The difference of zumwalt isnt just its looking, even for propulsion and maneouvering systems are based on one decade of academic studies. Its tumblehome hull is some of adventageous ,but it decreases the deck area , lowers stability . Bow is the constraint of zumwalt, shouldnt expect conventional bow . Its like x-bow applied of offshore supply vessels , with a sonar-dome bulb . Even that bow took 1-2 phd studies, yet we dont have that much backgroud ,we are not in the same league to support that heavy academic studies.
What can we target from zumwaly might be its propulsion system which is reducing mechanical transmission losses , totally central electricity system. All electricity,for motors , system or supplies are managed by one central system to maximize efficiency. Also you can replace the engines with whatever can produce electricity and supplies the system.
If we think TF2000 will sail until 2050s other electricity sources will take place, so a system like zumwalts are what is creditable than looking of zumwalt,or its mast ,or its stealthy.
@FutureMe
What you see as 90degree might be 5-8 degree inclined,or its just aselsan's render, and they might just drawn box looking things instead of originally placed one.
By mentioning some our engineers doesnt care about looking,sure they are engineers and not industrial designers . But design circle is such a huge in warship ,until you can not imagine and i cant tell all details since i cant remember . But just think, aselsan , stm , ssm ,Dzkk involves, main contractor is pendik milgem dizayn ofisi , they are the organizations take in main level and think a spiral going between them until the final design,and think how many engineers involved ,sure after some point they will care about looking for common feeling.
isnt it too large for a decoy? More seems like SSM.
)
most of them are already known mate,you also know it why need to say again?
