Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/10/2006 8:38:33 AM EDT
Navy Designates Next-Generation Zumwalt Destroyer
(Source: US Department of Defense; issued April 7, 2006)



The Navy has announced that the first DD(X) destroyer will be designated DDG 1000. As the lead ship in the class, it will also be named in honor of former Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Elmo R. “Bud” Zumwalt, Jr.

Developed under the DD(X) destroyer program, Zumwalt is the lead ship in a class of next-generation, multi-mission surface combatants tailored for land attack and littoral dominance with capabilities designed to defeat current and projected threats as well as improve battle force defense.

Zumwalt was appointed Chief of Naval Operations in 1970. As the youngest man ever to serve as CNO, Zumwalt cemented an acclaimed reputation as a visionary leader and thoughtful reformer. On July 4, 2000, then President Bill Clinton celebrated Zumwalt’s accomplishments and memory with the naming of the class and lead ship shortly after the admiral’s passing in Durham, N.C., on January 2, 2000.

Zumwalt was born in San Francisco in 1920 and grew up in Tulare, Calif. He was a cum laude graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in 1942.

As CNO, Zumwalt initiated wide-ranging reforms in a dramatic effort to revitalize the Navy. Time magazine hailed Zumwalt as "the Navy's most popular leader since World War II." As the Navy's senior officer, he increased the warfighting capabilities of the dwindling U.S. fleet by outfitting remaining ships with more efficient and sophisticated weapons. He retired in 1974. In 1996, he took over as chairman of the board of the U.S. Navy Memorial Foundation. (…/…)

Compared to current U.S. Navy destroyers, the Zumwalt class destroyer will triple both current naval surface fires coverage as well as capability against anti-ship cruise missiles. It has a 50-fold radar cross section reduction compared to current destroyers, improves strike group defense 10-fold and has 10 times the operating area in shallow water regions against mines. The Zumwalt class fills an immediate and critical naval-warfare gap, meeting validated Marine Corps fire support requirements.

Last year, Congress fully supported the DD(X) budget request, and the Zumwalt class is ready to start construction. In November 2005, the Department of Defense granted Milestone B approval, authorizing entrance into Phase IV of the program, including the detail design and construction of the two lead ships.

Under the Navy’s dual lead ship acquisition strategy proposed in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2007, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works will concurrently build the dual lead ships. Zumwalt will be delivered in 2012.

-ends-

Link Posted: 4/10/2006 8:42:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2006 8:42:45 AM EDT by SmilingBandit]
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't it just be the DDG-106? The Navy's been using a system of designation for quite a while, why muck it up just because?
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 9:10:14 AM EDT
As capable as it might be...that is one ugly ship....
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 9:17:12 AM EDT
Will it get rail guns?!
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 10:38:10 AM EDT
They should call that the MERRIMACK class destroyer.

Looks pretty cool though.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 10:42:56 AM EDT
Awesome name, Zumwalt.

"This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations [that are] under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee." -Deuteronomy 2:25
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 10:43:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TRW:
They should call that the MERRIMACK class destroyer.



Quoted for emphasis.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 10:47:31 AM EDT
They look like Star Destroyers on water.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 10:56:36 AM EDT
Is this the "arsenal ship" that's been talked about?
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 11:00:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Coop_K:
Is this the "arsenal ship" that's been talked about?



No, although the general hull shape is similar. Arsenal ships, as proposed, were more of a floating missile silo than a fully operational destroyer.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 11:02:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Coop_K:
Is this the "arsenal ship" that's been talked about?



The arsenal ship has evolved into the Ohio class SSGN.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 11:05:22 AM EDT
It will be an awesome class of vessel if it lives up to it's expectations, but I must say that this has to be the ugliest ship I have ever seen.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 12:29:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By Coop_K:
Is this the "arsenal ship" that's been talked about?



The arsenal ship has evolved into the Ohio class SSGN.



Yup.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 12:32:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By Coop_K:
Is this the "arsenal ship" that's been talked about?



The arsenal ship has evolved into the Ohio class SSGN.



Yup.



yeah existing hull, better mobility and defense and sneak attacks.... and by the time we could have designed and commision aresenal ship hypersonic aircraft and kinitec weaponry will be common so missles will be outdated
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 12:39:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By Coop_K:
Is this the "arsenal ship" that's been talked about?



The arsenal ship has evolved into the Ohio class SSGN.



Yup.



yeah existing hull, better mobility and defense and sneak attacks.... and by the time we could have designed and commision aresenal ship hypersonic aircraft and kinitec weaponry will be common so missles will be outdated



Don't forget those giant Trident tubes that can accomadate a bigger missile, making hypersonic missiles easier to design, although technically Tridents are already hypersonic.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 12:42:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 1:25:16 PM EDT
The Merrimac didn't have a very distinguished career. You are probably thinking of the CSS Virginia, which fought in the famous battle of Hampton Roads. She was built on the hull of the scuttled Merrimac, but was rechristened the CSS Virginia.
There was no merrimac in the Confederate forces.

Those sailors who fought that day called thier ship the Virginia, we should do the same.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 4:35:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By Coop_K:
Is this the "arsenal ship" that's been talked about?



The arsenal ship has evolved into the Ohio class SSGN.



Yup.



yeah existing hull, better mobility and defense and sneak attacks.... and by the time we could have designed and commision aresenal ship hypersonic aircraft and kinitec weaponry will be common so missles will be outdated



I wouldn't go that far... Most of the Arsenal ships were basically a vessel built to Civilian standards, with some Mk41 VLS launchers and a data link. You could probably build one much faster than an actual warship.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 4:37:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ASUsax:

I wouldn't go that far... Most of the Arsenal ships were basically a vessel built to Civilian standards, with some Mk41 VLS launchers and a data link. You could probably build one much faster than an actual warship.




phhh this is the military.....
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 4:40:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CEStuart:
The Merrimac didn't have a very distinguished career. You are probably thinking of the CSS Virginia, which fought in the famous battle of Hampton Roads. She was built on the hull of the scuttled Merrimac, but was rechristened the CSS Virginia.
There was no merrimac in the Confederate forces.

Those sailors who fought that day called thier ship the Virginia, we should do the same.



The Virginia is already a class of submarine. Having 2 classes of ship with the same name might confuse some Admirals and Ensigns somewhere.
Top Top