The Navy's Colossal Stealth Destroyer Heads Out to Sea - Page 2

AVGWarhawk · 03-21-16, 09:16 AM

The best looking thing to leave the naval shipyards but if you can't see her....

Mr Quatro · 03-21-16, 09:44 AM

Maybe not this one, but perhaps the third in the Zumwalt class could get a railgun

http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy...walt-destroyer

Quote:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Engineering studies to include an electromagnetic railgun on a Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000) have started at Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA’s head said Thursday.

The work will do the math to determine if the Zumwalt-class will have the space, power and cooling to field a railgun – likely replacing one of the two 155mm BAE Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) ahead of the ship’s deck house

Oberon · 03-21-16, 11:06 AM

We might not have the platforms any more, but at least Britain still has BAe.

Damn, Railguns, now that'll be something to see.

Skybird · 03-21-16, 12:03 PM

The looks violate my sense for visual aesthetics, and the price tag violates my sense for reason. Easily the ugliest ship I've seen so far.

Platapus · 03-21-16, 02:43 PM

As a lubber of land, I need some learnin' here.

Why is this a destroyer and not a cruiser?

Does it have to do with its mission? But I would think that a cruiser is more likely to be used independently whereas a destroyer is probably supporting something else.

One website I visited hinted that cruisers were on the way out and that the future is in these more capable destroyers. Does that sound right?

Is it a funding issue? We got funding for a destroyer and ain't got no funding for cruisers?

or is there a logical reason? Could it be called a destroyer simply because the Navy wants to call it a destroyer?

Lubbing minds want to know.

Mr Quatro · 03-21-16, 02:55 PM

It is odd that they classify this ship as a destroyer ...

Doesn't Japan have two new asw aircraft looking carriers that they also call a destroyer?

03-21-16, 03:13 PM

That thing is so disgusting, I hope it gets into an accident and sinks to a depth where it can't be recovered - with everyone aboard surviving safe and sound of course.

03-21-16, 09:15 PM

That is one Ugly ship! ,though if it does end up with a rail gun you wouldn't want to tell the crew that anywhere within line of sight of her

Wildcat · 03-22-16, 04:27 AM

It's odd considering we've had almost 200 years to develop something better and it doesn't look much different from the old ironclads:

MaDef · 03-22-16, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darius359au

That is one Ugly ship! ,though if it does end up with a rail gun you wouldn't want to tell the crew that anywhere within line of sight of her

More like 200+ miles.

Mike Abberton · 03-22-16, 08:55 AM

Since the '70s (look up the 1975 USN class redesignation), the line between cruisers and destroyers became seriously muddled. Cruisers had more of an offensive role and destroyers/frigates more of a defensive role. But in reality, neither class had much in the way of long-range offensive firepower (a few harpoons and maybe some Tomahawks) because they were intended deploy with carriers, which is where the USN concentrated it's offensive strike platforms.

The assignment of class designations became more about the original project/appropriation source than displacement, weapons, crew size, etc. (Ticonderoga CG was based on the Spruance DD hull).

Right now, I think for various reasons, both politically and for simplification purposes, the USN is calling all the new task force (carrier and amphib) escorts "destroyers". Convoy/secondary escorts will be frigates again (now that the followup LCS has been reclassed as a frigate).

I doubt we will see any new ships being classed as a cruiser unless it had a seriously different weapon fitup (e.g., lots of big guns for shore bombardment or something).

Mike

Gargamel · 03-22-16, 11:17 AM

Meh, every new class of weapon has it's startup costs. If the prototype proves successful, then subsequent ships will be at a must cheaper price.

I think it's pretty cool looking myself.

Platapus · 03-22-16, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Abberton

Right now, I think for various reasons, both politically and for simplification purposes, the USN is calling all the new task force (carrier and amphib) escorts "destroyers".
Mike

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining it.

03-21-16, 09:16 AM	#16
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 27,343 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	The best looking thing to leave the naval shipyards but if you can't see her.... __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

03-21-16, 12:03 PM	#19
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,571 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	The looks violate my sense for visual aesthetics, and the price tag violates my sense for reason. Easily the ugliest ship I've seen so far. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-21-16, 02:43 PM	#20
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 18,976 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	As a lubber of land, I need some learnin' here. Why is this a destroyer and not a cruiser? Does it have to do with its mission? But I would think that a cruiser is more likely to be used independently whereas a destroyer is probably supporting something else. One website I visited hinted that cruisers were on the way out and that the future is in these more capable destroyers. Does that sound right? Is it a funding issue? We got funding for a destroyer and ain't got no funding for cruisers? or is there a logical reason? Could it be called a destroyer simply because the Navy wants to call it a destroyer? Lubbing minds want to know. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

03-21-16, 02:55 PM	#21
Mr Quatro Navy Seal Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 6,772 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	It is odd that they classify this ship as a destroyer ... Doesn't Japan have two new asw aircraft looking carriers that they also call a destroyer? __________________ pla•teau noun a relatively stable level, period, or condition a level of attainment or achievement Lord help me get to the next plateau ..

03-22-16, 11:17 AM	#27
Gargamel Lucky Sailor Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Rome Posts: 4,272 Downloads: 81 Uploads: 0	Meh, every new class of weapon has it's startup costs. If the prototype proves successful, then subsequent ships will be at a must cheaper price. I think it's pretty cool looking myself. __________________ Luck is a residue of Design.

03-21-16, 11:06 AM	#18
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	We might not have the platforms any more, but at least Britain still has BAe. Damn, Railguns, now that'll be something to see.

03-21-16, 03:13 PM	#22
Nippelspanner Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	That thing is so disgusting, I hope it gets into an accident and sinks to a depth where it can't be recovered - with everyone aboard surviving safe and sound of course.

03-21-16, 09:15 PM	#23
darius359au Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	That is one Ugly ship! ,though if it does end up with a rail gun you wouldn't want to tell the crew that anywhere within line of sight of her

03-22-16, 04:27 AM	#24
Wildcat Engineer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 215 Downloads: 69 Uploads: 0	It's odd considering we've had almost 200 years to develop something better and it doesn't look much different from the old ironclads:

03-22-16, 08:55 AM	#26
Mike Abberton Electrician's Mate Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 135 Downloads: 42 Uploads: 0	Since the '70s (look up the 1975 USN class redesignation), the line between cruisers and destroyers became seriously muddled. Cruisers had more of an offensive role and destroyers/frigates more of a defensive role. But in reality, neither class had much in the way of long-range offensive firepower (a few harpoons and maybe some Tomahawks) because they were intended deploy with carriers, which is where the USN concentrated it's offensive strike platforms. The assignment of class designations became more about the original project/appropriation source than displacement, weapons, crew size, etc. (Ticonderoga CG was based on the Spruance DD hull). Right now, I think for various reasons, both politically and for simplification purposes, the USN is calling all the new task force (carrier and amphib) escorts "destroyers". Convoy/secondary escorts will be frigates again (now that the followup LCS has been reclassed as a frigate). I doubt we will see any new ships being classed as a cruiser unless it had a seriously different weapon fitup (e.g., lots of big guns for shore bombardment or something). Mike