In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...


The USS Zumwald is just another potential step in the evolution of
destroyer technology and capabilities. It may or may not become the
"go-to" design of the future but in order to determine that, designs,
CAD drawings and schematics have to be turned into hardware for testing.


It shouldn't even be called a Destroyer. It's a Cruiser.
It's 600 feet long.
What next, 300 foot "patrol boats?"
Got a feeling that hull shape won't work well.

Nobody needs battleships or cruisers except the Russia and China. They
haven't been able to steal our designs for smaller missiles. Take a look
at a Soviet Cruiser and tell me what you see?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ch...raina1990a.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...03-N-5024R-003
_USS_Port_Royal_(DDG_73)_departed_on_deployment.jp g

The technological capabilities of the respective countries in on
display.

The Port Royal is designated a CG. It's about 5000 tons lighter and
40' shorter than the "destroyer" Zumwalt.
Destroyers are meant for support of capitol ships and ASW.
Why call the Zumwalt a destroyer? It's not under previous and long held
definitions. Apparently they just "did it."
Pretty stupid calling a cruiser a destroyer.
Even if the Navy no longer plans to build what they previously called
"destroyers" they should have called the Zumwalt a cruiser.
That's my humble opinion.
That it's named for Zumwalt is fitting. He transformed the Navy from
hard-asses to the "kinder and gentler" Navy.
Now his name is attached to redefining ship classes.
Personally, I don't think that ships will fare well in heavy sea.
It's a cluster**** anyway.
Dead end, as the Navy has canceled them, and will build only 3 instead
of the originally planned 32.
They're going back to building Arleigh Burke class destroyers.
If they have any sense they'll re-designate the 3 Zumwalt class they
build as cruisers.