Home » Budget Industry » Second Zumwalt Destroyer Arrives in San Diego; Third Launches in Maine


Second Zumwalt Destroyer Arrives in San Diego; Third Launches in Maine

The guided-missile destroyer Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) transits the San Diego Bay. The future USS Michael Monsoor is the second ship in the Zumwalt-class of guided-missile destroyers and will undergo a combat availability and test period. The ship is scheduled to be commissioned into the Navy Jan. 26, 2019, in Coronado, Calif. US Navy photo.

The Navy’s second Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer arrived in San Diego ahead of its planned commissioning ceremony next month, and the third and final ship of the class was launched over the weekend.

The future Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) arrived at its new homeport on Dec. 7, after a month-long voyage from builder Bath Iron Works in Maine.

A request from USNI News for additional information on Monsoor’s voyage was not immediately answered by Naval Sea Systems Command.

Monsoor’s journey to San Diego comes two years after the difficult voyage by first-in-class USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) from Maine to California. Zumwalt took three months to make the trip and suffered multiple engineering casualties along the way, including having to stop in Virginia and then Florida for propulsion-related problems and then losing propulsion during its transit through the Panama Canal.

Monsoor too had challenges on its path to commissioning into the fleet. The ship completed its acceptance trials in February – after electrical problems halted the original December 2017 testing – and was partially accepted by the Navy in April. The Navy disclosed months later, though, that during those sea trials the ship damaged blades in the main turbine engine, forcing the shipbuilder to replace the entire engine before Monsoor could begin its voyage to California.

Monsoor will be commissioned in nearby Coronado, Calif., on Jan. 26.

181207-N-LN093-1071 SAN DIEGO (Dec. 7, 2018) The guided-missile destroyer Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001) transits the San Diego Bay. The future USS Michael Monsoor is the second ship in the Zumwalt-class of guided-missile destroyers and will undergo a combat availability and test period. The ship is scheduled to be commissioned into the Navy Jan. 26, 2019, in Coronado, Calif. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jasen Moreno-Garcia/Released)

On Dec. 9, the future Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) was launched from Bath Iron Works, in a multi-day process to move the ship hull from the land into a drydock and then into the water.

“It’s important for the DDG 1000 program and shipyard to reach this major milestone,” Capt. Kevin Smith, DDG 1000 program manager within the Program Executive Office for Ships, said in a Navy statement.
“With the first two ships of the class underway, we are excited to continue the next phase of construction of the future Lyndon B. Johnson.”

Following the multi-day process that includes
moving the ship from the land level facility to the dry dock which is then
slowly flooded until the ship is afloat, the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson
(DDG 1002) was launched at General Dynamics-Bath Iron Works shipyard on Dec. 9, 2018. US Navy photo courtesy Bath Iron Works.

“The crew of Lyndon B. Johnson looks forward to bringing this great warship honoring our 36th President to life, and we’re proud to have the opportunity to be present for this important step in the ship’s construction,” Capt. Jeremy Gray, the ship’s prospective commanding officer, said in the statement.
“It is truly impressive to see the ship afloat in the Kennebec River for the first time, and we look forward to taking her to sea.”

Lyndon B. Johnson is expected to be christened in the spring.

  • Chesapeakeguy

    An aside here. Does anyone else actually subscribe to Proceedings for home delivery? If yes, do your issues arrive later and later each month, like mine do? Have you ever had to wait on the order of two weeks or so to receive yours, like I have before? Have you received the December issue, like I have NOT? And have you ever tried to deal with their supposed ‘customer service’, only to receive little in the way of anything that can be honestly described as ‘service’? I’m curious as to what your experiences are, as I am getting fed up with them. The magazine is bad enough these days, but the so-called ‘service’ is becoming quite bad. If I’m just unlucky, well, I’ll decide how to deal with that. But I sure would like to know. Thanks..

    • thebard3

      I don’t subscribe to Proceedings, but I’m guessing that it’s going the way of most other printed publications.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        If those other publications now have crappy customer ‘service’, then Yes, they have…

    • MLepay

      Mine seems pretty consistent in delivery.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        Thanks. I guess it is my dumb luck then. Time to re-evaluate my 30 plus years of subscribing to them.

