# USS Zumwalt (first stealth destroyer) leaves dry dock



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 29, 2013)

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...avy-launches-new-stealth-destroyer/?hpt=hp_t2
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/21/navy-largest-destroyer-heading-into-water-in-maine/







Oh, it's the USA's largest destroyer too (100 feet longer than the current gen destroyer).



			
				Fox News said:
			
		

> It features an unusual wave-piercing hull, electric drive propulsion, advanced sonar and guided missiles, and a new gun that fires rocket-propelled warheads as far as 100 miles. Unlike warships with towering radar- and antenna-laden superstructures, the Zumwalt will ride low to the water to minimize its radar signature, making it stealthier than others.
> 
> Originally envisioned for shore bombardment, the ship's size and power plant that can produce 78 megawatts of electricity — enough to power 78,000 homes — make it a potential platform for futuristic weapons like the electromagnetic rail gun, which uses a magnetic field and electric current to fire a projectile at seven times the speed of sound.
> 
> There are so many computers and so much automation that it'll need fewer sailors, operating with a crew of 158, nearly half the complement aboard the current generation of destroyers.





			
				CNN said:
			
		

> At 610 feet long and 81 feet wide, the Zumwalt is longer and thinner than the USS Arizona, a battleship sunk at Pearl Harbor. But it weighs about half as much.
> 
> "It has the radar cross-section of a fishing boat," said Chris Johnson a spokesperson for Naval Sea Systems Command.



It is powered by Linux.


----------



## v12dock (Oct 29, 2013)

apt-get install USSZumwalt


----------



## Peter1986C (Oct 29, 2013)

It does not have apt, as it is obviously not Debian based but custom (I bet there is a lot of use of Linux for Embeded due all the microcontrolers and so on).


----------



## Nordic (Oct 29, 2013)

I want to know what the railgun would use as ammo.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Oct 29, 2013)

I can see it, I thought it was supposed to be stealth


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 29, 2013)

Chevalr1c said:


> It does not have apt, as it is obviously not Debian based but custom (I bet there is a lot of use of Linux for Embeded due all the microcontrolers and so on).



this is obviously a gentoo based system


----------



## MilkyWay (Oct 30, 2013)

Why make a Destroyer that big?


----------



## Peter1986C (Oct 30, 2013)

Solaris17 said:


> this is obviously a gentoo based system


Either that, or Linux from scratch a.k.a. entirely "home made" distro.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 30, 2013)

james888 said:


> I want to know what the railgun would use as ammo.


Just a cylindrical hunk of metal:





Anything moving at mach 6+ is going to do a ton of damage on impact.


Zumwalt will be equipped with artillery that is a cross between a rocket and canon.  They're shot out like a normal canon but they have a rocket engine that sends them to 60+ miles and guides them into their target.  They're much cheaper than Tomahawks and can't really be intercepted either.

The engines in the Zumwalt produce 75 MW of electricity to power, some day, the railguns that still aren't finalized.  The railguns should be able to fire in excess of 100 miles and even cheaper than the artillery rockets Zumwalt will be equipped to fire soon.




MilkyWay said:


> Why make a Destroyer that big?


I don't really know.  It is longer than the Pennsylvania-class battleship but not as wide.  I'm sure it has a lot to do with the hull's sea performance.  A long, thin hull can move faster through the water than a short, wide hull.


----------



## Fourstaff (Oct 30, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Just a cylindrical hunk of metal:
> http://asset-7.soup.io/asset/0029/1860_78fe_960.jpeg



What is "Velocitas Eradico" mean? 

So how often do we need to recoat this ship to mantain "small fishing boat" silhouette? 

As a side note, IIrc this ship is powered by two modified Rolls Royce engines which are used by Boeing 777.


----------



## DanishDevil (Oct 30, 2013)

Wikipedia: Railgun

They gave the project the Latin motto "Velocitas Eradico", which is Latin for "I, [who am] speed, eradicate", but may have been intended as "Speed kills" or similar.


----------



## Cruise51 (Oct 30, 2013)

Interesting that they took this long to develop stealth destroyers. Other countries have had stealth destroyers for many years. USA is usually the leader in stealth tech.... (Planes, Submarines, etc)


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 30, 2013)

Capt. James A. Kirk is the prospective commanding officer of the USS Zumwalt.

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg1000/Pages/bio1.aspx


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 30, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> So how often do we need to recoat this ship to mantain "small fishing boat" silhouette?


I imagine 90% of the cross-section comes from its design.  The remaining 10% is likely the RAM surface.  I have no idea how much maintenance it requires but I suspect that's something a congressional committee will be discussing in the coming years.




Fourstaff said:


> As a side note, IIrc this ship is powered by two modified Rolls Royce engines which are used by Boeing 777.


Yup, two Rolls-Royce MT30s.  The US Navy seems to like them because they are in the Littoral combat ships as well.




Cruise51 said:


> Interesting that they took this long to develop stealth destroyers. Other countries have had stealth destroyers for many years. USA is usually the leader in stealth tech.... (Planes, Submarines, etc)


Their cross-sections are much, much larger than the Zumwalt even though the Zumwalt is substantially larger and more capable than them.  The Navy also insisted on not commissioning a new destroyer until they had new weapons systems for it.  They couldn't really finalize the design until they knew the power requirements for these (they settled on rail guns) systems.

The Zumwalt's research goes all the way back to the Lockheed Sea Shadow.


Here she is getting her sea legs:




Note how there isn't a mess of antennas nor large vents on her unlike, say Sweden's Visby-class:





Even at cruising speed, Zumwalt is designed to produce little external sound, little external heat, a small wake, and to be a very stable firing platform (how else can you accurately shoot 100 miles?).  And did I mention she is massive?


----------



## Nordic (Oct 30, 2013)

Hey Ford, do you know how much of the ship remains under the surface. Is it ~60% or... I don't know.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 30, 2013)

Cruise51 said:


> Interesting that they took this long to develop stealth destroyers. Other countries have had stealth destroyers for many years. USA is usually the leader in stealth tech.... (Planes, Submarines, etc)



She was finished years ago - they just lost her in the boat yard because the technology worked so well.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 30, 2013)

james888 said:


> Hey Ford, do you know how much of the ship remains under the surface. Is it ~60% or... I don't know.


You can see about where the water line is in the OP picture.  The red is under water, the dark gray is about where she is supposed to ride once her arms and munitions are installed, and the light gray is above the water level.  She doesn't ride very deep at all.


----------



## Frick (Oct 30, 2013)

Should've stuck with Windows NT.

Joking aside, needs more black paint.

EDIT: And in the civilized world, that's 185 x 25 m.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 31, 2013)

Frick said:


> Should've stuck with Windows NT.
> 
> Joking aside, needs more black paint.
> 
> EDIT: And in the civilized world, that's 185 x 25 m.



Yay an advanced warship to protect us against?  Aliens? France? Middle Eastern extremists? PETA protests? Russian warships? US citizens in costal cities?

