U.S. Navy's new stealth destroyer
October 29th, 2013
01:44 PM ET

Bigger, Lighter, Deadlier! Navy launches new stealth destroyer

By Larry Shaughnessy

(CNN) - The Navy's newest warship slipped out of dry dock this week into the waters of Maine, marking a new era for war fighting at sea.

The USS Zumwalt, the first of the DDG-1000 class of destroyers, is longer, faster and carries state-of-the-art weapons that will allow it to destroy targets at more than 60 miles, according to the Navy.

At 610 feet long and 81 feet wide, the Zumwalt is longer and thinner than the USS Arizona, a battleship sunk at Pearl Harbor. But it weighs about half as much.

Much of the ship's superstructure is wrapped in a huge, canopy made of lightweight carbon fiber composite.

The canopy and the rest of the ship is built on angles that help make it 50 times harder to spot on radar than an ordinary destroyer.

"It has the radar cross-section of a fishing boat," said Chris Johnson a spokesperson for Naval Sea Systems Command.

The Navy had planned to spend up to $9 billion in research and development on the DDG-1000 program and up to $20 billion to design and deliver seven ships. But cost overruns cut production to three ships.

When it begins missions, the Zumwalt will be the largest stealthy ship in the Navy.

Coming out of dry dock at Bath Iron Works in Maine does not mean the ship is ready to put to sea.

The shipbuilder will now begin installing a considerable arsenal of weapons, including two Advanced Gun Systems (AGS), which can fire rocket powered, computer-guided shells that can destroy targets 63 miles away. That's three times farther than ordinary destroyer guns can fire.

The DDX will go to sea with a crew of about 150 as opposed to current destroyers which carry a crew of 275. One reason is the AGS is practically self-firing. It needs no sailors to load the shells or remove the spent rounds.

The Zumwalt will also be equipped with a new missile launching system capable of firing 80 missiles, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and Seasparrow surface to air missiles.

Finally it will be able to carry and launch two Seahawk helicopters or four unmanned aerial vehicles.

Its christening had been been scheduled for last month, but the government shutdown forced the Navy to cancel the ceremony.

It's expected to be rescheduled next spring. The shipbuilder plans to finish construction and turn the ship over to the Navy next year.

Post by:
Filed under: Contractors • drones • Navy • Pentagon • weapons
soundoff (1,516 Responses)
  1. Stan Pioro

    My money is bet on a Somali kid in a rowboat, capturing the sucker, and holding it for ransom.

    January 21, 2014 at 2:02 pm | Reply
    • Josh B

      Am I the only person who is going to ask what the point of this is? Yes Destroyers are cool. They are also SO WW2. Their only real function in modern war would be the protection of your carrier fleet...which is not stealth and would be extremely hard to make stealth. As far as destructive power projection-that is already covered by nuclear submarines, which are armed with all sorts of nuclear/non-nuclear missiles, can sink ships/other subs, are not detectable by radar AND are effectively invisible to the naked eye as well as to satellite imagery. Why not just slap a retractable rail gun on a nuclear submarine and call it a day? Aside from drones, the military has been making some stupid developmental decisions.

      May 23, 2014 at 9:26 pm | Reply
      • John Cooper

        Not so WW2 as you might think. Submarines have same profile when they surface to take on tasks that would otherwise be left to surface ships; and they are not built for such tasks anyway. Today's Naval platforms function very differently than the Fleet you are referencing. In addition to having an effective defensive wall against most of what could be thrown at it, the ship is part of a web. Tug on one remote part of the web and it's felt throughout. These ships are not lone rangers and they are not expected to act outside the "web". Even a mass-suicide mission of speed boats and jets with air-to-ship weaponry would have crazy-high casualty rate to pull it off. That is asymmetry for the good guys.

        May 23, 2014 at 10:11 pm |
  2. ถ่ายวีดีโองาน

    Please let me know if you're looking for a article writer for your site.

    You have some really great posts and I think I would be a good asset.
    If you ever want to take some of the load off, I'd really like to write some content for
    your blog in exchange for a link back to mine.

    Please blast me an email if interested. Regards!

    January 8, 2014 at 1:41 am | Reply
  3. Shaunte

    Nice work looking forward to using more of your information

    http://www.engadget.com/profile/ringinfo/

    December 23, 2013 at 3:29 pm | Reply
  4. Irwin Chopak

    I am an "OLD" 2100 and 2250 tin can snipe. I am totally in awe. I would love to see the engineering compartments.