  • Centaurus

    This tub is going to be the biggest boondoggle !

    • sferrin

      Thanks for the expert opinion Admiral Nimitz.

      • Centaurus

        Well, without overstating the obvious,,,one has to accept that which is obvious, Tumblehome hull design and weapon systems that have yet to be finally decided upon. Oh and yes, it also likes to grind the gears alot and capsize when it’s floating. It does look cool and maybe with 300MW of laser-blaster magazine, the class can kill SOMETHING…but the Navy just hasn’t been clear about what it’s going to do.

        • Duane

          Tumblehome hull works fine … no capsizing. It’s already got the Navy’s most advanced 80-cell VLS system for missiles, a fine radar system, an aviation hangar and aircraft (which all the Flight I Arleigh Burkes lack), ASW system.

          It will be even more lethal once the EM weapons are deployed, in just a few years.

          • Centaurus

            Yes, admittedly it does have a very deep electrical source for EM weapons like LASER, microwave and/or photon torpedoes…so why was this thing so built out to accommodate weapons that it hasn’t the equipment for ? Now no guns (what happened to the rail and 100 km directed projectile ? ) It seems alot of $$$ has been spent for a slippery ship with no assets to deploy. As for a big VLS cell, we could just have a VLS towed-barge for that matter. The Zum-1000 Class sounds like a real bass-akwards system.

          • David Oldham

            I realize you are one of those instant gratification people prone to exaggeration but just tone it down.

          • Centaurus

            You take all this way too seriously, we all have a view as to how tax money gets spent. Try coming out from behind the computer and look around.

          • Ziv Bnd

            Not a sniping attempt, but an honest question. What role are the DDG-1000′ going to fill now that land attack is greatly diminished? Will they sail with the CSG’s and function as an additional air defense asset? Or will they sail with an MEU, even though they don’t have the long range land attack AGS?

        • David Oldham

          any real world examples of the Tumblehome hull capsizing when it’s floating? At least keep your little rants in the real world.

  • thebard3

    “It’s important for the DDG 1000 program and shipyard to reach this major milestone,”

    Uh, yeah. Maybe making them combat ready would be another important ‘milestone’.

  • NavySubNuke

    I think the Navy will ultimately regret trimming this class to only 3 ships. Yes they are expensive but some things are worth the cost and failing to deter a conflict is far more expensive then not fighting at all — never mind the added cost if we fight and lose.
    Hopefully the Navy’s newest Future Surface Combatant will be able to pull through a of the benefits and advantages the DDG-1000 provides such as the greater electrical generation capacity, larger VLS, and smaller crew.

    • Rocco

      Not I agreement

  • Ed L

    Between these 3 Strike Cruisers the Navy should be able to get the bugs iron out and hopefully get the Rail Guns operational and mounted on them. Buddy each one up with an SSN and put them all in the Pacific. Then the Navy can start on the Savo Island class strike cruiser. 20,000 tons 180 VLS cells, Rail Guns, Lasers, Searams, wiz etc etc

  • Nick

    Zumwalt launched Oct 29, 2013, arrived San Diego Dec 8, 2016 for Phase 2 build at BAE San Diego shipyard, now undergoing trials, do not know when will be declared in fit state to be classified as operational and capable of contributing to combat operations and added to the Naval Register.

    Michael Monsoor launched June 21, 2016 arrived San Diego Dec. 7, 2018 for Phase 2 build.

    Lyndon B Johnson launched Dec 9, 2018

    GAO January 2018 estimate Zumwalt program cost $23.7B, R&D $11.1B plus build $12.6B, for 3 ship class.

  • Duane

    President Johnson volunteered for service right after Pearl Harbor, despite being a sitting Congressman and exempt from military service. He volunteered for combat duty, but was otherwise assigned to support duty. He volunteered for and participated in a hazardous bombing mission on which other bombers were shot down. He was not “just a LCDR”.