Not sure what its use is in the age where there are drones, ICBM's, and subs.


Wait.....this just in, instead of medical help or improving the economy we are going to spend this money on ships that do little to no good but make power hungry fat cats feel like important men.


Only 7 BILLION EACH WHAT A GREAT DEAL!!!!!


Do we want to wage war for 30 Billion MORE dollars over the next 10 years plus all the support crew, maintenance, test firing, and typical military waste? Or cure diseases that kill far more people?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 31, 2013)

Zumwalt serves two primary purposes:
1) Protect aircraft carriers by destroying surface ships and submarines.
2) Bombard inland targets during war and do it without using costly Tomahawks (although it still has that option should the need arise).

Building ships like these are great for the Maine economy...and what does Maine have besides shipbuilding?

Zumwalt has half the crew compliment that Arleigh Burke-class destroyers do.

Only three Zumwalts were ordered: the first is expected to cost $7 billion, the second $3.5 billion, and the third $2.5 billion.  By contrast, there are 13 outstanding orders for new Arleigh Burke-class destroyers at $1.8 billion each.

I think DOD is making these ships and aircraft like the F-22 so, in the event that a major war breaks out, they could go into mass production of them.  They're essentially research projects (for now) with production numbers too small to have a major impact on a war effort.


Fun fact: Arleigh Burke destroyers produce 80 MW of power from four engines compared to Zumwalt destroyer's 78 MW of power from two engines.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 1, 2013)

As to the question of ammunition, anything from carbon blocks to metal cylinders.  The material has to be relatively conductive, but that's the only requirement.

A railgun works by producing a huge magnetic field within coils, then inducing an opposing field in the projectile.  The projectile is not fixed, so rather than heat up the opposing magnetic field yields a substantial linear motion.  As the soldiers in Mass Effect said, Newton was the most bad a$$ motherf###er ever.  The kinetic energy of a projectile is equal to half the mass multiplied by the square of the velocity (ek=1/2*m*v^2), so a very fast moving mass has an insane amount of energy that needs to be dissipated.  


Let's take a macabre example.  You've got a human being, who has a terminal velocity of 200 kph (56 mps) and a mass of 90 kg (I'm using metric, but the imperial system is so tempting to annoy the rest of the world).  You calculate that the kinetic energy is therefore 141 KJ.  When that human hits the ground they make a very large dent.  Now, you've got a projectile being accelerated to mach 4, or 1361 mps (let's go on the low side).  To have the same energy as the human it only needs to have a mass of 0.15 kg.  So my American compatriots understand, a terminal velocity (125 mph, 200 lbs) person would have the equivalent energy of a 1/3 pound projectile at mach 4.

Let's extrapolate that to a 10 pound iron rod at mach 6, and you get the kind of insane destructive potential that we're looking at.  Thermite may melt armor.  Plastic explosives may shatter armor.  Kinetic energy vaporizes armor, assuming that it doesn't punch through it like a cannon through a butter wall.  My only question is how many times will this thing be used before it's determined to be a force of terror as much as a weapon.  Knowing that any building within line of sight of the water can be demolished without any warning makes me afraid to live anywhere near the coast.


----------



## Fourstaff (Nov 1, 2013)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> As to the question of ammunition, anything from carbon blocks to metal cylinders.



You don't really want carbon blocks, it will completely burn to nothing before it leaves the barrel.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 1, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> You don't really want carbon blocks, it will completely burn to nothing before it leaves the barrel.



Not to mention it isnt quite as conductive as other metals. I remember making a Rail Gun during my college days. A car battery, several industrial capacitors, a huge copper coil wrapped around a plumbing pipe with a bore no bigger than a screwdriver head, and chopped up screwdriver heads. They are amazing weapons, but the energy requirement is their downfall, and obviously is the main issue with making a portable handheld railgun. The charging period from something like a car battery (which is pretty heavy), hooked up to at least 2 or 3 capacitors is less effective than old fashioned gunpowder and lead. However the projectile has far more destructive force, similar to dumdum bullets.

Pretty much anyone can make a railgun with household items and a little physics know how.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 1, 2013)

I'm not sure what you guys were doing, but I've seen carbon blocks used for testing.  

Again, a college level senior project I got to see used milled carbon blocks.  The point was not to create destruction, and the velocity of the projectile was only about mach 1.6.  The carbon does have the tendency to burn, but the extremely low mass means a greater acceleration.

As far as conductivity, doesn't really matter.  Carbon can conduct just as well as some metal.  


So, as a weapon a carbon rod isn't exactly a great idea.  At the same time you may want to tailor a projectile for certain kinds of uses.  There are armor piercing bullets, incendiary ones, and softer ones to prevent ricochet.  It seems like the same thing can be done with railgun projectiles.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 1, 2013)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'm not sure what you guys were doing, but I've seen carbon blocks used for testing.
> 
> Again, a college level senior project I got to see used milled carbon blocks.  The point was not to create destruction, and the velocity of the projectile was only about mach 1.6.  The carbon does have the tendency to burn, but the extremely low mass means a greater acceleration.
> 
> ...



You make a good point, not to mention Carbon rods are cheaper to use en masse than most metals. I know a physics professor who bakes his own carbon compounds in a kiln for magnetic purposes.


----------



## KainXS (Nov 1, 2013)

and here I was thinking kirk would get his enterprise(CVN-80)


----------



## Fourstaff (Nov 1, 2013)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'm not sure what you guys were doing, but I've seen carbon blocks used for testing.



I was under impression we need to propel this up to 100km away.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 1, 2013)

RCoon said:


> They are amazing weapons, but the energy requirement is their downfall, and obviously is the main issue with making a portable handheld railgun.


Hence the 78MW gas turbines.  I suspect they went with gas turbines and electric drives as opposed to direct-drive diesels because imagine those gas turbines running at low speed for normal operations and running at full bore when operating rail guns.  They can run at whatever speed the ship requires at the time (unlike, say, nuclear reactors).

I don't know how quickly the rail guns are intended to fire but I could totally see them launching a 100 shells each in less than a minute, changing their trajectories so they all hit the target at the same time.  If there's a high value target in said building, the odds of surviving are almost none.  I'm sure the Navy wished they had that weapon system when they were hoping to kill Hussein before the Iraq war.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 1, 2013)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Hence the 78MW gas turbines.  I suspect they went with gas turbines and electric drives as opposed to direct-drive diesels because imagine those gas turbines running at low speed for normal operations and running at full bore when operating rail guns.  They can run at whatever speed the ship requires at the time (unlike, say, nuclear reactors).
> 
> I don't know how quickly the rail guns are intended to fire but I could totally see them launching a 100 shells each in less than a minute, changing their trajectories so they all hit the target at the same time.  If there's a high value target in said building, the odds of surviving are almost none.  I'm sure the Navy wished they had that weapon system when they were hoping to kill Hussein before the Iraq war.



