Slashdot Mirror


USS Zumwalt — a Guided Missile Destroyer Running On Linux

New submitter SanDogWeps writes "Sean Gallagher over at Ars Technica reports that when the U.S.S. Zumwalt (DDG 1000) puts to sea later this year, it will be different from any other ship in the Navy's fleet in many ways. The $3.5 billion ship is designed for stealth, survivability, and firepower, and it's packed with advanced technology. And at the heart of its operations is a virtual data center powered by off-the-shelf server hardware, various flavors of Linux, and over 6 million lines of software code. From the article: 'Called the Common Display System, or CDS (pronounced as "keds" by those who work with it), the three-screen workstations in the operations center are powered by a collection of quad-processor Intel motherboards in an armored case, which gives new meaning to the nautical phrase "toe buster." Even the commanding officer's and executive officer's chairs on the bridge have CDS workstations built-in. Each CDS system runs multiple LynxOS-based Linux virtual machines, which can run on various networks partitioned by security level and purpose. '"

151 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stallman would be proud.

    1. Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

      People don't kill people. Linux kills people.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! by Megane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Linux doesn't kill people, Windows NT kills people!

      (Or at least it kills ships... got to watch out for those divide by zero errors!)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting point. I wonder what filesystem these Linux systems are running? Perhaps the Navy is the organization that secretly bought Hans Reiser's assets a few years ago.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! by steelfood · · Score: 1

      In Facist America...

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      MurderUS
      MurderOUS
      MurderER

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re: Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Das reboot!

    7. Re:Death wants to be freeeeeeeeee! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      People don't kill people. Linux kills people.

      That would be GNU/Linux, my good sir. Or GUN/Linux, if you so prefer

  2. And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Are we supposed to be happy that the blood, sweat and tears of the thousands of developers who gave their time to an ideal of free software are now being used by the world's favorite rogue state to bring death and destruction to far flung corners of the globe?

    1. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, when you signed on to open source you agreed you had no control over what it ended up being used for. Stallman's rage could probably power a small city though.

    2. Re:And? by n1ywb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Animals fight. Humans fight. It's stupd and sad and I hope we can move long term away from it. In the meantime, I for one am happy we have a strong defense. Do you honestly think Russia and China aren't interested in global hegemony?

      That said, I'm not so happy about our offensive game.

      Anyway freedom is a double edged sword. Nobody gets to pick and choose who uses FOSS for what purpose. That's sort of the point. You honestly don't think Linux has played a military roll before?

      On the other hand they may contribute back to the community, and probably already have done so.

      And it's a hell of a lot better than them running Windows. You'd be amazed how many mission critical Windows boxes are on a typical ship, to say nothing of a military vessel.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
    3. Re:And? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      And this is another illustration of why you should know your license agreements! Don't just rely on summaries or pick-your-features selectors. If you care where your software goes or what it's used for, take the time to do the research and know what your license says.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:And? by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      Technically, it's not open source software. It's a proprietary Unix-compatible OS (yeah, that's still a thing).

      The headline is wrong since it has essentially nothing to do with Linux.

    5. Re:And? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Hey, when you signed on to open source you agreed you had no control over what it ended up being used for. Stallman's rage could probably power a small city though.

      Actually, Stallman has no problems with free SW (even GNU stuff) being used for military applications, as long as any redistribution of the SW respects the license (said redistribution obviously not taking place for the custom SW powering the destroyer, so no license problems happening).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:And? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Are we supposed to be happy that the blood, sweat and tears of the thousands of developers who gave their time to an ideal of free software are now being used by the world's favorite rogue state to bring death and destruction to far flung corners of the globe?

      Calm down there AC.. This ain't the Linux you are looking for. The headline was very misleading. It runs LynxOS which is certainly not open source. There might be some GNU tools which are open source, but at the kernel level it is not Linux.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:And? by tb()ne · · Score: 1
      You have to actually read past the headline. From TFA:

      ...The design of the Zumwalt solves that problem by using off-the-shelf hardware—mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux...

    8. Re:And? by gdshaw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hey, when you signed on to open source you agreed you had no control over what it ended up being used for.

      Indeed, and for good reason. There are almost limitless ways in which a software author might want to discriminate against fields of use, and no prospect of achieving global consensus on what should or should not be allowed. One of the key benefits of Open Source is that you don't have to read the licence of every single package you install to find out whether it is safe to use. The most practicable way to achieve this is to prohibit restrictions on what you can use the software for.

    9. Re:And? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is open source. Did you bother even skimming the short referenced article?

    10. Re:And? by tb()ne · · Score: 1

      The summary is misleading in that it mentions LynxOS running on particular subsystems. But TFA states that the ship uses "...mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux...".

    11. Re:And? by fnj · · Score: 1

      The headline was very misleading. It runs LynxOS which is certainly not open source.

      From TFA:

      The design of the Zumwalt solves that problem by using off-the-shelf hardware—mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux—and putting it in a ruggedized server room. ...
      Systems that weren't built to be wired into an IP network—other "programs of record" within the ship, which are installed across multiple classes of Navy ships—are wired in using adaptors based on single-board computers and the Lynx OS real-time Linux operating system.

      The headline was NOT misleading. It sounds like the main core is running Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and at the board level there are embedded systems running LynxOS to adapt modules not based on linux. The part that sets this class apart is the linux part. The only misleading part I can spot is the phrase "Lynx OS real-time Linux", which in no way detracts from the fact that there is both linux and LynxOS on board.

    12. Re:And? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Would it being "pure Linux" or "fully open source" make things automatically somehow more holy then?

    13. Re:And? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Are we supposed to be happy that the blood, sweat and tears of the thousands of developers who gave their time to an ideal of free software are now being used by the world's favorite rogue state to bring death and destruction to far flung corners of the globe?