    As to his political decisions while in office, his decision to escalate the Vietnam War was, all things considered, probably a bad decision. However, he had the full support of Congress, so he did not make the decision on just his own say-so. Keep in mind that his predecessor, Kennedy, created the US presence in Vietnam and supported the disastrous Diem coup .. and his successor in office, Nixon, continued the war gradually winding it down but for a major bombing campaign over Hanoi that eventually forced the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table in Paris. Congress participated throughout all these actions by multiple administrations.

    On the plus side, President Johnson personally pushed Congress, working closely with the Republican minority, to enact historic legislation that hundreds of millions of Americans depend upon today, including the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights act that finally implemented the Civil War amendments to the Constitution, and finally rescued black Americans from Jim Crow and a racist southern conspiracy to deny them their Constitutional rights. He also pushed legislation to create Medicare, the most popular program ever created by the Federal government, and Medicaid to provide health care to poor people who otherwise could not get any medical care at all.

    All those accomplishments make LBJ entirely worthy of getting a major warship named after him.

    • Chesapeakeguy

      Do some research on LBJ’s ‘combat record’ some time. He was awarded a Silver Star based entirely on HIS claims of being under fire in a B-26 that was supposedly damaged in a bombing raid. The plane’s own log showed that it turned back because of generator trouble. Interesting so that he was the ONLY crew member to receive any decoration.

      And if LBJ deserves a combat ship being named for him, certainly you would support one being named for Richard Nixon, wouldn’t you now? His military record has no such ‘fake news’ assigned to it.

      • baruch_gershom

        LBJ got the Silver Star because he was a congressman serving on active duty in MacArthur’s area of operation. Notice that the Navy didn’t reserve LBJ’s name for a carrier, or Carter’s. One president is on a DDG and the other on an SSN?. It appears that the Navy felt compelled to honor the holder of the office, but not afford the individuals with the same high honor as a JFK, Truman or Reagan. Personally, I wish the Navy would go back to naming subs after fish, carriers after famous naval ships or battles, and cruisers for cities.

        • Chesapeakeguy

          Agreed. As I point out again, NOBODY on that same flight LBJ was on received anything in the way of recognition, much less awards. The ship naming process is a disgrace, and a bi-partisan disgrace to boot!

  • Duane

    These are very important developmental ships, and our experience in operating them and arming them is not only going to provide immediate benefits to today’s fleet, but will feed very critically into development of the Future Surface Combatant. The mission has now changed from land bombardment in support of amphibious invasions to anti-shipping in support of fleet actions. The new VLS will be a part of the future fleet, and the huge electrical plant will be the practical platform for implementation of EM weapons including railguns and directed energy weapons for fleet defense against swarming ASCMs and drones.

    • NavySubNuke

      It will be interesting to see if the “big” VLS stick in the FSC. Remember Seawolf has 28 inch torpedo tubes but as part of the cost cutting the Navy went back to 21 inch for Virginia. Seawolf also has 8 torpedo tubes while Virginia has 4 tubes and either 12 VLS or 2 VPTs.
      I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Navy go back to Mk-41 VLS but I hope they do the right thing and keep the DDG-1000 VLS since that might be big enough to actually fit missiles equipped with the hypersonic glide body that SSP is developing as part of the overall CPS efforts.

      • Phaeton

        “Remember Seawolf has 28 inch torpedo tubes”
        Aren’t these for minelaying?USA didn’t exactly designed high-caliber torpedoes…ever.

        • Chesapeakeguy

          I remember reading that the 28 inch tubes were all about allowing torpedoes to “swim out” as opposed to being ejected via the usual method if need be, to protect against the sub being detected because of the noise/disturbance of the torpedoes launch. I do not know what “swim out” means, but I remember reading that term in several sources back when the Seawolf-class was all the rage…

          • Phaeton

            “I do not know what “swim out” means”
            Pretty much what it says on the tin:)

  • Ziv Bnd

    Is there a plan in the works to find a shell of some sort for the 6″ gun? It seems ridiculous that they can’t adapt some sort of extended range shell for the gun, but that does seem to be the case. Could they remove the Advanced Gun System turret and install a more traditional gun turret like that used for the

    5″/62 (12.7 cm) Mark 45 Mod 4? It is a step down but at least you can buy ammunition for it.

