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 (1,814 Responses)
  1. shawn poland

    gee here in maine,when the newspapers and tv news told this story, it didnt need all this security clearance feely crap, adding drama to another the fake war machine! enough of the drama!!!!! enough of the boogie man!!! enough of fake wars!!!! terrorism starts with liars and those that seek to distort reality by pushing a feeling vs what is!

    October 29, 2013 at 3:19 pm | Reply
    • nzaz

      I don't agree with the extensive war machine either, nukes should be dismantled and defense as a whole scaled back. That said, we've had Navy ships since the inception of this country and we always will have them. If that's the case we might as well make use of new technology that makes them cheaper to use , more efficient and easier on the environment. It's easy to hate the military but if your on a boat that gets hijacked or find yourself in the middle of an emerging coup while on vacation you will thank your lucky stars when one of these ships comes to the rescue.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Reply
  2. electric1

    I am a concerned citizen. I fully don't support these endeavor's at all. Here is my reasoning. With the world population way out of control and our resources in dire need of protection why are we not spending all of our extra resources on NASA? At least we would get some results with that money. Every country should be investing in a combined effort to investigate the planets and how to achieve a sustainable form of travel. We already have enough weapons to end earth as we now it 100 times over. Stop the waste and wake up.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:18 pm | Reply
    • Sarge

      This is not about humanity. This is about control of the open waters. Critical to the powers that be is command of fuel, resources and access to cheap labor and emerging markets.

      Save humanity! LOL. That has never been the point of any military, ever.

      Period.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:25 pm | Reply
    • Old Soldier

      Huh? NASA doesn't build, own, nor employ destroyers. Your comment, albeit your right to make it, has nothing to do with the subject. Grow up and focus. If you have a problem with the Navy, not NASA, developing new ships, jump on it. But ficus, OK? Tchuss!

      October 29, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Reply
  3. Steel On Target

    Why do we need a stealth boat? Yet another ship which will be easily overrun and sunk when the Iranians swarm it with swift boats.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:17 pm | Reply
    • mike

      63 miles is a long way to travel before you get to it.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Reply
    • white boy fresh

      Haha these WILL NOT be sunk by any other sea ship. youre drunk to think that

      October 29, 2013 at 3:28 pm | Reply
    • RMRondo

      The sailors inside that thing will laugh well their helicopter's hose those little pathetic speedboats with bullets. I can arm my little fishing boat with a rocket but that doesn't make it a threat to a real warship. Plus now their anti ship missiles are next to useless because of the stealth.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:28 pm | Reply
      • John in WNY

        I actually am curious at how well the stealth part holds up in real work conditions, remember that once the B2 entered service it was found that while the stealth looked great on paper in real world conditions the stealth characteristics of the aircraft are greatly compromised by something as simple rain and even normal wear and tear of the outer skin.

        October 30, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
    • sam

      We already have LOTS of stealth boats...they are called submarines

      October 30, 2013 at 6:44 am | Reply
  4. William

    Reminds me of Captain Nemo's Nautilus from the movie a league of extraordinary gentlemen"

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/54887689182234445/

    October 29, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Reply
  5. ThankUAmerica

    Again, People's Republic of China thank you America for great research on stealth ship destroyer.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Reply
    • strangways

      Ha! I was thinking the same thing myself. They have probably already hacked in and have those plans. They will produce the same ship, but with a large "Made in China" across the hull!

      October 29, 2013 at 3:28 pm | Reply
  6. Just Me

    Maybe NASA can build the next one for space.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:12 pm | Reply
  7. cageordie

    Is it strange that it looks a lot like Melnichenko's megayacht A. Designed by Philippe Starck and Martin Francis, and constructed by Blohm + Voss at the HDW shipyard in Kiel, Germany.

    So I wonder if the Russian's yacht shares any other features than the overall outside appearance of a warship.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Reply
    • Just Me

      007 weapons 🙂

      October 29, 2013 at 3:13 pm | Reply
  8. Mike G

    For those of you commenting on the F35. I saw another CNN link talking about the 1.5 TRILLION with a T project. I'm no math major, but I'm pretty sure that makes up about 1/10th of our national debt.
    http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2013-08-22/the-f-35b-sticks-a-1-dot-5t-vertical-night-landing?campaign_id=otbrn.bw.video

    October 29, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Reply
    • mike

      Difference is that military research often ends up paying for itself in terms of all the technologies, patents and methods developed during the process, just look at the space program with NASA, DOD and DARPA contributing towards private companies' research. As opposed to other debt building activities such as social welfare that only adds to debt.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Reply
      • RMRondo

        Very good observation, people don't understand that virtually all modern technology was developed by military R&D because war forces technology to progress as rapidly as possible.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
      • Mike G

        No, I am familiar with that argument, and it has some credence. As you state, NASA research has created numerous technological breakthroughs that have enhanced our everyday lives. But here' the rub, NASA was budgeted 16B but it cost 30-40B is cost to develop and manufacture 3 SHIPS!

