Posted on 11/30/2015 12:34:13 PM PST by Mariner
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."
"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."
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
As far as I can tell there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Arleigh Burke class of DDG. It's still the most capable Surface Warfare platform on the planet.
For the price of this new DDG, we could put 2 of the new Burkes to sea.
Or 8 new FFG's.
Looks something like the Merrimack of Civil War fame.
2) You shouldn't change the title of the original article, as it makes searching for an already posted article harder.
Ah, the Navy version of the F35.
With that tumblehome I wouldn’t want to be in it in a heavy sea.
Oops, my PROFOUND apologies. The articles are identical, with identical bylines, but because they are from AP, the two sources changed the titles, not you.
Again, my apologies.
I’m slightly reminded of Civil War shapes.
Green water over the bow in heavy seas
Interesting history, fell out of favor because of one war? other factors besides design? unstable if lose water tightness?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumblehome
Origins[edit]
Tumblehome was common on wooden warships for centuries. In the era of oared combat ships it was quite common, placing the oar ports as far abeam as possible. This also made it more difficult to board by force, as the ships would come to contact at their widest points, with the decks some distance apart. The narrowing of the hull above this point made the boat more stable by lowering the weight above the waterline, which is one of the reasons it remained common during the age of cannon-armed ships. In addition, the sloping sides of a ship with an extreme tumblehome (45 degrees or more) increased the effective thickness of the hull versus flat horizontal trajectory gunfire (a straight line through faced more material to penetrate) and increased the likelihood of a shell striking the hull being deflected—much the same reasons that later tank armor was sloped.
French battleship Jauréguiberry of 1891, showing extreme tumblehome construction
It can be seen as well in steel constructed warships of the early 1880s when the United States and most European navies began building steel warships. France was predominantly strong in promoting the tumblehome design in their warships, advocating tumblehome to reduce the weight of the upper deck, as well as making the vessel more seaworthy and creating greater freeboard.[2] France sold their newly constructed pre-dreadnought battleship Tsesarevich to the Russian Imperial Navy in time for it to fight as Admiral Wilgelm Vitgeft’s flagship at the Battle of the Yellow Sea on 10 August 1904. The Russo-Japanese War proved that the tumblehome battleship design was excellent for long distance navigation, especially when encountering narrow canals, and other waterways; but that it could be dangerously unstable when watertight integrity was breached.[3] Four tumblehome Borodino-class battleships, which had been built in Russian yards to Tsesarevichâ€â€Š’��‹s basic design, fought on 27 May 1905 at Tsushima. The fact that three of the four were lost in this battle resulted in the discontinuing of the tumblehome design in future warships for nearly all navies.[citation needed]
If I recall the German Battleship Gneisenau had a prow too small and would nose into heavy seas and have a difficult time coming back up. It had to be redesigned to make the prow taller and wider. My impression of the Nimitz was that it would also have a difficult time coming up after plowing into a heavy wave. It has a substantial sonar dome in front of the visible prow but it does not appear to substantial enough to help the ship recover from going under in a high wave. At least one destroyer in WWII plowed under in heavy weather and sank.
I have a hard time believing that this is not the most tested and engineered warship to have ever been laid down.
If it gets out into the Ocean and it tips over...some engineer will have some ‘splaining to do.
They will cruise it. Then they will report back that it was “superb”.
Nevermind everything about it is unseaworthy. There is a reason ships look like they do. This one is shaped solely for stealth.
Its much wider at the waterline than at deck level. This means that in high seas, as it rolls, it rolls much further, dangerously so, before she can right herself.
I would think additional watertight compartments would fix this issue.
I sure hope anything attached to deck is firmly attached.
“Green water over the bow in heavy seas.”
As they used to say: “British ships sale dry, American ships sail wet”.
A lot of the old US military ships had water on deck constantly and used cat walks to move from section to section of the ship. It allowed them to sail closer into the wind and get away from British ships.
Why is that ship upside down?..............B^)
It most certainly is.
It has but two faults: It can't take a hit of any size and keep operating. The Composite super structure is sure to burn like a roman candle and she becomes unstable if she takes on water.
Secondly, they cost just too damn much for a Destroyer. 15,000 tons. Sheesh.
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.