Zumwalt taking shape………..

Reminded me of this:

Sir, we can’t call it the Enterprise!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIBXUDbamQg

She is big and makes for a very strange silhouette.
One has to say she is not the prettiest of ships!
But then again function over form is what her designers had in mind. Well one would hope that to be the case.

Just look how small the sailors are ….

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242817[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242816[/ATTACH]

LOL. But it ain’t the Enterprise.

Someone has to be grooming that guy for command of CVN-80 when she commissions…….

The single BIGGEST missed PR opportunity in the history of publicity if theres an Enterprise and James Kirk doesnt get to command it!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/09/navys_new_ship_sets_sail/

The maiden voyage has commenced or its first sea trials if that is not called a maiden voyage. Would you believe the Captain is named James Kirk?!

LOL. But it ain’t the Enterprise.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/09/navys_new_ship_sets_sail/

The maiden voyage has commenced or its first sea trials if that is not called a maiden voyage. Would you believe the Captain is named James Kirk?!

Prototype testing… :angel:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229710[/ATTACH]

I´ll get me hat…

Testing on a scale model of USS Zumwalt

1/5 powered scale model built and tested. This was a 133-foot model located at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, Acoustic Research Detachment in Bayview, Idaho and operated on Lake Pend Oreill.
http://www.asiandefencenews.com/2012/04/cutting-edge-navy-warship-uss-zumwalt.html

Prototype testing… :angel:

I´ll get me hat…

What was old is new again.

Prototype testing… :angel:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229710[/ATTACH]

I´ll get me hat…

More :

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/06/zumwalt-ddg-1000-the-future-is-nearly-here/

Hmmm… RAM tiles? Makes sense, considering the build quality looks fairly conventional. I guess the experience with anechoic tiles on subs will be of great value regarding durable rubber compounds and adhesives.

Capt. Jim Downey, DDG-1000 program manager at Naval Sea Systems Command, discussed the capabilities

More :

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/06/zumwalt-ddg-1000-the-future-is-nearly-here/

[ATTACH=CONFIG]222550[/ATTACH]

And she floats (in calm water, at least)!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:131028-O-ZZ999-103.JPG
BATH, Maine (Oct. 28, 2013) The Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer DDG 1000 is floated out of dry dock at the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipyard. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of General Dynamics/Released)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]222466[/ATTACH]

‎Full sized pic (6,144 × 4,096 pixels, file size: 5.45 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/131028-O-ZZ999-103.JPG

The bar has been raised. Advantage America

[ATTACH=CONFIG]222444[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]222440[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]222441[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]222442[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]222443[/ATTACH]

I’ve heard this argument before and I’m still on the side that says shooting in a heavy seaway is always going to be problematic to some extent….thats got to be accepted. One warfare officer I know says that the predictable roll is better and you just rely on the mount/fcs to do the work and level it all out. For me the hull that gives the highest stability factor up to the highest sea state wins as it means lesser reliance on the mechanicals….after it crosses the threshold and starts to roll, and you’re in a heavy seaway, its best efforts anyway.

Agree to some extent, yet “rely on the mount” is going to be easier if the ship rolls slower. If it takes a typical 12 seconds to go from 15° SB to 15 port and back (as on a tanker) it’s going to be much more difficult then when it takes you 20s or more to do the same. Roll stabilisers are only efficient to some degree and they mainly catch that initial instability. So in the end at a lower sea state you’ll have an equally stable ship, yet in heavier sea states you’ll have a slower rolling ship. I do agree that an inherently more stable ship is better than one that has it mechanically fixed, roll stabilisers can break… True enough that in any heavy sea way it’s going to be best efforts or no fight at all.

True, but, then its inventing solutions to problems that dont really need to have been created in the first place to my mind!.

Well that’s a question of requirements I guess. Apparently they decided it was necessary. In a positive note for your point, I don’t like the anchoring arrangement. They indeed solved a problem, but how… It’s sited aft of the sonar, but occupies quite a large space since it’s going all the way down through the hull. Starting from above the waterline to keep things watertight where the chain enters, but storing that anchor in the keel is really strange. Not to mention on how they are going to check the direction of the chain etc. Haven’t really seen if they have a back-up anchor either. It does solve any issues regarding hitting the bow sonar with the anchor or chain though.
Of course it’s caused by the tumblehome, just not sure if there wasn’t a better alternative to this.

As for rolling, you’d rather have an unstable ship as a gun platform than a stable one. A stable one will roll at heavier sea conditions, but when they do, they roll extremely quickly and therefore much more difficult to compensate. A tanker with a GM of 9m is really annoying when it starts rolling as the roll period is really short, so you have a much shorter window in which you can take your shot. An unstable ship will roll slowly although she’ll start rolling at a lower sea condition.