    • Ed L

      Since the US Army using a modified M777 115mm Howitzer (they say the barrel is 6 foot longer) can now shoot almost 40 miles Maybe that can be a Substitution. The Army evenly wants a 155 piece to be able to shoot over 60 miles

      • Rob C.

        It’s too bad Navy can’t use that. The hideway barrels are i think part of the problem you can’t have those mods on the Zums. Holding out for the Railguns is kinda long bet, given how their not that well funded and yet foreign powers are (visibly) pushing ahead to get the concept going. It’s matter money as well for US.

    • Duane

      The Navy is likely holding out for the railgun. The current developmental railgun is also a 155mm gun, the electrical power plant to power it already exists on the Zums, with perhaps some modifications made in terms of energy storage and integration needed. Current expectation is that the first railgun will be ready to go to sea around 2025. If all works out, it will be a big weapon for the Zums to use in their anti-shipping role as well as a missile defense in depth for CSGs.

    • ElmCityAle

      Why? These ships should never be close enough to action to use conventional gun systems. The land bombardment concept – to support amphibious assaults that are highly likely to never, ever happen again – was ridiculous from the start. The ships may well have value for several other reasons including further testing of minimal crew concepts, massive electrical generation to support future weapons, improved “stealth”, etc. Those factors also increase risk, as do the choices for a different combat control system than Aegis and the decision to reduce the original radar systems. Worst case, it can carry around a bunch of land and (new) ship attack missiles in the large VLS cells.

      • Ziv Bnd

        “should never be close enough” and “will never be close enough” are two different things entirely. They put the AGS on the ship for long distance land engagements, but if you can’t get a munition for the 6″ gun, that role is gone. So get a 5″ gun that will be able to engage naval or air targets closer in. They have the AGS turrets, replace them with something that is actually useful. If you can’t get a 5″ gun in there, add more VLS cells. But they ought to do something that increases the effectiveness of the ship, not just sleepwalk into the future. Heck, maybe Otobreda will eventually get a 127mm Vulcano round that reaches out 80 km or more. But it seems to be a given that the 6″ AGS is dead for the foreseeable future. So get rid of it.

        • ElmCityAle

          Sure, “get rid of it”, but understand that system is massive and most of it unseen below decks; it will involve some significant engineering to remove it and replace with something/anything else, preferably VLS cells and/or other containers for newer anti-ship missiles like NSM.

          • Ziv Bnd

            It would seem like replacing a 6″ gun with a 5″ would allow for the ammo storage and conveyors to be re-tasked instead of being replaced entirely. But I am not knowledgeable of the ins and outs of the system so that is an outsiders opinion, which is worth next to nothing in the real world. I did find some references to Gerald Bull as being one of the early designers for a larger AGS designed back in 1967, now that takes me back…

      • Rocco

        Why would you say land bombardments should of never happened?? I guess you were never in country where you would count your blessings on it!!! Stupid millennials!!

      • Andy Ferguson

        Falklands…..Desert Storm….

    • David Oldham

      There is plenty 155 mm rounds available but leave it to them to over engineer a solution.

  • RTColorado

    Clear something up for me…if you don’t mind. Does this article sound like the Navy is bragging about the arrival of another ship that can’t perform its assigned tasks while a third in the class is being launched ?

    • Duane

      Nope.

      The Zums most certainly can perform their assigned tasks. The assigned role changed from land bombardment in support of amphibious invasion to fleet support/anti-shipping. The former gun wasn’t needed for the current task .. and the 80-cell VLS, radar, aviation capabilities most certainly do support the assigned role.

      • Centaurus

        ???

        • thebard3

          That was made up.

        • Duane

          In other words, the Zums are perfectly equipped to perform fleet action support, including launch of anti-ship cruise missiles and/or to provide air and missile defense fires for the fleet, and to perform ASW tasks.

