A Study of the Hull - not good.
“The DDG 1000 design, per computer modeling of capsize risk (see Fig. 15) in real world circumstances, incline to be more vulnerable to such complete systems requirements failure of the vessel, compounded with the tragic potential of the loss of all hands.”
US NAVY - DDG 1000 - Zumwalt Class Destroyer, Tumblehome Hull
http://www.phisicalpsience.com/public/Tumblehome_Hull_DDG-1000/Tumblehome_Hull_DDG-1000.html
This whole thing may be moot anyway:
“ ... the third ship of the class, the Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG 1002), is on the budget chopping block. The result would leave the Navy with two of the advanced destroyers. Initially these radically new destroyers were meant to replace four Iowa-class battleships and 31 Spruance-class destroyers. The Zumwalts proved too expensive and mass production was cancelled.” http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/The-Zumwalts-Are-Fading-Away-10-26-2015.asp
Since it is larger, faster, and better armed, the USS Zumwalt just might be the prototype for the replacement for the Ticonderoga Class cruiser.
We already have CRUDESRONs, why not a cruiser-sized destroyer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer
That’s pretty damning stuff; makes you wonder if such exhausting studies were ever done before the keel was laid.
I did stability and trim studies as required for merchant ship masters, but they dealt more with static situations, in which as long as the GM was sufficient, you were good to go. I never studied much of the dynamic effects relating to stability. The main difference, I suppose, is that merchant ships have the option to change their head and speed, an option not always available to warships.
The X-bow ships are successful, I now see, because they have very little tumblehome and then only in the sheer strake, and the foc’s’le is much higher.