The issue most of the designers of DIY railguns have (i had the same problem) with rate of fire is the orientation of the projectiles, some opt for top loaded magazines(gravity helps), while others opt for springloaded bottom orientated magazines, and keeping the other projectiles from moving when the current is sent through the coil to fire the main projectile. Obviously billions of dollars have addressed this issue far better than I or other DIYers can, but I'd love to know the rate of fire and the projectile loading mechanism.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 1, 2013)

Answering that issue may be the reason why it isn't deployed yet.  DDG-1000 (previously DDX) was entirely designed around the rail gun.  There has to be some issues with it for them to be deploying the Zumwalt with a more traditional (albeit still the most high-tech on a destroyer) weapon system.

Presumably, the Zumwalt will be commissioned with all the power equipment required to drive the rail guns so power isn't the problem.  I highly doubt they would have proceeded with the first three ships of the Zumwalt class if they weren't. Rate of fire and robotically reloading it is most likely the source of the delay.  Perhaps it could be the ammunition too.  All three are intrinsically related.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 1, 2013)

Going need it with all those submarines out there in fact probably better of making those than ships.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 1, 2013)

AsRock said:


> Going need it with all those submarines out there in fact probably better of making those than ships.



Until they wind up grounding on the shores of Scotland by accident


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 1, 2013)

A destroyer can move faster and serve more roles than a submarine.  Case in point: Zumwalt has a hangar for storing and launching helicopters (manned and unmanned) while not compromising its stealthy characteristics.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 1, 2013)

"Come death, come sweet death." The little legionaire


----------



## Steevo (Nov 1, 2013)

stealthy from who? Somali pirates? Idiots who are going to drive boats full of explosives next to the boat as they can see it with their stealth proof eyes (tm)?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/u-s-navy-rescues-iranian-boat-held-by-pirates.html


http://hamptonroads.com/node/104461


I bet they find a way to make sure they do their inspections in Hawaii as well, nothing quite like the thrill of the rough sea life and fighting the natives of Hawaii for their freedom and right to basic human rights......with their state sponsored medical....http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/policy/17hawaii.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 and we wouldn't want that state sponsored health care rules and regulations getting in the way of good old merica freedom right? Put those bastards down now before their commie ideas spread to any civilized country!

Hawaii is right around the corner from the middle east too right?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 1, 2013)

All RADAR.  If a stealth aircraft/vessel isn't actively pinging its location, no one knows it is even there without looking directly at it or picking it up via SONAR.  It has techniques to counter both of these measures too.

Ever since the USS Cole bombing (coincidentally, it is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer), all ships are given orders to fire on sight any ship that approaches without identifying themselves.  In short, suicide bombings on naval ships fail; none have succeeded since the Cole/policy change.

Also, once the rail guns are equipped, the Zumwalts should be able to sink ships without killing anyone on board.  It makes piracy...laughable.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 1, 2013)

Steevo said:


> stealthy from who? Somali pirates? Idiots who are going to drive boats full of explosives next to the boat as they can see it with their stealth proof eyes (tm)?
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/u-s-navy-rescues-iranian-boat-held-by-pirates.html
> 
> ...



Implying a Somalian Pirate vessel could get within 100KM of this destroyer without being spotted and vaporised before they can say "stand and deliver".
Ever seen a somalian pirate sail up to a destroyer? Neither have I.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Nov 1, 2013)

RCoon said:


> Implying a Somalian Pirate vessel could get within 100KM of this destroyer without being spotted and vaporised before they can say "stand and deliver".
> Ever seen a somalian pirate sail up to a destroyer? Neither have I.



Edit: FORDGT already posted it lol

Actually, this was allowed to happen, before. It's very fishy.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 1, 2013)

RCoon said:


> Until they wind up grounding on the shores of Scotland by accident



Subs own the water..  That's why America is getting as many of them out their with the best tech as possible.

Lets face it you own the water you own the land too as those things can carry nukes too.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 1, 2013)

If the USA controls the sea, it also controls the sky because of aircraft carriers.  If you control the sky, you can also control the ground up to x number of miles inland.  There's very little land the USA can't strike at on short notice.

These $7 billion ships are intended to keep the $14 billion aircraft carriers (excluding aircraft and personnel) safe.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 2, 2013)

Steevo said:


> stealthy from who? Somali pirates? Idiots who are going to drive boats full of explosives next to the boat as they can see it with their stealth proof eyes (tm)?
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/u-s-navy-rescues-iranian-boat-held-by-pirates.html
> 
> ...




You really are a bit ignorant at times in these issues....


Considering that a Chinese admiral just had to make a press release regarding the USS Zumwalt in one of the major Chinese dailies with the exact same statement ("I only need several bomb boats to sink it!"), even though 1. Zumwalt wasn't made as a specific threat to China 2. No mention of China was made at all during its leaving from the dry dock, i.e. they feel threatened because they know they're the ones trying to brew a s**tstorm in the Pacific and now it seems it's coming to haunt them.

Also, stealth != invisible.

It's essentially the difference between the Chameleon spell and the Invisible spell in Elder Scroll games.

You're harder to find, not that you're impossible to find.

And visual-only detection is quite limited in terms of distance. You also imply that the Zumwalt have first-generation radar because they have to be 'surprised' by those boats.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2013)

entropy13 said:


> And visual-only detection is quite limited in terms of distance. You also imply that the Zumwalt have first-generation radar because they have to be 'surprised' by those boats.


It looks to me like Zumwalt has AEGIS RADAR system.  In other words, it is watching in all directions, all the time and it can track objects as small as anti-ship missiles flying at several times the speed of sound.  It's a pretty sure bet it will find you long before you find it.

USS Zumwalt is the most advanced warship out there, bar none.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 2, 2013)

entropy13 said:


> You really are a bit ignorant at times in these issues....
> 
> 
> Considering that a Chinese admiral just had to make a press release regarding the USS Zumwalt in one of the major Chinese dailies with the exact same statement ("I only need several bomb boats to sink it!"), even though 1. Zumwalt wasn't made as a specific threat to China 2. No mention of China was made at all during its leaving from the dry dock, i.e. they feel threatened because they know they're the ones trying to brew a s**tstorm in the Pacific and now it seems it's coming to haunt them.
> ...



Im sorry Im a bit ignorant about a percieved threat and actions againt such that could or would he considered a mental illness if it wasn't a war happy government. 

I bet they could use spells from real video games to enchant their ship in sneak abilities!!!!

And the unemployed needy here should learn the spell to make food and jobs, but they are too lazy!! We need money for make fake war and keep safe the inhabitants of other nations!


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 4, 2013)

Chevalr1c said:


> It does not have apt, as it is obviously not Debian based but custom (I bet there is a lot of use of Linux for Embeded due all the microcontrolers and so on).



the joke went right over your head...

on another note, automating war machines is a very scary proposition.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 9, 2015)

Just saw this now:
The Navy’s newest warship is powered by Linux





She literally has a 16-cluster supercomputer in a server room on board.


