Page 6 of 32 FirstFirst 123456789101112131416 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 470

Thread: Bath Iron Works Lays Keel of First DDG 1000 Zumwalt

  1. #76
    Senior Member Halidon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,131

    Default


    [LEFT][*******#333333][FONT=lucida grande] BATH, Maine (April 4, 2012) Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert is greeted by a skilled tradesman while touring the Bath Iron Works shipbuilding facility. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Peter D. Lawlor/Released)[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

    [LEFT][*******#333333][FONT=lucida grande]BATH, Maine (April 4, 2012) Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert tours the Bath Iron Works shipbuilding facility and makes his way to the Start of Fabrication opening ceremony for DDG 1002. Greenert was given the honor of cutting the first piece of steel for the Zumwalt-class destroyer. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Peter D. Lawlor/Released)[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

    [LEFT][*******#333333][FONT=lucida grande]BATH, Maine (April 4, 2012) The President of Bath Iron Works (BIW) Jeff Geiger thanks the men and women of BIW for their dedication as the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert applauds during the Start of Fabrication ceremony for Zumwalt-class destroyer DDG 1002. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Peter D. Lawlor/Released)[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

    [LEFT][*******#333333][FONT=lucida grande]BATH, Maine (April 4, 2012) Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert makes remarks at the Bath Iron Works Start of Fabrication ceremony for the Zumwalt-class destroyer DDG 1002. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Peter D. Lawlor/Released)[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

    [LEFT][*******#333333][FONT=lucida grande]BATH, Maine (April 4, 2012) An automated cutter idles over the first piece of steel to be cut for the construction of the Zumwalt-class destroyer DDG 1002 at the Start of Fabrication ceremony at the Bath Iron Works shipbuilding facility. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Peter D. Lawlor/Released)[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

    [LEFT][*******#333333][FONT=lucida grande]BATH, Maine (April 4, 2012) Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert tours the Bath Iron Works shipbuilding facility with Maine state Sen. Susan Collins to view the progress of the Zumwalt-class destroyer, USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Peter D. Lawlor/Released)[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

    [LEFT][*******#333333][FONT=lucida grande]BATH, Maine (April 4, 2012) Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert, middle, poses for a photo with Maine state Sen. Susan Collins, the president of Bath Iron Works and ship project managers in front of the Zumwalt-class destroyer USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000) at the Bath Iron Works shipbuilding facility. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Peter D. Lawlor/Released)[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

  2. #77
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default

    I'm interested as to any discussion on how these ships perform especially in heavier seas. There appears to be several people raising doubt about how seaworthy they are, but the fact the US is going ahead with 3 of the vessels and presumably did enough research ontop of that scaled down research vessel they constructed - seems to suggest that they'll be okay. Like many people I had no idea they were so far along in constructing these things!

  3. #78
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Age
    47
    Posts
    24,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Squiderp View Post
    I'm interested as to any discussion on how these ships perform especially in heavier seas. There appears to be several people raising doubt about how seaworthy they are, but the fact the US is going ahead with 3 of the vessels and presumably did enough research ontop of that scaled down research vessel they constructed - seems to suggest that they'll be okay. Like many people I had no idea they were so far along in constructing these things!
    Very similar to the X-Bow design concept.


  4. #79
    Senior Member Halidon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,131

    Default

    There's been extensive testing of the Tumblehome hull via computer modeling, tank tests, and the Sea Jet demonstrator.


    The Navy and Bath seem convinced they have the concerns well addressed.

  5. #80
    Purveyor of intelligent reading material Lt-Col A. Tack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Posts
    10,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Because the Zumwalts are too expensive. That's why it was cut from 28-ish to 7 units and now to 3. The plan was to limit it to 3 units and then go back to Flight III Burkes to save money, but because they interrupted they production schedule, and want to add features, projected costs for a Flight III Burke have now exploded to the point where they think they may be even more expensive than the Zumwalts. ****ing amateurs and fvkcing politics.
    My humble opinion is that we need a nuclear cruiser. Expensive, I know, but we wouldn't need many.
    Last edited by Lt-Col A. Tack; 04-06-2012 at 11:50 AM.

  6. #81
    Purveyor of intelligent reading material Lt-Col A. Tack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Posts
    10,707

    Default

    new Burke, Flight III news article:

    Next Gen U.S. Destroyers Already Questioned

    Apr 6, 2012

    By Michael Fabey
    Washington


    Military analysts for a host of government watchdog agencies such as the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Research Service (CRS) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have questioned the Navy’s Flight III plans for some time, but it is the GAO review released earlier this year that highlights newly emerging cost and schedule risks.
    Read more: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ne=null&next=0

  7. #82
    Senior Member Mackie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    6,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lt-Col A. Tack View Post
    My humble opinion is that we need a nuclear cruiser. Expensive, I know, but we wouldn't need many.
    Which country in the world has a comparable cruiser fleet? Even the Burkes are heavy destroyers.
    In the coming years, when the real cutfest begins, the navy will regret this decision.
    Will cost the life of more necessary projects and in the extreme, will force to rethink the number of carriers.

