USS Zumwalt - USN Stealth Destroyer

[hornetrider]

Just look at it.







600ft long.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northame...

[anonymous-user]

That thing is cool.

When you pull up in that, everyone knows you're the man.

"Its pricetag of $4.4 billion (£2.9 billion) is almost as astounding as its bulk, but Navy Captain James Kirk, the ship's skipper, said he was "fired up" for the Zumwalt to finally set off for the Atlantic Ocean."

Edited by el stovey on Tuesday 8th December 09:40

[Simpo Two]

[pic]http://cssvirginia.org/vacsn/135anniv/135-1a.jpg[pic]

[hornetrider]

Simpo Two said:

Fuxed.

[Simpo Two]

Thanks, I was on the phone and distracted!

[AndrewEH1]

Has anyone seen/got and photo of this from the front?

[Foliage]

Their is a documentary about the shake down of both this (I remember Capt. James Kirk) and another trial US destroyer that used a new impeller tech and was very fast and manoeuvrable, very interesting.

ETA - Might not have been this ship but it certainly was a stealth destroyer and the same captain.

[RizzoTheRat]

Interesting. Ben Rich, who was in charge of Lockheed Sunk Works when they built the Sea Shadow*, reckoned the fact it was such a small ship with a very small crew was one reason the programme was killed off, as it wouldn't be good for a captains career prospect commanding such a small crew. I see they've got round that issue this time by making it a lot bigger





* Experimental stealthy air defence destroyer

Edited by RizzoTheRat on Tuesday 8th December 11:32

[AndrewEH1]

RizzoTheRat said:

Interesting. Ben Rich, who was in charge of Lockheed Sunk Works when they built the Sea Shadow*, reckoned the fact it was such a small ship with a very small crew was one reason the programme was killed off, as it wouldn't be good for a captains career prospect commanding such a small crew. I see they've got round that issue this time by making it a lot bigger

Didn't help that an evil Jonathan Pryce had one.

[4x4Tyke]

A Destroyer with 50% more displacement that USN Cruisers and would be classed as a Battleship under Washington Naval Treaty.

[Foliage]

4x4Tyke said:

A Destroyer with 50% more displacement that USN Cruisers and would be classed as a Battleship under Washington Naval Treaty.

Ship classification isn't by size but by role. Destroyer is fast, agile, long endurance and designed to engage with small targets (hence anti air and asw destroyers)

[RizzoTheRat]

They are, but the Washington Treaty limited Destroyers and Cruisers to 10,000 tonnes.

Edited by RizzoTheRat on Tuesday 8th December 12:10

[ukaskew]

Very cool, but does look like they've literally taken a normal destroyer and cladded it with lots of angular panels to make it stealthy.

[anonymous-user]

Interesting to see the continued resurrection of the inverted bow. I think it looks great.

[DocJock]

hornetrider said:

Simpo Two said:

Fuxed.

Yep, my first thought on seeing the OP was this picture

[schmunk]

RizzoTheRat said:

Lockheed Sunk Works

at the apt typo...!

[RizzoTheRat]

schmunk said:

RizzoTheRat said:

Lockheed Sunk Works

at the apt typo...!

Didn't spot that

[Foliage]

el stovey said:

Interesting to see the continued resurrection of the inverted bow. I think it looks great.

It would look even better painted in 'measure 32'

[anonymous-user]

By the looks of it, all you have to do to make a "stealth" ship is to turn the plans upside down then build it (with a big keel)......

[Shar2]

The trouble with the Sea Shadow was that navy pilots stopped using the radar to look for the ship, instead they looked for the hole in the wave pattern. Where there's a will there's a way.