DD(X) DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers

Sferrin said:
I wonder why the turrets are still there up front.
Click to expand...
Possibly the same gun used on other USN ships in a smaller enclosure (similar to what's used on the Visby-Corvettes). Because these dont look as large as the enclosures that were initially on the ship that housed the AGS. I assume it's a move done to ensure the signature of the ship remains small. But that's certainly something I'm not 100% sure about.
retouch_2026011622545094.jpg
retouch_2026011622551835.jpg
(Also damn, the ship looks rough)
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
It's just easier/cheaper to leave them that to cut them off, I suspect.
Click to expand...
Is this really reasonable to assume after they literally ripped half the ship open and ripped everything up front out? Doubtful they left anything in place that's not needed
 
EmoBirb said:
Is this really reasonable to assume after they literally ripped half the ship open and ripped everything up front out? Doubtful they left anything in place that's not needed
Click to expand...

It's definitely true that those are the old barrel deckhouses. Every image makes that clear. Why, I'm not sure, but cost is the most likely reason.

1768601806846.jpeg
 
EmoBirb said:
Is this really reasonable to assume after they literally ripped half the ship open and ripped everything up front out? Doubtful they left anything in place that's not needed
Click to expand...
Agreed.

So I suspect they're needed for RCS for some strange reason. I know there's math behind it, but I swear that RCS is closer to black magic than math. Non-Euclidian angles, ia ia Cthulhu Ftangh! *sounds of madness*
 
USN funding is being rescheduled in a somewhat...ad-hoc manner. At present I have no idea if the money for CPS testing at sea is going to be there when the program needs it. Along with the obvious problem, Navy is still saying they're going to make her available for testing this year. So we could be looking at a future where they're not deploying her to keep her available for testing, but not doing the testing because the money's not there.
 
Moose said:
USN funding is being rescheduled in a somewhat...ad-hoc manner. At present I have no idea if the money for CPS testing at sea is going to be there when the program needs it. Along with the obvious problem, Navy is still saying they're going to make her available for testing this year. So we could be looking at a future where they're not deploying her to keep her available for testing, but not doing the testing because the money's not there.
Click to expand...
So. . .business as usual? Of course the elephant in the room is what would they test if there was money and a ship? Are the missiles even in production? You see lots of stuff about SM-6, PAC-3, and JASSM but nothing about Dark Eagle.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
So I suspect they're needed for RCS for some strange reason. I know there's math behind it, but I swear that RCS is closer to black magic than math. Non-Euclidian angles, ia ia Cthulhu Ftangh! *sounds of madness*
Click to expand...
One possible explanation - they want to move a center of radar signature forward from the middle of the ship, to confuse enemy seekers more.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
In Navy sea trials? They should, but are there any CPS available to shoot?

Else it may happen in the workups for first deployment post sea-trials.
Click to expand...
The ship needs to be tested first. The Navy plans to conduct JFC-5 later this year but I believe that is from land too. Not sure when DDG-1000 will perform a test shot, but likely after everything else has wrapped up so likely next year. I think its 2027 from Zumwalt and 2029 from a submarine.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom