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) designed to fire a specialized rocket assisted guided round to attack land targets – Lockheed Martin’s Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP).

The ships delivery was delayed by several months — in part — due to an extensive testing schedule to prove out several of the new systems on the ship.

 

  • Earl Tower

    i think the class will prove to be effective, but even more significant it will show what new capacities can be done for ships thanks to new electrical drives and increased power production. Even if the 3 ships never see much mission usage, their very development and existence will have a large impact.

  • sferrin

    If they were smart they’d base the Tico replacement on this hull, and flow right into it after DDG-1002. Guarantee a new hull from scratch ain’t going to be cheaper once all the bells and whistles get added.

  • PolicyWonk

    The title is a bit inaccurate – BIW *delivered* the destroyer, as opposed to the ship delivering.
    Regardless, this ship sailed (pardon the pun) right through its sea trials with very few problems, especially given that she’s a first in class.
    It’ll be interesting to see how the navy decides to deploy her: if she’s deployed with the fleet then that all but negates the advantage of stealth; alone, despite a pretty impressive array of armament, its not enough to be strategically significant. In concert with our SSGN’s, that would combine stealth with a lot of firepower. In support of a sea-borne assault, the advantage of stealth would perhaps be compromised by the assault ships, that are anything but stealthy.
    But if she’s successful, then I’d see the Zumwalt’s being used as the basis for a whole new class of destroyers or cruisers, along the same lines as the SSN example of the Seawolf class (3 boats) and the Virginias.

    • sferrin

      The original plan, all the way back to when it was DD-21, had been to follow up the destroyer with a cruiser based on the same hull, much like the Spruance/Ticonderoga classes. (Still wish they’d have based the Ticos on the Virginia hull though.) They killed the CG-21/CG(X) idea though because the price of the Zumwalts kept climbing. (They’re ever shocked that when they cut numbers costs climb. You’d think they’d have figured that out by now.) I suspect that when they look at the costs of a new cruiser hull, both from a time and dollar perspective, the notion of using the already-in-production Zumwalt hull will regain it’s appeal.

      • PolicyWonk

        Precisely why I speculated that if the Zumwalt (and her sisters) are successful, a new destroyer/cruiser class will emerge, using many of the design concepts, etc.

        Cheers.

        • sferrin

          I would hope they would use more than just some of the design features. I’d hope they’d keep it as close as reasonably possible to the same ship with the primary differences being in sensors, computers, staffing, and contents of the VLS. The original design was arrived at with the intent to move to a cruiser version at some time in the future so the space, power, room for radar arrays, etc. ought to already be in the ballpark.

  • brickman

    Captain James Kirk? What’s his middle name? Tiberius?

    • publius_maximus_III

      “Take her out, Mr. Spock.”

  • MA

    I’ve said it before. We, the U.S. come up with some of the most advanced weapon systems on the planet. Build two or three, decide they cost to much and start all over again. Meanwhile Russia and China come up with something almost as good as ours, mass produce it and have us outnumbered four or five to one.
    Doesn’t do any good to have all the fancy tech if you ain’t going to build enough to matter

    • sferrin

      Haven’t you heard? It’s best to build new, quit when you have to fix bugs with the first units, start over, and quit again after the first units. Eventually a miracle will happen and you’ll be able to build a cutting edge design and everything will solve itself and the program will run flawlessly.

    • Inflatable Bloke

      Why waste money on a peace-time navy? Focus on R&D, conserve resources, then ramp up production when the time comes. Flash conflicts are not resolved by numbers, whereas large scale conflicts are won with industrial capacity, manpower and national resolve.

      • old guy

        Good idea, if it is driven by areal, graded plan of countering each potential level of adversary.

    • old guy

      AHA, you are out of order defying SWIPE (Shipyard Welfare Investment Program, Expensive). Our Congress will never accept Adm Gorshkov’s, Better is the enemy of good enough.” while there’s campaign money and lobbyists around.

    • GM323

      Sadam Hussein’s thousands and thousands of Russian tanks did a great job against the hundreds of US M1 Abrams didn’t they.

  • Banderas

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. America should mass produce this hull/ship class. I understand there were legitimate concerns regarding to this hull, and whether it’ll capsize; but capt Kirk debunked that belief, and has praised its stability. We’ve spent billions on its research, and now is the time to reap what we’ve sown. I truly believe that this line of ships has the potential to replace three different ship classes; the Cruiser, Destroyer, and Iowa class Battleship. Building one common hull/platform being used across 3 specialized variants can really drop the manufacturing costs in full rate production. Especially since the production line is still hot, and all the kinks/obsticles have been ironed out from the first 3 ships that will be built. This design should be future proof for a respectable amount of time, taking into consideration all of its new technology, cross section reduction enhancements, and most importantly power generation for all of the energy intensive technology that is going to be implemented in the very near future. Specifically the AMDR radar, energy directed weapons, and railguns.

    • Colin Campbell

      I would use it as a battlecruiser. It would be a waste to use it as a destroyer and in lacks the missile capacity to replace a cruiser. However as a capital ship leading it’s own battlegroup – it would be outstanding.

      • d810_shooter

        Replace the 2nd 155mm AGS with a bunch of VLS modules and there will be a lot of missile capacity… tie the AMDR to the Aegis system and the ship is now basically the CG21 folks has been asking for??

        • sferrin

          You can’t fill the cells you have, what’s adding more going to get you? I would develop the KEI-sized cells they were going to have though. Not all cells would be that big, but the ones in place of the aft 155mm gun would have been. The current Mk57 is too small for many things one might want to do.

          • Banderas

            Well that’s just the thing, I believe all the peripheral cells are MK 57 modules for a total of 80 something. For a cruiser variant, most people would say that isn’t enough. Therefore, removing both 155 AGS for more VLS, especially bigger ones like the KEI cells you mentioned would indeed greatly increase its missile capacity, and make it a suitable CG replacement. Hence why I was calling it a variant. Some structural design revisions would need to be made, but I still think it would make an acceptable TICO replacement. Which therefore leads back to my original point, mass produce this hull and ship class to make it as cheaply as possible. Then replace three different ship classes with one hull over 3 variants. That should save us an extraordinary amount of money; especially since this ship has been engineered to sail with such a small crew compliment.

          • sferrin

            “Well that’s just the thing, I believe all the peripheral cells are MK 57 modules for a total of 80 something.”

            Two SM-2s can fit in each cell. And, as I said, they can’t even fill the cells they already have. What’s adding more going to get you?

          • Ken N

            “”Two SM-2s can fit in each cell.””

            Says who???

        • old guy

          Now THAT”S a great idea. See Colon above for the antithesis.

      • Banderas

        Well in its current iteration/loadout it replaces the Iowa Class battleship since the 155 AGS’s are best suited for ground fire support, and surface bombardment. Then in the future, upgrade the AGS’s to rail guns.
        However, aside from its main armament, it’s been designed more as a destroyer with its anti submarine warfare suite, ballistic missile guidance, helicopter hanger (lamps), and rear deploying dock. Combined with its cross section reduction enhancements, It’s therefore suited to acting autonomously, and not being part of a carrier group like a cruiser. However, to make a true destroyer variant, they should remove 1 or both of the dual 155 AGS launchers, and give it the mark 64 cannon, and probably a pair of phalanxes on the back. Then in the future, upgrade them to HVP cannons on the front, and energy directed weapons on the back.
        For the cruiser variant, get rid of both AGS cannons and jam that entire section full of VLS launchers to compliment the peripheral launchers, and of course compliment them with some energy directed weapons on the back.

        • Colin Campbell

          I’d say replace both turrets with railguns and you have an attack range that is similar to missiles. Only the ship can fire hundreds of rounds. If the ship starts an over the horizion attack – then the railgun rounds would simply overwhelm the defenses.

          And this means that the enemy will be using their limited supply of $1+ million dollar missiles to stop a $20,000 shell that we have hundreds of.

          IMO the railgin will be the real game changer.

