New Navy destroyer’s seaworthiness questioned
Source: Portland Press Herald
BATH The largest destroyer built for the U.S. Navy cuts an imposing figure: massive, with an angular shape, hidden weapons and antennas, and electric-drive propulsion. But underneath the stealthy exterior resides a style of hull that fell out of favor a century ago in part because it can be unstable.
The Navy will soon learn how this modern take on the tumblehome hull holds up when the first-in-class Zumwalt heads out to sea in December for builder trials in the rough-and-tumble North Atlantic.
Amy Lent, of the Maine Maritime Museum, which works closely with the shipyard, said taxpayers neednt worry because the Navy and shipbuilder Bath Iron Works have tested the hell out of it.
This is an enormous investment. Theres so much at stake. Theyre not slapping something together and sending it out to sea, she said. I think theyre pretty confident. They know what theyre doing.
<more>
Read more: http://www.pressherald.com/2015/11/29/new-navy-destroyers-seaworthiness-questioned/
valerief
(53,235 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)marble falls
(57,112 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)jpak
(41,758 posts)It has Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles - but these are short range and can't really deal with modern Russian and Chinese cruise/ballistic anti-ship missiles.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)except to park offshore in a show of force (if one's country is into that junk).
This one looks like a sitting duck to me. I guess if one is into wars and stuff, submarines might be useful and aircraft carriers too if you don't have air bases all over the world, which we do.
The sad fact, a lot of our best paying jobs are in the arms industry.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)jpak
(41,758 posts)But they can run away at 50 knots or so...
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)It just seems weird that they didn't do that from the start. It seems like almost every major defense project has something weird with it. I fully understand and support the development of defense projects, but it seems like everything has less to do with defense and more to do with money. :/
KoKo
(84,711 posts)gladium et scutum
(808 posts)with 80 vertical launch cells. These cells will carry RIM-66 Standard II missiles, RIM-162 Sea Sparrow missiles, BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles, and RUM-139 ASROC missiles. The exact mix of missiles may depend on mission assignment. She also carries 2 155mm guns. She is as survivable as any current Navy surface warship. That is if, the many advanced systems aboard here work as intended.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Its a definite concern....for so much taxpayer money spent on it. And, the expectations.
gladium et scutum
(808 posts)NavSeaSysCom would have modeled her hull performance in all types of seaways.
Response to jpak (Original post)
PersonNumber503602 This message was self-deleted by its author.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)is not amused.
And it is unfortunate that so many people associated with
maritime museums seem to be militarists.
Veterans For Peace pays for its navy without
soaking the tax-payers.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)What could possibly go wrong?
lastlib
(23,250 posts)Sure, this ship is going to serve its purpose--making a lot of MICers much wealthier!
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)From the article:
Amy Lent, of the Maine Maritime Museum, which works closely with the shipyard, said taxpayers neednt worry because the Navy and shipbuilder Bath Iron Works have tested the hell out of it.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Zing Zing Zingbah
(6,496 posts)BIW has been building ships for the Navy for over a century now, if that counts for anything.