    November 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm | Reply
    • rayandsue

      You've got a fat chance of that! Try again in 20 years,

      November 12, 2013 at 1:07 pm | Reply
    • N Dickenson

      Mr. Chopak, from a Fletcher (DD445) plankowner's son, who grew up on stories of the Tin Can Navy, and who walked her decks in '69 on the same day her colors were struck and he was piped over, Bravo Zulu Sir!

      December 13, 2013 at 3:04 am | Reply
  5. john cooper

    To all the veterans and their families – A SOLEMN DAY OF RECOGNITION TO YOU ALL!!!
    John Cooper aka on this thread as "JC"

    November 11, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Reply
    • rayandsue

      Both myself and my partner Sue will raise our glasses to your fine words and your thoughts John. Sue' father served
      On HMS BELFAST. During World War Two, I forget how many times I have been dragged up London to accompany
      her , She loves to walk. Around driving the. Crew mad with Questions, Like, " would my dad stood here". Or "would
      He have spent time having his meals There." Etc etc. These things mean so much today for her So we will raise our
      Glass to your thoughts John,

      November 12, 2013 at 4:00 am | Reply
  6. V4Vendetta

    I looked up on Wikipedia destroyers lost during WW2, and 79 were lost, along with 5 main aircraft carriers. And that was the winning side, and I suppose they were state of the art at the time, with enemy radar very basic and unsophisticated. So even in a "winning' war today, against any adversary with semi-modern missile technology, expect heavy ship losses (note, my son is active duty in the U.S. Navy , so those stats don't make me very happy).

    November 11, 2013 at 1:35 pm | Reply
    • rayandsue

      Can well understand your Fatherly anxiety. Concerning your son, Noting the unexpected losses of the Royal Navy 30
      Years ago during the Falkland's war. And taking your anxiety into consideration. There must be many feeling as you do,
      Looking at that Falkland conflict. It does tend to make one listen to those who see little future for surface war ships,
      The DDG is apparently going to end this vulnerability! I'm a bit dubious ! Wish your son well from me. Ray Hill

      November 11, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Reply
    • Ron

      If we get more of these destroyers, I don't think there's too much worry that another ship will destroy ours! Our military technology is better then awesome!

      December 12, 2013 at 8:45 pm | Reply
  7. rayandsue

    There seems to be a misunderstanding going on here ' with all these conflicting posts! There is no doubt that a
    Strong USA is most Important in todays world, But. Not too strong! Just strong enough to be a 100% deterrent!

    Many of the ' posts '. ( including mine ). Are simply pointing out that this expensive piece of merchandise is not
    As invulnerable as it might seem, Surely if this latest Ship with all of its mind blowing Technology is that good
    Then it would be the very last thing I'd want to be on if thing's got HOT! An adversary would surely want it out of
    The way very quickly!? Ask yourselves a question. Do you think any perceived adversaries have an ability in 2013
    To make a successful attack on a surface ship or even a land target !? If your answer is YES. Then the money has
    Not been spent wisely !

    November 9, 2013 at 11:01 am | Reply
  8. Craig

    No doubt that the Chinese have already hacked all of the top secret plans for this boat. They will have their own in 10 years.

    November 8, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Reply
    • davedavedavedavedavedave

      If they build them as crappy as the rest of their merchandise, we have nothing to fear.

      And, if you think I'm blustering, just look at the Soviets.

      It didn't help them to steal our tech.

      December 1, 2013 at 2:40 am | Reply
      • rayandsue

        Both davedavedave and Craig make fair comment. But we should not rubbish the Chinese or the Russian abilities,
        I for one do not relish the prospect of finding out how correct these assessments are if we ever go eye to eye!!

        December 1, 2013 at 4:41 am |
      • Ray hill

        Beware the yellow peril and what they may have up their sleeve.craig

        December 10, 2013 at 4:22 am |
      • rayandsue

        All this chatter about. Who's got what' and how much better than the opponents etc etc. Is going to become irrelevant
        Very quickly if it ever kicks off !!! Davedavedave and co will not be spared the incineration,

        December 10, 2013 at 9:16 am |
  9. Taxpayer

    I would still spend my tax money on building these and keep americans working than send Billions in aid to the rest of the world.

    November 7, 2013 at 10:35 am | Reply
    • Eric

      Yes, you're totally right, those are our only 2 choices.

      November 7, 2013 at 8:17 pm | Reply
      • john cooper

        I think he is stating that he would be OK with the cost of the three ships ($9B) come out of the annual foreign aid budget($50B). As much as I love military tech and America First – $3B does seem to be an extreme cost for a single delivery platform.