          • Banderas

            For the battlecruiser/ship variant I wholeheartedly agree. As a matter of fact, admiral Fanta has ordered that the DDG-1002 be equipped with the rail gun prototype for testing. Therefore exciting times are upon us, and if the rail gun is as effective as we all hope it is, the Zumwalt class is the only ship that we have that can generate enough power to use it.
            For the destroyer variant however, they typically have some kind of forward firing cannon. Perhaps they can do 1 HVP cannon up front, 1 rail gun in slot 2, and dual lasers on the back.
            If they can perfect the rail gun to act more as a turret rather than artillery, then have solid HVP rounds for a rail gun turret up front, and as many VLS in slot 2 as possible; since there are many out there that think of destroyers more as missile beds now. That’s the thing about destroyers now, so many shoes to fill, so little space to add all the tools you need. The destroyer variant would therefore need to be the most customizable variant. The cruiser and battleship variants are pretty straightforward.

          • old guy

            Great idea, if this was the year 1910.

          • old guy

            May I assume that your response is sent from Colorado, where the recent acceptance of cannabus has led to an usual rise in euphoria?

          • Colin Campbell

            The adults are talking. Please go play with the other children.

      • sferrin

        You can fit 2 SM-2s in EACH cell. Hardly lacking in cells.

        • Ken N

          That’s news to me. Got a link??

          • sferrin

            Heard it from another source sometime ago. Trying to find a decent shot of an SM-2 with it’s fins folded though. Just threw the cell-size and SM-3 diameters in a CAD program and it looks. . .unlikely. Without a good shot of the wings folded though can’t confirm that it’s possible, or rule it out.

          • Ken N

            Yeah..as far as I know only the quad packed ESSM’s are loaded into Mk41 and Mk 57 VLS. Everything else is single shot…

      • old guy

        I know where you can get some 3- 16″ gun turrets cheap.

    • JeffinCarlsbad

      Oops

    • old guy

      MAN,

      I don’t know what you’re smoking’ but if you are REALLY in the know you are aware that the DD1000 model ROLLED OVER in a turn at DTNSRDC. The popular name is “USS FLOPOVER.”

      • Will Johnston

        I don’t know anything about any of this, but when I read your two comments, “RAILGUN don’t work!” and “ROLLED OVER”, I thought big problems!

        But, then I see comments continue below as if nothing was said???

        • sferrin

          His posts pretty much speak for themselves. I.e. they don’t line up with facts or common sense.

          edit: I jumped the gun here. Apologies.

          • old guy

            Please explain me the TECHNICAL facts and the common sense, NOT the advertising. These ideas are as great as LEHMAN’s to waste 3.5 BIGABUCKS reactivating the 4 IOWA class battleships by putting armored box launchers on them which broke when they fired 9-16″ guns off of Tongue of the Ocean in 1984.
            One of Bill Clinton’s smartest moves was to cancel the program in his first week in office…

          • sferrin

            You state that railguns don’t work while both General Atomics and BAE have working railguns RIGHT NOW. So either you haven’t kept up or you are confusing things. I think you’re thinking of coilguns. Both use electricity to make the projectile move but they do so in COMPLETELY different ways.

          • old guy

            I did not say they didn’t work, I said they were of no use. GA and BAE are just following the money. Do you remember Bell/Textron getting 25+ million dollars to develop MHD propulsion after seeing it in a movie and hearing that a Japanese gambler was using it in a racing boat (it wound up making about 5 KTS)?
            MHD is Magneto-Hydro-Dynamic. Words great for NaK, but lousy for water.
            Many scientific developments have practical uses. For linear motors it is a great catapult, not so great transport system and not appropriate in areas where a guided missile is most appropriate,

          • sferrin

            MHD was suppose to be the next big thing. IIRC Clancy even had it on the Red October in the book. As I recall there was even speculation that the Mike was suppose to be testing it (before it went TU).

            Why would you say railguns are of no use? I’d think reducing the amount of explosives onboard would be useful. I’d think reducing the amount of space required for magazines would be useful too. Being able to fire rounds multiple times as far as current guns certainly seems useful. So what specifically qualifies them as “of no use”?

          • old guy

            Obviously, you may not have remembered what you read in the book. Clancy had nothing of MHD in the “CATERPILLAR” drive. That was put in the movie due to the screwy Japanese gambler’s boat. Incidentally, that “caterpillar” drive idea is no good because of the large volume of water in it, that increases the displacement and incurs great frictional losses.

          • sferrin

            Could have swore that was in the book. Anyway, yeah, I remember MHD being “the next great thing”, the speculation that maybe Mike was testing it (turned out not to be the case but hindsight is 20/20), and my disappointment at how slow the Japanese boat went that tested it. “Wait, I thought this was suppose to make ships go FAST.” Still waiting for my Mach 4, supercavitating, underwater ramjet powered torpedo too. (See Scientific American “Warp Drive Underwater”). I’m well aware history is littered with failed wonder-weapons but it seems like railguns (not coilguns) are finally starting to deliver. Now while I can think of a lot of disadvantages to them “they have no use” isn’t one of them. Same with lasers.

          • sferrin

            Well “common sense” suggests the USN would have discovered that the Zumwalt design is prone to rolling BEFORE they started building three of them. Considering how long they’ve been looking at it (since DD-21/CG-21) and that they’ve had the subscale swimming around in Idaho. . .well, it beggars belief that they didn’t figure out it’s rolling tendencies before they started building them. That was kind of the point of building the model, no?

          • old guy

            Common Sense is one of the rarest qualities in this town.

          • old guy

            INCREDIBLE, isn’t it. Almost as when they put UNTESTED pontoons
            ( BULGES) on the sides of the CV-41 USS MIDWAY in Yokuska, to raise the ship whose waterline had gone up due to the launch displacement of 43,000 tons going to 71,000 tons. As a result:
            1. The roll period of the ship went from 21 seconds to 12 seconds, making the handling of A/C almost impossible.
            2. The anchors had to be weighed by booms to clear the bulges.
            3. Scupper piped had to be installed to drain the desk and guards installed so they wouldn’t be crushed.
            t got the job to fix it (which my guys did, partially) and we moved it to the MED which had milder wave action.

            DON’T POUT, Check IT OUT>

        • old guy

          Believe me. I was at the Basin on another program when it happened. That is why the buy was cut to the 3 keels, already laid. It has to do with the tumblehome hull design, which reduces, rather than increases the righting moment as it rolls.

          • Joey Joe-Joe Junior Shabadoo

            So, you seen this 600ft, 15,000 tonne behemoth roll over (somehow) and you were working on the rail gun tech in the 70s!

            Busy old bee!

          • old guy

            Let me clear up several things for you:
            1. The MODEL which was being tested at DTNSRDC turning basin, (where ALL ship designs are tested) rolled over in a tight turn. If you have a good Navy test acquaintance, check it out.
            2. I was in charge of Naval Sea System Command Research in the late ’70s and early 80s (now some of you know my identity). Please keep it private. My people INVENTED the DD(X), DD(M),TACS, AALC (now LCAC), PHM, SES, ETC, Railgun and lots more.
            3. I am thoroughly disgusted by the current trend for expensive JUNK, including:
            A. DD1000
            B. LCS (ESPECIALLY THE SEMI-PLANING HULL VERSION)
            C. V-22 (all versions)
            D. new LPD
            E. Project SWIPE (Shipyard Welfare Incentive Program, Expensive)
            F. ALL other Congressional/Lobbyist driven programs.
            The ball is in the court of you younger guys to FIGHT to restore the primacy of our NAVY
            I am almost 89, a WW2 vet (went in just before Hiroshima) and am now working on getting funding to identify the remains, stored in Hawaii, of thousands of WW2 servicemen. You will all soon hear about it, It is a foundation being formed by the son of the only man that flew both atom bombing missions.

          • sferrin

            Assuming you are who you say, maybe you could answer something I’ve always wondered. Why did they ditch the Mk71 8″ gun? That seemed like a slam dunk.

          • old guy

            Damned if I know. There was a Captain (whose name I don’t recall) who had his career cut short for pushing a RAP (Rocket-Assisted Projectile) for guns smaller than 26″. I don’t know if the 8″ was was one of them, but I think that the 5″-54 was.

          • Donald Carey

            The Marine Corps LOVES their Ospreys. Having served with the marines (as a Corpsman), I trust that.

          • old guy

            I have a fair no. of negatives, including those from Jim Jones and Krulak. None later.

          • old guy

            YOU REALLY MUST LEARN HOW TO READ. See below.