What drew my attention is this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navys-newest-weapon-kills-at-seven-times-the-speed-of-sound/

The third ship in the Zumwalt-class will get rail guns before 2020.  RAIL GUNS!!!


----------



## Norton (Oct 9, 2015)

_*Steam* _*powered *


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Oct 9, 2015)

It's an interesting piece of engineering, but sadly it is strategically and tactically utterly pointless.

A ship that size is a sitting duck anywhere within strike range of a proper military power, and stealth is the biggest load of bollocks I've seen the military PR throw out in a long time. There is NO way you are going to hide a METAL object from radar, longwave signals will always pick up large chunks of conductive material no matter how much "cladding" or fancy ass paint you put on it (TBF none of the stealth bombers are actually stealthy to ground radar, the stealth tech only works (TO A LIMITED EXTENT) against short range missiles which use on board guidance, any truck size RADAR installation will easily pick up something like that).

Not to mention you can just use some large GPS guided missile and coordinate with a visual/near IR satellite to blow the thing to bits because there is no way that thing is out-manoeuvring a missile strike within a dozen seconds notice, even within a full minute the movement of a ship is very easy to predict.

People really need to stop buying into all this expensive military crap and start sending all the fancy stuff into space, down here we can just stick to high volume conventional weapons, there is no point in spending billions of dollars on some program that will give you slightly better tech but let any enemy outnumber you 10 to 1 with equipment that costs less than a quarter of the price, not to mention that your kill to loss ratio will never be nearly as high as 10-1 no matter what your tech is.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 9, 2015)

Norton said:


> _*Steam* _*powered*



You might think your taking the piss
But All Nuke Reactor powered vessels USE STEAM POWER
The nuke just heats water for Steam turbines 
that's what moves the pile of slowly corroding ....................  Opps


----------



## Norton (Oct 10, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> You might think your taking the piss
> But All Nuke Reactor powered vessels USE STEAM POWER
> The nuke just heats water for Steam turbines
> that's what moves the pile of slowly corroding ....................  Opps



Very true but how does that relate to a ship powered by Rolls Royce gas turbines?


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 10, 2015)

Absolutely nothing
Just bear in mind that the Europeans were sailing Stelath warships ( in Service ) way back in 2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette


----------



## Easo (Oct 10, 2015)

Except that Zumwalt is far more advanced, and, well, stealthy. Ah yes, one is corvette, second one is destroyer close in size to the first dreadnoughts.
Also Burke's are using stealth tech too (and buuuuuuunch of other ships from various countries).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 10, 2015)

Sea Shadow, 1985.






USS Freedom, 2008.







Easo said:


> Except that Zumwalt is far more advanced, and, well, stealthy. Ah yes, one is corvette, second one is destroyer close in size to the first dreadnoughts.
> Also Burke's are using stealth tech too (and buuuuuuunch of other ships from various countries).


You forgot huge.  It's 600 feet long.  Visby is 239 feet and USS Freedom is 378 ft.  Zumwalt is 80.7 ft wide compared to Freedom's 57.4 ft.  FYI, despite USS Freedom being a lot bigger than Visby, it's also much faster at 47 knots versus 35 because  Freedom is a semi-planing ship.  Visby would not want to encounter an unfriendly Freedom-class, nevermind Zumwalt-class.

Zumwalt was put behind because the US Navy was hoping LASER and rail gun technologies would keep up (program started in 1994).  They eventually decided they couldn't wait anymore but the ship's turbines and electrical systems are designed to take the electrical load of next generation weapon systems.




GorbazTheDragon said:


> It's an interesting piece of engineering, but sadly it is strategically and tactically utterly pointless.


a) Rail guns can shell, at very low cost, targets 100+ miles away.
b) It has a large deck for take off and retrieval of helicopters and a hangar to hide them away  so they don't break the stealthy profile.
c) It has a massive compliment of missile launchers for reaching out even further than the rail guns can reach.
d) The RADAR cross-section of that 600 foot long ship isn't much larger than a fishing boat.  Most radio waves that hit it are reflected into space.
e) It's as quiet to sonar as the USS Los Angeles, torpedos will have trouble finding it and sonar will have difficulty tracking it.
f) It is designed to have a very low infrared radiation signature as well making it very difficult for heat seeking missiles to target it.
g) It's RADAR and sonar systems are the best in the world with a supercomputer backing them up.

All combined, it's not only nearly invisible to everything except the naked eye (to which it is deceptive due to the tumblehome hull), it can see and engage targets before they're even aware it exists.  Excepting the aircraft carriers, it is the most deadly ship prowling the oceans.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 10, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Absolutely nothing
> Just bear in mind that the Europeans were sailing Stelath warships ( in Service ) way back in 2009
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette



Yea but Europe is filled with a bunch of pansies who cry to the USA to do their dirty work. Honestly, europeans are the biggest load of hypocrites on the planet.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 10, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Yea but Europe is filled with a bunch of pansies who cry to the USA to do their dirty work. Honestly, europeans are the biggest load of hypocrites on the planet.



Spoiling for a flame war sorry but i don't posses any oil reserves So pointless trying to start a flamewar so you can Invade in the name of freedom


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 10, 2015)

Chevalr1c said:


> It does not have apt, as it is obviously not Debian based but custom (I bet there is a lot of use of Linux for Embeded due all the microcontrolers and so on).


Missed this back when the thread was created.  It runs Red Hat on IBM blade servers.


Edit: Random Googling lead me to LRASM which is a long range (580 miles), stealthy, cruise missile specifically for anti-ship use.  It'll be compatible with Zumwalt among many other ships in the fleet.  The new missile will be much harder to intercept compared to the near 40-year old Harpoon missile used now.


----------



## xvi (Oct 10, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Missed this back when the thread was created. It runs Red Hat on IBM blade servers.


Interesting. I would have thought that, in the name of security, all code would have been reviewed and manually compiled.
I suppose it still could have been.

Think I could pull off a bit of social engineering? "Greetings, this is Admiral XVI. I'm going to need you to run 'yum install boinc-client'. Mmhmm. Yes. Uh huh. Yeah, I can help you set it up."


----------



## AsRock (Oct 10, 2015)

Now to find out how i can fit it in the basement .


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 10, 2015)

"35 feet long, 8 feet high, and 12 feet wide"

Go measure.


----------



## m4gicfour (Oct 10, 2015)

I didn't reply to these the first time around, but the thread came back up and my pedantry is acting up.


lilhasselhoffer said:


> As to the question of ammunition, anything from carbon blocks to metal cylinders.  The material has to be relatively conductive, but that's the only requirement.
> 
> *A railgun works by producing a huge magnetic field within coils, then inducing an opposing field in the projectile.*  The projectile is not fixed, so rather than heat up the opposing magnetic field yields a substantial linear motion.





RCoon said:


> Not to mention it isnt quite as conductive as other metals. *I remember making a Rail Gun during my college days. A car battery, several industrial capacitors, a huge copper coil wrapped around a plumbing pipe with a bore no bigger than a screwdriver head, and chopped up screwdriver heads. *
> 
> Pretty much anyone can make a railgun with household items and a little physics know how.