  8. #83
    Purveyor of intelligent reading material Lt-Col A. Tack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Posts
    10,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mackie View Post
    Which country in the world has a comparable cruiser fleet? Even the Burkes are heavy destroyers.
    Acutally, the Navy will be cutting some Ticos.

    US Navy to Cut 12 Ships

    In the coming years, when the real cutfest begins, the navy will regret this decision.
    To cut the Ticos?

    Or to build a new nuclear cruiser?

    I really think such a beast is needed to handle high end mission equipment like AMDR (physically large and requiring a tremendous amount of electrical power), and maybe some of the other futuristic systems being contemplated.

    Will cost the life of more necessary projects and in the extreme, will force to rethink the number of carriers.
    I really hate to say it, but I'm guessing that there will fewer carriers in our future.

    I really doubt we'll have as many Ford-class carriers in service at one time as we have Nimitz class (10 in commission).

    It's not something that makes me happy, but I just worry that the cost to develop ships to handle high-end missions (like BMD) will end up driving the size of the fleet down to a tiny fraction of what it is today, and much less than what we need.

  9. #84
    **** you 20122. how goes does gaz type drunk? dricl. man Hellfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    A terra dos foguetes
    Posts
    29,761

    Default

    I think an AMDR CGN would be a useful addition to the fleet. 15k+ tons, AMDR radar, 200+ VLS, maybe one or two AGS, and ability to launch and recover mid-size UAVs. I just think the cost of such a thing would be astronomical. Unthinkable, even.

  10. #85
    Purveyor of intelligent reading material Lt-Col A. Tack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Posts
    10,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellfish View Post
    I think an AMDR CGN would be a useful addition to the fleet. 15k+ tons, AMDR radar, 200+ VLS, maybe one or two AGS, and ability to launch and recover mid-size UAVs. I just think the cost of such a thing would be astronomical. Unthinkable, even.
    I think if the criteria are chosen with care, with a generous allowance for future space and power needs, using as many proven systems (read: in service. And that includes reactors) as possible, an expensive but marginally affordable ship could be produced.

    But Program management hasn't been our strong suite lately, though.

  11. #86
    **** you 20122. how goes does gaz type drunk? dricl. man Hellfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    A terra dos foguetes
    Posts
    29,761

    Default

    We need BuShips back.

  12. #87
    Milo Drinker of Death Flagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The (South)Island of Misfit Toys
    Posts
    14,876

    Default

    When I think of netcentric warfare I think of economy of scale and decentralized centres of gravity.

    Anti ship missiles are pretty spiffy nowadays.

    And while carriers are the hub in the hub/spoke model....I wonder if it's possible to crank out fully plug/play hulls in small/medium/large that can decentralize the risk that big fat carriers represent if successfully targeted.

    If you're going to operate in a fleet or strike group environment do you NEED every vessel to be fully kitted out with EVERY sensor under the sun?

    Or can you plug in a bunch of VLS containers into a few lightly manned hulls slaved to the fully kitted and sensor laden hulls?

    Carriers are awesome....but I wonder if next gen UAVs will be able to operate from smaller and less expensive hulls like America class?

  13. #88
    Senior Member Halidon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,131

    Default

    The Navy has been playing around with a concept of an about 25,000-ton CGN using the LPD-17 hull with a single A1B reactor from the Ford class. The rough cost estimates were around $9 billion (today's dollars) for the lead ship and around $7 billion follow-on. The Navy would need at least 7 and more like 9 to get the desired coverage, and that's with a second class of 14-15 smaller, conventional "cruisers" (Flight III or BMD Zumwalt) as additional shooters.

    I don't like the idea for a variety of reasons, price being chief among them. But also because, with even 9 CGNs, we'd be unable to do anything with them but escort the Carriers around. BMD patrols in the Med and Pacific, and the Gator Navy would be reliant on the conventional cruisers anyway, better to make all the 20+ BMD cruisers one conventional class (more affordable and better for the Industry) and then enhance the fleet sensor ability with some innovation.

    Galrahn over at Information Dissemination has put forward a fairly straightforward solution: put a large-array AMDR on the Ford-class Carriers. The island on a Ford can take a fairly huge array on its 3 faces, and they have Power to be sure. He's also suggested mounting a turreted AMDR array on the next generation of support ships, but the Navy is already having enough trouble getting those paid for and I don't think adding the price of an AMDR would make the situation any better.

  14. #89
    Deserter Soldat_Américain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Borderlands with Nantan Lupan
    Age
    25
    Posts
    15,205

    Default

    Fox was hyping the LCS this morning which I found funny, but we need a CGN but when they killed the CGX idk.

  15. #90
    Senior Member Halidon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,131

    Default

    DDG-1002 finally has a name. She will be USS Lyndon B. Johnson.

    So the class in total (for now) is:
    DDG-1000 USS Zumwalt
    DDG-1001 USS Monsoor
    DDG-1002 USS Johnson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •