USS Zumwalt heads out to sea

[GR!FF!N]

Holy shit .. really ?
that's 40% of Pakistan annual Defense budget

well,possibly one single Destroyer is carrying around 1/2 of total no of Missiles Pakistan have,right??

There is a reason why people says time and again,USA is Lord of war.a Single Warship is possibly enough to flatten entire continent like Africa,thats something you don't see everyday.

 

[rockstar08]

well,possibly one single Destroyer is carrying around 1/2 of total no of Missiles Pakistan have,right??

There is a reason why people says time and again,USA is Lord of war.a Single Warship is possibly enough to flatten entire continent like Africa,thats something you don't see everyday.

Agreed ... but you know this ship is catch my attention from its stealth and unique Design .. putting Fire power in a Destroyer wont be a difficult task .. but making it stealth and its defense impregnable is more hard ..
even a Ohio Class sub with Trident II ICBM can do the dirty job

 

[GR!FF!N]

Agreed ... but you know this ship is catch my attention from its stealth and unique Design .. putting Fire power in a Destroyer wont be a difficult task .. but making it stealth and its defense impregnable is more hard ..
even a Ohio Class sub with Trident II ICBM can do the dirty job

Its hull is something unique.I've never seen similar design in the first place(old ships of 18th century used similar designs,no new ship used it),so it is out of box thinking.

Stealth isn't hard to achieve.Most frontline navies are using Stealth Frigates and Destroyers.But Level of stealth for Zumwalt is something to recon.It is F-22 of Navy,which even after 2-3 decades of service,people will find hard to tackle this threat.Only problem is,it is damn costly,and perhaps 3 is more than enough,USA initially planned to make 32.Possibly After whole world cried "Ab bachche ki jaan loge kya",they are making 3.. But seriously,4 bil for a destroyer like this is waste of money and resources.No Navy around the world dare to face 2 combined fleets of USN alone.What'll be the use of so many Zumwalts??

 

[rockstar08]

Its hull is something unique.I've never seen similar design in the first place(old ships of 18th century used similar designs,no new ship used it),so it is out of box thinking.

Stealth isn't hard to achieve.Most frontline navies are using Stealth Frigates and Destroyers.But Level of stealth for Zumwalt is something to recon.It is F-22 of Navy,which even after 2-3 decades of service,people will find hard to tackle this threat.Only problem is,it is damn costly,and perhaps 3 is more than enough,USA initially planned to make 32.Possibly After whole world cried "Ab bachche ki jaan loge kya",they are making 3.. But seriously,4 bil for a destroyer like this is waste of money and resources.No Navy around the world dare to face 2 combined fleets of USN alone.What'll be the use of so many Zumwalts??

agree out of the box thinking ..
Yaar even Asian Countries are making stealth boats , but look at the Design of this Destroyer .. its unique ..
US could have afford more than 10 of these ships if they Stop spending Billion's on ME war's ..
3 Billion for a Destroyer is indeed expensive .. but the stuff that Destroyer carrying must be expensive including the R&D ..
I agree their 2 Fleets are enough to defeat any Navy in this world ..
Fcuking 11 Carriers ... Damn

 

[AMDR]

It's a shame we only built 3, but one of the most important things it gives us other than its raw combat capability is its use as a testing platform for future technologies that will go on the FSC (aka Arleigh Burke replacement)

The R&D put into the zumwalt will also be used in the FSC, such as the integrated power system and all-electric propulsion.

To me, the Zumwalt is like the Seawolf class. We only built 3 Seawolves, but we used the technology developed for the Seawolf to build the Virginia-class later, which is now under budget and ahead of schedule.

The FSC will be the real testament to American naval power pre-2050, not the Zumwalt. Railguns, Lasers, HVPs and a larger SPY-6 variant than the AB FLT 3 is all expected to be incorporated from the get go on the FSC. Construction starts 2028.

 

[GR!FF!N]

agree out of the box thinking ..
Yaar even Asian Countries are making stealth boats , but look at the Design of this Destroyer .. its unique ..
US could have afford more than 10 of these ships if they Stop spending Billion's on ME war's ..
3 Billion for a Destroyer is indeed expensive .. but the stuff that Destroyer carrying must be expensive including the R&D ..
I agree their 2 Fleets are enough to defeat any Navy in this world ..
Fcuking 11 Carriers ... Damn

The thing is,its not whether US afford to make 32 Destroyers or not.Zumwalt breached Nunn–McCurdy Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .Also,there is a lot of controversy whether the cost truly justify its capability or not.

 

[rubyjackass]

Isn't she a beauty?

Looks like Godzilla took a dump of steel.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Zumwalt at sea!

 

[AMDR]

Zumwalt at sea!

This doesn't even look real. It looks like something out of a movie

A historic moment for the USN!

 

[war&peace]

This is an impressive and futuristic peace of

 

[faithfulguy]

Zumwalt at sea!

When you have a ship like this, there is no need to brag about being a superpower.

 

[cnleio]

One thing i can't understand why put hundred VLS cells on the sides of DDG-1000's rail ??? If anti-ship missile hit the side of DDG-1000, it's easily lead to missiles detonation inside those VLS lack enough armour protect.

If hit like this ... Bingo those missiles inside VLS.

 

[nvKyleBrown]

80 Missile Launcher ? for real ?

The Ticonderoga mk 41 has 122.

Ticonderoga-class cruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: that's VLS. has a few more launchers for Harpoons as well.

 

[AMDR]

One thing i can't understand why put hundred VLS cells on the sides of DDG-1000's rail ??? If anti-ship missile hit the side of DDG-1000, it's easily lead to missiles detonation inside those VLS lack enough armour protect.

If hit like this ... Bingo those missiles inside VLS.
View attachment 278045

I think they preferred to put the VLS on the side as opposed to a single big block because if a missile hit the big block of VLS, (Like on the Arleigh Burke or Ticonderoga) you would lose more missiles than if you had the side-mounted PVLS system on the DDG-1000.

You can read more about it here: Peripheral Vertical Launching System [PVLS]

 

[Penguin]

One thing i can't understand why put hundred VLS cells on the sides of DDG-1000's rail ??? If anti-ship missile hit the side of DDG-1000, it's easily lead to missiles detonation inside those VLS lack enough armour protect.

If hit like this ... Bingo those missiles inside VLS.
View attachment 278045

They are actually put on the perimeter of the ship in physically isolated, independent sets of 4 cells (as opposed to big blocks of eg 4x8 as on Tico's and Burkes) precisely to prevent/limited sympathetic detonations due to combat damage. One missile impact will never take out an entire missile 'farm'. The segments in which the VLSs are mounted serve to limit combat damage, by isolating the VLSs from each other and from the rest of the ship in autonomous units (steel units, which could be Kevlar lined). This also limited possibilities for and dangers of flooding large compartments (old style VLS 'farms') e.g. by fluids used for putting out fire.

http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/Mk57_VLS.pdf.

For comparison, locations of Kevlar ('fragment protection') on Burke DDG (that includes the VLSs)