          • Phaeton

            “including launch of anti-ship cruise missiles”
            Don’t you need a proper radar for that?
            Because you kinda do…
            “to perform ASW tasks.”
            And for this you usually need torpedoes.And sonar.And rocket-torpedoes.

          • baruch_gershom

            I imagine that the class will carry air-, surface-, and/or submersible-drones or manned-helicopters that can give the ship essential info for ASW targeting, if they aren’t being equipped now with appropriate internal sensors. Remember that because of Bath Iron Works’ backlog, it was decided to outfit weapons systems and sensors in San Diego after commissioning.

          • Phaeton

            Errrr…in simplest possible terms,proper…PROPER sonar suite is hundreds of tons.Up to thousands.
            You can’t put it on drone or helicopter.You need a ship for that.

      • Chesapeakeguy

        Interesting that you’re suddenly on the bandwagon for these ships, given your penchant for trashing them. I remember all the posts of yours where you described the current admiral who the program manager for the Zumwalts being a ‘Russian troll’. LOL..

    • kapena16

      It would appear so.

      “Milestones” are seen differently by different people.

      As a taxpayer, the milestone I’m interested in is crossed when the ship proves it can do what it was intended to do, as described by the politicians that funded it’s design and construction, and supported by Navy Admirals at the Pentagon. Anything short of that, is a milestone not crossed.

      From the shipyard, getting this convoluted piece of star wars junk out of the yard and making way for the next project to deliver revenue is all they are interested in. Who ever heard of a “partial acceptance”?? Attorneys, thats who.

      From the Pentagon, it’s anything to show that “we did it” and can officially say we have another hull to count. Never mind it doesn’t work or that they have to re-invent what it can do (as opposed to what we intended it to do).

      $22 billion dollars an 10 years later, this is a national embarrassment. Sadly, it has become the norm from the Navy shipbuilding conception, design, and construction sector.

      • thebard3

        To be fair, the Navy cut the AGS program, so if the AGS was functional we would be having another discussion. I understand the huge cost overruns of the program led to the class size being cut from something like 24 to 3, but the ships might still be relevant if the primary weapon was installed.

        • kapena16

          Navy Leadership MUST come to terms with revamping how we conceptualize, design, build, and put into operation ships in the future.

          I’m talking about tomorrow. So to clarify, they needed to start this review yesterday.

          Yes, politicians play an important role in the “failure process” the system has become. But the Admirals lead the way by not nailing down a ship to build right now, that works from conception and through design and construction.

          We have to learn to build a ship where all the components that go into it will work upon launching. A billion dollar hull that hits the water with a system you are still hoping works has design failure built into it.

          I get that technology is moving so fast it’s hard to keep up. So build a ship today with proven systems that work right now. Do that in a reasonable time frame. If you think you can’t do that in 5 years or less, get out of this room. Build a “class” of ships and as proven technology evolves, build 3 or 5 of each successive and improved group of hulls within that class.

          The lesson is simple: STOP BUILDING SHIPS AND SYSTEMS THAT GO ONBOARD THAT YOU ARE CONTINUOUSLY DESIGNING AFTER THE SHIP IS IS BEING BUILT! Commit to paper what will be delivered from the yard. You want changes? No problem, next in class, not today.

          As a civilian mariner, I will tell you what the US Shipbuilding industry gets away with in Navy building contracts is an embarrassment. But in fairness to them, it’s what the Navy deserves as a customer that continuously throws change orders at shipyards like candy from Santa Claus. THAT has got to stop.

    • Centaurus

      Exactly, noone has seen a Zummy bombard, zorch, track or anything else…yet. Is this ship going to be another Seawolf Class ? Does anyone see a deployment of Zumwalt Class platforms, or is this just a proof-of-concept experiment. It’s a question !