        November 7, 2013 at 10:55 pm |
    • rayandsue

      Tax payer. SO WOULD I RATHER SEE ALL MONEY SPENT AT HOME RATHER THAN ABROAD BUT DONT HOLD YOUR BREATH. THOSE IN CHARGE DONT DO " COMMON-SENSE "

      December 10, 2013 at 9:21 am | Reply
  10. Yes1fan

    Looks like the Merrimack.

    November 6, 2013 at 10:44 pm | Reply
    • john spagnuolo Jr.

      My thoughts exactly !!!! Amazing.

      Will the Russians develop one that looks like the ' Monitor ' ? LOL

      December 25, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Reply
  11. Chuck

    "It has the radar cross-section of a fishing boat," said Chris Johnson a spokesperson for Naval Sea Systems Command. So the order goes out to destroy anything bigger than a canoe during war and this thing is toast.

    November 6, 2013 at 12:02 pm | Reply
    • *john cooper

      Clearly little or no knowledge of stand-off warfare. The ship's "chin" is far behind it's "knuckles".

      November 6, 2013 at 12:23 pm | Reply
      • Chuck

        And I seriously doubt the opponent will lead with his "chin".

        November 6, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
      • *john cooper

        Exactly. And it is this kind of projected power that both punches beyond its weight as well as the reach of the adversary.

        November 6, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • John in WNY

      You really don't have a clue do you?

      In long range warfare the advantage goes to whoever can pinpoint the enemy first and of course reducing a ships radar cross section (RCS) is a great advantage.

      For example the B2 isn't invisible to radar, and instead it has a greatly reduced RCS such that it needs to be much closer to air defense radars to be detect, this results in gaps between what is otherwise overlapping coverage areas and the B2 simply flies through those gaps.

      Depending on the level of stealth of this ship it could much closer to enemy ships, aircraft and/or shore emplacement without being detected, which of course would give it a huge advantage over a standard hull ship. In addition when used defensively it would allow a ship with considerable punch to sit undetected between our fleet and enemy forces and long before they pick up our non-stealth ships they could unknowingly be within range of the weapons systems of this ship class.

      November 6, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Reply
      • rayandsue

        It's Already obsolete! It's adversaries have the ability to detect every inch of ALL The seas at all times! It's ability to
        Hit targets 65 miles away would be irrelevant in a HOT WAR environment.

        Can't imagine a single example where an adversary would worry too much about these ships as targets!

        November 9, 2013 at 9:28 am |
    • rayandsue

      Having the radar signature of a fishing boat is hardly an endearing feature to an adversary's incoming missile that
      Can track and destroy something as small as a golf ball!
      I think these surface vessels and their ability is sometimes lost on the designers! The Falkland war was a very good
      Example, The Royal Navy and its equivalent state of the art defensive capability on board the ships resulted in
      Them being virtual sitting targets, " that was then". You may say! Yes. Things have come a long way since
      Then. But the technology hasn't been one way, As the DDG1000 has grown its abilities. So has the abilities to
      Destroy such targets!

      November 11, 2013 at 12:01 pm | Reply
      • john cooper

        Please cite the support, any support, for the ability to track something the size of a golf ball (in the context of open ocean mobility).

        November 11, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
      • rayandsue

        Of course, most people reading my post would know that I used the 'golf ball analygy' as a reference ie. a small object! But Of course the DDG 1000 platform is several hundred thousand times as big as a golf Ball and would not evade recognition by any determined adversary to track and find it, The DDG system is surely , primarily built for a very sophisticated War senario. Probably WW3 based. In that instance it's survival would depend on 'lacking technology' by any WW3 Adversary. And sadly few people would imagine that the technology of any perceived WW3 adversary would be lacking!

        November 11, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
      • john cooper

        I'll state again, that these ships don't go sailing into harm's way. They are stand-off battle platforms i.e. they punch farther than the enemy can. There isn't a land-based missile on the drawing boards that can track and cover the distance of one of these ships. For ship to ship concerns, no hostile ship could get within striking distance. These ships ALWAYS operate in a group. Tug on one part of the web and you tug on all of the web. After the economic life expires due to opposing tech...probably 25 years, these ships can be repurposed to more conventional, but still lethal duties.

