Skip to comments.
U.S. Navy gives look inside futuristic $4.4 billion Zumwalt destroyer
AP via Chicago Tribune ^
| September 10th, 2016
| Contact Reporter
Posted on 09/10/2016 11:39:20 AM PDT by Mariner
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Imagine if you will, a rocket-assisted 4 inch gatling gun with a 70 mile range.
And what is that device on the bow, forward of the guns?
Like all modern ships, no matter the crew size, they carry so much ordnance that if they take ANY SIZEABLE hit, they cease to exist.
1
posted on
09/10/2016 11:39:20 AM PDT
by
Mariner
To: Mariner
The layout and uniforms in the Zumwalt CIC are all new as well...
2
posted on
09/10/2016 11:42:39 AM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
To: BenLurkin
I’ll take both purple-haired girls please. Don’t bother to wrap them.
3
posted on
09/10/2016 11:51:13 AM PDT
by
catbertz
To: Mariner
Not new in naval warfare, see HMS Hood.
4
posted on
09/10/2016 11:51:43 AM PDT
by
drop 50 and fire for effect
("Work relentlessly, accomplish much, remain in the background, and be more than you seem.)
To: Mariner
>>Like all modern ships, no matter the crew size, they carry so much ordnance that if they take ANY SIZEABLE hit, they cease to exist.
But in a world of nuclear anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons, you can’t build a survivable ship. You have to build one that can overwhelm any attacker and has a formidable array of defenses. Stealth is a big game-changer.
Which is why I would rather money be spent on SSGNs than a light cruiser that they call a destroyer.
5
posted on
09/10/2016 11:54:13 AM PDT
by
Bryanw92
(If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.)
To: Mariner
I predict terrible morale on this ship. Just a gut feeling.
6
posted on
09/10/2016 11:54:17 AM PDT
by
Organic Panic
(Hillary Clinton, the elderly woman's version of "I dindu nuffins.")
To: Bryanw92
"Which is why I would rather money be spent on SSGNs..." What does SSGN mean?
7
posted on
09/10/2016 11:56:34 AM PDT
by
StormEye
To: StormEye
Submarine, Guided Missile, Nuclear-Powered
8
posted on
09/10/2016 11:58:27 AM PDT
by
Bryanw92
(If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.)
To: Bryanw92
9
posted on
09/10/2016 12:00:50 PM PDT
by
StormEye
To: drop 50 and fire for effect
10
posted on
09/10/2016 12:02:21 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
To: Mariner
If the Navy wants more of these, they had better hope Trump is elected. Otherwise, Madam Benghazi will use that money for "refugee" resettlement (and to dump into the clinton crime foundation).
11
posted on
09/10/2016 12:11:34 PM PDT
by
The Sons of Liberty
(KAINE-Voting For Hillary Will Put American Women On Par With Women In Iraq, Afghanistan = Sharia Law)
To: Mariner
That’s going to be a wet ride in heavy weather!
12
posted on
09/10/2016 12:16:35 PM PDT
by
Noob1999
To: Mariner
A sailor walks on the bridge of the USS Zumwalt while at dock at the naval station in Newport, R.I., Friday, Sept. 9, 2016. The 610-foot-long warship has an angular shape to minimize its radar signature and cost more than $4.4 billion. It's the most expensive destroyer built for the Navy. (Michael Dwyer / AP)
Angled sides are one thing but could they not have kept the decks horizontal?
To: BenLurkin
Since this is an ocean-going craft, wouldn't the proper uniform be closer to that of the SkyDiver crew?
14
posted on
09/10/2016 12:23:29 PM PDT
by
Charles Martel
(Endeavor to persevere...)
To: Mariner
The pessimist in me wonders: what is wrong with it?
15
posted on
09/10/2016 12:38:34 PM PDT
by
rbg81
(Truth is stranger than fiction)
To: Noob1999
"Thats going to be a wet ride in heavy weather!"
She may as well be a submarine.
If they can get them down to $1bil, we'll see a bunch of them.
16
posted on
09/10/2016 12:47:47 PM PDT
by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: BenLurkin; Mariner
It all depends upon what defensive systems are in place. I hope that there are passive systems to include chaff and laminated and/or reactive armor. Point defense systems are great, but not perfect. The systems protecting forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are good, but don’t keep everything out.
17
posted on
09/10/2016 12:53:07 PM PDT
by
drop 50 and fire for effect
("Work relentlessly, accomplish much, remain in the background, and be more than you seem.)
To: drop 50 and fire for effect
18
posted on
09/10/2016 12:55:36 PM PDT
by
Molon Labbie
(Hillary- Time To Change the Bag...)
To: Mariner
If they deploy the rail guns, there is no explosive propellant so that eliminates the issue with exploding magazines, at least for the naval guns.
Missiles and torpedoes, not so much.
19
posted on
09/10/2016 12:59:18 PM PDT
by
Molon Labbie
(Hillary- Time To Change the Bag...)
To: BenLurkin
Love that show have it on DVDs think I may toss one in ttoday
20
posted on
09/10/2016 1:15:06 PM PDT
by
al baby
(Hi Mom)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson