US Navy stealth destroyer

[RickB]

Bath Iron Works tour was one of the most interesting tourist-type things I have ever done. The Maine Maritime Museum and BIW tour are must-see things when in that area. BIW tours generally must be booked in advance.

 

[DarkBlack]

How so, Mate? People probably said the same thing when the first ironclad was built, or the first Dreadnought, or the first aircraft carrier, or the first nuclear powered submarine, or... well, you get the idea.

Superior technology will win out in a conflict. It also makes the other guy (whoever that may be in the future) have to play 'catch up'. WWII RADAR, ASDIC (later SONAR)and HFDF were the Allies big advantage at that time. The Cold War lead to missile tech, anti-radar tech and just keeping emission-silent to avoid detection.

The ocean is a vast place in which to hide... and ships are not stationary. Back during the Cold War, as it is today, I wanted as many advantages on my side as I could get.

Yeh right, like it did for Germany in WWII:laughing: 70 ton elephant tanks brought down with a beer bottle filled with gasoline. The advanced $$ Bismark, like would happen to this mega$$ destroyer- concentrated hunt by the enemy- sunk. end of story.
Mega $$ Tiger tanks destroyed by nothing more than flanking during frozen overlapped wheels.
Russia showed easy and cheap to produce #'s with good repairability can beat technology. And that game's in the history books.

 

[Larro Darro]

I was a young petty officer onboard the USS Leahy DLG/CG-16, during Adm. Zumwalt's tenure as CNO. His son, Jim, was an officer aboard our ship and a very impressive young man who was liked by all of ship's company. Unfortunately, he had to change his career path to go into the Marines because he was color blind and could not perform the required duties of a line officer aboard ship. All sailors of that era remember the Z-grams that were issued by Adm. Zumwalt. He allowed crew members to grow beards and relaxed restrictions on haircuts and even the wearing of civilian clothes when on liberty in foreign ports. In general, he made us feel more human and allowed us to be a bit more individualistic. I think it is fitting that this whole class of ships will now be known as Zumwalt Class Destroyers. I suspect these ships will be able to deliver a few "Z-grams" of their own to the bad guys.

Jim, I was a few years behind you when I served on the USS Saipan, but we saw the results of the Zumwalt reforms. Many of the older black and Filipino sailors had started out their time in the Navy as cooks or stewards{the only jobs open to them}. It was only later that they were allowed to test for a rate. The Electrical Officer aboard the Saipan, a CWO, was a Filipino. It is needless to say he was a very fine electrician or he would have never rose to that level. Enlisted men always respect CWO's more than regular O's because they know what it's like to live before the mast, as the saying goes.

What got my attention is she will only sail with 142 sailors. That is a lot of ship for a crew that small. I know computers can reduce work load, but can they man a fire hose or shore up a busted pipe? I see she has two Rolls-Royce gas turbines. They are pretty quite for the HP they make. I'm sure the props are as quiet as they can be. Though I'm not sure what role this new kind of ship will serve, so don't know what the Sub risk for it will be.

Larro

 

[Wagtail]

Yeh right, like it did for Germany in WWII:laughing: 70 ton elephant tanks brought down with a beer bottle filled with gasoline. The advanced $$ Bismark, like would happen to this mega$$ destroyer- concentrated hunt by the enemy- sunk. end of story.
Mega $$ Tiger tanks destroyed by nothing more than flanking during frozen overlapped wheels.
Russia showed easy and cheap to produce #'s with good repairability can beat technology. And that game's in the history books.

Nice 'cherry picking' there Mate... but not the whole story. Every advanced technology at that time will eventually be overcome IF the opponent has the time & resources to figure it out. Eventually something in the future will render this new class of warship obsolete. The weapon system also needs to be used for the intention it was designed to do.

WWII German tanks were designed to be opperated with infantry support (or vice versa) in open field battles. Once they started using them in an urban enviroment, or without infantry support, it was found that a simple molotov cocktail could take them out. [Keep in mind that tanks, and their tactics/abilities, were still new technology. They'd only been around since 1917] The German tanks were also designed for German contitions... not the extreme winter tempuratures or boggy spring conditions of the Russian Steppes.

Logistics were a very important factor too. The German tanks were superior and over-engineered. Germany had finite resources in order to produce their tanks, fuel them in the field, maintain/repair them in the field and generally supply their forces in the field the farther they advanced. That was their primary objective in attacking the Soviets. Oil fields and resources to build.

You are correct in saying "Russia showed easy and cheap to produce #'s with good repairability can beat technology." But that's simply saying that a different technology, with its own advances, was employed (such as sloped armour). The Soviets also received a lot of support from the Allies until they were able to deploy and out-produce their advanced tanks against an enemy fighting on multiple fronts.

The advanced Bismark (pocket battleships) were indeed superior vessels. She sank the advanced (at that time) battlecruiser HOOD partly because of a design flaw of the HOOD having un-armoured decks. The demise of the Bismark and here sister ships was due to concentrated singular efforts by an already superior Navy but, in all cases, the major part of the battle was in finding them.

That fact still holds today,"The ocean is a vast place in which to hide... and ships are not stationary." This new Destroyer is designed to be very hard to 'electronically' find.

 

[RobertBrown]

Guess why I'm scratching my head is it only has one gun for shore bombardment? It's GOT to have more than that. They have these things out now called cruise missiles...