        November 11, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
      • rayandsue

        John Cooper,
        All your points are taken aboard, I note that you have the opinion that DDG can punch well above its
        Weight, and I am sure it can, But if only technology stood still your point would be enough to shut the ' wing nut' brigade up. No doubt I am a ' wing nut ' too.
        Any adversary would surely already be scribbling away around the drawing board in order to counter the threat posed by
        DDG, Thus, an antidote to DDG may make it useless overnight, Even going back just a short while to the Exocet era
        Which was the holy grail of its day, When it was launched at a ship. It's profile when miles off from its target was no
        More than a tiniest speck in the radar screens of the target. ( Golf ball size) but That was then ! Today the. Range of DDG' offensive assets are said to be aprox 65 miles to target. Thus coming back to your point. Makes it safe from such ship to ship Or Air to ship missile systems of today. But lets instead talk of tomorrow. Which is when DDG will operated,

        Things Do not stand still for a moment when a Countries survival may depend on its abilities. But, I will end by expressing
        A hope that your assumptions as to DDG ability is correct.

        November 11, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
  12. 人気のバッグ

    トリーバーチ 通販} 人気のバッグ http://www.buddhabg.com

    November 6, 2013 at 5:18 am | Reply
    • rayandsue

      Two chicken fried rice please and one curry sourse, Will you deliver free?

      November 13, 2013 at 4:50 am | Reply
      • john cooperiii@comcast.net

        Snicker snicker (As I look over my shoulder)

        November 13, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
  13. JC

    They should have named the ship Enterprise for consistency.

    November 6, 2013 at 1:45 am | Reply
  14. MikeFromEarth

    Why do we need this?

    November 5, 2013 at 10:31 pm | Reply
    • *john cooper

      So that the smartphone you posted this from doesn't cost you $1200

      November 5, 2013 at 10:43 pm | Reply
      • Brandon

        haha i like that reply and agree.

        November 6, 2013 at 10:25 am |
      • Brandon

        Technology and the animal that is the advancement of technology require these kinds of things.

        November 6, 2013 at 10:28 am |
  15. Andrey

    Russia has got many stealth destroyers for decades now: they call them submarines!

    November 5, 2013 at 1:53 pm | Reply
    • jc

      Hammer, pliers or screwdriver?

      November 5, 2013 at 5:59 pm | Reply
      • rayandsue

        Most wing nuts should only be finger tight. No scanners or tools needed, But some. ' not all' of your description of such contributors are Warranted. Some are simply putting forward genuine points. But perhaps not so eloquently as they
        Could In order to get their point over. Ray. UK

        November 13, 2013 at 5:49 am |
  16. George patton

    Good grief, I never seen so many stupid comments like the ones these idiots here keep making about this new killer battleship!!! Now let's all hope that China continues to finance our huge budget deficit brought about by the building of these monsters. If not, the right-wing politicians in Washington will gut both Medicare and Social Security in order to keep on building these monster machines so loved by these idiots here!!! Such ignorance is truly a national disgrace!

    November 2, 2013 at 12:07 pm | Reply
    • jc

      You somehow avoided using race, education and senior citizens in your digression. Did you use your petro-phone to make that response? Or was it your petro-laptop? Or perhaps you drove in your petro-car to Starbucks to use the wi-fi whilst sipping your petro-double-venti-latte? Behind your shiny toys is the messy business of world-order and keeping the oil flowing. Who would do a better job of keeping the order? China? Russia? The Taliban?

      November 2, 2013 at 12:35 pm | Reply
    • Uncle Bob

      That's fascinating, because medicare and social security has continually been raped by Democrats since the Carter administration.

      November 5, 2013 at 9:21 pm | Reply
    • rayandsue

      Reading your post George. I cannot say I believe all of what you say. However. I can get your drift, The problem
      Is going to encompass all mankind if the USA gets in too much of a muddle! It may be left with just one alternative
      And that is unthinkable ! I can also see where some of the ' threads' are coming from, America saved us
      From stark Communism and would not be wishing to see it's power taken from it!
      I lean very much towards your points. But reserve quite a few for ' what we would all face if America dropped it's
      Guard, Only future generations. ( if there is will be any) will know the outcome, I also worry about the debt
      Crisis that the USA is experiencing. It could precipitate the unthinkable, They won't surrender their military might
      Lightly. And we should all thank them. ( not knock them) for this ,

      November 13, 2013 at 3:22 am | Reply
  17. BBob

    Dont think for a minute that they perpusely Made( Kirk) the capt.. for a reason....publisity stunt im sure

    November 1, 2013 at 6:30 am | Reply
    • Chaos

      ...and you.kmow rhis how?

      November 5, 2013 at 6:50 pm | Reply
  18. Blasphemer

    What an ugly design. It looks like a submarine that can not submerge. :-)

    November 1, 2013 at 5:39 am | Reply
    • otto

      ugly design? You mean, you miss sails? Form follows function. its not built to remind you of the Missouri.

      November 2, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Reply
      • jc

        I would take that ship home to meet my parents!

        November 2, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
  19. Blasphemer

    That ship looks like if it were upside down.

    November 1, 2013 at 5:38 am | Reply
  20. Randall

    These ships are largely about speed moreso than stealth. The structure above the water line reduces
    wind drag substantially. I would guess this is an easy 40+ knot vessel. I would not even be surprised
    at 50 knots. The bow is a super low drag design with wave piercing properties. This is especially
    effective in adverse weather conditions.

    November 1, 2013 at 3:19 am | Reply
  21. daouu

    Good for America and the Free World!

    October 31, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Reply
    • Lyndsie Graham

      Gee whiz, what a stupid comment the one above is! If being stupid was a virtue, the bozo who posted this one would be a living saint!

      October 31, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Reply
    • rayandsue

      Yes! With some reservations I agree your sentiments, There is little room for knocking the USA. It's origin runs through
      Our veins ! But it should seriously think about some that are elected . ....Ray...

      November 13, 2013 at 3:33 am | Reply
  22. Joseph McCarthy

    I can't get over just how many ignoramuses there are here who keep on blogging over just how "wonderful" these cursed ships are! These idiots seem to come out of the woodwork in order to display their stupidity. If being stupid was a virtue, these clowns would be living saints!

    October 31, 2013 at 12:40 pm | Reply
  23. Chris

    They are completely leaving out that the new captain for this vessel's name is Captain Kirk.

    Not kidding...

    October 31, 2013 at 8:38 am | Reply
    • radinsocal

      Captain James Kirk no less!

      November 1, 2013 at 5:56 am | Reply
  24. gelbstoff

    The budget for this single NAVY program is larger than the entire NASA budget for FY2014. The the sum of all NASA's budget from 1958-2011 (adjusted for inflation) is smaller than the defense budget for 2011. If the Congress is serious about addressing spending, it should pay attention to DOD contracting practices.
    G

    October 31, 2013 at 8:05 am | Reply
    • otto

      Congress DOES pay attention to the contractors. The contractors pay their campaign bills. "WTO rules!".

      November 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Reply
  25. jw

    A beautiful piece of machinery. This should show the little fat in bread. Freak in NK that he and his little twisted army are totally ineffective

    October 31, 2013 at 8:04 am | Reply
    • Joseph McCarthy

      What a totally stupid comment the above is! Gee jw, did you ever get past the 5th grade in school? There is absolutely nothing "wonderful" nor "beautiful" about a killing machine. Only a foul mouthed, hateful, ignorant Tea Partier would feel that way. Are you one by any chance?

      October 31, 2013 at 12:33 pm | Reply
      • jc

        "Foul-mouthed and hateful"? Interesting choice of words ya got there.

        October 31, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
      • intuitiond

        Just remember, this country you live in was forged by empires at war. Put down those pansy sedatives and remember where your blood came from.

        October 31, 2013 at 11:08 pm |
      • radinsocal

        What? Aren't you taxed enough already?

        November 1, 2013 at 5:43 am |
    • Ray

      JW I think you meant " inbreed" not " inbread".

      November 13, 2013 at 5:09 am | Reply
  26. Seadog

    can anybody tell me why everybody "supports the troops' but very few ( the 1%? ) will join? It is through the sacrifice of thousands for 200+ yrs that allow you to be as stupid as your comments ....

    October 31, 2013 at 7:47 am | Reply
    • TW

      Only 7% of all Americans have worn the Uniforms of the Military a Viet Nam Vet

      October 31, 2013 at 10:34 pm | Reply
    • daouu

      Your comment only shows your stupidity. I would like to join if they allow an 60+ yrs old to join. Thanks to millions of engineers and workers that Armed Forces don't need a lot. Especially those unpatriotic and ungraceful one like you.