      • baruch_gershom

        Bad analogy. The Seawolf SSN class was built for the cold war, and stopped after the US declared victory, albeit prematurely. The three subs, however, are in the front lines doing the missions they were built to perform. NavOP 97 is not complaining. The Zumwalts and the Ford CVN seem to be platforms in which too many new ideas were built into the ships without full testing. That doesn’t mean that they won’t be operationally successful at some point. The B-52 had many problems that could have killed the program in the 1950s had the administration been squeamish. Yet, it has lived on for 60 years with continuous upgrades, and is still relevant.

        • Centaurus

          They will still be tempting targets for a Chinese D-21

  • Rocco

    Kudos agreed

  • Rob C.

    Last of the white elephants are launched. It’s shame the Navy isn’t supporting the ships correctly. They kept changing their minds on what they wanted, what to do with it, now they don’t even fund the bloody guns. Rail guns, one of the major factors for these ship’s future is now on low burner funding wise.

    They might well give up, tear the guns out just make them into large Missile cruisers, adding perhaps 4 Mk41 64-launchers or so, with the Mk57s already on it. It’s shame.

    • thebard3

      Instead of the vaunted ‘arsenal ship’ they would make a nice ‘magazine ship’.

  • RunningBear

    Zumwalt, technology demonstrators, warships of the future.

    I would like to read of the trials and tribulations of the Monsoors travels to San Diego as compared to the Zumwalt.

    No news is good news, perhaps.

    IMHO
    Fly Navy
    🙂

    • Centaurus

      Admittedly it does have a very deep electrical source for EM weapons like LASER, microwave and/or photon torpedoes…so why was this thing so built out to accommodate weapons that it hasn’t the equipment for ? Now no guns (what happened to the rail and 100 km directed projectile ? ) It seems alot of $$$ has been spent for a slippery ship with no assets to deploy. As for a big VLS cell, we could just have a VLS towed-barge for that matter. The Zum-1000 Class sounds like a real bass-akwards system.

      • RunningBear

        The Zumwalts are demonstrating a number of different technologies.

        1- crew reductions
        2- automation systems
        3- propulsion systems
        4- power generation systems
        5- weapons systems
        A- VLS-57
        B- Railgun (when they solve the issues with durability for the barrel tracks
        C- Hi-Power Lasers, with 50+Mw extra power capacity without high energy capacitors
        6- stealth platform (less the stupid antennas they are hanging off it like mistletoe)
        7- stealth communications, high bandwidth systems and satcom.
        8- stealth networks with stealth fighters, bombers
        9- etc.
        IMHO
        Fly Navy
        🙂

        • Duane

          Barrel wear issue is no more … Dahlgren Center reported achieving its 1,000+ shots milestone early this calendar year. Current work is to scale up energy to 32 MJ, then it goes to a program of record to produce a gun for deployment on a ship – starting with a Zumwalt.

          • RunningBear

            The expectation of the naval energy design of the emals on the Ford should translate to a plentiful supply (depth of magazine) of energy 58+Mw reserve power for the Rail Guns on the 78Mw supplied Zumwalt. If the heat effects on the barrel materials has been resolved then quick firing of the 2 Rail Guns on the Zumwalt, should be a staggering concept. I had not conceived of the Mach 5+ buck-shot canisters referenced in the Hyper Velocity rounds for the Rail Gun, “A single 25-pound projectile can dispense more than 500 three-gram tungsten impactors and be fired at hyper-velocity by electromagnetic energy.” for A/C and missile defense.

            Couple this with the Air and Missile Defense Radar and eventually CEC networking, it should produce an incomparable defensive system.

            The 150Kw dazzling lasers for small boats/ aircraft, ISR drones and eletro-optical guided cruise missiles should begin the growing applications for defensive laser systems. Lasers in addition to the Rail Guns should make the Zumwalt a quite effective CVN/ ARG group defense platform technology demonstrator for the fleet.

          • Phaeton

            “single 25-pound projectile can dispense more than 500 three-gram tungsten impactors”
            Against targets that are armored enough that 20mm APFSDS don’t initiate the warheads?This is just adorable.
            “If the heat effects on the barrel materials has been resolved ”
            It wasn’t.

          • RunningBear

            ….there is that little aspect of 500 3gm. impactors at “5+”Mach.

