Navy's largest destroyer going into water in Maine

ABC News ^ | 10/20/2013 | Associated Press

[Chode]

BATH, ME -- After embarrassing troubles with its latest class of surface warships, the Navy is hoping for a winner from a new destroyer that's ready to go into the water. So far, construction of the first-in-class Zumwalt, the largest U.S. Navy destroyer ever built, is on time and on budget, something that's a rarity in new defense programs, officials said. And the Navy believes the ship's big gun, stealthy silhouette and advance features will make it a formidable package.

[Chode]

doesn't list any ASROC's...

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

I was on the Barney from 86-88.

[meatloaf]

Early 70’s for both of us.

[ro_dreaming]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/09/190817/reputation-remake-tilt-rotor-osprey.html

FWIW, the USMC seem to like it in the field.

USAF seems to have liked it here, at least.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/04/04/the-much-maligned-v-22-osprey-is-confounding-critics/

It was hell to build, but it seems to be money well spent.

[ro_dreaming]

dsc wrote:

They do that to disguise the shrinkage of the Navy.

“The water was COLD! It’s just shrinkage baby!” said no sailor, ever.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

The Barney did two tours off the coast of Vietnam. Were you fellas over there?

[DoodleDawg]

The Marine Corp Practicality begged for Iowa and Wisconsin to stay on the Register of naval vessels

What can the Iowa and Wisconsin do that a carrier air wing can't?

[central_va]

Nothing beats 16 inch guns for shore bombardment.

[DoodleDawg]

Nothing beats 16 inch guns for shore bombardment.

An airplane can bombard the shore as well as hundreds of miles inland. And with precision guided bombs it can do it more accurately than a battleship can.

[central_va]

You’ve never seen the results of shore bombardment with 16 inch guns...

[MeganC]

What a waste. Navy ships anymore are questionable at best when all it takes to get one out of action is a speedboat piloted by a jihadi.

[DoodleDawg]

You’ve never seen the results of shore bombardment with 16 inch guns...

No, and since there aren't any battleships anymore then I don't think I ever will. So what does it look like?

[KC_Lion]

You can't shoot down a shell (yet) and have to go rescue the pilot.

The range of Battleship is limited, but then so is the Operating theater of air craft.

Just look at what happened in Vietnam, Look at all the aircraft lost.

While the New Jersey and the Heavy Cruisers Cratered the shoreline.

It is no secret that we have yet to come up with a weapon that equals the bombardment power of a 16 gun.

The Rail guns are very promising, but the navy has botched the Zummwalts, badly.

Congress in 2006 said this "In summary, the committee is concerned that the Navy has foregone the long-range fire support capability of the battleship, has given little cause for optimism with respect to meeting near-term developmental objectives, and appears unrealistic in planning to support expeditionary warfare in the mid-term. The committee views the Navy’s strategy for providing naval surface fire support as 'high risk,' and will continue to monitor progress accordingly." Evaluation of the United States Navy's naval surface fire support program in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007[13]

Simplest is always the best, and few things beat a cannon firing.

But if you want something overly complicated and over budget. Get the Pentagon on it.

[meatloaf]

No. The Byrd was home ported in Norfolk. When I filled out the dream sheet I wanted anything but a destroyer and the east coast. Wanted west coast. Spent time in the Med and Caribbean.

[tanknetter]

like Kip said, "It’s a heavy cruiser in all but name."

The reason for that is that there were supposed to be two classes of ships using the same (or variation of the same) hull. Just like with the Sprucans and Ticos.

The Zumwalt was billed as the land-attack destroyer, was supposed to really replace the VLS-retrofitted Sprucans (in role, NOT in numbers), but with MUCH better shore-bombardment capability (two 155mm guns rather than the 5"ers.) The ship was originally classed as a DD, not a DDG - witness that it follows the DD lineage that ended with the Sprucans (including the Ayatollah-class DDGs), NOT the DDG lineage.

There was also supposed to be a "Cruiser" variant that replaced the Ticonderogas. This would also have the benefit of maintaining a good number of O6 sea command billets.

But when it was realized how much the land-attack variant was going to cost, the CG version was quickly dropped. Although it wouldn't surprise me that, should the three Zumwalts turn out to be good ships, the hull design will be repurposed for a Tico replacement.

[tanknetter]

Nothing beats 16 inch guns for shore bombardment.

Funny enough, there was a study in the late 1970s or early 1980s showing that the "best" option for naval gunfire support were the automatic 8" guns of the Des Moines-class heavy cruisers. The 16" shells had better weight and penetration, but were complete overkill in terms of penetration and could by no means saturate a target.

Thats why the USN was developing the cluster munition shell for the Iowas.

The study also concluded that, ironically enough, after the Des Moines/8" automatic combination, the next best option were the 12" guns of the Alaska-class large cruisers. Which were pretty much white elephants during WWII and scrapped in the late 50s or early 60s.

[DoodleDawg]

Just look at what happened in Vietnam, Look at all the aircraft lost.

While the New Jersey and the Heavy Cruisers Cratered the shoreline.

I'm no military expert but even I know that things have changed since Vietnam. Smart bombs and guided missiles mean that a single aircraft can take out bunkers and gun emplacements with more accuracy that a World War II era cannon. A carrier airplane can bomb targets on the beach and for hundreds of miles inshore. In the mean time the Marines have not landed on a defended beach in almost 70 years. Spending millions to keep a ship around on the off chance it might prove useful makes no sense to me.

[central_va]

Anything bigger than the pathetic 5 inch gun is a good shore bombardment weapon.

[central_va]

Saddam was stupid, he should have never stopped when he invaded Kuwait. There was nothing stopping him from taking the entire Saudi Peninsula. If he had done that then a hostile shore invasion was going to be necessary to reclaim that real estate.

[KC_Lion]

Which is why the Iowa's were Reactivated 4 times in 50 years.

We haven't used Nuclear Weapons in 67 years and they are still kept around.

And why M-16 still come with a Bayonet Mount.

It has been estimated that their were no more than 15,000 insurgents in Iraq armed with Dumb Mortars and 50 Cal on a pick-up truck and look what they did. When your advanced and expensive toys fail you, you always need tried and true methods.

The Air Force said going into Vietnam "We will never fight another conventional war again" and sank all their resources into Nuke Capable Bombers, Fighters and Missiles.

All the wrong tools to fight that war and we are repeating the exact same mistake today.