Zumwalt Class Destroyers

Dec 2, 2000
58,589
379
283
Easley South Carolina
From The Navy Newsstand:
quote:

Story Number: NNS060407-17
Release Date: 4/7/2006 1:55:00 PM



Special release from the U.S. Department of Defense

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy has announced April 7 that the first DD(X) destroyer will be designated DDG 1000. As the lead ship in the class, it will also be named in honor of former Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Elmo R. “Budâ€Â￾ Zumwalt, Jr.

Developed under the DD(X) destroyer program, Zumwalt is the lead ship in a class of next-generation, multimission surface combatants tailored for land attack and littoral dominance, with capabilities designed to defeat current and projected threats as well as improve battle force defense.
For the rest of the story, go to http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=23064

Comment: It helps to know that destroyers were first developed as torpedo boat destroyers to deal with the percieved threat of torpedo boats to battleships in the late 19th century. These were small craft which were designed to be fast and which carried just enough armament to deal with the smaller craft. As you can see from this article, the destroyer has evolved into a major warship which has firepower that would rival a World War Two era cruiser!

They've come a long way, baby!
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
4
0
I know...I am part of the management for the team that is designing and building the (automated) bridge for that class of ships.

Titanic's crew would not recognise much of this new ship...for that matter, much of it is a completely different world from the shipboard environments that I once knew.

Parks
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,589
379
283
Easley South Carolina
>>much of it is a completely different world from the shipboard environments that I once knew.<<

It probably has a lot more in common with the Starship Enterprise then anything else, and things have been going in that direction for a very long time. They may be improvements, but what I wouldn't give for a helm that looks like a helm!
wink.gif
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
4
0
The Starship Enterprise has too many people on the bridge; in fact, I don't believe that's the bridge at all, but rather a futuristic CIC. DD(X) is designed to minimise manning requirements, among other things. That's all I can say about the arrangement that we are building...any more and we are delving into proprietary/classified information.

I can point you to my company's Internet DD(X) page:

http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddx/

Parks
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,239
483
213
Just wondering...will beards be allowed among sailors on Zumwalt ships--just for ol' time's sake?

-- David G. Brown
 

Noel F. Jones

Active Member
May 14, 2002
857
0
0
“Only on the women.â€Â￾

Take care, Parks. That’s clearly a “sexistâ€Â￾ comment and you could find yourself ‘moderated’.

I’ve just been deemed “racistâ€Â￾ in another thread (Christ* knows why!) and probably stand to be deemed “dyslexia-istâ€Â￾ in another (there’s a lot of “-istsâ€Â￾ about these days).

*Oh bugger, I think I might just have been “faithistâ€Â￾!

Noel
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
4
0
Noel,

As I'm sure you are aware, people seem to be more easily offended than amused nowadays. In that respect, I belong unapologetically to an earlier age. I am also secure in the knowledge that my actions would compare favourably to anyone who would question my ethics.

That said, being "moderated" wouldn't be so bad...I could use a break from posting.

Parks
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,589
379
283
Easley South Carolina
>>The Starship Enterprise has too many people on the bridge; in fact, I don't believe that's the bridge at all, but rather a futuristic CIC. <<

True, and if we ever start building deep range starships (Won't happen in my lifetime) that's probably how they'll have to run it for efficiencies sake. (Those pesky internal volumn and mass problems!)

>>DD(X) is designed to minimise manning requirements, among other things.<<

Not a bad idea on general principle and in some places, the fewer people you have underfoot, the better. I would think the navigation bridge would be one such place. I'm not so sure this is an altogether swift idea for the rest of the ship. It still takes sheer manpower to deal with damage control and if the ship is shot to pieces with a lot of the equipment blown away, to say nothing of the men, one has to wonder where the fire parties are going to come from. The best whiz bang technology is great to have but in some situations, numbers do matter and always have.

I'll have to go over that link more thoroughly when i have the time.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
4
0
>True, and if we ever start building deep range starships (Won't happen in my lifetime) that's probably how they'll have to run it for efficiencies sake. (Those pesky internal volumn and mass problems!)

That will happen long before we build starships, if you catch my drift.

Parks
 

Jim Hathaway

Member
Dec 18, 2004
311
0
86
I was curious about the DDG-1000 designation, I remember the Kidd class was given the hull numbers DDG-993 through 997 because they were conversions of a DD design, and the DD hull numbers were continued.
The Burke class recieved DDG-51 on.
Does this mean that all future destroyers will be DDGs?
Will the combat system be a derivitive of that fitted to the Burkes?
I remember the Radford was bailed to Northrop-Grumman to be modified with a DDX superstructure.
I have seen or heard nothing since-
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
4
0
Jim,

The modified Radford is a test ship, meant to be used as a developmental environment for certain physical subsystems associated with the new technology. It will not become an operational platform.

I can't tell you the reasons behind the DDG designation...it was as much a surprise to us as it is to you. I also don't know if they'll continue that trend in the future.

Parks
 

Jim Hathaway

Member
Dec 18, 2004
311
0
86
Hi Parks,
I heard she was to get the integrated drive, the sensor suite (on the composite deckhouse) and possibly the 155 mm gun for test. One report said she was to get a DDX superstructure.
Last I read she arrived at Northrop-Grumman in 2004 for conversion which was expected to take a year to complete.
One of the reports I read mentioned there was some concern about her structurally because of damage incurred in 1997 with a merchant vessel.
I remember the incident, it damaged the 5"54 as well as the VLS system. (I would imagine that had been remedied long ago)
I did a search for photos, and the only thing that came up was a shore test of the peripheral VLS- it looked like a survivability test-
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
4
0
Jim,

Northrop-Grumman is our partner in developing the DD(X) system. I don't know how much I can talk about their efforts without getting into trouble.

Parks
 

Jim Hathaway

Member
Dec 18, 2004
311
0
86
HI Parks,
Sorry if I got into anything I should'nt. Everything I had read was in the public domain, so rest assured I don't know anything that is not in the public media
Jim
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
4
0
Jim,

No, you can say anything you want, depending on what you find in the public domain. I am restricted in what I can say, because I'm directly involved. I also can't confirm or deny what's in the pubic domain if it involves restricted information. DD(X) is a huge program, involving just about every major Defense contractor and a host of smaller subcontractors. I don't know what's restricted and what's not across the entire program, so I'm going to play it safe whenever I'm in doubt. If I think that I can talk about it, I will; if not, I won't. There will be times, like today, when I'll be in a conversation and then suddenly have to shut up. That's not your fault...I'm just censuring myself.

Parks
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,589
379
283
Easley South Carolina
Jim, if you want to see some photos of the Radford in drydock with the collision damage, just go to http://navysite.de/dd/dd968.htm and wait a few seconds for it to download. I saw this ship at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard the day she was docked and the photos don't do the damage justice. The VLS System doesn't appear to have been effected, but the gun mount was trashed and that was one gaping big hole below the waterline.
 

Jim Hathaway

Member
Dec 18, 2004
311
0
86
Thanks, Parks, I understand fully!
Hi Mike-
Actually I did see those photos, they were very lucky, it's a lot of damage. It was in the text I read about damage to the VLS, above the waterline it did'nt look like it got that far into the ship, but who knows what the bulbous bow did below.
Something like this is usually sufficient to instantly terminate one's career path!
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,589
379
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Something like this is usually sufficient to instantly terminate one's career path!<<

The site mentions that the Captain was relieved, and nobody was surprised by that. If I recall correctly, the navigator and the Officer Of The Deck were sacked as well.

From the photos, the damage is too far forward to effect the VLS, although it's not out of the question for supporting systems to have been crunched.