            ….and the barrel materials have been demonstrated for the 1,000 rounds required, but……we will see “when” they are installed on the Zummies, the proof will be in the shooting!
            IMHO
            Fly Navy
            🙂

          • Phaeton

            “there is that little aspect of 500 3gm. impactors at “5+”Mach”
            Compared to hundred-gram ACTUAL impactors at Mach 4?
            “and the barrel materials have been demonstrated for the 1,000 rounds required”
            Not at full power or at full firerate.
            “we will see “when” they are installed on the Zummies”
            So,never.

          • RunningBear

            Never may be sooner than you think, a 50+Mw surplus power capacity waiting to be plugged into a directed energy system seems to be inevitable!
            IMHO
            FLY Navy
            😀

          • Phaeton

            ” 50+Mw surplus power capacity waiting to be plugged into a directed energy system seems to be inevitable!”
            Problem is,directed energy systems suck.
            And the number is pulled from rear end.
            Zumwalt has the same horse power amount as Burke,displaces close to double,but somehow has 50MW spare energy?
            Physics do not work like that.Even in powerpoint presentations.

          • RunningBear

            “Zumwalt has the same horse power amount as Burke,displaces close to double,but somehow has 50MW spare energy?”,……the Zummie has bigger gas turbines and direct motor drives for propulsion, no gear box, etc. Strangely as a more modern design, it is more efficient.
            It’s that progress thingee!
            IMHO
            Fly Navy
            🙂

          • Phaeton

            “the Zummie has bigger gas turbines”
            Half of them.With,again,same total power,but for ship nearly double the displacement.
            “and direct motor drives for propulsion, no gear box, etc.”
            True.
            “it is more efficient”
            Says who?
            “It’s that progress thingee”
            Or engineering BS.

          • RunningBear

            “it is more efficient”
            Says who?

            Law of Physics, energy in vs. energy out – in layman’s terms.

            IMHO
            Fly Navy
            🙂

          • Phaeton

            /facepalm
            So,instead of using turbines to do mechanical work directly,we use them to generate electricity(losing efficiency),THEN using that electricity to do mechanical work.
            And that’s more efficient.
            /facepalm
            No,it’s not more efficient.It’s LESS efficient.Which is why Ohio used that thing only for slow mode.And it has frikkin NUCLEAR REACTOR.
            But as a bonus,if Zumwalt stops completely and shuts down all non-essential systems,including sensors,it’ll have about thirty megawatts of power.Which is…nice…i guess…IDK why would it need that power in these conditions though.
            And,of course,the system isn’t just horribly inefficient,it’s also horribly unreliable.Hence Zumwalt losing power more than Kuznetsov-class aviation cruiser during it’s early years.

          • baruch_gershom

            The bigger engines are to provide electrical power for future weapons systems, e.g. lasers and rail guns as well as propulsion.

          • RunningBear

            As a technology demonstrator, yes the Zumwalt has available 58+Mw power capacity to provide direct and chargeable power capacities to directed energy systems; ie: Lasers, Railguns, directed microwave beams, etc. depending on the effects desired. This enhanced capacity will be available to expand future networking sensor systems; ie: Optics, radar, ASW, etc.

            Additionally, the expansion of existing 21+” diameter missile cells can accommodate the future developments of the SM missiles and multiple missile “packs” of the shorter ranged “close in” defensive systems.

            And lastly, the power capacity of the Zumwalt indicates the fully independent redundant propulsion system with “power to spare”!
            IMHO
            Fly Navy
            🙂

        • Phaeton

          5)Is straight-up BS.
          It has custom-designed VLS for this class which won’t be used anywhere else.
          No B or C will ever materialize for it,because,say it with be,these are not military viable.
          6-7-8…in the era of modern radars and ELINT,stealth does not exist.
          And last one’s even ditched this wood used for deckhouse,so here goes your RCS.

