Skip to comments.All 3 Navy Zumwalts now 'in the water' – how can a destroyer be stealthy?
Posted on 05/28/2019 6:46:39 AM PDT by Magnatron
Eluding radar, quietly sailing into enemy territory and launching long-range precision attacks from less-detectable positions all begin to paint the picture of how a stealthy offensive surface destroyers could transform modern maritime warfare.
Can a massive surface destroyer, armed with Tomahawk missiles, deck-mounted guns, sensors, antennas and heat-generating onboard electrical power, truly be considered stealthy? Surely, tall, vertical masts, hull-mounted sensors and protruding antenna could never be a low-observable ship, yet performing these missions comprised the technical starting point from which engineers launched into building a first-of-its-kind stealth warship.
Stealth attributes are just one of a number of defining characteristics of the much-discussed Zumwalt class warships, perceived by many to represent the beginning of a transformational pivot into a new generation of warfare -- including laser weapons, artificial intelligence, expanded networking, advanced sonar and electric-drive.
All three high-tech Zumwalt destroyers are now in the water, Capt. Kevin Smith, Zumwalt-class Program Manager, said at the Navy Leagues Sea, Air, Space Symposium. Smith detailed how each of the three new destroyers are at various stages of development. The first-in-class USS Zumwalt is preparing weapons on its way to final delivery later this year. The Zumwalt is now test-firing its weapons systems, completing an operational scenario transit through Alaska and Hawaii and advancing tactical training for the crew, as it prepares for its maiden deployment. The activation, which involves refining weapons, sensors and networks, is a vital step towards launching the destroyer for war.
The crew has been learning a lot as far as combat activation, a lot at-sea and a lot at its home port in San Diego. The maturity of the computer system has come a long way and is now at a higher level of completion, said Smith.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
A conversation occurred here on this site a few days ago about how difficult it is to build high-speed rail lines -- a sector I also spent time lobbying for in the mid-2000s. I commented here that it has become nearly impossible these days to build anything big -- from highways, to rail lines, to high-rise buildings (the new World Trade Center building cited as an example).
The United States used to be a country where the impossible was possible. Where big things could be built quickly, efficiently, and reasonably.
Unfortunately, it's not so much any more...
...and the Zumwalt-class destroyer is just the latest example.
If you think that high speed rail lines are something that should be built, then maybe you should rethink your understanding of cost/benefit calculations.
I won't rehash the posting from the previous thread, only to say here that it's not the idea, but our ability to implement.
...Of which the Zumwalt destroyer is the latest example.
Yeah. I’m still hearing we can’t go back to the Moon.
I guess it’s because engineers are no longer taught to use slide rules...
Our military equipment designers and Pentagon staffers have created toys that are too tricked out to be affordable.
We can’t go back to the moon at current because of all the industry and knowledge that was destroyed and no longer exists. You can’t just wave your wand and have parts appear from nowhere; just like you can’t just think happy thoughts and build a brand new 1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Sixty Special - the suppliers don’t exist any more, the tooling doesn’t exist, the line to build it doesn’t exist any more.
The technology base has to be rebuilt/redeveloped in order to build something like a 69 Cadillac today. Same thing with the Saturn V. And since you have to go to such expense and trouble, you might as well just start over and build something new that is advised by the developments and advances between the old design and now. Which, actually, is what’s going on now.
But yes, at this time, we do not have the ability to build a craft to take men to the moon. New moon craft are *being designed* and developed, but nothing we can put into production today.
An excellent sarcastic view of how this comes to happen is presented in the old movie: The Pentagon Wars.
Itll be stealthy as hell following its introduction to Khibiny. Ask the USS Scott.
It was a few captured V-2s and a handful of Redstones, and very little else.
We made it with years to spare.
Magnatron and my point is that we don't lack the technical capability, but the will, and we have the bonus of hyper-abundant bureaucratic "help".
Sell your can't someplace else, we're all stocked up here."
I just read the first Zumwalt was broke down at the Panama Canal...
It's not that we "can't."
We were told not to by the Aliens based on the dark side.
We made it with years to spare.
We made it with 5 months to spare July 1969.
Correct. There’s a difference between end of the decade and within ten years. My bad.
> Our military equipment designers and Pentagon staffers have created toys that are too tricked out to be affordable. <
The Germans made roughly the same mistake in WW II. While they were building one Panther or Tiger tank, the Soviets were building dozens of T-34s.
Friggin' idiots. Flush the toilet on them already.
Without any ammo for them.
We cant go back to the moon at current because of all the industry and knowledge that was destroyed and no longer exists.
And slide rules. They used slide rules for the math.
Have you noticed that a liberal/progressive will argue against anything that strengthens America with it would ‘take too long’, and/or ‘costs too much’, but anything that increases government control or reduces freedom is ‘if it saves just one child’s life...’
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.