        October 29, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
      • John in WNY

        Mike G,

        Well your also comparing overall costs of R&D and manufacturing to a NASA single year spending.

        Consider that before the space shuttle first launch NASA has spend over $30 billion of R&D and manufacturing of the shuttles, and of course that is just the spending before the first launch, at which time they were still building more shuttles so this isn't the full manufacturing costs (I used figures to the first flight since after that I can't find numbers that split off operational from R&D and manufacturing.)

        As an aside, looking at the total cost of the shuttle program and breaking it into a cost per launch gives you a figure of $1.5 billion (according to Space dot com>)

        October 30, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
  9. marc

    so many clueless people on here it is amazing. first, please don't be so ignorant as to not realize that many technologies we enjoy in our daily lives come from defense research and spending. you want to do away with all of that, then go ahead and take away one of the leading sources of technological development for the future.

    second, this ship is in response to china's development of the anti-aircraft carrier weapon meant to be launched from long distance but can destroy aircraft carriers. the "stealth" destroyer will be able to get closer to china's shores and with it's long range weaponr take out the launch installations of the aircraft carrier weapons. please, step out of your little corner of the world every once in a while and see what's really going on.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Reply
    • Q.Y.

      I am wondering why you need to get closer to china's shores – or why your carriers should get into china sea in the first place. mind your own business at home instead of being world police then we will have world peace.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Reply
      • marc

        well then, why did china develop a weapon to destroy aircraft carriers? fact is, china and the u.s. have been in a very quiet arms race over the last 10-15 years and that also extends to the IT world. if a country continuously tries to hack your largest corporations and government installations and creates weapons to specifically destroy your greatest naval advantage – wouldn't you respond by finding a way to protect that naval advantage? c'mon now, tell the truth.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:19 pm |
      • Billy

        You are extremely delusional if you think that is the solution to "world peace"

        October 29, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
      • RMRondo

        History shows us that peace threw strength is the best way to maintain peace. By being strong and demonstrating the ability to defend yourself from possible threats you discourage a potential enemy before they pull the trigger. Simply refusing to fight to defend yourself is just plain suicide.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
      • John in WNY

        Do you mean just as US isolationism gave us world peace in the early 1940s?

        October 30, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • Shorn

      We're not going to war with China. Just like we never went to war with the USSR. China is just another bogey man to keep people in line, supporting obscene levels of military spending.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:22 pm | Reply
      • Q.Y.

        Cannot agree more.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
      • marc

        if you don't think we went to war with USSR you are blind and clueless. we fought proxy wars to impede their influence, we drove them into bankruptcy through various policies and engaged in the largest "war" ever known in the intelligence community via the cia/nsa against the kgb. no, not a "troops on the ground" type war, but war nonetheless.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
      • RMRondo

        Exactly and in some cases like the Vietnam war it is highly likely that some Russian and American pilots and especially special forces probably engaged each other multiple times but was keep quit in order to prevent the destruction of everything.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
    • PushingBack

      Or perhaps we could mind our own business, stay away from China, and invest this money directly into innovation instead of building expensive war toys.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:25 pm | Reply
      • Q.Y.

        Totally stay away from china might not be possible. Look at your underwear and see where it was made. LOL. But I agree with you, more money could be spend on innovation and education than making these toys of war.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
      • marc

        interesting you don't consider this ship, its design and advanced weaponry innovative. don't think any of this will make its way into the real world some day? automatically loading shells (manufacturing plant uses), carbon fiber exterior (auto/boating uses) just to make two easy quick examples. my goodness, where do you people come from. so clueless and closed minded.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
      • Q.Y.

        @marc: Well – what you said is partly true that the technologies can be used in other areas. However, the fact is they can more easily be developed and applied without military involvement, and why not use them where they should be used instead of building massacre machines?

        October 29, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
      • RMRondo

        Nothing can be developed by anyone more easily than the military because they have the most money to research with and the brightest minds to solve all kinds of different problems that can potentially arise with virtually any new technology that could arise in the future.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
      • marc

        exactly.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
      • Q.Y.

        @RMRondo:
        1) Why the military should get the most money than education and other branches of the society? Who are making most profits from making more weapons of destruction? Have you ever thought about it?
        2) Obviously you are not in the military to be smart enough. LOL. With a down-going, money deficient public education system and fewer American kids taking math, engineering and science seriously, I doubt the military can have smart people to work for them in the future.

        "Nothing can be developed by anyone more easily than the military because they have the most money to research with and the brightest minds to solve all kinds of different problems that can potentially arise with virtually any new technology that could arise in the future.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
  10. Mike, Cleveland

    This will come in handy for the next time we don't declare war.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:05 pm | Reply
  11. bdmac

    How about you hold back on 3 or 4 of these things and dump the 36billion into the ACA to make the name actually apply .... hmm???

    October 29, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Reply
    • Paul White

      Why don't you get a better education and job and pay for your own healthcare rather than looking for someone else to subsidize you?

      October 29, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Reply
      • Wm.Russ Martin

        Why don't you get a better education and a better paying job then build your own roads, staff your own police force and fire department, then field your own army and staff your own navy instead of relying on us to subsidize your trip to WalMart?

        October 29, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
    • rdeleys

      @Paul White – Why don't you get an education and stop being such an asocial narcissist?

      October 29, 2013 at 3:12 pm | Reply
    • Tell it like it is

      How about dumping the ACA and building a whole fleet of these puppies.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Reply
  12. ABV

    What they did not tell you is that this can convert to a submarine at the flick of a switch (and in about 15 minutes) and then hide underwater..

    October 29, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Reply
  13. mike

    So the Republicans want to cut food stamps but keep on buying garbage like this? Surface warships are extinct.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:02 pm | Reply
    • I.D.

      Surface warships are not extinct for a few reasons.They're used mainly for air defence and launch short ranged missiles/shells. Submarines can't do that (they're equipped with inter-continental missiles), they're more expensive and you'd prefer them to remain stealthy under water. Aircraft carriers can provide air defence, but are even more expensive to operate.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:07 pm | Reply
      • Mark

        Do a little research on what subs can and can't do.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
    • Paul White

      If you can't feed yourself or your family, you know whose fault that is? Yours.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:10 pm | Reply
      • rdeleys

        Where did you learn that? Church?

        October 29, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
      • Wm.Russ Martin

        If you can't defend yourself from other countries or rogue Reptilian Illuminati, whose fault is that? Yours.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
      • Tell it like it is

        @rdeleys and WmRuss.Martin – it's called "common sense". But you wouldn't know anything about that.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
  14. hueycobra6

    Was it worth the money spent? I hope it's useful in the next war we're involved in.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:00 pm | Reply
    • HZ

      Probably, since Russia and China sell advanced radar guided anti-ship missiles to 2nd world countries like Syria.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:07 pm | Reply
      • nomorewar

        so what, the US sells stuiff to everybody. f-15's to suadi arabia and pakistan.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
  15. Kyle

    See my problem is that while I do see usefulness in this and I recognize the need to constantly upgrade our defense systems; when NASA gets 4 billion a year (which is not what they get now), which is a small portion of what it cost to build this one ship, people complain and want to cut funding to the agency. I just don't understand it. I think people think NASA spends more money than it actually does.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Reply
    • I.D.

      I think the problem lies that when the Navy blows something up it inspires patriotism and heroism. When NASA blows something up, it's a tragedy.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Reply
      • bob aussie

        Comedy can be cruel, but true..... lol

        October 29, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • John in WNY

      Let's not compare apples to oranges here, while I understand what you mean and fully support increased funding to NASA, you are trying to compare the amount spent on a multi year R&D & manufacturing program with the single year budget for NASA (although the number you provided is off by almost $14 billion.)

      As I answered to someone else, before the space shuttle first launch NASA had spent over $30 billion of R&D and manufacturing of the shuttles, and this is just the spending before the first launch, at which time they were still building more shuttles so this doesn't include the full manufacturing costs (I used figures to the first flight since after that I can't find numbers that split off operational from R&D and manufacturing in the yearly spending.)

      As an interesting aside, looking at the total cost of the shuttle program (roughly $200 billion) and breaking it into a cost per launch shows a costs of $1.5 billion per launch.(according to Space dot com.)

      October 30, 2013 at 12:46 pm | Reply
  16. bob, Kansas City

    No windows?...how cheap can you get?....who built this thing, one of the major airlines that nickel & dime you to death.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Reply
    • Dr. T

      I hope your comment is just sarcastic wit. If not... wow. Just wow.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:07 pm | Reply
    • Andres

      I think that has something to do with the stealth.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:10 pm | Reply
    • Wm.Russ Martin

      Not to mention how much extra they charge for checked bags!
      Ever try to get a bag of smoked almonds with no salt? Good luck there. Cheapskates!

      October 29, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Reply
  17. CaEd

    " It needs no sailors to load the shells or remove the spent rounds."
    Until the Son of a Sailor mis-fires, jams or something just comes apart, THEN you will need sailors.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Reply
  18. Jessie Vengan

    USA #1 Military in the World but #17 in Education! USA! USA! We are number one, you don't like then say hello to our new STEALTH DESTOYER!

    October 29, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Reply
    • Glenn Parker

      Maybe they hired smart foreigners to build this thing. If 'murcans are too dumb, outsource!

      October 29, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Reply
    • nomorewar

      LMAO!

      October 29, 2013 at 3:32 pm | Reply
    • John in WNY

      Well if you were better educated you would know there are many reasons for that ranking, and why it's meaningless and is in no way is a spending issue.

      US Government, at all levels, spent close to $950 billion on Education in 2012 (this doesn't include education spending hidden in the DoD's budget), and in fact the only areas that exceeded this spending was public pensions and healthcare (medicare, Medicaid, Public health, etc.... also the numbers I've seen doesn't even include VA hospital spending under healthcare but defense.)

      The main reason the US scores so low compared to many other countries is the simple fact that the current education establishment has all but destroyed vo-tech training and instead tries to direct all students to college, where many who could have done well at vo-tech type training fail in the classroom, which not only creates one more unskilled worker but wastes the money that was used to get them to that point, which might have been better used teaching them to be a welder, plumber or electrician.

      Many, if not most, other countries split off these students, were we do not, so in effect you have the best and brightest of these other countries being compared to all US students.

      October 30, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Reply
  19. I.D.

    There are so many spelling mistakes in this article, was it written by a 5th grade intern?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:55 pm | Reply
    • Doug

      I noticed that too– spelling, grammar, punctuation, subject/verb agreement, etc.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:12 pm | Reply
    • dave

      Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?

      October 29, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Reply
      • dm

        Read Jessica comment about us being #17 in education. I think that says it all

        October 29, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
      • dm

        Sadly even though i am a successful person who makes 6 figures, I did not notice anything wrong with the article, guess that also proves that we are #17 in education :), then again i am a science major who speed reads LOL..

        October 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
      • dm

        I help my kids with their homework and i am like WTH? LOL wow how times have changed in 40 years..

        October 29, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
    • TheDude

      Personally, I like the seemingly random extraneous commas.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:19 pm | Reply
    • Balls of Steel

      Unpaid intern.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
  20. Balls of Steel

    The government can't do anything on time and on budget. The fact that the Navy got 3 of these instead of 7 because of budget overrun is a disgrace. If these people were working in a private sector, they would be out of the job fast.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:55 pm | Reply
    • mike

      so who do you think built this?????

      October 29, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Reply
    • Centerlink

      They are private sector – contracted by the government. Just like the Obamacare website. It's all private sector.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:07 pm | Reply
    • Carl J.

      Well then you'd better start firing bubba. These ARE BEING BUILT by the private sector. How do you think they get away with the BS over-runs? Public yards DO NOT build new ships, they just make their money fixing the crap being built by these folks, Newpoert News and EB ship building. Or better known as "thieves in the night". But the Navy don't care, after all it's not their money just the foolish taxpayers who will do as they are told..... shut up, sit down, and like it!

