US Navy stealth destroyer

[cqaigy2]

I had not thought of that. It sure does. The Monitor and the Merrimack. No photos exist, only what we now call renderings.

Same idea, instead of cannon balls, radio waves.

 

[Sigarms]

Guess why I'm scratching my head is it only has one gun for shore bombardment? It's GOT to have more than that. They have these things out now called cruise missiles...

 

[bcp]

Guess why I'm scratching my head is it only has one gun for shore bombardment? It's GOT to have more than that. They have these things out now called cruise missiles...

Looks like 4 guns-two 155mm, two 30mm.

From:
USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Armament:
20x— MK 57 VLS modules, with 4 vertical launch cells in each module, 80 cells total. Each cell can hold one or more missiles, depending on the size of the missiles.
Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
Tactical Tomahawk Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC)
2x— 155 mm Advanced Gun System (Advanced Gun System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
920x— 155 mm total; 600 in automated store + Auxiliary store room with up to 320 rounds (non-automatic) as of April 2005
70-100 LRLAP rounds planned as of 2005 of total
2x— Mk 46 30 mm gun (GDLS) (MK46 Naval Platforms)

 

[JHTFarmer]

Primary purpose of these ships are to support the military/industrial complex with billions of tax dollars.

 

[buickanddeere]

Guess why I'm scratching my head is it only has one gun for shore bombardment? It's GOT to have more than that. They have these things out now called cruise missiles...

Because it costs more to launch a missile than to fire a 155 round. Even the guided 155mm smart warhead are only $100,000 a pop. Good out to 25miles and a few feet of accuracy.
Not sure what a conventional 155mm round costs or accuracy at 25 miles.

 

[Wagtail]

The French, Americans and Russians equipped with the latest high tech. Have all lost wars in Vietnam, Korea and the entire Middle East. To peasants wearing sandals carrying just AK47's and RPG's.

Yes and the British lost the Battle of Isandlwana to the Zulus (who weren't wearing sandals and were carrying spears + cowhide shields). The British were also overconfident of their abilities and contemptuous of their foes at the time. They went on to win the war.

The Afghans were losing the war with the Soviets until clandestinely supplied with modern weapons. (what the Afghans wore on their feet is anybodys guess )

The Americans, during the Viet Nam War, didn't lose a battle with the Viet Cong. Politically, they were never allowed to to fight a winning war.

The French? Just as the British were at the beginning of the Zulu Wars... overconfident of their abilities and contemptuous of their foes. Plus it was a corrupt colonial political system. They just up and left.

Korea? I don't understand what your point is there. The last time I was at Panmonjom the DMZ was still there.

 

[dmccarty]

...

Korea? I don't understand what your point is there. The last time I was at Panmonjom the DMZ was still there.

And in Korea we were fighting conventional Chinese and North Korea units. If MacArthur had not been an arrogant putz we had a good chance of unifying the Koreas. South Vietnam did not fall to VC, but to conventional forces as laid out by Mao in his book On Guerrilla.

We are only building three of the new destroyers which means that normally only one will be deployed. The USN plans to build up to 60 LCS which are nothing more then very expensive, fast, easily sunk targets for speed boats. LCS is going to cost around 800 million which gets you a little 3 inch gun, no air defense capability, no surface to surface missiles, etc. We would be much better off taking the money from the LCS program and building more Zumult's or Burke's.

Later,
Dan

 

[dmccarty]

I have a question. What about surveilance by Satellite? Stealth doesn't seem to be much of an advantage if it can't elude this tracking method and the Satellite's capability of detailed Photos, position to the exact point of Latitude and Longitude. Just a thought. It would be far better to have this Technology on all our SUBS. Just a thought.

Satellites will only tell you the rough location of a ship. One still has to be able to lock on radar to target a missile. The ship's low radar signature make it harder for radar to find and lock on. Most spy satellites are in low earth orbit and are not stationary so they will only be able to see the location of a ship for a short period of time. Satellite orbits are predictable and ships can change course and speed before the satellite "sees" them and when the satellite is gone, the ships can alter course yet again. Of course in a war with a state that had satellites, those satellites might not be flying anymore. There are also electronic counter measures that hide the ships from the satellites.

Having low radar signature is a huge advantage to both planes and ships.

Later,
Dan

 

[jinman]

I was a young petty officer onboard the USS Leahy DLG/CG-16, during Adm. Zumwalt's tenure as CNO. His son, Jim, was an officer aboard our ship and a very impressive young man who was liked by all of ship's company. Unfortunately, he had to change his career path to go into the Marines because he was color blind and could not perform the required duties of a line officer aboard ship. All sailors of that era remember the Z-grams that were issued by Adm. Zumwalt. He allowed crew members to grow beards and relaxed restrictions on haircuts and even the wearing of civilian clothes when on liberty in foreign ports. In general, he made us feel more human and allowed us to be a bit more individualistic. I think it is fitting that this whole class of ships will now be known as Zumwalt Class Destroyers. I suspect these ships will be able to deliver a few "Z-grams" of their own to the bad guys.

 

[dmccarty]

What is interesting about the Zumwalt's is that they are considered destroyers though they are almost 15,000 tons. The Ticonderoga cruisers are just shy of 10,000 tons and the Burke destroyer class is from 8,000 to almost 10,000 tons depending on the version.

How the USN designates a ship class is a mystery to me. It used to be really clear cut.

The third Zumwalt will be the LBJ. Recent naming conventions have used US Presidents for the names of carriers. I don't think the ship names should be named after recent presidents and should go back to using revolutionary battle names or very deserving service members. It is interesting that the USN has relegated LBJ to a destroyer.

Later,
Dan