      I also heard that a screwdriver was used in assembling the computers. The same kind of screwdriver which is used to put together computers targeted to run peaceful operations with open source software. This must end.

    14. Re:And? by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fire has been used by humans for 1.9 million years or so. It is very useful for killing people painfully. I'm still pretty happy with fire.

      Linux has been used from the early nineties, and now its going to kill people. I'm still pretty happy with Linux.

      Granted, I'm not going to brag about that aspect, but I wouldn't go so far to say it is a ghastly aspect. Modern militaries use everything from brooms to paperclips in support of their mission to kill stuff. That's because militaries use systems to accomplish their tasks, just like everything else does. If you create a system to move food around the globe, you also create a system that moves food between war zones.

      I'd be proud that Linux is deemed capable of underlying a mission critical system, even if I don't like the results of said system.

    15. Re:And? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      My bad, got things mixed up. I had already read it, so I'd forgotten about the Red Hat Linux part. It does use Lynx, which is what I was referring to, to interface with systems not designed for TCP/IP communication.

    16. Re:And? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      DOD should stick to Debian - that way they'll never have licensing worries.

      (by the way - what's with "multiple Linux distros" - wouldn't it be easier to stick to one "Death Linux"?)

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    17. Re:And? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Yes, obviously.

      Next question?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    18. Re:And? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sort of yes. I'm not at all happy with the US govt.s aggressive foreign policy, *or* intrusive domestic policy. But it doesn't really matter whether they use MSWind or Linux, except that I believe Linux is more reliable (well, I haven't used MSWind in over a decade) and they MAY adhere to the GPL, if it suits them. (SELinux is one significant contribution. Not enough to forgive the NSA over, but still significant...unless, of course, it's a honeypot.)

      Given the typical military mission that I've heard of in recent years, I'm not real pleased that they are more able to carry them out. But choice of operating system probably isn't significant.

      Yes, animals fight, and humans are animals. But countries are NOT animals. And when countries have the weapons that modern countries have, fighting edges towards suicidal. (Remember, nuclear weapons can be detected, but biological weapons can't. And they can be just as dangerous, if less targeted. And who knows what's coming down the pike. War needs to be obsoleted. It's not like it's even profitable anymore.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    19. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You had me until the last sentence.

      War isn't profitable? Sure, it isn't profitable for you and me. But it's highly profitable for the military industrial complex and for the state.

    20. Re:And? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Are we supposed to be happy that the blood, sweat and tears of the thousands of developers who gave their time to an ideal of free software are now being used by the world's favorite rogue state to bring death and destruction to far flung corners of the globe?
       
      In addition, I heard that missiles fired from these ships will feature a penguin logo, and that the military contractor who made millions from the work of "thousands of developers who gave their time to an ideal of free software" likes to wipe his ass with printouts of the kernel source code. Makes you sick, doesn't it.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    21. Re:And? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      OK, OK, aircraft carriers, yes, yes, but they're boring.

      Don't forget about the Tomahawks - they can devastate a small village far from shore.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    22. Re:And? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If we get rid of the roads, we might stand a chance at ending the Drug War.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    23. Re:And? by lgw · · Score: 1

      While that's true, they cost more than a village and you can only carry a few. Allowing naval arty to service normal arty fire missions returns a traditional (and useful at this range!) role to naval ships.
       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:And? by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot, not R'ing TFA is par for the course, not R'ing TFS gets you a gold star!

    25. Re:And? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      If we get rid of the roads, we might stand a chance at ending the Drug War.

      If we get rid of contractors to the Government, that profit from this "war" - and the Pols who maintain the security of their power by perpetrating a "war' against their own people...

      "DRUG WAR - HIDDEN HISTORY"

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    26. Re:And? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      No, but reality is that military has, throughout human history, been a driver of new technologies.

      If military is embracing linux as essentially client/desktop OS, it's a good thing for those who want linux as a viable desktop alternative, and some technological inventions and innovations are likely to find their way into civilian use soon enough.

      And in the end, it wouldn't really matter for those killed if they were killed by a ship running linux, windows or macOS, like it doesn't matter to them if the ships are built of steel or carbon fiber, like it doesn't matter to them if missiles use solid or liquid fuel and so on. Because in the end, it's people that kill people. Tools are innocent.

    27. Re: And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yes. that's the way you socialists wrote the license. Since you also HATE copyright, you are in no moral position to revoke those permissions either.
      actually none of you lame asses never did so much as to correct the documentation, much less write a line of code. So yes, you should be happy. This is what happens when the government is in debt.

    28. Re:And? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      The question might be slightly more pointed to people who contribute code and other development work to the Linux ecosystem. Knowing that the hours of work you put in to improve kernel latency is what has made it possible to use Linux to accurately bombard Middle Eastern villages with cruise missiles might rankle a bit when the project you were actually working for was a protein-folding "cure Alzheimer's" super-computing project.

      We can car analogy this. I don't mind using cars with internal combustion engines even though they are used by the military as well (as you said). However if I were an engineer who worked on internal combustion engines for a living and I had moral objections to working for the military, I probably wouldn't get a job for BAE systems in their department that manufactures tanks.

    29. Re:And? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      War isn't profitable for countries. It used to be profitable for the country that won the war, but not in the last 100 years, for any major conflict, and I don't think that it's been profitable for anything involving actual countries for the last 25 or so. (I'd need studies to be sure.)

