Posted on 11/29/2015 11:24:59 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Bath, Maine — The largest destroyer built for the U.S. Navy cuts an imposing figure: massive, with an angular shape, hidden weapons and antennas, and electric-drive propulsion. But underneath the stealthy exterior resides a style of hull that fell out of favor a century ago in part because it can be unstable.
The Navy will soon learn how this modern take on the “tumblehome†hull holds up when the first-in-class Zumwalt heads out to sea in December for builder trials in the rough-and-tumble North Atlantic.
Amy Lent, of the Maine Maritime Museum, which works closely with the shipyard, said taxpayers needn’t worry because the Navy and shipbuilder Bath Iron Works have “tested the hell out of it.â€
“This is an enormous investment. There’s so much at stake. They’re not slapping something together and sending it out to sea,†she said. “I think they’re pretty confident. They know what they’re doing.â€
Designers chose the hull style associated with pre-dreadnought battleships, but this warship looks nothing like one from President Theodore Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet. The inverse bow juts forward to slice through the waves. A composite deckhouse hides radar and antennas, giving it a clean look. Sharp angles deflect radar signals.
Typical of tumblehomes, though, the hull slopes inward above the waterline, giving the Zumwalt something of a pyramid shape. The shape can cause problems in certain conditions, critics say.
Concerns have been voiced in the ship-design and shipbuilding communities about the warship’s overall stability — and any instability could be exacerbated if there’s battle damage, said Matthew Werner, dean at the Webb Institute, which teaches naval architecture and marine engineering in Glen Cove, N.Y.
But the hull’s sloping sides contribute to the Navy’s goal of stealth. The Navy contends the 600-foot-long, 15,000-ton behemoth will look like a small fishing boat
(Excerpt) Read more at vnews.com ...
Looks a bit like one of the old ironclads.
Interesting the fellow used the word “slapping.” Well... It sure is ugly.
Why is it I think of the Midway hull?
My old man went through almost all the major battles in the Pacific on a destroyer that was 341 ft long and after all the war time upgrades didn't make 2000 tons.
What's that now, a Coast Guard cutter ?
Every current US Destroyer, the Arleigh Burke classes, all 62 in their several variants, are 8300-9800 tons. So all would be more like a WWII light cruiser. Before them the Spruance class were 8000 tons. This new one is pretty big indeed, but the trend is consistent.
I guess they could just call it a cruiser, or a ship of the line, or a battleship, and be done with it. It’s not like the WWII functional classes really apply anymore.
Smaller than some current USCG cutters. The National Security Cutter/Legend-class is 418 feet long and displaces 4500 long tons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Cutter
The Ticonderoga class cruisers (22 in service, though many are getting old) are 9800 tons. Not much different from the Arleigh Burkes really, in size and capability. They are interchangeable, the decommissioned Ticonderogas are being replaced by the latest variant of the Arleigh Burke destroyers.
The distinction between Destroyer/Cruiser in the USN seems to have disappeared, and this happened quite a long time ago.
I knew the Burkes were that big but I didn't know there was a need to go much beyond them. I had no idea cutters had gotten that large, though. For some reason I thought large cutters stopped at just about the size of WWII destroyers.
But geez,15000 tons and it's a destroyer ? I guess the roles merged or something like that which then dictates the naming convention.
Certainly is stealthy. When I first looked at the pic I thought I was looking at a seawall.
Hope it’s prettier all decked out.
This is going to be interesting. The DesMoines class of cruiser ran about 18,000 tons so we are moving to a bigger plat form. My question is how much punch it has and how independent of fleet support can it operate.
By the way, the Type 45 is far better at air defense than anything the US currently has in service.
The railgun works. The problem is that the the power generation system to fire the railgun is not well tested.
The first power to get railgun working reliably will *own* surface combat and quite probably air combat in the vicinity of the railgun armed surface combatant. Unfortunately we’re only building one of these.
I guess it is expected to steer around foul weather.
The deck is going to be awash 50% of the time in any weather.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.