          • RunningBear

            Ha!, Ha!, Ha!……wood…..Ha!, Ha!, Ha! I think you are referring to the carbon nano reinforced polymer/ CNRP.
            The MK-57 is a less intrusive VLS and is distributed on the periphery of the the hull, it is susceptible to less damage in a direct contact (hit).
            IMHO
            Fly Navy
            🙂

          • Phaeton

            “I think you are referring to the carbon nano reinforced polymer/ CNRP”
            No,i’m referring to balsa wood with a three millimeters of fabric above it.
            Because that’s what deckhouse internal structure of first two zumwalts is.Nothing carbon or nanoreinforced or other advertisement BS there.
            “The MK-57 is a less intrusive VLS and is distributed on the periphery of the the hull, it is susceptible to less damage in a direct contact”
            /facepalm
            Because DISTRIBUTING weak points over a wider area makes ship less susceptible to damage.
            My forehead hurts…

          • RunningBear

            No,i’m referring to balsa wood with a three millimeters of fabric above it.”

            And I was referring to the 3mm of steel equivalent fabric that encloses and stiffens(supports).

            “Made almost exclusively using cored composite construction processes, the deckhouse and hangar take full advantage of the properties of the carbon fiber materials and balsa wood cores.”
            IMHO
            Fly Navy
            🙂

          • Phaeton

            “And I was referring to the 3mm of steel equivalent fabric”
            It’s not steel equivalent.It’s just 3mm.
            And putting 3mm of cloth over a bunch of wood panels ,while technically makes end result composite,isn’t something high-tech or notable.
            Put a shirt over a table and you’ll have basically the same result.

      • baruch_gershom

        The most simple answer is that every program manager in the Pentagon saw this ship as a good platform for its system. In the 1950s the Air Force did the same thing to the English Canberra bomber and weighed it down with new equipment, after which it was not worth the cost.

        • RunningBear

          It is accepted that the USN is in need of a new hull plan form, in excess of the Spruance form (the basis for the Ticos, and ABs). The Zumwalt has the length and beam and the cubic feet to develop the power/ propulsion requirements for future DDG/CG systems proposals, bogging it down may be a challenge.

          And….less we forget the “stealth” is in the hull and superstructure design and materials technologies that are progressing in all the military vehicles; planes, tanks, ships, etc. If you can’t find it (localize it) or are unable to lock-on (fix it) for attack then, it may well “shoot you back” before you can complete an attack to defeat it.

          Zumwalt is the beginning of the future hulls for the USN, large ships.
          IMHO
          Fly Navy
          🙂

  • Chesapeakeguy

    Naming a Zumwalt-class ship after LBJ seems appropriate. After all, they both represent how NOT to fight a war. LBJ micro-managed the Vietnam disaster, and bragged about how the US military couldn’t do squat unless he personally approved it. He handcuffed every element of the military in their efforts to conduct the war there. The Zumwalts, by comparison, now have one of their main reasons for existence, their fabled ‘Advanced Gun System’, rendered useless by policy decisions that ensured its demise. The parallels are amazing! Hopefully, the Zumwalts, as true ‘transformational’ platforms, will contribute to the Navy’s efforts to develop advanced weapons via the capabilities their electrical power capacity brings to bear. We shall see.

  • Phaeton

    I especially like that in case of last ship they ditched wooden deckhouse in favor of good,old steel.Makes sense,really.

  • MartinD

    There are always a lot of negativity surrounding the RR GT plants on US Warships failing etc etc and causing significant delays in transit / maintenance.
    RR have been making Marine Gas Turbines for decades, they are all based on Aircraft engine cores modified for marine use, such as the Tyne and Trent.
    The articles appear to make a big thing of issues with these GT units causing long delays etc etc.
    One thing I don’t get is how does the USN take so long to change a GT power pack?
    The RN have been using them for 3 decades and rarely does it impact schedules.
    And Why?
    Because all RN warships were designed in such a way, that the engines can be swapped out with ease.
    They are designed to be dismantled and replaced even at Sea by the ships crew, through the design of the hulls, passageways and Engineering spaces.
    Do the USN not design warships to have GT propulsion systems replaced in such a way with the engineering crew onboard? or do they always need shore support to fix?