      Profitable for the suppliers or weapons, yes. No question there.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    30. Re:And? by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      So, as someone who helped design the operating environment for the latest REAL Destroyers, the newest of the DDG-51 class, and who has an extreme level of experience with the systems running on the DDG-51s, CG-47s, and the LM version of the Littoral Combat System, the core of the system is, in fact, running a variant of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The CDS consoles, at least on AEGIS (DDG-51, CG-47) run RHEL, as well, but there are input/output boards that we call 'ACEG' that, in certain instances, run LynxOS or VxWorks, and take data feeds from legacy sensors, then convert them for usage by the actual core operating environment.

      There are also dozens of government furnished systems that interface with the combat systems, and many of those run as embedded systems with little to no true networking capability.

    31. Re:And? by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I highlighted the word 'real,' in relation to destroyers, as the Zumwalt-class deviates from the traditional role of the destroyer, which is fleet anti-air warfare (AAW) and anti-submarine warfare (ASW). The Zumwalt and her sister ships are pretty useless for AAW and ASW, they're more designed for shore bombardment and anti-surface warfare (ASuW). Further, the Burke-class destroyers can handle the Ballistic Missile Defense mission, while the Zumwalts can't. This is a HUGE reason why the Navy tried to cancel them when they were in development.

    32. Re:And? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Hey, when you signed on to open source you agreed you had no control over what it ended up being used for. Stallman's rage could probably power a small city though.

      Yeah, it's Freedom 0 of the GNU manifesto - the freedom to run the program, for any purpose

    33. Re:And? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      So if a missile that leaves the destroyer includes GPLed software that helps in identifying the targets before landing on them, does that mean that enemies should then get automatic rights to the source code? What if the enemies are killed - are they still entitled to the source code?

    34. Re:And? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      No, according to RMS, the Navy as a legal entity is the sole user in this case.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Weapons purposes in license by morphotomy · · Score: 1

    Isn't there a provision in the license stating the software cannot be used for weapons purposes or something of the like?

    1. Re:Weapons purposes in license by gdshaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Isn't there a provision in the license stating the software cannot be used for weapons purposes or something of the like?

      No, and if there were then it would not be considered Open Source (clause 6 of the OSD, 'No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor').

    2. Re:Weapons purposes in license by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      No.

    3. Re:Weapons purposes in license by morphotomy · · Score: 1, Troll

      But if its being used by a tyrant, is the code really free?

    4. Re:Weapons purposes in license by alen · · Score: 1

      and so what?

      the US just has to pass a law saying any OS or code can be used in military applications

    5. Re:Weapons purposes in license by Megane · · Score: 1

      That's iTunes.

      But then again, unless it's powered by a nuclear reactor, it's not a "nuclear, missile, or chemical or biological weapon". Score!

      And the OS X EULA only says that it's "not intended for use in" a list of things which doesn't specifically include naval navigation! (Except when failure of the Apple software could lead to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage. So that depends on if getting stuck on a reef counts.)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    6. Re:Weapons purposes in license by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Wait, NOW you're trying to say licenses should be used to restrict how one uses software?

      Would you people please make up your minds!

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re:Weapons purposes in license by fnj · · Score: 1

      LynxOS is not open source.

      So what? Red Hat Enterprise Linux IS open source. They are both used.

    8. Re:Weapons purposes in license by gdshaw · · Score: 1

      LynxOS is not open source.

      True, but I strongly suspect the comment I replied to was referring to Linux rather than LynxOS.

      (Not that the vendors of LynxOS appear to have anything against military use. It is mostly non-OSD-compliant freeware that tends to have field-of-use restrictions, as opposed to software that is fully propietary or fully Open Source.)

    9. Re:Weapons purposes in license by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But if its being used by a tyrant, is the code really free?

      You need to understand the license. It's not the developer that is free, it's the user. And there are few freer than a tyrant.

      Of course, if he developes the code and distributes the changes, then the license requires him to distribute the source on request, but as he's a tyrant he is free to ignore the license.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Weapons purposes in license by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, and if there were then it would not be considered Open Source (clause 6 of the OSD, 'No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor').

      I take my definition of Open Source from a time before there was an OSD.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Weapons purposes in license by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Why?
      Putting restrictions would really go against the free software ideal. This software is Free for everyone except for the people I don't like, kid of excluded everyone.
      You will be better off with a commercial license that says it is free for use for the groups that I do like. You see this often for software that give the license for free for Home, Educational and Not-for-Profit.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:Weapons purposes in license by unixisc · · Score: 1

      No, and if there were then it would not be considered Open Source (clause 6 of the OSD, 'No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor').

      Nor would it be considered libre software - due to violating Freedom 0 of GNU

  4. Left out the best part by RetiredMidn · · Score: 4, Informative

    The captain's name is James Kirk.

    1. Re:Left out the best part by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

      Citation no longer needed.

      That's pretty awesome.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Left out the best part by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      How does he fight the urge to change his name to one that can be abbreviated James T. Kirk?

    3. Re:Left out the best part by RetiredMidn · · Score: 1

      Thank you; it was mentioned in TFA, but your link is better.

    4. Re:Left out the best part by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Clearly, the military has beaten all sense out of him.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Left out the best part by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      RTFA? WTF?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:Left out the best part by fishybell · · Score: 2

      I'm sure he has the same problem as Major Major Major Major, as in he'll never advance beyond captain because it fits his name.

      --
      ><));>
    7. Re:Left out the best part by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      A better question is how did his parents resist it?

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  5. But... by nayrbn · · Score: 1

    does it run linux?

    1. Re:But... by fnj · · Score: 1

      It runs LynxOS. Which is NOT Linux

      Bzzzzt. Fail. From TFA:

      The design of the Zumwalt solves that problem by using off-the-shelf hardware—mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux—and putting it in a ruggedized server room.

      Both LynxOS and Red Hat Enterprise Linux are on board.

