Shipbucket

I just wanted a opinion on what your guy's viewpoint on this is... Also I had a discussion on it with my roommate.
(What im discussing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Bu ... _destroyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_missile_destroyer


Ive noticed that the Arleigh Burke destroyer has 62 active ships at the moment, but I saw the new successor of the destroyer (Zumwalt) only has 3 planned. I wanted to know if its a bad choice to just create that many? I know costs are hard and everything but isn't having 62 men with pistols guarding you than just 3 men with assault rifles?

(Im also aware they will still have some Arleigh Burke class destroyers mixed in later)



Or are we just being stupid(er)?

_________________
Coming soon....
-Carrier Submarine?
-Missile Interceptor

the reason is simple: the zumwalts are not replacements to the burkes, but in effect to the spruances. they just serve different roles, it is is not that one is that much better.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Aren't they both Guided Missile Destroyers? Or is the Zumwalt more of a ground attack... If that is so why would they list it as a successor of the Burke?

_________________
Coming soon....
-Carrier Submarine?
-Missile Interceptor

burke --> DDG-51
zumwalt --> DD-1000
they are not listed as successor of the burke, nor as guided missile destroyer.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

That's not correct; they do in fact carry DDG hull numbers.

The most accurate answer to the OP's question is probably that we're not really sure what we're doing with this class. The Zumwalts are new and wacky and different and challenging and exciting in a way that no ships have been since the immediate postwar era, when technology and mission requirements were changing at a similarly rapid pace. As such, there were a number of two- and three-off classes at the time (Norfolk, Mitscher, Claud Jones, etc.). These ships served with varying distinction in the postwar USN, but in most cases there was never really any intention of replacing the massive numbers of Gearings and Sumners with these designs. They were service-ready investigations of new technology and new concepts. This is probably an appropriate forecast of DDG-1000's future.

ah, my memory was flawed on the DD/DDG then..... it is a bit confusing (DDX--> DDG-1000) they carry the DDG designation but an DD hull number, to make it even more confusing xD

and I think you nailed it there, Erik.

in addition, friedman notes that these ships were (as designed) basically spruance replacements with some more land attack capability and drastically lower manning. DD-21 (as the project was then known) was also meant to have some systems (VSR and SPY-3 was especially named) being researched and developed for use on later ships (for example the ford class carrier)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

This is an interesting question. The Zumwalt class will not replace the ASW-role Spurances. Also at almost 15,000 tons they are as big as WWII heavy cruisers and they carry 6” (actually 155mm) guns. They seem to be intended for a surface warfare/land bombardment role this is currently missing from the fleet. I think they should be more appropriately classed as guided missile cruisers. They don’t seem to be intended to fulfill the AAW/ASW role of traditional post-WWII destroyers. With the unlimited flow of funds to the Defense Department being turned off, it will be interesting to see if the trend towards bigger and bigger surface vessels will continue.

A lot of it also boils down to cost. DDG-51 Flight III is a lot more friendly to a post-sequestration budge.

The problem with comparisons with WWII is that destroyers have a far different role now, Destroyers in most NATO countries are no-longer used as ASW escorts having been superseded by frigates in that role.
Yet America still seems to try to use them for ASW and has a surprising lack of dedicated ASW ships. The same is also true with MCM vessels, I could understand this in a cash strapped smaller European navy but why does the largest and best funded navy in the world rely on the secondary capabilities of warships unsuited to the role?

_________________
Working on: - Dekabrist-class submarine
- MV Isle of Arran

frigates

In Norway the Fridtjof Nansen frigates was original designed as ASW escots, but was later redesigned as a multi role frigate where weapons came from the top shelf. And on a Norwegian Military forum they are talking about that she is ready for but not with weapons, and among those weapons is the Standard missiles.