Coilguns. You're both talking about coilguns.

For comparison: Link

A basic railgun neither has nor needs coils in the propulsion of the projectile. It uses the intrinsic properties of the physics surrounding the flow of current electricity (the Lorentz Force, in this case) to impart movement via a magnetic field created directly by the flow of current (neccesarily, from one rail to the other through the projectile or a sabot or carrier device) and force the projectile to travel along the rails (hence, *rail* gun). In concept, super mechanically simple if you've got the ability to produce a LOT of power. In reality, well.... we're talking millions of amps to impart the kind of acceleration and muzzle velocities that come into play for kinetic energy projectiles to be an effective replacement for conventionals, in terms of firepower. Rail erosion has always been one of the main limiting factor of railguns (arcing, friction, heat, and other factors) and as such the need for rail and even barrel replacement is a serious issue in terms of the speed, reliability, repeatability, and sustainability of the weapon's firing. 

If this is indeed a railgun and not a coilgun or hybrid of some sort, I wonder what they've done to solve (mitigate) the rail erosion issue; cryogenic cooling? new materials? rapidly replaceable rails? Rapidly replaceable rails seems the most realistic solution, barring some serious advancement in materials science by the navy; perhaps along with even something like an altered-atmosphere "barrel" to reduce friction and arcing in order to prolong rail life.  As far as a combat sustainable rapidly replaceable rail system, I'm imagining some sort of magazine of rails whereby after a set number of shots, the rails are ejected and automatically replaced along with the next projectile, perhaps? 

Mainly because that sounds like it would look REALLY cool in operation. 

A number of cycles of high-pitched electronic whine of charging capacitors followed by sonic boom as each projectile leaves the barrel, then after the current rail set is spent beyond usability a set of ejection ports opens allowing the spent rails to be ejected to sea and new ones loaded from a magazine; burning white hot with smoke and brief spontaneous flame as they're exposed to atmosphere and then a screeching hiss and cloud of steam as they land in the ocean and vaporize a significant amount of seawater on their descent.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 10, 2015)

It has:
2 x Rolls-Royce MT30 35.4 MW
2 x Rolls-Royce RR4500 3.9 MW

78 MW total output.  Bare in mind that we don't have to consider just the power requirements of the gun itself but also the requirements of gyroscopes for stabilizing the gun (presumably much larger than for a cannon).

I think the reason why they selected turbine engines is because they can power up and down to meet the requirements of the ship (including the guns).  It should theoretically eliminate the need for huge battery capacity.


Your questions about the rails I suspect are highly classified.  Once it is leaked out how they are made, USA won't be the only country with them.


It would be a "hyper boom."


----------



## m4gicfour (Oct 10, 2015)

...and craft propulsion and LaWS missile defence and RADAR and... but yes, you're very likely correct on all points.

Though, regardless of power generation system you couldn't even use a battery for powering something like this. Due to the Equivalent Series Resistance of current battery tech, any battery wouldn't discharge fast enough unless MASSIVELY parallel, and I do mean massively. You'd effectively need supercapacitors. You'd still need a lot as supercapacitors can discharge very fast but can't store very much compared to a battery. Generating the power on demand therefore would be the best option, if it's possible.

When I said millions of amperes of current, that was just a guess taken straight from the article I linked, and even so - to my knowledge voltage has little effect on the strength of the Lorentz force (perhaps besides speed of the propagation of the magnetic field?) and if so, then it could easily be a very low voltage yet very high amperage system. The railgun itself, after all, is effectively a short circuit.

If indeed amperage is all that affects the strength of the Lorentz force then the lower they can make the DC resistance of the system, the lower the voltage they can use to get a fixed amperage, for a significant wattage savings on the operation of the device (as well as less risk of arcing although once a current that large is flowing it will ionize the atmosphere and sustain the arc even with voltage otherwise insufficient for arcing).

Lets say the railgun requires 5MA (arbitrary made up number) at 500mV then the total wattage is "only" 2.5MW; even at 1V it's 5MW, 2V it's 10MW, 3V its 15MW... voltage therefore would be the enemy, given my earlier assumption. The way you get voltage to be lower and still maintain the 5MA is simple: reduce resistance. Moar conductive everything, parallel everything possible... maybe even SUPERCONDUCTERS wao and such

As far as the info being classified: Obviously, but I still wanna know!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 10, 2015)

Hello, gorgeous!

Holy crap that's small...much smaller than I thought.  It accelerates the projectile to mach 7 in 10ms.  It is probably actually much lighter than a cannon because there is no heavy breach.  It also clearly uses a sabot so maybe the sabot is designed to take the wear instead of the barrel.


Edit: Here's a model a few months newer:
http://news.usni.org/2015/07/28/navy-pursuing-upgraded-railgun-higher-power-laser-gun-by-2020





The current weaponized LASERs are 30kW; they want a 100kW and 150kW model.  Switching to railgun:


> A manual-load version will go to sea on a Joint High Speed Vessel next year, but the Navy is already working on a version that would allow for *10 shots per minute*. This “rep rate” version, despite challenges including thermal management in the barrel, is *expected to go to sea by FY 2019*.



Mach 7 = 5370.88 MPH

If my math is right and there wasn't an arch, that shell would hit a target 110 miles away (the effective range of it) in 75 seconds.


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 10, 2015)

Steevo said:


> Not sure what its use is in the age where there are drones, ICBM's, and *subs*.



This is a destroyer.  What do destroyers hunt?

I'll give you a hint, it starts with an "S" (and is bolded above)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 10, 2015)

Zumwalt, in the future, may even be able to *destroy* ICBMs and drones using the railguns.


FYI, the Army is looking into railguns too.  That might be the reason why Abrams and Paladin are still around and all plans to replace them have been scraped.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 10, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> This is a destroyer.  What do destroyers hunt?
> 
> I'll give you a hint, it starts with an "S" (and is bolded above)



Crabs mostly XD


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 10, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Crabs mostly XD



I'll grant you that they were A LOT busier in WW2...  heh.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 14, 2015)

There's apparently two railguns floating around the internet: one made by BAE Systems (V shaped near the breach) and one made by General Atomics (big circular structure near the breach).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...oncrete-100-MILES-away-shown-public-Navy.html


> Two prototypes of the weapon have been developed for the US Navy – one by British arms manufacturer BAE Systems and the second by a US firm.