    2. Re:But... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      The funny part is the Navy runs Red Hat (and an embedded variant) on a bunch of systems on their ships... so they were already running Linux. Of the systems I'm familiar with only one runs Windows and they were phasing it out to replace it with Linux last I heard.

  6. Resistant to anti-ship missles? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that anti-ship missile technology has been ahead of defence systems now for quite some time, such that basically any ship that gets within range of them is basically always sunk. What's more, Russia, Iran and China all have such missiles. What exactly are these ships being built for, beyond the jobs they produce?

    1. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry, did you just ask what's the purpose of building ships when they can be sunk?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The arms race changes day-to-day, but AFAIK, the CIWS system, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS, when armed, is quite capable of handling current airborne missiles.

    3. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by Antipater · · Score: 3, Insightful

      a) I doubt anyone outside of classified weapons research actually knows whether offense or defense currently has the advantage.
      b) The Zumwalt is a guided missile destroyer, which means that it will be the thing launching said anti-ship missiles at the other side's ships. It doesn't matter how deadly the enemy is, if you take them out before they take you out.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    4. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by Shatrat · · Score: 2

      What ship has ever been invincible? I think the idea here is that between stealth for defense and enhanced radar and electronics for offense, this ship will shoot first.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    5. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that anti-ship missile technology has been ahead of defence systems now for quite some time, such that basically any ship that gets within range of them is basically always sunk.

      You're wrong.

      A quick check shows that only one "modern" warship has been sunk by anti-ship missiles, and that was in the Falklands war 31 years ago.

      Note that "modern" label above is NOT intended to imply that Sheffield had any modern defenses or anything.

      The only "modern" warship with even rudimentary missile defenses hit with an anti-shipping missile had to sail home to be repaired. And was in service for another dozen years afterwards.

      Note that one Iranian frigate was hit with three antiship missiles, but didn't sink until it was hit with another rocket-propelled bomb, several laser-guided bombs, and several iron bombs (that means a bomb that's just dropped, no propulsion, no guidance).

      So, no, there's no real evidence that anti-shipping missiles are automatic death for any ship in range - just a lot of wishful thinking on the part of people with anti-shipping missiles and no Navy to speak of.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We can afford more Vulcan rounds than they can afford any kind of missile, for all values of "they".

    7. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What ship has ever been invincible?

      The Titanic.

    8. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      To put it simply, there are three being built because we've already sunk so much (pun intended) money into them. There's really no significant advantage over a major refit and overhaul (or even new, more advanced builds) of the far, far cheaper Arleigh Burke-class.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    9. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sort of, but it's more like he asked what's the purpose of building a weapon whose sole purpose is to fight a specific enemy who has already mastered a method of countering said weapon.

      But really, the stated purpose of the ship is surface warfare, anti-aircraft, and naval fire support. There are plenty of third-world types who have some paltry navy or air-force that this ship will totally dominate. Woo.

      And, in theory, it's supposed to be stealthy, so hopefully the first-world powers with anti-ship missiles won't know it's there and won't shoot it.

      But yeah, building a boat as a threat against first-world NUCLEAR powers. How quaint.

    10. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Whether it sinks is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether it can continue as a viable warship for the duration of the conflict.

      A Navy is pointless if every ship will be limping back to shore at the end of the first day.

    11. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I'll certainly agree with you on the LCS frigates, but without the railgun, this is just a really expensive platform with stealth features that just won't matter against any enemy we would actually fight that could actually win against a Burke. It's as if the Navy forgot they could build missile submarines. A successor to the Ohio-class would have made more sense than this destroyer.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    12. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's primarily fire support for marine assaults. During the Gulf War, the last battleships left in service, the Iowa class, served in a fire support and artillery role for shore based forces. This proved to be very effective, as the Mark 7 16" guns delivered a lot of firepower faster and cheaper than missiles and could do it pretty quickly, and redirect said fire more quickly than it took to program a firing solution into the cruise missiles.

      However, we retired the battleships as they were ancient relics. In addition, they had limited range; the Mark 7s could fire about 38 kms. Current naval fire support is done through the 5" Mark 45 guns on the DDG51s, but those have even less range (about 20 or so kms) and deliver smaller payloads.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System

      The Zumwalt is designed around this weapon system. It fires 10 rounds per minute, using a 155mm shell which is the same shell used by land based artillery. It has a range of 100+ kms and is accurate to 50 meters. This would significantly extend the capabilities of shore based operations. The stealth isn't so much for defense as for offense; if the enemy is aware of the ship they'll move out of the area. So effectively this destroyer is a stealthy highly mobile long range artillery platform.

    13. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 1

      Your understanding is incorrect. There is nothing particularly special about anti-ship missiles and there are no anti-ship missiles that cannot be intercepted by the myriad active defense systems that currently protect the US Navy. The cost is also asymmetric; intercepting an anti-ship missile is much cheaper than the anti-ship missile, so it is difficult to make it up in volume.

      There is nothing that flies through the air that cannot be hit by modern active intercept technologies. The trend away from heavy armor is due in part to this technical development; you don't need armor if it is inexpensive to ensure no one can hit you.

    14. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Whether it sinks is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether it can continue as a viable warship for the duration of the conflict.

      By this definition, we have TWO warships taken out by anti-shipping missiles. Neither was equipped to modern standards for defense (basically impossible, since both hits happened more than 25 years ago)...

      Note, by the way, that USS Yorktown (the WW2 version, not the newer one, or the newest one) was severely damaged in the Battle of the Coral Sea, and after quick repairs went on to serve in the Battle of Midway.

      Note further that many WW2 warships were damaged and returned to duty.

      Pretty much the same way as USS Stark was damaged, and returned to duty.

