The question is: what can Zumwalts do which Arleigh Burkes can't?
Posted on 12/27/2020 6:59:09 AM PST by Onthebrink
One word can be used to sum up the United States Navy‘s Zumwalt-class destroyer: “controversial.”
Designed as a new class of multi-mission stealth warships with a focus on land attacks, the sleek vessels could also take on secondary roles including surface and anti-aircraft warfare. The next-generation, multi-mission destroyers were also equipped with a state-of-the-art electric propulsion system, wave-piercing tumblehome hull, stealth design, and the latest war fighting technology and weaponry. But does the ship pack in too much new technology?
(Excerpt) Read more at 19fortyfive.com ...
I have always viewed these as concept vessels. Not a complete waste of money, because they were test beds, but...not well spent money either.
In my opinion, you don’t spend money on a class of vessels as test beds, you take the concept of the USS Albacore which is a museum in Portsmouth, NH, where even though it was conventionally powered, it pioneered a lot of the concepts of future attack subs in it. It was never meant as a class.
And the Zumwalts are big. I drive by Bath, ME relatively often, and have seen one or the other of them being built there, and I was always surprised at how huge they were for a “destroyer”...they displace only a few thousand tons less than a Baltimore class heavy cruiser of WWII vintage.
They won’t last long
The original conception was a real game-changer. It seemed to have tremendous potential. Technically a destroyer, many people considered it to be a stealthy battleship with real 21st century technology. And the possible future addition of a true rail gun.
But congress cut funding, and the 30+ fleet of Zumwalts became just a few outrageously expensive experimental ships. The ammunition was too costly, the rail gun isn’t happening, and no one really wants to send an experimental platform into a war zone.
Failed program, in my view.
The propulsion system has more power than those in the current destroyers/frigates. My guess is that’s needed for a rail gun if that ever materializes. Along with the LCS (little crappy ships) the Zumwalts are examples of ill thought out programs that find sponsors.
Admiral Rickover taught the Navy how to bend Congress to its will. Meanwhile the Star Wars defense concept was made reality by Israel.
The one thing they can do way better than any other ship in the fleet is play semi-submersible in a medium sea with that tumblehome prow.
Updated Merrimac.
I never heard how that ship handled in a heavy seaway. Anyone know?
Gigantism gave us the dinosaurs who were succeeded by rats.
A ship that you cannot afford to lose is a ship you cannot deploy.
Quantity has a certain quality about it.
A trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, and soon we’re talking real money.
One problem:
The Merrimac could take hits and survive. Lack of CIWS is a fatal flaw IMHO. Hopefully it’s designers accounted for future LAMS stations fore & aft.
Sorry. But in the modern technological era, virtually all surface combatants are obsolete. Those brave young sailors will never know or see the geek sitting behind a console in a bunker who killed them.
For your interest.
It looks scary, I like that part.
‘Stealth’ is not going to hide you from a satellite.
This is the new woke US Navy. The ship currently has no mission, is not survivable in combat, has no offensive capability, flammable, now, with additions, is not stealthy, lacks any real defense, is basically a Navy brass experimental toy, but the Navy has ordered or is building 3-4 more of these billion dollar boondoggles to match the LCS class (headed for scrap yard), and the $13 billion Ford class trainer CVNs - all more concept toys. All this money spent on these toys has made maintenance and spare parts lag.
It does an excellent impression of a submarine in a large sea state. Then it rolls over and plays dead.
Keep your eyes peeled for the LSC (Large Surface Combatant) program - it should correct the DDG1000 class issues, and keep the good stuff that come out of it.
The Zumwalts are called destroyers to enable them to get funding.
They are really cruiser.
Rail Guns seem to have hit a technological dead-end. The Navy specified how many “shots” they required for the life of the rails and the prototypes are far, far below the specification. A half-way realistic fire-mission would wipe out “the barrels” (as it were). Not practical.
The Navy apparently goes by the size of the crew, rather than the size of the ship. The Zumwalts have a crew of about 175, while WW2 "Fletcher"-class destroyers had a crew of 329.
Yes.
Btw, here is a fun video your point reminded me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwx5uB0pyhQ
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.