Largest Destroyer Built For Navy Headed To Sea For Testing (ap.org)

An anonymous reader writes: The first Zumwalt-class destroyer, the USS Zumwalt, the largest ever built for the U.S. Navy, headed out to sea today. Departing from shipbuilder Bath Iron Works, the ship left to undergo sea trials. The AP reports: "The ship has electric propulsion, new radar and sonar, powerful missiles and guns, and a stealthy design to reduce its radar signature. Advanced automation will allow the warship to operate with a much smaller crew size than current destroyers. All of that innovation has led to construction delays and a growing price tag. The Zumwalt, the first of three ships in the class, will cost at least $4.4 billion."

Comments

Perspective

[wbr1]

To compare, NASA s 2011 budget was 18 billion. Compare this to one project for one branch of the military, not counting ongoing ops.

Re:Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument goes off into the weeds because you believe what Obama and the media are telling you about the middle-east. They aren't over there to fight terrorism. They aren't over there to help countries with democracy. They are over there to destabilize governments that are currently not favorable to US policy. Once destabilized, they get puppets installed that will do as they tell them to. It doesn't matter if the current leader is a peaceful, benevolent visionary or a psychopathic, genocidal lunatic. It doesn't matter if they guy they get installed afterwards is either of those as well. All that matters if that they'll do as they're told.

Look at how the operation was going in Syria. How long was the US there? How many bombs were dropped? How much time and money was wasted? Near nothing was accomplished except the destruction of much infrastructure, the exodus of millions of Syrians (which are now a problem for Europe and North America), billions of dollars into the military industrial complex's pockets, and the incitement of more hatred towards the US. Think about how you would feel if a nation such as Russia were bombing your city on a daily basis, destroying the buildings and people around you.

Speaking of Russia, they exposed the USA's hidden agenda over there. They came in and wiped out more of the terrorists in a month than USA had done in 13 months. They targeted actual key installations. They bombed the supply lines of stolen oil used to fund ISIS. What did the US do in response to being made out to look like complete fools? They made more of an attempt to look like they were doing something, without actually doing something. Did you read about their bombing of some oil trucks? They gave them all a 45 minute warning before they did it. Sounds like something you'd do for friends, not enemies, right?

USA is using terrorists like al-qaeda and al-nusra (calling them "moderate rebels" now) to overthrow Assad so they can get a favorable puppet in there who will let them get a pipeline run from Qatar to Europe, who will kick the Russians out of their naval base, who will let them set up bases, and will let them do what they want in the future when it suits them.

Is this something American soldiers should be dying for? Is this something worth killing Syrians for? Is this something worth spending money on that could have instead went to beneficial causes at home?

Re:Perspective

[wbr1]

It surely does. Let me list some with government run and/or heavily regulated healthcare that run better than ours.

UK (although quickly changing), Canada, Japan, Sweeden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland....

The bottom line is that healthcare deals with pain, disease and death. There will always be a very vocal group that is unhappy with the current state of things because they or their loved ones are sick or dying despite best efforts. The least we can do is not have private corporations or government stick their hands so far in the pockets of those affected as to bankrupt them and ruin their lives.

Case in point. My grand mother recently had a stroke. I am her power of attorney, and signing papers for her. She is paralyzed and unable to speak. After Medicare, the skilled nursing facility is billing ME over $4000 a month. If needed I can likely get that debt reassigned to her, but that will also cost in time and legal fees and probably still leave a stain on my credit. I do not have $4000 a month. I make roughly 3k per month. Extra is reinvested in a business I am starting as my retirement vehicle (as an ex felon with 10 years in I have no savings or safety net). Medicaid denied covering her care for two very stupid reasons. 1. No balances on provided bank statements (untrue), and an unclaimed life insurance policy. I did not know of the policy, and found no paperwork on it. My grandmother cannot speak, and I asked the social services office to inform me of any assets they found that I was unaware of. They did not (even though the caseworker said she would).

Where in any sane world dose this make sense? Would it not make more sense to say that these absolutely normal parts of life such as illness and injury are covered by the payments you made earlier? And before you say, she could have saved or prepared for this eventuality, not everyone is financially or mentally capable to do so, and not all illness and injury is foreseeable.

So yes, my argument does follow. We have a failed system. Others work better even if not perfect. Even our new system (obamacare) was corrupted from the start by 'free market' interests. To act like the magical hand of the market will fix it is like relying on the tooth fairy for your retirement fund.

Re:Boondoggle and can it combat other ships?

[hey!]

Repurposing missiles as ship killers? You have heard the term "guided missile cruiser", haven't you? The first purpose built guided missile cruisers were put in service in the early 80s, and could sink ships at 10x the range the big guns on the New Jersey could hit. The Harpoon anti-ship missile went into service in the 70s.

Now I understand the big criticism of the Zumwalt is that it has limited anti-ship capability; but it's supposed to be a destroyer. Destroyers traditionally play mainly anti-submarine and anti-aircraft roles, and in the US Navy mount modest 5" guns for anti-ship use. The Zumwalt's gus are actually 6.1 inches and have considerably longer range -- if they work as advertised. The idea of making it more potent in the anti-ship role would fall into the F35 trap: building cost-is-no-objecdt, do-everything wonder-weapons.

Defense systems?

[CohibaVancouver]

One thing I don't understand about modern naval warfare: Couldn't you just send 50 cruise missiles in skimming across the wavetops and take a ship like this out? Or a few ballistic missiles raining down from above at hypersonic speeds? Can these ships really defend against an attack like that?

Re:Defense systems?

[Locke2005]

Am I the only one that wishes they'd spend those billions on hot girl-on-girl action instead of hot missile-on-missile action?

Don't you just enforce the original poster's argument by saying the expensive monstrosity can be easily taken out be a submarine? The Russians have plenty of submarines...

Re:Defense systems?

[towermac]

"First off, there are no hypersonic missiles and will not be for a good 5 or 6 years at least"

Wut? Hell an old fashioned ICBM is a hypersonic missile if you use it as one, and they have better nowadays. If you don't actually need to traverse a continent, you have the fuel to come all the way down at full power. And be smaller.

The latest Chinese missiles are estimated to come down at up to mach 22. They've put a lot of money into them for a while now. Which is why they don't really bother with a navy to counter ours. They figure they need the one carrier for show, and they can give the Philippines a hard time if they need to.

But they don't have to beat our navy with their navy to win.

Re:Boondoggle and can it combat other ships?

[wisnoskij]

Ships really are not good at killing other ships, planes and submarines are better. Ships are best to house huge artillery to bombard inland targets with, or as cargo/carrier vessels.

Re: Tumblehome is a poor French joke

[Runaway1956]

Well, Mr. Smartypants - click my second link. Current research says nothing HAS changed. Righting arms. What is that, you ask? Well - what it means is, a Zumwalt putting to sea from Hampton Roads will have hell just GETTING TO SEA. Zumwalts can't cruise the Arctic circle in the winter months. In fact, they can't cruise the central Atlantic in hurricane season. Tumblehome is inherently unstable in heavy seas. It doesn't matter how much technology has changed, a high center of mass remains a high center of mass.

Now, when the bright boys invent anti-gravity, a high center of mass may not mean anything. Until then, Zumwalt is a death trap.

Read, and learn. There is a career available for you in marine architecture, if you can grasp basic physics.

Re:Tumblehome is a poor French joke

[arglebargle_xiv]

Long story short - the Zumwalt is a fair weather sailor, and it won't be worth a shit in the real world.

It won't be worth a shit in the real world for a far more serious reason, that the enemies it'll be facing is Somali pirates, suicidal zealots in zodiac dinghies, and random insurgents in third-world arenas. None of the high-tech toys or cost are justified for this, all it'll do is make the repair bill more expensive when, say, a small fibreglass boat from Yemen blows a hole in the side of one big enough to drive a truck through. It's another example of a US military branch aiming for the most expensive toy they can build rather than something that's fit for purpose (cough)F35(cough).

Size

[Princeofcups]

There are names for sizes of ships. There is no such thing a super-sized destroyer. It's called a light cruiser. I guess Congress funded a destroyer, but they get a cruiser instead.