      • Banderas

        I’ve never read anywhere that DDG-1000 has ever rolled over, and I’ve been following its construction since before builders trials. I’m not really sure what the DTNSRDC is; but on its maiden voyage after its builders trials Captain Kirk spoke well of its turning rate and stability.
        (Article by DefenseNews called “At Sea Aboard the Zumwalt).
        I’m not aware of DDG-1000 ever having been sailed before both of its builders trials in December 2015.

    • old guy

      RAILGUN don’t work! When my guys developed the concept in 1976. it was evident that the linear magnetic accelerator was most appropriate for an A/C CATAPULT. We assigned the work to the folks at Lakehurst, who have done a great job with it, The “railgun” was NG, but the ETC gun was a tested success.

      • sferrin

        Two completely different technologies. And yes, “RAILGUN work!”.

        • old guy

          You had better review the technologies again. BAE contacted me several years ago to consult/ No go. Linear motors of one kind or another all boil down to a system with a field and an armature. Japanese hovertrains, A/C catapults, rail guns, etc all use the the same principal of an electric motor, straightened out.
          Now, if you talk ETC, (Electro-Thermal-Chemical) gun, that’s a different case.

          • Steve Skubinna

            So I take you are unfamiliar with the documentary film “Eraser?”

            Railguns, mans.

          • old guy

            RAPs, ECMs, ETCs, MWMs, Full House missiles…YES. Railgun…NO.

          • sferrin

            I take it you are unfamiliar with General Atomics or BAE?

          • Steve Skubinna

            Oh, never heard of them. Not in over thirty years DoD service, and a few in between with Vitro.

            What are they, some sort of snack foods?

          • sferrin

            Well, then you should know they both have functioning railguns they’re testing. So why the “Eraser” jackassery?

          • Steve Skubinna

            Jackassery?

            Hmmm. You know, you can hardly spot the stick up your butt from here.

          • sferrin

            Oh, you get called out on it and now you’re going to try the, “what, who me?”

          • Steve Skubinna

            The classic “I know you are but what am I?” riposte. That one never gets old.

            Sorry, not in the mood for pompous lectures from armchair specialists and internet tough guys.

          • sferrin

            Railguns are not linear motors. You’re thinking of coil guns / mass drivers. The fact that both General Atomics and BAE are currently demonstrating functioning railguns is proof they work. A railgun works on completely different principles than coilguns.

    • old guy

      MY CAREER, MY SERVICE, MY COUNTRY!!!!

    • Yes yes spend all money on defence. Screw health, screw infrastructure, screw unemployed people who dont want to work in defence.

      • Banderas

        Believe it or not, I’m not a proponent of increasing defense spending. It’s fine where it is. We already spend so much more then the rest of the world, that there’s no sense in increasing it further. I’d rather spend the already allocated budget better, and more effectively. So how do I propose we do what I suggested and not increase the military budget?
        If we can build this in sufficient numbers, the manufacturing costs will drop significantly. How can we afford this ship? Don’t build anymore flight II or flight III Burkes. They are a waste of money. Also, don’t modernize any of the older Ticos; I believe only 11 Ticos have significant service lives left in them. Just modernize the newer Ticos, or possibly don’t modernize any of them. Instead use the modernization budget on the zumwalt variants. Then, possibly consider building 1 less amphib or carrier, and allocating that money to the zumwalt program as well. Lastly, don’t build that third LCS or San Antonio in FY17, and build one of the Zumwalt variants instead. Then on a per year basis, don’t increase SSN & SSBN production. Instead keep it at 1 SSN and 1 SSBN per year. That should really give the program a good head start. Other things to consider would be to possibly retire that 1 carrier wing that’s been in discussions lately. Then of course, rollover the funds that would be used on the 21st century surface combatant program, to this program instead.

        • old guy

          I disagree with one salient part of your post. The Navy has NEVER had a LEARNING curve. It is more like a FORGETTING curve with each ship of a class costing more than the previous one.

      • Steve Skubinna

        And which of those is responsibility of the federal government, as mandated by the Constitution?

      • old guy

        Apparently, you have not read the ENTITLEMENT part of the budget, most of which is NOT mandated by the Constitution.

  • Southernfriedyankee

    From an ex Navy Radar man 1965 – 1968 DD-715, DD-510, DD-471 It looks like the basic design is working out. Promising design; China and Russia will not be impressed by the fact that we have built 3 ? of them.
    Russia would be impressed knowing that we have four + available in the North Atlantic, two or three in the Mediterranean, and China will note five scattered Zumwalt destroyers around the Pacific, or two, near the Philippines. The LCS classes ARE vulnerable. But as soon as China fires on one damaging it, or sinking it, these ships could be unleashed. Theoretically, if the rail gun can be aimed low enough, it could / would take out a submarine lurking 200 – 400 feet, deep, one or two miles away. (The velocity would be slowed down, as the dart hit the water, but the kinetic energy would still pierce the hull of the submarine)

    • Cocidius

      We most definitely need more than 3. When the Chinese type 55 enters production it will outgun every warship we have other than the Zumwalt which we’ll not have enough of…

      • Banderas

        I’ve also grown quite worrisome of the Chinese type 55. The stupid Arleigh Burke Flight III’s can’t stand up to them. Therefore we’ll find ourselves in a disadvantage in the not too distant future. Which has become yet another reason why I’ve become a proponent of building this ship/hull in mass and over 3 variants. I’ve laid out the details in my lower posts.

      • Ken N

        Nobody really knows the specs on the 55..so how can you even compare??

    • old guy

      BOOLA, BOOLA.

  • Matthew Schilling

    130 crew members on a ship that big? Isn’t it vulnerable to being boarded?

    • old guy

      What the H. if our Riverines can be boarded and captured by a couple of RIBS, why not?

    • Donald Carey

      One of the few advantages of tumblehome is that it makes boarding from another ship alongside more difficult.
      I do feel the ship is very vulnerable to capsizing if it gets underwater damage.

  • chuckiepoo

    doesn’t matter anyway – it will be defunded by the phone and the pen, as soon as politically convenient……

  • Banderas

    Dude, not really sure what your problem is. The rest of the world including Russia and China will continue to modernize their military. In no scenario will America ever stop pursuing the modernization of its own military as well. That’s just become the world we live in after WWII. I’m simply stating what I believe to be the best approach of updating our Navy in as expeditious and cost effective manner as possible. If you want to argue the merits of Utopia with halting the proliferation of arms, or technology; this may not be the forum or website for you.

  • patriot196

    Banderas is right. It does not matter if we stopped having a military all together….the other countries in this world WILL NOT STOP. If anyone else thinks that not having a military, and letting China, Russia, North Korea and others continue to increase military capability then people are absolute fools, living in a “dream world” of utopian, and hippie-like wishful thinking.

  • patriot196

    After the first three ships of this class are commissioned into service and the Navy and Congress are assured of it’s design and capabilities, there will possibly be a call for more. The ship has lower operating costs, and much more capability than an Arleigh Burke. The various types of weapons alone that can be installed and used on this ship are unlimited….modern missiles, lasers, rail guns, and finally a ship that has some good old-fashioned “punch you in the mouth” guns, that can reach out and touch someone like the old Iowa-Class Battleships. I personally am thrilled that we have and will have these ships in our arsenal. I also agree with Banderas, in that after this ship is proven, we should cut back on others and build more of these. we were supposed to have had around 36 of these to begin with, but because of cost they were knocked down to three, but the more you build the lower the cost. One reason for this is the Navy wants numbers, and I can appreciate this, but with capabilities of this ship, some still classified, they will be very formidable and survivable in my opinion. One other thing….I do not mind the class being named after Zumwalt, but this class of ship is really a modern day Battleship not a destroyer, and should have been named as a “Battlecruiser” class. Arm it with surface-to-air missiles, lasers, close-in weapon systems, over-the-horizon anti-surface missiles, anti-submarine weapons, torpedoes, with one 155mm gun and one rail gun……wow, you better watch out.

  • D. J. Perez, CDR USN (Ret)

    What a shame that such a wonderful ship, such a marvel of naval technology, was named after Zumwalt, who only gave us Z-grams and the “salt and pepper” uniforms.

