New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
- Footslogger
- Posts: 1245
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
- Location: Washington USA
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
It may be invisible to radar but unfortunately it's not invisible to our eyes [:D]
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
It reminds me more of the Merrimack.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
As the second (confederate) incarnation.
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
ORIGINAL: Denniss
As the second (confederate) incarnation.
There was only one USS Merrimack. The second version was the CSS Virginia.
The Moose
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
ORIGINAL: robinsa
I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.
It's the traditionalist in you. Only matters how well she fights.
The Moose
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
If we built warships on beauty alone we'd still be fighting with sailing ships. [:D]
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
warspite1ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
If we built warships on beauty alone we'd still be fighting with sailing ships. [:D]
Or better still, re-making the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships (late thirties re-build stylee).... [;)]
- Attachments
-
- 1faclg.jpg (55.81 KiB) Viewed 485 times
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]
I prefer to think of the Virginias as a post-688 class.
The Seawolfs had a different mission that went away with the USSR. We had a private briefing with VADM White, then ComSubLant, in refit in 1982 (?) All the wardrooms in Kings Bay at the time attended. He described Seawolf, then on the drawing boards, as a recruiting tool for the nukes. Essentially his message was "once she penetrates into the SSBN bastion she has enough fish to stay a long, long time." At the time she wasn't named yet, and the exact sensor suite was in flux, but I still remember his grin when he said "fifty."
The Moose
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Consider her protype/developmental concept. They'll stop production at three (Like they did with Seawolf) and if the design features work out they'll incorporate them unto either the next class of ships , or possibly back fit them into existing classes. The next class might be a "Zumwalt lite" as the Virgina class subs were a "Seawolf lite". I'd much rather see the Navy building 1-3 of a test bed than a whole class and find it doesn't work. Navies and national defense should evolutionary , NOT revolutionary. It's just too important. [:)]
I prefer to think of the Virginias as a post-688 class.
The Seawolfs had a different mission that went away with the USSR. We had a private briefing with VADM White, then ComSubLant, in refit in 1982 (?) All the wardrooms in Kings Bay at the time attended. He described Seawolf, then on the drawing boards, as a recruiting tool for the nukes. Essentially his message was "once she penetrates into the SSBN bastion she has enough fish to stay a long, long time." At the time she wasn't named yet, and the exact sensor suite was in flux, but I still remember his grin when he said "fifty."
It is a post 688 class. It came afterwards. Every boat we build from now on will be a "post 688" class. [:D] But the Virginia's , originally referred to as the "Centurion class" (a developmental name only) was built because it was felt the USN couldn't afford a 50+ buy of Seawolves. I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Virginia's owe a awful lot of their design features to the Seawolf. 688, not so much. [:D]
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
The CiC looks a lot like my vision of the WitP 2.0 interface:
- Attachments
-
- AE2.jpg (42.83 KiB) Viewed 485 times
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
It is a post 688 class. It came afterwards. Every boat we build from now on will be a "post 688" class. [:D] But the Virginia's , originally referred to as the "Centurion class" (a developmental name only) was built because it was felt the USN couldn't afford a 50+ buy of Seawolves. I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Virginia's owe a awful lot of their design features to the Seawolf. 688, not so much. [:D]
By post-688 I meant an everyday, affordable (relatively) SSN. Sure they're modern and take many features from Seawolf. But Seawolf was not affordable in the post-Cold War environment in the numbers we need to fulfill tasking. And Seawolf was vastly over-designed for most SSN missions. Like using a Jaguar to haul plywood.
However, in a real sense the 688 was not a "post-637 design." I'm sure you know what the 637 was designed to do, and what the 688 was designed to do. Different. And that's all I'm saying about that here.
The Moose
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
ORIGINAL: Dili
Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]
Destroyers are much bigger today.
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
It brings one back to the days of ram bows at the turn of the last century.
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
They did not miss the mark by much....
- Attachments
-
- FerrisAndKirk.jpg (117.37 KiB) Viewed 486 times
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
I hate to say this but I really think its a damn ugly ship. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, and maybe I will like it more once I get used to it, but right now I think it looks more like a sub than a surface vessel.
Does look like a giant submarine.
Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu
RE: New Zumwalt-Class Destroyer
ORIGINAL: wdolson
ORIGINAL: Dili
Destroyer at 15000t? That's an heavy cruiser violating Washington Treaty [:'(]
Destroyers are much bigger today.
I know, just playing in the WW2 mode, hence the Wash. Treaty reference.