      Still no evidence that anti-shipping missiles are going to sweep the seas clean of warships. One ship sunk, one damaged over the last 31 years, neither of which were equipped with defenses comparable to even a halfway decent modern warship....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1
      :(){ :|:& };:

      There I just sank your battleship!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    16. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Exactly, which makes this effort on the Zumwalt pointless.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    17. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      My understanding was based on articles like this one. Can you point me to evidence that the Moskit's can be destroyed by this ships anti-missile defences?

    18. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Well, according to that wikipedia page, that weapons system was in service since 1980. The missiles I'm talking about are these ones and are much more modern. I have read that Russia got significantly further ahead than the US in the area of anti-ship missiles and as such, the US defences against them have never been tested for real.

    19. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by SplawnDarts · · Score: 2

      The various advanced anti-ship missiles usually have one or more of four features:
      1) low altitude
      2) supersonic cruise or a supersonic sprint at the end of their trajectory
      3) low radar profile
      4) high/random maneuverability during approach

      The Russian missle discussed in that article has 2 and 3.

      All four features are pretty well known and understood, and have been addressed in the most recent block upgrades of the CIWS, RIM-116 and SM-2. The SM-2 got improved target finding logic (helps with 1 and 3) and a tweaked IR seeker (helps with 3). The RIM-116 is in the process of getting the block 2 upgrade which will help with 3 and 4. CIWS blocks 1A and 1B help with 3 and 4 (1 and 2 were never a problem). Five years ago you could plausibly argue there was a missile gap. Now, probably not.

    20. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by Cloudy+Wheat+Beer · · Score: 1

      Its quite simple. You dont let your ships get in range of said missiles. You have force projection capability ( usually by air ), and the capability to detect threats. Missiles a threat? Destroy them before they get an opportunity to launch, before they get anywhere near range of your ship. Coupled with proper military management of these assets, your ship is not always 'sunk'. The US Navy is not stupid.

    21. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Engagement:
      1) Carrier group moves in range for fighters and bombers
      2) aircraft destroy all missiles capable of destroying a carrier.
      3) carrier group moves closer, with smaller ships surrounding the carrier to take damage from any missiles that happened to survive.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by hey! · · Score: 2

      ...any ship that gets within range of them [anti-ship missiles] is basically always sunk....What exactly are these ships being built for...?

      To answer your explicit question, Zumwalt is being built primarily to attack land targets with cruise missiles. Some people doubt we need a new ship class to do that though. I expect one of the things they hope to achieve is much smaller manpower requirements. According to the Wikipedia (take that as you will) Zumwalt will mount almost as many missile launch cells as the Arleigh Burke class destroyers (80 vs. 90), but require less than half the personnel (140 vs 300) to operate.

      As for your implicit question, apparently the designers hope that a combination of long range attack weapons (2500 km for the cruise missiles), stealth, and anti-missile systems will keep the ship safe. The stealth measures aren't just anti-radar, it's acoustic too. Again according to Wikipedia, the Zumwalt will be about as quiet as a Los Angeles class submarine.

      If the Zumwalt class destroyers prove to be nearly as capable as the Arleigh Burke class, and roughly as safe (instead of safer as hoped), just the smaller crew size would justify them even at twice the cost. You might lose just as many ships, and twice the treasure, but you'd only lose *half* as many men.

      I'm pretty liberal, and I don't think much of wasteful military boondoggles like the F-35, but I'm not opposed to the *concept* of the Zumwalt. The issue will probably be in the execution. We seem to have lost the capability of doing large projects like this without turning them into train wrecks.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    23. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The modern method of taking down a well defensed naval target is to hide the true number of inbounds and over-saturate the defenses when its beyond the point of making any other defensive efforts. This requires hiding a rather large attack and attacking single targets at a disadvantage to defend themselves.

      Doesn't seem terribly practical. So, if your Aegis-equipped destroyer has mechanical problems and has to turn back for Norfolk the bad guys can send a squadron of 100 bombers halfway across the Atlantic (with 50 tankers in support) to launch 300 missiles at it. That seems a bit akin to deploying half the eastern front to go after a single panzer that had a tread break during a retreat.

    24. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by redlemming · · Score: 1

      Answering your question from a historical perspective, several things are clear:

      1. Warship design is a very complex field of endeavour. It makes rocket science look childishly simple. Even the design of WW I warships was enormously complex (take a look at some of the books by Norman Friedman to get a sense of this, and even then you won't get most of the engineering details!), and things have only gotten more complex since then. It's actually really hard to get good engineering information on warships, even those from a century ago, let alone today.

      2. Lots of mistakes are made in the design of ships (and their associated equipment) by the naval officers responsible for these designs. Technology changes fast, and this can invalidate even good decisions. For example, in WW2, every single major navy in the world failed to design their ships with adequate defences to meet the air threat (aircraft became a lot faster, and hence more difficult targets, in a relatively short time), and the cruisers were not designed to handle the torpedo threat (torpedos deployed in WW2 for many navies were far more effective than had been the case in WW1).

      This is not necessarily due to a lack of naval professionalism or competence. The problems involved in figuring out what needs to go on a ship, and keeping up with technology (while staying off the bleeding edge), and making this happen in a large, complex organization with many political constraints, are really, really hard problems.

      Note that these failures didn't make naval units useless: they still played a critical role, but more lives were lost as a result.

      3. Even more mistakes are made by politicians (including politicians in uniform) in the funding of construction and renovations (or lack thereof). For example, the British Navy told the politicians the Hood needed a refit long before WW2 started, but the politicians refused to pay for it (in part because the public didn't want to support the military). Also, there is the issue of pork-barrel politics.