    • Steve Skubinna

      Par for the course. Now the Marines have to ride a ship named for a guy who called them war criminals, MSC gets a ship named for a guy who said his time in the USN were the worst years of his life, and an LCS is named for a Representative who got shot in a parking lot, because apparently they couldn’t find any servicemember who’d died in the line of duty in the past decade.

      At least Zumwalt served with honor, however goofy some of his ideas were. I was commissioned right before the Navy decided to get rid of the bus driver uniform for the E1 through E6.

    • Ed L

      Beards too

  • old guy

    WELCOME, COGENT, COHERENT STATEMENT.

    • chuckiepoo

      i’m guessing neither of the other commenters got past the first snarky (obama-bot) .paragraph…….thanks……. 🙂

      of course, you could be snarking, too……

      • old guy

        I’m not. I always felt that the most apropos expression was,”Grab them by the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow.”

      • Andrew Duff

        I enjoyed your snarky comment.

  • CaptainParker

    A 16,000 ton ship is NOT a destroyer…by any measure. It is actually hard to categorize what this ship is. Maybe a glorified seagoing monitor. And two 155mm guns do NOT replace the firepower of USS Iowa or USS Wisconsin – get real. Call it a battlecruiser if you will. The best role does seem to be that of a task force flagship – but a Ticonderoga class cruiser can do the same job. End of the day…this is another exercise in financial profligacy turning out a vessel which has no definitive mission…but it is a pricey plaything for the admirals to play oneupsmanship with foreign counterparts.

    • old guy

      In other words,”a nose by any other name would still, SMELL!”

  • Banderas

    Thats pretty much the point I’ve been trying to make all along. We’ve already sunk big research dollars into this ship. It’s just come off the line this month, and has the potential to be exactly what we need, especially if we start to specialize this ship for specific missions (thus variants). It is the best candidate to be the next CG(X), and slightly modifying it to do so is still the most cost effective option. It’s magnitudes better than just scrapping the whole project and starting over.

  • Auxiliaryman

    Our country should be building more submarines, period..

  • publius_maximus_III

    I think this photo, showing a long curving wake indicative of completion of a tight 90°-plus turn, was included for the Tumblehome Naysayers.

    Doesn’t the wake seem a little long, though? With nothing around but the ship itself to scale from, seems like too many ship lengths of foam. Or is that just because of speed? Guess it takes a finite amount of time for a wake to dissipate, so the faster the speed, the longer the wake. Is that something that could be used to detect a stealthy ship?

    Will life lines eventually be added to the bow, or is that section of the deck now a restricted area for USN personnel? I don’t see any hatches or doors to get there anyway. Are the anchors hidden inside the hull somewhere? Where’s the refueling connection? Chain locker? Running lights?

  • anonymous

    Damn she’s ugly. But I guess that’s fine as long as the results of her armaments are even uglier.

  • old guy

    Appropriate story.
    Two guys after playing golf go back to the lockers. One says,”Oh, it’s 2 0’clock. I told my wife if I didn’t call by 1:45 I had a ride home. Now I’m stuck.
    His friend says,” Don’t worry. After we shower I’ll take you home.”
    #1 says,”Go ahead, I don’t shower in public.
    #2 says Why not?
    #1 I’m built very small, so people laugh at me.
    #2 C’mon, You can’t go in my new car all sweaty. I promise not to laugh.
    #! OK
    #2 (in shower) chuckles
    #1 See, I knew you would laugh.
    #2 Can I ask you a question.”DOES IT WORK?
    #1 Sure. My wife and I have relations several times a week..
    #2 Can I ask you another question,” Would you like to swap for one:

    THAT LOOKS GOOD IN THE SHOWER?”

    DD1000, ‘nuf said

  • Ron8200

    Build them fast, build them to last, build the next one better then the last. At $7.3 billion dollars each they better be fantastic. Would we be better off with 20 more Burke class destroyers?

  • Andrew Duff

    22 Bil… we could have them mass produced in China and even with President Trump’s 35% tariff it’ll be cheaper.

  • Ronsoppinion

    Whatever you think of the Zumwalt it will be the design of future Naval Ships, the Srealth design makes it’s Radar signature very low, with it’s protective missile systems it is a very hard vessel to detect and attack.