(Note: Still working on next installment of the CAS Series, but this couldn't wait)
The USS Zumwalt now looks like a real ship. I tried to leave a comment in response to first commenter who parroted a cliché I'm sure he's heard from some other naysayer. He snarked:
With the 19th century bow design, this class of ship is going to spend a lot of time under salt water. There was a good reason why this bow type went away over 100 years ago. Good luck.
I tried to post a response:
The seas aren't any more violent than they were in 1900, and seakeeping gizmos are certainly more effective these days. The DD-1000's better center of buoyancy vs center of gravity arrangement, overall lower mass distribution (remember a lot of the superstructure volume above the bridge is empty space) higher freeboard, higher fineness ratio (length to beam) and overall much larger size of the Zumwalts should mean these ships will have very little in common with the experiences of the Pre-Deadnought, wave piercing/tumblehome designs
.
But the thread wasn't taking my comment. At least I couldn't tell if it was taking (not even a 'thanks, a moderator will review..." kind of feedback).
Just HOW different is the DD-1000 Class from the 'old' designs?
Here's the SMS Brandenberg, circa 1902:
 |
| SMS Brandenberg Source: Wikipedia |
 |
| DD1000 vs SMS Brandenberg Comparison |
 |
| French warship Jauréguiberry; Source Wikipedia |
 |
| DD1000 vs Jauréguiberry Comparison |
Last example...
Here's one of the larger Pre-Dreadnoughts, Russia's Andrei Pervozanny. A wave-piercer, but (comparatively) only slightly tumblehome:
 |
| Russian Pre-Dreadaught Andrei Pervozanny ; Source: Wikipedia |
 |
| DD1000 vs Andrei Pervozanny Comparison |
The beams (width) of all these hulls vary less than you might think. The skinniest is the Brandenberg at 64 ft, the widest (only slightly so) is the Zumwalt at 80.7 ft. The really big 'dimensions' difference is found in hull fineness (ratio of length to beam), the absolute height of the decks above waterline, and the distances between the forward armament and bow. The DD-1000 should shake off seas that would rock-and-roll the 'oldies'
 |
| Hull Fineness Comparison |
5 comments:
The Navy really should be embracing the Zumwalts over the Flight III Burkes..
Also eagerly awaiting the next CAS installment. Was wondering if you could weigh in on the A-7 vs. A-10 flyoff; the recent discussion about it at f-16.net has been fascinating...
Hi Marauder,
I think if there are no untoward surprises in the Zumwalts, the Navy will adjust their buys of the Flight III Burkes, budget allowing.
I will be touching on the A-7D vs A-10 competition a little as it is part of the story. So far from my research I would only have the strong opinion that it came down to costs and sticker shock: with the A-7D costing more than the original cost estimate by quite a bit. The A-7D was sold 'conceptually' as a cheap variation on the Navy's A-7 and such cost increases weren't expected. The AF was not prepared to sink that much budget for the number of airplanes they would get. Still researching though. I have at least a couple more thousand pages to get my hands on and/or wade through.
Does anyone still operate torpedo boats? If not, then why buy a torpedo boat destroyer?
Just sayin'
On the A-7D, there were both Air Force pilots and Naval Aviators. An AF pilot wrote a service report "difficulty reaching pilot relief tube".
A Naval Aviator saw that, and had to answer. The Naval Aviator wrote his service report "Rough spot, pilot relief tube, about 8 inches down."
Post a Comment