I’ve heard this argument before and I’m still on the side that says shooting in a heavy seaway is always going to be problematic to some extent….thats got to be accepted. One warfare officer I know says that the predictable roll is better and you just rely on the mount/fcs to do the work and level it all out. For me the hull that gives the highest stability factor up to the highest sea state wins as it means lesser reliance on the mechanicals….after it crosses the threshold and starts to roll, and you’re in a heavy seaway, its best efforts anyway.

Her wind surface is still ok, tumblehome will allow the wind to escape easier upwards and overall her hull doesn’t have much windage compared to a traditional ship. I think the Burke has more windage area than Zumwalt, considering hangar, funnels, superstructure etc. on the former. Zumwalt has a high (although I’m not sure how high compared to Burke) superstructure, but overall it’s not that long. I’m assuming it’s much less than a Tico 😉

She’s slicker in the upperworks thats for certain and I do see what you’re saying that air flows will be trapped far less….especially at shallower angles to the wind. I have a feeling that beam-on to the wind it will be a serious consideration but, I agree, likely no more or less than for a conventional type. It was the combination of effects that concerned me more…fairly atypical conditions but a following sea and wind off on the beam might make this a very lively hull!. I am seriously looking forward to seeing the trials footage!.

Basic operations, like storing etc. can be much more automated and the design can be adapted to that (although I’m not sure if they have done that in this case), considering also the smaller amount of people onboard. The little deck space they do have is quite uncluttered compared to old ships, which also helps when doing such operations.

True, but, then its inventing solutions to problems that dont really need to have been created in the first place to my mind!.

Pitch behaviour is supposed to be very iffy running before a heavy swell with tumblehome and a corkscrewing effect can result…I’m assuming they have some form of roll stabilisation system fitted for a tall narrow hull with a fairly significant sail area on the superstructure!. For a ship that, presumably, needs to be a stable gun platform its an odd choice to my mind. SWATH and multihulls can exhibit unstable pitch and roll characteristics in quartering seas as well, as wave effect hits the different hulls at different times and intensities, so there definitely are examples where sea conditions impinge on hull performance.

Probably she has active roll stabilisers and from the pictures she has also slightly larger bilge keels than normal, although not uncommon for warships. Pitching is behaviour that every ship has when running in the same direction of a swell, yes the plowing bow will give less buoyancy and she’ll dive deeper, but when running against the swell she’ll have better behaviour due to that. Although becoming more wet on deck.
As for rolling, you’d rather have an unstable ship as a gun platform than a stable one. A stable one will roll at heavier sea conditions, but when they do, they roll extremely quickly and therefore much more difficult to compensate. A tanker with a GM of 9m is really annoying when it starts rolling as the roll period is really short, so you have a much shorter window in which you can take your shot. An unstable ship will roll slowly although she’ll start rolling at a lower sea condition.
Her wind surface is still ok, tumblehome will allow the wind to escape easier upwards and overall her hull doesn’t have much windage compared to a traditional ship. I think the Burke has more windage area than Zumwalt, considering hangar, funnels, superstructure etc. on the former. Zumwalt has a high (although I’m not sure how high compared to Burke) superstructure, but overall it’s not that long. I’m assuming it’s much less than a Tico 😉

Point taken, but, crew facilities generally need to be more lavish these days for recruitment and retention as well as to support the longer deployments escorts tend to undertake now. This may be an RN-centric view, but, USN crews are usually significantly larger than RN ones and they tend to be more oppulently catered for than our ships anyway….stories of ships having to turn round because the ice-cream maker was broken etc, etc!. Bottom line being that point about reducing space, generally, for very limited real gains.

True, although I’m not sure how far they’ll go with that. I’m fairly sure they won’t double each person’s space.

A lot of the empty weather deck space is used for things like vertrep receipt, RAS access or any number of topside routines alongside or underway. Weapons/sensor fit and arcs have to be sited such that these spaces are preserved otherwise even basic operations like storing ship or casevac (with a fouled chopper pad) become hideously difficult and inefficient evolutions. When you reduce that surface area with an arrangement like tumblehome it complicates deconflicting systems, clear arcs and topside handling requirements. If its an absolute necessity to go to tumblehome then maybe you accept that sacrifice, but, I dont see the absolute need to do so here.

Basic operations, like storing etc. can be much more automated and the design can be adapted to that (although I’m not sure if they have done that in this case), considering also the smaller amount of people onboard. The little deck space they do have is quite uncluttered compared to old ships, which also helps when doing such operations.