      4. Government agencies and contractors make their own share of mistakes. Lots of ships have had problems with their systems (e.g. engines that keep breaking down), or even their fundamental design (smokestacks that blind the crew, inability to operate in bad weather) with parts or designs from one particular contractor or government agency. My favorite example: the government agencies running the US Navy in WW2 managed to deploy dysfunctional torpedoes to the entire fleet at the start of the war, using a design that was not properly tested.

      5. What "everybody knows" is often proved wrong, misleading, or incomplete in combat. Manufacturing problems, maintenance issues, morale issues, weather, organizational politics, lack of experience, inadequate training, and so forth, not to mention overconfidence or arrogance, can all result in bad or incorrect decisions, causing units that "should" in some weird theoretical sense be able to defeat an opponent (or at least inflict significant damage) to lose badly. Shit happens. Look at the Battle of Savo Island, from WW2 for an enlightening example. Also look at the loss of the carrier Glorious in WW2.

      6. Even decisions made for good reasons will get criticized after the fact, by people that don't understand the issues or the reasoning behind the decisions (i.e. the press, the politicians, the self-appointed "experts" amongst the public, and even naval professionals with a political agenda). A lot of myths and misleading information persist as a result. Consider the "controversy" about wooden flight decks on WW2 carriers, for example. Or the question of battlecruiser design and "vulnerability".

      In short, history shows that it's very difficult to generalize or draw accurate conclusions about warship design. Most people get it wrong, including many professionals, and the only real test is combat. Even then, the assessment of how designs actually performed can be difficult.

      This is a point that is probably a bit

    25. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      That's incorrect, as evidenced by the multiple kills the AEGIS Weapons System has against high speed, sea skimming missiles, ballistic missiles, and basically everything in between. The capabilities of the SPY-1 radar and the Standard Missile line are far above that of our enemies.

    26. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      Which is why many ships are fielded with Rolling Airframe Missiles, CIWS, as well as the hundreds of Standard Missiles that AEGIS-equipped Destroyers and Cruisers carry, which provide the real fleet defense against incoming missiles and aircraft. The Zumwalt does basically none of this role, and it needs to be protected by DDG-51 and CG-47 ships, just like carriers do. Sure, it has point defense systems, but nothing that can perform complex, multi-target and multi-role anti-air warfare.

    27. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      A DDG-51 ship has 90 VLS cells, and a CG-47 ship has 122 cells. While there is certainly a mix of missiles, between SM-2 and SM-6 (Anti-air warfare - missile and aircraft defense), SM-3 (Ballistic Missile Defense), Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles (anti-missile), Tomahawk (land and surface attack), Harpoon (anti-ship missile), and ASROC (anti-submarine missile), they carry copious numbers of the SM-2 and SM-3 interceptors, and there are multiple platforms per Carrier Battle Group. Each incoming missile would likely have a salvo of SM-2/SM-3/ESSM missiles targeting it, and if they missed, there's still the CIWS and RAM missiles aboard each combatant.

      In a large salvo from an aggressor nation, would a couple missiles break through? Possible. Would it cripple the fleet? Certainly not.

    28. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      Well, it's more relative to using electronic countermeasures to saturate the radar, then deploying a salvo of weapons, perhaps 10, or more, to try to confuse and overwhelm the combat system and the personnel staffing the combat system. Course, all Destroyers and Cruisers, as well as all other major combatants, have Cooperative Engagement Capability, and can communicate with each other, share radar tracks, launch weapons from another ship's VLS system, etc. Just because you've tried to blind one combatant, doesn't mean you can blind them all.

    29. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I previously worked on the combat systems for the Ticos, Burkes, and the LM variant of the LCS, and these are completely superfluous, only being built to appease the Marine Corps brass. The Navy didn't want them, but the Corps did, since there's no dedicated shore bombardment platform in the US arsenal, other than utilizing attack aircraft and Tomahawk missiles. Some senators and congressmen got behind the program, as it would funnel pork dollars to their districts, and it was set into motion. It was then cut back significantly, because it can't do the number one role that Navy DDGs and CGs are tasked with, AAW, nor can it do BMD. Hence, the Navy is buying a dozen or more Flight IIA and III Arleigh Burkes.

    30. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      Ohio-class subs are missile platforms, capable of launching a couple dozen ICBMs with MIRVs, for nuclear deterrence. The Seawolf-class was designed for attack, same as the Virginia-class. They discontinued the Seawolf production line after the USS Jimmy Carter was built, because it was built to Cold War specifications, and was an outdated design. The Virginia and her successors incorporate Seawolf design features at a much lower cost and with much more capability. They'll be replacing the Los Angeles-class attack subs for the next several decades.

      That said, the Ohio-class' last boat came online in 1997, and will eventually need to be replaced. The oldest, the Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia, were converted to Guided Missile subs, and now only embark the Tomahawk missile. The oldest of those boats came online in 1984. They'll have a long life, but they'll need to be replaced, starting in about 2029.

    31. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Not all submarines are the same. A handful of converted Ohio-class are our most recent guided missile submarines. Seawolf- and Virginia-class are fast attack submarines.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    32. Re:Resistant to anti-ship missles? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      The irony is, beyond what our current DDG and CG fleet can do, anything needed can be handled by any bombardment system. Dedicated "shore" bombardment is kind of obsolete when we have aircraft that do the same job no matter how far inland you go. That's what a carrier does to replace a BB in that role when we don't have an air base in the area (not a likely thing in the first place these days).

      Sure, I understand the inter-service rivalries, and I appreciate the Navy's choice of James Kirk as the prospective commanding officer of this ship, but this is pure pork.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  7. Not linux by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Informative

    LynxOS is a proprietary Unix, compatible with Linux binaries.
    It does not contain the Linux kernel and is closed source.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Not linux by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yea got to love the media hype. New Flash guys: JavaScript isn't JAVA..