"US firm" is General Atomics.  Was wondering why I kept seeing two different guns related to the US Navy.  That's why.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2015)

Navy released a video of LCS-5 USS Milwaukee (Freedom class littoral combat ship) going balls out:








Freedom-class littoral combat ships (similar in size to frigates) has the same turbine engines in it (Rolls-Royce MT30) as Zumwalt-class destroyers producing about 74 MW total in both ships.   Zumwalt channels that to firepower where Freedom channels it to speed.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 2, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Navy released a video of USS Milwaukee (Freedom class littoral combat ship) going balls out:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Holy crap. That's like a speedboat, but about 100 times bigger and heavier. Talk about out-manoeuvre


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 2, 2015)

Slightly slower (44 knots versus 47 knots) but bigger (418' long versus 378') LCS-2 USS Independence (skip to 3:30):








Freedom and Independence are practically cousins.  USA Navy ordered two them to compete with each other and decided they liked them so much, they ordered 10 more of each.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 8, 2015)

The largest destroyer ever built for the U.S. Navy began its sea trials yesterday.

The $4.3bn ship departed from shipbuilder Bath Iron Works in Maine and carefully navigated the winding Kennebec River before reaching the open ocean where the ship will undergo sea trials.








TOP SECRET VIDEO  (on youtube) 









The Zumwalt is the first of three ships in the class.








a top secret railgun video.









@Easy Rhino i am proud to be European and a friend to Americans  and their stealthy "secret" stuff


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 9, 2015)

Looks like no other ship on the seas, that's for sure.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 16, 2015)

Navy stealth destroyer rescues fisherman


			
				CNN said:
			
		

> The advanced guided missile destroyer, which boasts stealth capabilities and will one day help support Special Operations forces, responded on Saturday to a distress call from a fishing boat off the coast of Maine, rescuing a fisherman who was experiencing chest pains.
> 
> The stealth destroyer's crew -- a combination of Navy personnel and employees of Bath Iron Works, which is testing the ship -- deployed to the fishing vessel on an inflatable boat to hoist the distressed fisherman aboard the Zumwalt.
> 
> "After medical evaluation, the patient was transferred from Zumwalt to a Coast Guard helicopter and then to an area hospital," U.S. Navy spokesperson Thurraya Kent said in a statement.


That lucky bastard!


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 16, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That lucky bastard!



wonder if he had to sign a NDA or Official secrets Document before he was taken onboard  For Treatment ?


----------



## ShiBDiB (Dec 16, 2015)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10208640437117833
		



My personal favorite video of it


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 16, 2015)

ShiBDiB said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10208640437117833
> 
> 
> 
> ...




that really is stealthy....i couldnt see a thing  

doesnt take too much of a disguise to get on board then


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 16, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The largest destroyer ever built for the U.S. Navy began its sea trials yesterday.
> 
> The $4.3bn ship departed from shipbuilder Bath Iron Works in Maine and carefully navigated the winding Kennebec River before reaching the open ocean where the ship will undergo sea trials.
> 
> ...


LOL, it had to get towed back into port... OY.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 16, 2015)

ShiBDiB said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10208640437117833
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's that loud?  You'd think they would have tried to dampen that.  The Freedom-class are probably just as loud, if not louder having the same engines and a much smaller frame.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 12, 2016)

USS Zumwalt is too stealthy for safety.


The future USS Zumwalt is so stealthy that it'll go to sea with reflective material that can be hoisted to make it more visible to other ships.

The Navy destroyer is designed to look like a much smaller vessel on radar, and it lived up to its billing during recent builder trials.

Lawrence Pye, a lobsterman, told The Associated Press that on his radar screen the 610-foot ship looked like a 40- to 50-foot fishing boat. 






Despite its size, the warship is 50 times harder to detect than current destroyers thanks to its angular shape and other design features, and its stealth could improve even more once testing equipment is removed, said Capt. James Downey, program manager.

During sea trials last month, the Navy tested Zumwalt's radar signature with and without reflective material hoisted on its halyard, he said. 

The goal was to get a better idea of exactly how stealthy the ship really is, Downey said from Washington, D.C.

The reflectors, which look like metal cylinders, have been used on other warships and will be standard issue on the Zumwalt and two sister ships for times when stealth becomes a liability and they want to be visible on radar, like times of fog or heavy ship traffic, he said.


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 12, 2016)

Sneaky fishing boat with railgun. I wonder what people 50 years ago would say.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2016)

Fourstaff said:


> Sneaky fishing boat with railgun. I wonder what people 50 years ago would say.


I want one?


----------



## Ferrum Master (Apr 12, 2016)

I wonder how this thing is protected against small predator subs...?

An old sea wolf would scold someone about improperly using name boat instead of a ship. Marines really get angry about this . The only sea boats are the ones that sail under the water... others are usually made of rubber .


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2016)

It's a destroyer.  It's primary role is anti-submarine warfare.  For starters, it has a helicopter/drone deck for launching/recovering anti-submarine aircraft.  Should they find a submarine that Zumwalt deems a threat, Zumwalt is packing anti-submarine missiles (a rocket that deploys a torpedo) to dispatch it from a over 10 miles away.  If the submarine is on the surface, Zumwalt has a wide variety of tools to destroy it.

I'm sure Zumwalt is as difficult for submarines to detect as aircraft and ships.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Apr 12, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's a destroyer.  It's primary role is anti-submarine warfare.  For starters, it has a helicopter/drone deck for launching/recovering anti-submarine aircraft.  Should they find a submarine that Zumwalt deems a threat, Zumwalt is packing anti-submarine missiles (a rocket that deploys a torpedo) to dispatch it from a over 10 miles away.



Yea... but still it can get a supercavitation torpedo that runs 300-400km/h in the belly... I really dunno how to stop these fishes... if a sub sits silent and waits for her prey... well... I really don't know if such stealth I mean the tax payer price for a such gimmick really pays off against such target... uboats are going stealth too... and they are really hard to detect. German type-212 armed with barracudas... I really cannot predict how effective it really is...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2016)

The supercavitating torpedos only have a maximum range of 10 miles.  As previously noted, the anti-submarine missiles have a range of 11 miles.  The anti-submarine aircraft have a range in the hundreds of miles.  USA's tactic is to kill submarines before they get close enough to be a threat.

Also, don't forget that Zumwalt will almost always be part of a carrier strike group which has aircraft of its own for anti-submarine purposes as well as a compliment of hunter-killer submarines that patrol the perimeter of the group.


The last time there was major submarine warfare (WWII), the U-Boats were made extinct due to anti-submarine aircraft and depth charges.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Apr 12, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The last time there was major submarine warfare (WWII), the U-Boats were made extinct due to anti-submarine aircraft and depth charges.



Well... look up some NATO joint sea exercise results... exactly the small diesel subs had put in shame many sophisticated nuclear subs and destroyers... well... we all know that creating a shitload of unmanned subs that can wait in one place for years is easy... hope china wont realise the obvious lol.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2016)

China doesn't have any nuclear submarines yet.  They are building a lot of diesel submarines.

An idle submarine is harder to find than a moving submarine but it is still possible to detect.


The problem with drone submarines is communication.  A Virginia-class submarine (135 crew) can be given orders and carry them out without surfacing for 90 days.  On the other hand, a drone would likely have to resurface every night to download new directives via satellite.  The act of communicating with the satellite could also give the location of the drone away.  Not to mention the difference between humans making an attack decision versus a robot that hasn't talked to a human in 4+ hours.