      October 31, 2013 at 11:07 pm | Reply
  27. Rob

    Give me 20 billion, I will create a new world for you....or for me...:)

    October 31, 2013 at 2:43 am | Reply
    • William Hill

      Wonderful ship, but perfect example of why so much money is wasted on exotic weapons. Stealth or not, air power made surface ships obsolete by the end of WW II. With the addition of missiles (short and long range) drones stealth aircraft and weapons we don't even know about yet, surface vessels are dead meat in combat. Nuclear subs have a better chance to survive, adapt and attack. The sweeping intelligence apparatus we are using to find terrorists and prevent attacks anywhere in the world is the most effective weapon now and for a long time to come. If the British, French, Germans, Spanish, who look to the U.S. to be their "security blanket," don't like our methods, let them find something they like better. Same goes for our domestic alarmists.

      October 31, 2013 at 7:14 am | Reply
      • Joe Hayes

        The Navy and surface ships are not obsolete. The Naval blockade during the Cuban missile crisis was a good example. The Vietnamese specifically negotiated for the removal of the New Jersey during that conflict because they had no answer for it, Whenever there is a crisis in the world the President wants to know where our carriers are right now! Give thanks for the worlds most powerful Navy.

        October 31, 2013 at 7:54 am |
      • *john cooper

        I think a partially submerged, fast moving, very low signature vessel is less "dead meat" than you think. Also, an enemy would have to divide and conquer against an integrated weapon platform, ii.e. No unit is a stand-alone.

        October 31, 2013 at 9:25 am |
      • Philip DeLair

        While air power did indeed change the nature of naval warfare, it most certainly did not invalidate the need for surface ships . Aircraft carriers (still the primary component to naval air power) for example are fairly vulnerable operating all on their own, which is why they almost always operate as part of a task group with other surface vessels that can provide an integrated air and surface defense. Additionally frigates and destroyers are the ideal ship types to deploy in commerce protection or anti-piracy roles. Subs are very good attack craft but by their nature are not well suited to defensive roles due to how they operate.

        November 7, 2013 at 2:17 am |
      • rayandsue

        William Hill from Raymond Hill. Not related,
        I believe surface ships do not have much future purpose, The next major war will come from the sky's,

        November 9, 2013 at 9:41 am |
      • rayandsue

        When I say. " from the sky's" in my previous post. I meant from a long way off. And with an a accuracy of aprox 1 metre !
        To imagine that the vulnerability of such surface ships will depend on adversaries using the same area is a bit short
        Sighted,

        The next upgrade in technological ability will be an extension of the drone capabilities, someone sipping a Coca Cola
        ( or a Vodka). Sitting in a cosy office 2000 miles away will decide the fate of such surface assets .

        November 9, 2013 at 9:58 am |
      • MichaelHart

        i may be only 13 years old, but even i know that to blockade a harbor, you have to have somthing that does not need to refuel every (for example) 5 hours. you have to have somthing a little more lasting. planes and drons are ment for ariel combat and reconnisances missions.

        November 11, 2013 at 8:08 am |
      • john cooper

        Good job expressing yourself, bud.

        November 11, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • *john cooper

      $20B would only be start. Africa alone would suck that right up. I say you and I take that $ and form a self reliant island inhabited by just us and a hundred or so beautiful female MBAs and accountants.

      October 31, 2013 at 9:14 am | Reply
      • rayandsue

        A happy balance is required within Military Power doctrine
        Too much of it makes for a need to 'up the game ' by our perceived opponents,
        Too little makes us vulnerable
        Projected future opponents are unlikely to just ignore such a ship
        The spiral continues. Who loses out? $ Joe Bloggs of course!! $

        The Ship looks great, probably has fantastic capability. Capability for what? WW3 ? Do the 'Gung Ho' brigade
        Think they are going to evade the consequences ?

        November 10, 2013 at 4:25 am |
  28. HoyaTom09

    Saddest part here is that an explanatory note about the USS Arizona was needed...every American should know the name and story of that ship and her brave crew.

    October 30, 2013 at 10:22 pm | Reply
    • Gilbert

      What's even more sad is that they haven't named any new ships after the Arizona.

      October 31, 2013 at 1:44 am | Reply
      • jamessavik

        Arizona is a special name. I'm not its exact status but it may have never been struck from the naval registry.

        October 31, 2013 at 2:24 am |
      • Craig

        @jamessavik

        The USS Arizona was struck from the navel rolls on December 1, 1942...almost a full year after she was hit during the Pearl Harbor raid. She does, however, hold a special status and is allowed to continue to fly the flag. I suspect the name has never been reused simply because the ship is "sort of" still there. Obviously it would be a very politically sensitive name to re-use and I suspect nobody wants the headaches that would probably accompany it.