      But, I can assure you that Linux is alive and well in the Department of Defense. But so is Windows XP, MP, 98 and beyond...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Not linux by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      I stopped following ars since their horrid change of format, is it surprising or not surprising ars pushed it as Linux?

    3. Re:Not linux by intermodal · · Score: 1

      But, I can assure you that Linux is alive and well in the Department of Defense. But so is Windows XP, MP, 98 and beyond...

      Is Windows MP use restricted to the military police?

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    4. Re:Not linux by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Informative

      LynxOS is a proprietary Unix, compatible with Linux binaries.
      It does not contain the Linux kernel and is closed source.

      And I didn't see anywhere in the summary or article that said runs Linux exclusively. The component they refer to as running LynxOS is only one part of the whole.

      FTA:

      mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux—and putting it in a ruggedized server room. Those ruggedized server rooms are called Electronic Modular Enclosures (EMEs), sixteen self-contained, mini data centers built by Raytheon.

      I'm pretty sure anything called Red Hat Linux is going to contain the Linux kernel.

    5. Re:Not linux by fnj · · Score: 1

      LynxOS is a proprietary Unix, compatible with Linux binaries.
      It does not contain the Linux kernel and is closed source.

      And your point is? From TFA:

      The design of the Zumwalt solves that problem by using off-the-shelf hardware—mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux—and putting it in a ruggedized server room.

      Red Hat Enterprise Linux certainly IS open source.

    6. Re:Not linux by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Sorry.. That's ME.... Read post first THEN hit submit...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Not linux by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      That is incorrect. Current DIACAP/DoD guidelines require that end-of-life operating systems be retired and replaced with newer versions. Sure, there are some XP machines floating around on legacy systems where the cost of replacement or upgrade exceeds the value of the information and the information system, but those are not afloat, warfighting systems.

    8. Re:Not linux by bobbied · · Score: 1

      There are exceptions to the rules... I've seen EOL operating systems in use where the cost of re-implementation was too high to warrant replacement, so the risks are documented and accepted.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:Not linux by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      Right, but they're not front-line warfighting systems, they're small, standalone systems that don't connect to any other DoD systems, otherwise, they'd never get an accreditation, and neither would their associated systems.

      I've seen random little one-off systems that use a one-way tactical data link to provide simulations for other systems, but they're only accepted because there's no duplex communication possible, it's one-way only.

  8. Perhaps... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it's appropriate that the first commanding officer of the Zumwalt will be Captain James Kirk (yes, that's actually his name).

    Come on US Navy, you can tell us: you saw the name and went for it :)

    As for the article, very nice! I never did get what "DDG-1000" stand for, but I think it's ominous. The T-800 and T-1000 were not the best names for hardware, and anything close to it is suspect by default.

    A commenter said: "Also of note: the ship has a totally electric propulsion system, and has an integrated power system that will support future weapons like railguns and laser/RF system" - pretty interesting.

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    1. Re:Perhaps... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Most ships use all electric propulsion when built now days, this nothing new..

      So do all sorts of things, like locomotives.

      They just use combustion or nuclear to power the electronics, so it's not really all electric power, they certainly don't run on batteries

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Perhaps... by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      "DD" = destroyer
      "G:" = guided missile
      "1000" = Generally warships are numbered sequential but they moved to an easily identifiable number to designate a new generation of ships.

    3. Re:Perhaps... by fnj · · Score: 1

      Sorry. Most ships in the water use mechanical power transmission. Electric power transmission has been around since at least the 1920s and is still a small fraction.

      The power source for essentially all vessels is still either fossil fuel (huge majority) or nuclear. The electric drive is just a distinction of the power transmission. Direct drive, geared, or electric, it's just a detail of how the engines drive the propellers or water jets.

    4. Re:Perhaps... by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's appropriate that the first commanding officer of the Zumwalt will be Captain James Kirk (yes, that's actually his name).

      Come on US Navy, you can tell us: you saw the name and went for it :)

      Why isn't it the DDG-1701?!

    5. Re:Perhaps... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      "1000" is the Navy's way of designating that this is the next generation of DDG, as it represents a major design and development departure from previous generations.

      It's not so much a break in the numbering system, since the previous DD ships ended at 997.

      Its hull number will be DDG-1000, which abandons the guided missile destroyer sequence used by the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (DDG-51– ), and continues the previous "gun destroyer" sequence from the last of Spruance-class, USS Hayler (DD-997).

  9. Anyone else... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    mis-read that as the USS Zubaz?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  10. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Their displacement would raise the global sea level another few inches.

    1. Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do people call them Beowulf clusters anymore?

    2. Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I imagine so

    3. Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these! by mythosaz · · Score: 1
  11. Virtual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's a "virtual data center"? It's either a data center or it isn't.

    1. Re:Virtual? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's a stupid description. What they mean is that they are running Linux on VMs.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  12. RTFA by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    The design of the Zumwalt solves that problem by using off-the-shelf hardware—mostly IBM blade servers running Red Hat Linux—and putting it in a ruggedized server room.

    Many servers are running Linux not Lynx.

  13. Re:235 server racks in one ship? by alen · · Score: 1

    figure you have to track multiple fast moving threats like missiles and lots of other potential targets and non-combatants. that's a lot of processing power

  14. stealth by schlachter · · Score: 1

    one of the features of this ship is stealth. they won't shoot it down if they don't see it.

    but it is a scary idea that a $10K missile can take out a $3.5B ship.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:stealth by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      but it is a scary idea that a $10K missile can take out a $3.5B ship.