That ain't grandpa's 16" mark 4..........
"Capablle of launchibg 16 to 50 rounds SIMULTANEOUSLY"

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VXyH1OYuyIw&desktop_uri=/watch?v=VXyH1OYuyIw

 

[buickanddeere]

The Bismark was not sunk with advanced tech. In fact is was old tech that was her demise. The Bismark was designed to shoot down the fast Super Marine SpitFire etc. When the British had nothing left, they rolled out in desperation. The ancient WWI bi-plane Swordfish with a single torpedo. The Bismark's guns shot ahead of the snail speed Swordfish and the rest is history. A swordfish torpedo jammed the Bismark's rudder and that was the beginning of the end.

 

[Wagtail]

The Bismark was not sunk with advanced tech. In fact is was old tech that was her demise. The Bismark was designed to shoot down the fast Super Marine SpitFire etc. When the British had nothing left, they rolled out in desperation. The ancient WWI bi-plane Swordfish with a single torpedo. The Bismark's guns shot ahead of the snail speed Swordfish and the rest is history. A swordfish torpedo jammed the Bismark's rudder and that was the beginning of the end.

Sort of right and sort of wrong, Mate. I didn't say that the Bismark was sunk by advanced tech, however Aircraft Carriers were un-tried technology at that time and the Germans had no experience of having a Carrier of their own.

You are quite correct that the obsolete Swordfish (early 1930's tech) was too slow for the German's Fire Control to accurately predict the 'target'... they consistantly shot ahead of them. the German Anti-aircraft guns also couldn't depress far enough as the 'obsolete' Swordfish flew lower than they had designed the guns to do.

The Royal Navy didn't roll it out in despiration... it was the only torpedo-bomber in their Fleet Air Arm inventory at that time.

The Swordfish was also a key element in finding the Bismark. She had given the shadowing Cruisers the slip and was making a dash for a safe harbour. So it could be said that the 'New' tech of a squadron of Carrier based aircraft (as opposed to single aircraft launched from a Battleship or Cruiser) was a major factor in the Bismark's un-doing. As WWII progressed, the role of the (supported) Carrier led to the end of the era of the big-gun Battleship.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not having a go at anyone in this thread. I'm enjoying the discussion, but that's all that it is. :thumbsup:

 

[Jim Shooz]

You guys are a bit late with that. The Russians have already got one and it arrive here mid-September.
$350m 'submarine' superyacht arrives in NZ - Business - NZ Herald News

(puts on flame suit and foil hat and runs for cover )

 

[dmccarty]

...
What got my attention is she will only sail with 142 sailors. That is a lot of ship for a crew that small. I know computers can reduce work load, but can they man a fire hose or shore up a busted pipe? I see she has two Rolls-Royce gas turbines. They are pretty quite for the HP they make. I'm sure the props are as quiet as they can be. Though I'm not sure what role this new kind of ship will serve, so don't know what the Sub risk for it will be.

Larro

The ship has automated fire suppression systems. I do question how well that will work with battle damage and mass casualties.

The USN is going to lean manning of the ships. The LCS was supposed to have about 30 crew members which was problematic and the last I read they were trying to man with 50ish crew members. I really question how the crews will be able to fight, fix battle damage, and deal with casualties with these low number of crew members. I suppose in the LCS case, the ship simply will not survive most hits from medium and large sized warheads. I really question if these ships have the strength and crew size to perform like the USS Laffey. For those who have not heard of the Laffey,

. While operating off Okinawa on April 16, 1945, LAFFEY was attacked by 22 Japanese bombers and kamikaze (suicide) aircraft. Five kamikazes and three bombs struck her, and two bombs scored near misses to kill 31 and wound 71 of the 336-man crew. LAFFEY shot down 11 of the attacking aircraft and saved the damaged ship. LAFFEY's heroic crew earned her the nickname: "The Ship That Would Not Die."

The Laffey is at Patriots Point, Patriots Point Naval & Maritime Museum - Charleston Harbor, SC , at Charleston SC as part of a navy museum. We tried to visit Patriots Point a few years ago but never made it. I was shocked when I saw the Laffey was on display since I figured she had been sold off for scrap decades ago.

The Zumwalts are for land and ship attack missions which is why she has the two guns and large numbers of missiles. The navy seems to be making progress with beam weapons which require lots of power. It seems the extra power generation in the Zumwalts and LCS is in case beam weapons get to the deployment stage. The Zumwalts were also supposed to get rail guns which require lots of power but the technology is not ready yet. Rail guns would be a danged good fit on a ship since the projectiles are not explosive but instead depend on kinetic energy for their destructive power. Since the projectiles are not explosive, battle damage and fire would not cause the projectile to explode which has sunk many a ship with large crew loss. The rail gun use power to launch the projectile so explosive powder charges would not have to be carried which leave room for more projectiles. Of course power charges can go boom and destroy the ship.

The Zumwalts were canceled after three ships were contracted because the GAO said the ships would cost $5 billion each. Actual cost will be about $3.5 billion and I read last night that if the class had been built in the numbers planned, the cost would have been about $2.2 billion. We would be much better off buying more Zumwalts than LCS target ships the navy is buying.

Later,
Dan

 

[MoKelly]

Last night, after having a beer or two after tennis, someone said "the Navy has more airplanes than the Airforce, and the Army has more ships than the Navy".

Not sure if it is true or if it can even be measured, but sounded interesting.

MoKelly