        In any case, with the relative demise of the battleship, the "State names" were transferred to submarines, specifically the missile subs (boomers) with the Ohio the lead ship of the first class. Numerous others followed, such as the Alabama, which figured in the fictional movie Crimson Tide. For the moment the US is not building any additional boomers, so the name cycle is pretty much dead at the moment. DD's, DDG's, and similar ships have almost always been named after "famous naval figures" although I'm not certain what the actual criteria is for who's name gets used. At one time during the later part of WWII, a DD was named "The Sullivans" after the five brothers who were killed early in the war while serving together on the Juno. Zumwalt is named for Admiral Zumwalt who was CNO for a period of time, and came up through the ranks commanding escort ships of various classes.

        October 31, 2013 at 3:19 am |
      • *john cooper

        Now there's the reason I suffer through wingnut partisan posts. Great read! I learn a little of military and tech stuff whilst drinking the morning brew.

        October 31, 2013 at 9:17 am |
      • Mugo

        @Craig
        Ditto here, thanks for the great info. Worth wading through the trolls.

        October 31, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
  29. Reality

    @jc

    “Be not intimidated...nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.”
    ― John Adams

    That is truly a great quote… Well done Sir!

    October 30, 2013 at 9:45 pm | Reply
  30. jim

    Just what our GI's need on the ground in Afghanistan ... more Defense Dept waste/welfare!

    October 30, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Reply
    • Unbiased

      If the US would stop going to war with every second country just to take their resources, the tax payer would not have to burden the trillions spent and the US could use this money to help its own people in these recessions. It's not like the companies who gain the trillions of taxpayer money from building the equipment give any back to the people who paid for it. Not to mention all the resources taken from the wartorn countries come back to the taxpayer. All this taxpayer funding goes back to the companies who initiate these wars in the first place. This is sad. Nice boat though.

      October 30, 2013 at 10:14 pm | Reply
      • sybaris

        " It's not like the companies who gain the trillions of taxpayer money from building the equipment give any back to the people who paid for it. "

        did you really say that?

        You do know that ships, jets and tanks aren't made by popping them in a microwave. Real people (labor) such as yourself make these things and paying them is the most expensive part of the budget. These same people in turn buy food, clothes, houses, cars etc.. Does it all make a little more sense to you now?

        October 30, 2013 at 10:53 pm |
      • TomNPitt

        So the Government gives money to these government contractors who build these ships for us all. As a result, we give money to these employees to buy goods on the open market creating our economics. That only cost about Twenty Billion Dollars. I wonder how much of that went right back into the economy, and how much of that went into multiple Swiss Bank accounts. How much are Food Stamps and Welfare? Don't those programs do the same thing for a lot less? Do we need money to spur the economy or do we need twenty billion battle ships to fight Pirates on rubber rafts??

        October 30, 2013 at 11:35 pm |
      • otto

        a better long term investment would be to compete vs Germany in the arena of Green energy. Our national economics is the greatest threat to our security.

        November 2, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
      • rayandsue

        Lets go back one hundred years. Much less foreboding in everyone's hearts! I'v got a horse for sale £1000 pounds
        Drive's on any side of the road, uses no gas ( or 'petrol' according to where you live) its fun to ride too, Leave the
        Caddilac or Jaguar in the garage and enjoy your lives. In fact. Leave your wallet on the dressing table too!

        November 13, 2013 at 5:05 am |
      • john cooperiii@comcast.net

        While there is a fundamental truth to your post, the genie is out of the bottle. There's no going back. We humans are voraciously consumptive. At 7B humans, it's already past the tipping point with no tech fix possible. Think of the current burden on the ecosystem and then realize that less than half of those 7B humans are not yet upwardly mobile and they will want their slice of the pie. As a tech CEO, I am fully complicit with The Machine, but that doesn't stop me from realizing the consequences of our avarice.

        November 13, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
  31. Reality

    Bow thrusters on a stealth vessel to mitigate roll stability? You are so amateur that it’s entertaining now. Please share more…

    October 30, 2013 at 9:16 pm | Reply
    • okiejoe

      There comes a time when stealth is unimportant because you are shooting everything you've got. In that case stability of the gun platform is much more important.

      October 31, 2013 at 11:49 am | Reply
    • rayandsue

      Can someone explain to me how this frontal design can be stable in a force 9 ocean Gail please? It seems to me that
      In a heavy swell it would not ride over it. But under it! I am at a loss as to all the years of ship design was dependent
      On a Bow shape that ' lifted ' she ship above an incoming heavy wave!? Does this design really lift the front or drive
      It down into the swell ? Answer required please. John Cooper..