      There isn't an army anywhere in the world that can't be completely annihilated by about $1k worth of bullets. However, it really isn't much of a concern unless the army just lies in its bunks while the bad buys systematically travel from base to base shooting everybody once in the head.

      In order for the missile to take out the ship, it has to hit the ship. For that matter, it also needs to be fired on a course where it will encounter the ship, which isn't a small problem either (this requires knowing about where the target is, getting the launching platform within range, and doing so in a way that doesn't result in the launching platform being destroyed if it isn't expendible).

  15. So that ship gets 3 screens by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

    And I still can't get dual screens to work reliably/painlessly. Sigh.

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  16. Re:It was designed by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

    to transfer taxpayer dollars to the pockets of MIC CEOs - all else is padding.

    That is not true. It was, in fact, designed to transfer taxpayer dollars to the campaigns of certain politicians. The CEOs are just the middlemen.

  17. gotta know by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    But does it run Windows?

    1. Re:gotta know by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Under virtualization.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  18. Named after... by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

    the lead character in Rick Cook's Wizardry books?

  19. More importantly... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    The first commanding officer of the Zumwalt will be Captain James Kirk (yes, that's actually his name).

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  20. Bad acronym by Zynder · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry Navy but I have to tell you, "keds" is not how you would pronouce that acronym. It would be CODS- COmmon Display System! First you guys write your name on your ass and then you command your ships via the cods...come on guys, this stuff just writes itself!

  21. 7 Firewalls by Gogogoch · · Score: 1

    I hope they have 7 firewalls because the Cylons would go through that fast.

  22. I Knew the Admiral's Brother by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I heard of the Admiral via his brother, my civics teacher. This is the same admiral that was involved with the hover craft stuff the D.O.D. does. This linux vessel is right down his alley. My civics teacher, a good guy, but a round peg in a room full of square holes.

    All hale the class of '72

  23. yeah, by Pirulo · · Score: 1

    the year of Linux in the Navy!

  24. USS Umwelt by slinches · · Score: 1

    I misread the name as USS Umwelt and I figured it appropriate that nobody could agree what OS it was running.

    Also, the stealth features would have to be impressive:
    Enemy1: What's that on our radar?
    Enemy2: It looks like a US Navy Destroyer
    Enemy1: I don't know it could be a small fishing boat
    Enemy2: No, wait ... how did a giant wooden rabbit get this far out to sea?

    --
    Knowledge Brings Fear
  25. Just to clarify by LynxOS_Architect · · Score: 1

    The CDS uses the LynxSecure Hypervisor with Linux as the Guest OS. Other systems on the ship use the LynxOS hard real-time OS, which is not Linux, and does not have any Linux source code in its kernel. Unlike Linux which last time I looked did have LynxOS code in it.

  26. How many things can you make linux run on by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 2

    Linux runs on old hardware.
    Linux runs on embedded hardware.
    Linux runs on XBOX.
    Linux runs on a toaster.

    Some geek out there is smugly telling his friends "I made Linux run on a US Navy Destroyer".

  27. Think systems, not missiles by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Even if there's an advantage to the offense once the missile has been launched, in order to get to that point the attacker must
    (1) Find the ship (stealthy, under EMCON, and moving)
    (2) Get within range
    (3) Live long enough to fire the missile.

  28. Open Source Technology Ethics by hackus · · Score: 1

    Use of open source software in a military context violates the ethics of open source software systems.

    These ethics are inherent I would like to point out, and are not arguable. Particularly if you are from a country this weapon will be parked next to if your private central bank refuses to do business in federal reserve notes.

    Open source is a human endeavor and since it holds no boundaries such acts as including it in state weapons is blasphemous.

    The blow back from this sort of weaponization of LINUX will be EPIC I can assure you.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Open Source Technology Ethics by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Use of open source software in a military context violates the ethics of open source software systems."

      Citation needed.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  29. Windows for warships was used in the past by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Windows for warships was used in the past and one it crashed taking down a few systems with it.

  30. Playing Carrier Command with RAT by Sami+Lehtinen · · Score: 1

    I just can't wait for it. Sounds really cool. I just hope they don't use D-Link firewalls with backdoors.

  31. Licencing... by thegoldenear · · Score: 1

    Isn't there a rule against this?

    1. Re:Licencing... by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      No. I know a lawyer who works for a defense contractor... one of many lawyers there in just one of their offices who specializes in software licensing negotiations, even for the little programs people use for day to day stuff. When billions are on the line, they don't get the license terms wrong. Ever.

      Yeah, just ask Apple and Samsung!

    2. Re:Licencing... by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

      Speaking from someone who had to get around licensing to use FOSS components, it's a tough line, and one that has to be carefully navigated. We had to submit any FOSS packages that weren't delivered explicitly with the install media to a legal review board, and it would take weeks to get an answer back. Further, we needed to submit each revision (1.2 to 1.3, not 1.2.1 to 1.2.2) to the board for approval, just in case the license had changed.

  32. Re:235 server racks in one ship? by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

    Besides just the core operating environment, there are literally dozens of other systems, from Hull-Mechanical-Electrical (HME) to unclassified NMCI email terminals, and everything in between. The core combat system will run off about three dozen racks, while the rest are random systems scattered throughout the ship, and a 'rack' might mean a small switch cabinet in a closet somewhere.

  33. Re:235 server racks in one ship? by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

    AEGIS does it all with about 20 racks. The rest, like I said, is HME, NMCI, Vertical Launch System, etc. I haven't worked on the DDG-1000 program, but I'd expect their architecture to be very similar to what AEGIS uses.

  34. Re: new meaning to the nautical phrase "toe buster by jacknifetoaswan · · Score: 1

    Agreed. I've deployed about DDGs and CGs as a contractor, and they're knee-knockers.