It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Navy launches USS Zumwalt, stealth destroyer, for sea trials

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
the hull number is 1000? just 701 more to go




posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, the hull shape and the superstructure will make this ship a poor performer in rough weather. I'm unsure how big an issue this will be, apart to the sailors on board. It's not like these ships are expected to escort North Atlantic convoys, for example. But is it possible that there might be times when the weather will dictate where and when this ship will be deployed ? If so, that's a bit of a downside with a ship as expensive as this one.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
The Navy awarded a contract for $255.3M for the third ship. They were under pressure to cancel it, but they chose to build it.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Here's hoping they have better luck with these ships than they apparently are with the new Littorial Combat ships.

I've heard they're having serious mechanical issues with them.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Oh don't even get me started on those pieces of crap.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I just watched the national geographic special on those "boats" on Youtube...

Talk about putting a good face on it...even then they were having issues. In the background of several scenes you can see some things seem to be going on. Odd that they never appeared on the show...

I had big time reservations after that about those boats.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Yeah, the more I've heard about them, the more I have facepalmed. Their mine hunting system doesn't work worth a damn, they're too thin skinned, they're undergunned, not one of the modules is even close to completed for them.....

The only good news is that they're going to force a decision to one type, and cut the numbers of them.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There was talk at one point about them conitinuing with both versions but having one serve in the Atlantic and the other in the Pacific. It never made any sense when you want to benefit from the economies of scale to have two versions. They're going to uparm them now and bill them as frigates but they're still way short of what's needed.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Donkey09

I like the Independence Class. Those are nice hulls. But they both are far short of what is really needed, and won't live up to anywhere close to what they Navy said they would be.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I could never see the point of the class. If they wanted something small there's plenty of very capable corvettes already out there. If they wanted something adaptable fine, spec it properly and go for it but there's no way you can have something that's going to be capable of long deployments, work in the shallows, be good at mine hunting, the be able to switch to the anti submarine duties of a frigate on the same rotation. The "plug and play" adaptable idea is fine but then you need to have enough hulls to cover those rolls concurrently or you're going to leave yourself short numbered.

There just seems like there's going to be such a capability gap between the LCS boats and then Arliegh Burkes, Tico, CCX etc.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Donkey09

Yeah there is. And it's only getting worse. Now they're looking at testing a 150kw laser on the Flight II Burkes, which is going to make them that much better, as well as NIFC-CA, and the Baseline 9 upgrade. And then when they Flight III with the SPY-6 come online, it's just going to be even wider.

Kind of interesting that the Navy proposed putting the SPY-6 on the San Antonio class to serve as a missile defense ship.
edit on 1/8/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The navy doesn't seem like it knows what i wants (or can afford) to be. On one hand they're talking about increasing the "modularity" of things so that units can be dropped in for better mission fit and extending the roll of some of the auxiliary vessels while at the same time they're reducing the force balance and making it more difficult to cover the existing rolls and deployments needed.

They're not alone in it, I'm a Brit and I look at the state of the RN. It can't afford to be what the government want it to be. Building 2 carriers is great but not having the fleet to be able to protect them while meeting other commitments is crazy. They're already below minimum hull levels according the to First Admiral but they're continuing to go for high end capability at the expense of all else.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Donkey09

The Navy is currently fighting the SecDef. He's ordered them to cut hulls and get aircraft. But the latest budget request cut E-2Ds, F-35s, AMRAAMs, and other aviation related programs. The Navy insists they need a certain number of hulls, and he's ordering them to drop below what they want and get the aircraft, and then worry about hulls.

It's going to be an interesting five years of budget fights, that's for sure.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

War on a budget ;-)

We'll give you half the money, twice the commitments and then wonder why people leave the forces and things break down.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Donkey09

That's the biggest problem the Navy is currently having. They've pushed maintenance in every area off so bad that they're short hulls and aircraft to perform the missions they have. That's why they had a carrier gap in the gulf. They said at one point to catch up on the Hornet maintenance schedule, it would take five years of 24/7/365 work.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's madness. They're going to hit real problems very very soon with the reliance on a smaller number of types. It's all good having the multi roll capability of aircraft now and I know it's saving a fortune having the reduced maintenance requirements of multiple types but once you have a major problem how long is it going to take to confirm it was a one off and the whole fleet doesn't need to be grounded. Imagine the impact a fatal crash due to stress fractures on an f18 would have on the readiness of the marines. I know they're not deployed alone but that's potentially 7 squadrons unable to do anything. Plus the knock on effect on aggressor training
edit on 8-1-2016 by Donkey09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Donkey09

That's why there was a collective "oh crap" moment when the F-35 engine went up in Florida. Was it a one off problem? Or the sign of a huge issue related to all the engines?

I saw a picture the other night that made me nostalgic. It was a carrier deck with A-3s, F-8s, A-6s, F-4s, A-4s... It made me sad to think that now, it's E-2s and F-18 variants and that's about it.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I've not read what "Proceedings" has to say, if anything about the "Littorals".

I used to subscribe, and probably should again, but let it lapse.

They're usually fairly honest, so far as officers commenting



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I don't think anyone but the leadership likes them. They keep having stupid problems. The latest one came out of the Great Lakes for trials and to head to her home port and had to be towed in because she lost all propulsion.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Eh I have an idea. Lets sell the navy a ship that looks like a submarine which cannot dive and call it stealth so we can make billions in profit from the ignorant public that don't realize all navy ships are already tracked by satellite.
edit on 8-1-2016 by glend because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join