All of that said, I think we will be seeing drone attack submarines as part of a carrier strike group and drone defense submarines as part of the Coast Guard in the next 20-30 years.


I'd like to see a Virginia submarine versus Zumwalt (both are brand-spanking new).


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (May 21, 2016)

*"The Real Captain Kirk Takes Command of the Navy’s New $4 Billion Destroyer"*
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...ion-destroyer/ar-BBtiaz3?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 12, 2016)

It'll be commissioned and unleashed on the world October 15:
http://usszumwalt.org/commissioning-2016/

The first ship in a new era of near undetectable, highly lethal, and multi-mission surface combat ships:





The only other ship that comes close in terms of technology is the Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers, the first of which should be commissioned later this year.


----------



## BirdyNV (Sep 12, 2016)

Hmm. the Zumwalt will be a pain in the ass to maintain. (Also Subs are boats, and anything other is a Ship)


----------



## BirdyNV (Sep 12, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> This is a destroyer.  What do destroyers hunt?
> 
> I'll give you a hint, it starts with an "S" (and is bolded above)


They can try  (sub guy here)


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 12, 2016)

They Hunt this


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 23, 2016)

USS Zumwalt, returns to dock after springing a leak


Naval Surface Forces Pacific spokesman John Perkins said crews on the USS Zumwalt found a seawater leak in its propulsion system earlier this week.

In a statement, Naval Surface Forces said Zumwalt has a “built-in redundancy” of the ship’s propulsion system that enables the ship to operate even with the leak in the lubricating system. However, it was determined that the repairs should be completed in port before the ship and crew continued with sea training.

“Repairs like these are not unusual in first-of-class ships during underway periods following construction,” the Navy said.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/09/22/the-zumwalt-has-sprung-a-leak/


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 23, 2016)

BirdyNV said:


> They can try  (sub guy here)



I did admit it was more applicable in WWII, you know as well as I do modern subs are a whole different ballpark I am sure...


----------



## BirdyNV (Sep 26, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> I did admit it was more applicable in WWII, you know as well as I do modern subs are a whole different ballpark I am sure...


I cannot confirm or deny this fact.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 26, 2016)

BirdyNV said:


> They can try  (sub guy here)





BirdyNV said:


> I cannot confirm or deny this fact.



As a self confessing submariner were you shown the golden Rivet Each Boat you served on  has been Built with ?????


----------



## Ungari (Sep 26, 2016)

That ship is larger than most Cruisers, and other than ASW it doesn't seem to have the multi-mission roles that have traditionally defined the Destroyer.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 26, 2016)

Destroyers are traditionally anti-ship and anti-submarine which it does.  Cruisers are traditionally anti-aircraft platforms.  Battleships were anti-surface.  All US ships these days have long range missiles for anti-surface and anti-ship.  Anti-submarine is Zumwalt's focus.


----------



## BirdyNV (Sep 26, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> As a self confessing submariner were you shown the golden Rivet Each Boat you served on  has been Built with ?????


I am still in training. O.e is this one of those, "hey new  guy, go collect exhaust fumes for testing!"


----------



## 64K (Sep 26, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> As a self confessing submariner were you shown the golden Rivet Each Boat you served on  has been Built with ?????



I had to Google that since I have never heard of that. Interesting if it's true. They would probably have to put the golden rivet somewhere where no one would ever see it or it would likely be dug out by someone.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 26, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The last time there was major submarine warfare (WWII), the U-Boats were made extinct due to anti-submarine aircraft and depth charges.




A job that was made profoundly easier due to the *British* cracking the enigma code


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 26, 2016)

The first  recorded/attempted submarine attack was 240 years ago.







1776, during the Revolutionary War, the American submersible craft _Turtle_ attempts to attach a time bomb to the hull of British Admiral Richard Howe’s flagship _Eagle_ in New York Harbor. It was the first use of a submarine in warfare.

David Bushnell, an American inventor, began building underwater mines while a student at Yale University. Deciding that a submarine would be the best means of delivering his mines in warfare, he built an eight-foot-long wooden submersible that was christened the _Turtle_ for its shape. Large enough to accommodate one operator, the submarine was entirely hand-powered. Lead ballast kept the craft balanced.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/worlds-first-submarine-attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(submersible)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 26, 2016)

I wouldn't call it successful.  It was able to attack but it didn't sink any ships.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 26, 2016)

Wasnt it supposed to have a drill as well so they could sabotage enemy boats too?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 26, 2016)

This 19th-century diagram shows the side views of _Turtle_. It incorrectly depicts the propeller as a screw blade; as seen in the replica photographed above and reported by Sergeant Lee, it was a paddle propeller blade


----------



## Static~Charge (Sep 26, 2016)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Wasnt it supposed to have a drill as well so they could sabotage enemy boats too?



If you look at the picture in post #102, you can see the drill bit at the front-top, with a rope trailing back to the bomb. The idea was to drill into a ship's hull to attach the bomb, then light the fuse and get the hell outta Dodge. It didn't work because the drill was unable to bore into iron-sheathed hull of the HMS Eagle.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 26, 2016)

Static~Charge said:


> iron-sheathed



copper

"copper bottomed"


EDIT

The Welsh city Swansea was nicknamed "Copperopolis" because of the amount of copper produced and supplied to the Royal Navy.


----------



## Static~Charge (Sep 26, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> This is a destroyer.  What do destroyers hunt?
> 
> I'll give you a hint, it starts with an "S" (and is bolded above)



Among other things . . . check out the Battle off Samar during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944:

*U.S. ships*
6 escort carriers
3 destroyers
4 destroyer escorts
400 aircraft from Taffy 1, 2, 3

*Japanese Center Force*
4 battleships (including the Yamato)
6 heavy cruisers
2 light cruisers
11 destroyers
30 aircraft (in kamikaze attack)

The U.S. ships got hammered but successfully routed the Japanese attack.


----------



## Bones (Sep 26, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I wouldn't call it successful.  It was able to attack but it didn't sink any ships.



The first successful sub attack was done by the Hunley: http://www.history.com/news/the-hunleys-daring-submarine-mission-150-years-ago


----------



## Ferrum Master (Sep 26, 2016)

This is my pic... it carries most horrid name up to date given to any kind of device...  A midget submarine class and it is called - Biber...


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 26, 2016)

Static~Charge said:


> Among other things . . . check out the Battle off Samar during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944:
> 
> *U.S. ships*
> 6 escort carriers
> ...




Wasnt the Yamato made in a US shipyard though? I heard that some Japanese boats were before shit went down and the fighting began


----------



## ZoneDymo (Sep 26, 2016)

but...what is the point? apart from finding a place to spend a lot A LOT of money that probably could have been spend better elsewhere?


----------



## red_stapler (Sep 26, 2016)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Wasnt the Yamato made in a US shipyard though? I heard that some Japanese boats were before shit went down and the fighting began



No, the Yamato was built in Kure, Hiroshima.  Some of the UK-built battleships like Kongo and Fuso were basically rebuilt and upgraded in Japan.  The US had built a few cruisers for Japan pre-WW1, but they had all been scrapped by the time WW2 started.


----------



## dorsetknob (Sep 26, 2016)

fuso the WW1 batleship Class was built by and in Japan
Fuso the Ironclad was british built and scrapped in 1909


----------



## red_stapler (Sep 27, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> fuso the WW1 batleship Class was built by and in Japan
> Fuso the Ironclad was british built and scrapped in 1909



D'oh!  Name recycling got me there.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 16, 2016)

It's officially in service now:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/uss-zumwalt-stealth-destroyer-commissioning/index.html


> Among the things that set the Zumwalt apart from its predecessors in the Arleigh Burke-class of destroyers:
> 
> -- A larger flight deck that enables operations with new F-35 fighters and MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft;
> 
> ...


I have to call bullshit on the third point.  Zumwalt has two 35.4 MW gas turbines for propulsion (70.8 MW)  and two 3.8 MW (7.6 MW) gas turbines for general power generation.  Total: 78.4 MW.

Nimitz-class had two A4W nuclear reactors each producing 100 MW (200 MW total).  The Gerald R. Ford-class has two A1B nuclear reactors each producing 300 MW (600 MW total).  Even USS Enterprise, the first nuclear aircraft carrier ever (in service 1962-2012), had eight A2W reactors at...well, apparently know one knows.  It produces over 204 MW worth of steam though so...probably...a LOT.  Uh, huh, Zumwalt power production is not even close.  Nuclear simply out-classes everything else...especially considering its size.


It's crazy that they plan to land F-35s on Zumwalt.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Oct 16, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's crazy that they plan to land F-35s on Zumwalt.



I just imagined one painted in yellow and working as a cab... well it totally makes sense now.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 16, 2016)

They should do that to Seahawks.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Oct 16, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They should do that to Seahawks.



Shhh... there could be some wets from them here... we could get seriously scolded


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 8, 2016)

The US Navy’s largest and most advanced destroyer is equipped with two massive guns that can hit targets from 80 miles away – but it can’t afford the ammunition.

At $800,000 or more per round for each gun, the Navy says the cost is just too high, and is now moving to cancel these projectiles, according to a new report from Defense News.


----------



## D007 (Nov 8, 2016)

With the way WW3 is looking right now.. We might need it..lol


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 8, 2016)

Never realized it fired smart projectiles.  DOD likely just wants to scrap it in favor of railguns where the gun is expensive but the projectiles are cheap.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 23, 2016)

The most expensive destroyer ever built for the Navy suffered an engineering problem in the Panama Canal and had to be towed to port.

U.S. Third Fleet spokesman Cmdr. Ryan Perry said a vice admiral directed the USS Zumwalt to remain at ex-Naval Station Rodman in Panama to address the issues, which arose on Monday. 

USNI News, a publication of the U.S. Naval Institute, reported on its website that the ship was in the canal when it lost propulsion. 

'The ship was in the midst of a southbound transit through the canal when it suffered the casualty,' it said.

Crew saw water intrusion in two of the four bearings that connect to Zumwalt's port and starboard Advanced Induction Motors (AIMs) to the drive shafts, a defense official told USNI News on Tuesday.

The AIMs are the massive electrical motors that are driven by the ship's gas turbines and in turn electrically power the ship's systems and drive the shafts. 


USNI News also reported that the Zumwalt suffered minor cosmetic damage. The service has narrowed down the likely problem to lube oil coolers leaking. 


*FACTS*

Displacement: 14,564 long tons (14,798 t)

Length: 600 ft (180 m)

Beam: 80.7 ft (24.6 m)

Draft: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)

Propulsion: Two Rolls-Royce Marine Trent-30 gas turbines driving Curtiss-Wright generators and emergency diesel generators, 78 MW (105,000 shp); two propellers driven by electric motors

Speed: Over 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph)

Weapons:

20 × MK 57 VLS modules, with a total of 80 launch cells

RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), four per cell

Tactical Tomahawk, one per cell

Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC), one per cell

Two × 155 mm/62 caliber Advanced Gun System

920 × 155 mm rounds total; 600 in automated store with Auxiliary store room with up to 320 rounds (non-automatic) as of April 2005

70–100 LRLAP rounds planned as of 2005 of total

Two × Mk 110 57 mm gun (CIGS)


----------



## Ungari (Nov 23, 2016)

As a former Tin Can Sailor, the Advanced Gun System is interesting as it only fires guided projectiles. 
My ship was involved in the testing of the Dead Eye laser guided projectile, and recall getting very little sleep as we kept docking to take on more ammunition.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 23, 2016)

Meanwhile in the UK

The Royal British Navy has become but a shell of her former self due to cuts in funding and used as a disposable chess peice in the world of politics after politicians are done with their posturing


----------



## Ungari (Nov 23, 2016)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Meanwhile in the UK
> 
> The Royal British Navy has become but a shell of her former self due to cuts in funding and used as a disposable chest peice in the world of politics after politicians are done with their posturing



Better learn to speak German.


----------



## slozomby (Nov 23, 2016)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Meanwhile in the UK
> 
> The Royal British Navy has become but a shell of her former self due to cuts in funding and used as a disposable chess peice in the world of politics after politicians are done with their posturing


that's what they get for rejecting Boaty McBoatface.


but seriously whats with all the new US navy ships breaking down.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 24, 2016)

New tech brings new hazards.  Can't simulate everything in CAD, unfortunately.


----------



## Vario (Nov 24, 2016)

slozomby said:


> that's what they get for rejecting Boaty McBoatface.
> 
> 
> but seriously whats with all the new US navy ships breaking down.



Consolidated defense contractors pushing gimmick garbage.  There used to be many more defense contractors, but they have all merged into several.  At the same time: overruns in budget, schedule, and actual delivered capability.  Large lobbying efforts to pitch faulty systems and the taxpayer has to foot the bill.

One huge problem with these modern ships is also how it will face asymmetrical combat against inexpensive fast boat swarms, militants in a high speed dinghies with RPGS, especially since we currently fight proxy wars with third world Islamist countries.


----------



## Ungari (Nov 24, 2016)

Vario said:


> Consolidated defense contractors pushing gimmick garbage.  There used to be many more defense contractors, but they have all merged into several.  At the same time: overruns in budget, schedule, and actual delivered capability.  Large lobbying efforts to pitch faulty systems and the taxpayer has to foot the bill.
> 
> One huge problem with these modern ships is also how it will face asymmetrical combat against inexpensive fast boat swarms, militants in a high speed dinghies with RPGS, especially since we currently fight proxy wars with third world Islamist countries.



In the Persian Gulf, there are Lateen rigged Dhows designed in the 4th Century that have Exocet missile launchers mounted.


----------



## Vario (Nov 26, 2016)

And all it takes is a missile strike or two to sink a USN destroyer.


----------

