Navy's giant, stealthy new destroyer gets hull wet

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
WOW



Now THIS is what I'm talking about!!!


The first-in-class Zumwalt, the largest U.S. Navy destroyer ever built, floats off a submerged dry dock in the Kennebec River on Oct. 28 in Bath, Maine. Unlike warships with towering radar- and antenna-laden superstructures, the Zumwalt will ride low to the water to minimize its radar signature, making it stealthier than others.


Military Times

This is one bad looking MAMA

It is about time the United States got back to building the awesome warships we used to be known for.

This is a GREAT start

Semper




posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Now if they can just get the cost down to lower than a small aircraft carrier.
The technological aspects of this have been challenging to say the least, and there will only be three of them. Nice looking hull though.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I don't much care for the look of the design but i bet the capabilities
are shocking. I miss the old battleship designs, while not great for
what we look for in a modern warship they sure were pretty.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Still looks top heavy to me. If that's sitting lower in the water, then it must have a pretty deep draft.

My gut tells me that this will be another multi-billion dollar boondoogle. I won't be surprised if we see the three sitting at Bremerton, WA within ten years.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Wast of money if you ask me. Who the big threat its going to be used on that other us ships cant handle?

Those billions of dollers should have gone to paying of your debt!



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
OH NO

I think she looks absolutely gorgeous!!!!

As for top heavy.. Well that may have been true in WWII, but with new materials.. NAW...

I'm also sure they took that into consideration prior to construction...



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
At 610 feet she's as big as most cruisers.
What happened to smaller, faster.....
Without Navy contracts our shipyards would close up.
That's a resource no world power can live without.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Two of the three are mostly composites on the top of the deck. The third is a steel/composite mix. She's not nearly as heavy as she looks above the waterline.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Asktheanimals
What happened to smaller, faster.....


She's almost as fast as an Arleigh Burke, and may prove to be as fast or faster once they get her into testing.

I do agree though that this is more of a cruiser than a destroyer size wise. Armament wise, the current "destroyer" is more heavily armed than some WWII cruisers. The Arleigh Burke carries 56 Tomahawk cruise missiles, two VLS cells with a total of 90 tubes, 8 Harpoon and ASROC systems, 6 torpedo tubes, ESSM, 127mm gun, two Phalanx systems. That's a pretty impressive armament system for a "destroyer".



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


'Course, that design is old-world thinking. Future wars and equipment developed for those future wars will not be concerned as in the old days with ship-to-ship radar stemming from back when ships-fought-ships with huge cannon from not more than twenty to thirty miles away. War will be fought from on-high.

However, a new class of destroyers are an nice substitute for replacing older conventions such as a/c carriers because they all will be expendable within the first week or two of a major conflict. Their life expectancy during WWIII will depend upon where they are in any one of the many seas and what reach of lethality they contain. Most will be of no consequence, harmless to the play of power.

As with a/c carriers, and even old ideas of beach assaults, all major war ships at sea will be replaced by orbital weapon platforms scattered between Earth and the Moon courtesy of the US Space Force. But they don't want you to think along those lines. That would be forward thinking, beyond what they want you to think. Actually, they really don't want you to think too much about the existence of the Space Force itself. 'Better you think of an ocean-going, new design of destroyer, not the adoption of the same concept applied to space as Gary McKinnon uncovered.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I wonder how the composites will react when hit with a rogue wave. Plus how tall and flat that it is, it just seems to me that it would ride pretty rough in high seas.

But what do I know, I'm just a old groundpounder. I look forward to her sea trials to see how it really works.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   
we'll kill the sheat out of those fracking innocent civilian ahrabs with this! Awsome!!! Now lets invest more billions in ways to kill ahrabs because we need there oil.




posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


A lot of composites are actually as strong, or nearly as strong as titanium due to the way they are woven together. She should do just fine being hit by almost anything thrown at her.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   




edit on 29-10-2013 by Blowback because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I like the older ships a bit more myself.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Should "They" not be building space ships instead of surface ships?
LoL

And for the price this bad boy will eventually cost one would think it should have the capability to take off and achieve low earth orbit at the very least!



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   

bloodreviara
I don't much care for the look of the design but i bet the capabilities
are shocking. I miss the old battleship designs, while not great for
what we look for in a modern warship they sure were pretty.


I am kind of with you on this. It looks impressive but it sure looks ugly! To be honest though, i think that with most modern ship / boat designs. Over here in blighty we are having a whole raft of new vessels being built and they follow similar designs (also ugly!).

I do wonder though, given the major reliance these days on satellite technology for this type of weapons platform, would it not make sense to hold back somewhere a small fleet of Second World War type vessels? The reason i say that is because surely one major computer virus / solar flare (insert other reason here) could potentially knock out their technological capabilities........and then they would just be floating targets for less advanced enemies.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   
What a waste of money, money that could be put to much better use here or overseas. The size, breadth and capability of the US Navy is a glaring case of overkill, even the Russians in their heyday couldn't compete with it. The Chinese are decades away from anything even remotely resembling the capability of the US Navy, how many aircraft carriers do they have? How many overseas military bases do they have compared with 700+ the US has for what threat, a bunch of backward islamists living out their medieval fantasies?

I think to glorify/support such wastes of money is a crime against humanity, and I am frankly surprised certain members here would do so, for other members it is no surprise at all.


edit on 29-10-2013 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Investment in the military and weapons in general is not going to stop. It really is that simple. Whilst i share your sentiments about there being far more important things to spend that type of money on, the fact remains that huge amounts of money will continue to be spent on this type of development, whatever members on ATS or elsewhere think about it!

And i would add that this thread isn't a debate on the merits of military / weapons investment, it is instead a thread on the new US Navy "toy".

Frankly, war and aggression should always be a last resort for any situation but that doesn't mean it is wrong to have an opinion on anything military related! Or to recognise the fact that the military is essential for defence.

I long for a Utopian world but sadly i am grounded in reality!



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Flavian
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Investment in the military and weapons in general is not going to stop. It really is that simple. Whilst i share your sentiments about there being far more important things to spend that type of money on, the fact remains that huge amounts of money will continue to be spent on this type of development, whatever members on ATS or elsewhere think about it!

And i would add that this thread isn't a debate on the merits of military / weapons investment, it is instead a thread on the new US Navy "toy".

Frankly, war and aggression should always be a last resort for any situation but that doesn't mean it is wrong to have an opinion on anything military related! Or to recognise the fact that the military is essential for defence.

I long for a Utopian world but sadly i am grounded in reality!


Good points, but I think support from the citizenry (or lack of protest) for such weapons exists because of the glorification of such in various forms of media, and unlike yourself many have not come to the rational and obvious conclusion that such weapons are completely unnecessary and a waste of money, and I think breaking the cycle of brainwashing is possible if enough people point out the obvious, but will definitely not occur if no one makes the attempt.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join