      November 13, 2013 at 6:05 am | Reply
      • john cooperiii@comcast.net

        No expert here, but I am a gambling man; and I would lay some serious odds that this is essentially two ships in one. Much like our stealth planes must serve two masters (stealth and aeronautics) these ships must serve stealth and fluid dynamics. Whereas conventional ships are keel-to-deck in observance of fluid dynamics, with these ships you cannot discern from above the water line what's going on below. Just a bank of onboard computing keeps the F22 etc in the air, no doubt there's the water analog with these ships. The above water-line stealth design may well suffer from an angry ocean, but most certainly that is only a small percentage of the energy exchange between the ship and the water. I notice that a lot of readers think the ship looks awkward and ugly. For me, form follows function, and economics and politics aside, it is a thing of beauty.

        November 13, 2013 at 11:59 am |
      • rayandsue

        Frigging hell John. I asked for that didn't I! I,v just worn our carpet out rushing for the dictionary. But thanks it made
        Sense. I think it did anyway, WOW! It does look ungainly to me but I trust your word !

        November 13, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
  32. USNavyAllTheWay

    It's necessary because everyday, our enemies get one step closer to catching up to us. China is adding more and more to its military budget every year, eventually it will match ours. The only thing that will guarantee we stay on top as the worlds dominant military super-power are innovations like this one. You may not like the cost, well, too bad. It's actually not that expensive when you get down to crunching numbers. In terms of what it can do, it's an amazingly cost-efficient design.

    To end my point, when we first started building Aircraft Carriers there were people like yourselves who complained about the cost. Most never understood the purpose of using airplanes in combat, always believing wars should be fought with boots on the ground. Well they were wrong. Maybe one day you can see that ships like this are the future of warfare, and that they DO have practical application.

    -USNavyAllTheWay

    October 30, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Reply
    • jc

      Roger that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      October 30, 2013 at 9:29 pm | Reply
    • Reality

      We have to outspend the leprechauns under your bed because it’s either us or them, right?

      Do you love your country? Do you love your children? If so, you must spend more and more to defeat the leprechauns under your bed.

      Don’t be a traitor.

      October 30, 2013 at 9:49 pm | Reply
    • Reality

      Basic math, basic physics tells us why this ancient outdated mode warfare is as relevant as fairies, pixie dust, and Mickey Mouse .

      October 30, 2013 at 10:09 pm | Reply
      • Harry Beavha

        You smoke a lot of crack don't you.

        October 31, 2013 at 1:26 am |
    • okiejoe

      Boots on the ground or weather deck to weather deck firing broadsides as fast as a crew could load and run out.

      October 31, 2013 at 11:52 am | Reply
    • ron

      I agree,as myself being Retied Navy

      October 31, 2013 at 4:10 pm | Reply
  33. Styx

    Goody more money wasted on things we don't need.

    When the second biggest airforce in the world is the US navy you know we don't have much to fear.

    October 30, 2013 at 8:45 pm | Reply
    • sybaris

      Numbers don't always mean there is inherent capability.

      October 30, 2013 at 10:58 pm | Reply
    • stix

      Maybe we can spend more on obamacare.

      November 2, 2013 at 12:15 am | Reply
      • otto

        are you pretending that the cost of health care was not already going through the roof? Do you know the curve that was predicted during the Bush era? Your post is a swing and a miss. The costs of ACA are minimal compared to the cost of ER for anyone who shows up. What's your plan to address the cost of medicine? no planning is NOT a plan. how about the number of MDs in the USA? You actually satisfied or do you comprehend that there is a generation of MDs ready to retire? your capitalist "solution" is the same as the war solution of using last decades military to fight next decades wars.

        November 2, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
      • john cooper

        Hey otto, no doubt the Repubs failed to act on the healthcare costs problem; and that has led to Libs overacting. Having said that, you are way off in asserting that ACA costs are minimal to the costs of treating everyone in the ER who shows up. First off, half of that ER care is paid for by the recipients. The remaining balance of +/- $80B pales in comparison to the taxation (now that the Supreme Court calls it what it really is) to the people WHO ACTUALLY PAY TAXES. And do you really think that socialized medicine is going to fill up med schools?

        November 12, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
  34. UriNation

    If it is so stealth, how did CNN find out about the launch?

    October 30, 2013 at 8:36 pm | Reply
    • Stephen Swain

      They were invited by the Navy most likely. How could you ask such a pointless question? Or is that too stealthy, too?

      October 30, 2013 at 9:30 pm | Reply
1 2 3 4 5

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.