Can the Navy's $12 Billion Stealth Destroyer Stay Afloat?

Daily Beast ^ | October 22, 2014 | Dave Majumdar

[C19fan]

The U.S. Navy is slowly preparing the first of its massive, 15,500-ton Zumwalt-class stealth destroyers for sea next year. But questions remain about many of the technologies onboard the new ships. First and foremost: can the thing even stay afloat?

The vessel—which is the largest American surface warship since the 1950s--brings a new untried “tumblehome” hull design, new power systems and gun technology that have not been used on a modern warship before. The ship is highly automated with a crew of just 142 -- compared to older ships that have a complement of about 300. But despite its massive size, the stealthy warship appears on an enemy’s sensors as something no larger than a small fishing boat.

[buffaloguy]

This is the platform for deployable railguns. This will be bad news in a fight.

[martin_fierro]

The hull looks like it is upside down. Unlike a normal ship, the bow slopes upward from the water up to the deck.

* sigh *

[ansel12]

The M1 Abrams was under constant attack by the media, that said that it was a boondoggle tank that couldn’t fight, especially in the desert.

[Fred Hayek]

There was an article in USNI Proceedings 20 years ago about using electric propulsion. The advantages given were redundant power paths to the motors and less volume consuming ductwork for the gas turbines.

[rmlew]

Anyone disturbed by the nomenclature? A 15,000 ton ship with 6 inch guns is a CRUISER

[tanknetter]

The Lexington class battlecruisers right after WWI were supposed to use turboelectrci propulsion. The two that were completed, as carriers (Lexington and Saratoga) did. When there was a major poweplant failure in the PacNW the then-new ships were brought up and jacked into the local power grid. Providing so much excess electricity (allegedly) that clocks ran fast until they left.

There were a few post WWI battleships that were turboelectric as well.

[tanknetter]

I am, sort of.

The Zumwalt hull was supposed to be used in two classes of ships. A land attack “Destroyer” to replace the SpruCans and a multimission “Cruiser” to replace the Ticonderogas. Which were Destroyers and Cruisers using a common hull (in fairness the Ticos were originally classes as Destroyers, but upgraded to Cruiser to keep the classification, and sea command O6 billets, in place)

As it was, the Cruiser variant was cancelled, leaving the land attack Destroyer one alive. Albiet reduced to three ships.

[rmlew]

The Ticonderoga Class cruiser hull was supposedly based on the Spruance class. The hulls of the Spruances, Kidds, and Ticos look similar.

[X Fretensis]

But those guns lie on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. What other ships in todays navies carry a 6” gun.

[X Fretensis]

Add the nuclear 16” projectiles developed in the 50s and you would have one hell of weapon system.

[X Fretensis]

The 3 ships of the New Mexico class, 2 of the Nevada Class and the 3 Colorado class battleships all were built with turbo electric propulsions systems.

[tanknetter]

The Ticonderoga Class cruiser hull was supposedly based on the Spruance class. The hulls of the Spruances, Kidds, and Ticos look similar.

Yes, they're all the same hull. The Kidds were air-defense optimized Spruances, with pretty much the same superstructure but twin arm Standard launchers and the assorted radars to use them. They were seized by the USN after their original buyer (the Shah of Iran) fell.

The Ticos were Aegis Spruances with a highly revised superstructure to mount the SPY radar. The first five with the twin-arms (like the Kidds) and the rest with VLS. The Ticonderogas also had a high breakwater fitted at the bow to increase their forward dryness in weather.

[tanknetter]

The 3 ships of the New Mexico class, 2 of the Nevada Class and the 3 Colorado class battleships all were built with turbo electric propulsions systems.

I think you meant the Tennessee class, not Nevada. The Nevadas were split, Nevada having the then-new-designed geared steam turbines and Oklahoma having the older style triple expansion reciprocating engines. Those old engine design is one of the reasons why Oklahoma wasn't repaired following her sinking at Pearl Harbor - by 1941 she was marginal BB not really suited anymore for the main battle line (the older Arkansas, New York and Texas definitely weren't, and were due for retirement when Pearl Harbor happened), of which she was by far the slowest ship.

The Navy was extremely conservative when it came to trying new technologies in its BBs. They had a pattern of building two (and occasionally three) ships of the same hull, with one using "safe" technologies while the other had tech that pushed the envelope. Once the "new" tech was established they'd carry it onto the next two/three-ship class.

The engine differences between NV and OK are one example of this. Another is that of the New Mexico class (which fell between the Pennsylvanias and the Tennessees) New Mexico had turbo electric while the Mississippi and Idaho had the geared turbines established by Nevada and carried through Pennsylvania and Arizona.

[X Fretensis]

Right, should have been Tennessee & California

[painter]

Anyone disturbed by the nomenclature? A 15,000 ton ship with 6 inch guns is a CRUISER

And a light one at that.

[painter]

I know that. Theses guys are acting like a 6 inch gun is “Massive” when the guns on Battle ships anywhere from 14 to 18 inches.

[Pecos]

Let’s keep it simple and say that there are a number of automated systems on this ship that previous classes do not have. Beyond that, I’d rather not discuss potential vulnerabilities of a ship with Navy bluejackets in it. I’m sure you’ll understand.

[ken5050]

It’s up there with “pocket battleship”

[tanknetter]

You know, given that they aren’t Destroyers by any stretch of the term, and Cruisers these days are by definition multimission, calling the Zumwalts “Panzerschiff” isn’t all that bad of an idea.

We just need to come up with new and more appropriate names for them.

[ken5050]

I don’t know....”We MUST sink the Zumwalt” lacks a certain something (g)