      October 29, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Reply
    • Dean

      This WAS contracted out to the private sector. The article clearly states it was built by Bath Iron Works, a private sector company. This is an over-run CAUSED by the private sector, yet you blame the government when it is clearly the fault of the private sector. Your solution is the cause of the problem. Maybe a remedial course in fact checking will help you to not look so foolish in the future.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:10 pm | Reply
      • RMW Stanford

        The cost over runs are in part the fault of the goverment. Since World War 2, we had in place a broken defense procurement system created by the government. One in which many contracts share non of the risk of cost over runs and will be compenstated from them not matter, even if a project is canceled. This is part of the reason for the spiraling research and development cost for military project there is no incentive for the contractors to try and keep cost under control. The defense procurement system has become crony capitalism

        October 29, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Raymond

      The article is incorrect. The Zumwalt is actually on time and on budget.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-navys-largest-destroyer-arrives-on-time-on-budget-named-for-late-admiral/2013/10/20/d82c1ab4-39b3-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html

      October 29, 2013 at 3:13 pm | Reply
    • Portland tony

      The reason for "cost overruns" on most government procurements lies in the way congress and DoD funds these projects. Instead of a five or ten year allocation of funds, they depend on an annual budget which changes depending on the political winds. Originally, the DDG 1000 buy was to be 32, then it it was changed to 10, then 7, now it's 3. Anybody with any knowledge of manufacturing knows the fewer items made, the greater the unit cost. Just think how much your brand new car would cost if GM could only build 100 of them instead of a million. The cost of the new car's design, engineering along with new tooling wouldn't be recovered until aprox 50K were built. The same goes for airplanes and boats.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
  21. Mike G

    And the military whines about sequester? We have a larger navy then the next 13 nations COMBINED! Do we really need a "stealthy" destroyer to combat terrorism? Not to mention 3 ships will cover about 0.0000000000001% of the world's oceans at any given time. As another poster stated, this and the F35 are prime examples of our widely bloated an inefficient military. Spend money on troops salaries, benefits, and increasing the number and capability of our special forces...... Oh, and don't get me started on the Dept. of Homeland Security.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm | Reply
    • Balls of Steel

      Upgrading the fleet is imperative or you'll end up with dinosaurs that are not efficient and too costly to replay. I am OK with this, I just don't like delays and budget overruns.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Reply
      • Mike G

        Balls, but what is enough? I made the 13 nation comment in response to the arguments that we need to constantly upgrade our military?

        October 29, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
    • Mark

      Actually, each ship, with a firing radius of 60 miles covers 11,300 square miles. If you take the total coverage of three ships and divide by the square mileage of the world's oceans you will find a coverage of .00000005 (+/- .000000001)

      October 29, 2013 at 3:41 pm | Reply
  22. Dave

    I made something that looked like this out of Legos once. Jerks stole my design.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm | Reply
  23. sly

    Unbelievable bozo's posting on this blog.

    Half the comments are from those who think we shouldn't spend a penny on the military because of seniors food stamps or some drivel.

    Then we get the bozo's who blame President Obama for this ship, since they are not intelligent enough to know it was funded in 2001. (I think the President was named Bush or something).

    But best of all are the idiots who are always blaming someone else. In this case, we get some janitors and MacDonalds employees blogging here that the technology is poor and someone will sink the ship.

    Please folks, there are customers waiting for you to flip the burgers – so do something you are qualified to do, and leave things like national security to people a hell of a lot more intelligent than you.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:53 pm | Reply
    • anchorite

      National security from whom? Last I checked the Canadians and Mexicans were our allies. The Mexican military is busy taking on the cartels, and the Canadian military is ROFL I can't believe I just said "Canadian military."

      October 29, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Reply
    • tmac

      ....and that would be you? The sad truth is that we just got another expansive toy for our military all the while we'er bleeding dry. National security.....hilarious

      October 29, 2013 at 3:00 pm | Reply
    • Gman

      Seems to me that all have been given equal status to comment on here, and I know plenty of folks working entry level positions who are a heck of a lot brighter than some of the morons in uniform that I've known and worked with. Might want to stick to your opinions on the subject at hand and refrain from the negativity towards others who you feel don't match up to the high opinion you have of yourself. Me thinks thou dost blow thine own horn too mightily.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Reply
      • sly

        I doubt those bright folks in entry level positions are blogging on here how "1 torpedo will sink this" or "the author doesn't know what he means cause it isn't stealth since we can see it" or "another Obama mistake".

        I tend to think that NASA rockets, Mars rovers, supercomputers and high technology weapons are generally designed by very smart people like astro-physicists, and I find that most bloggers on here are not quite as smart, although they claim to be experts in military technology.

        I'd like to see some of these burger flippers design a drone. (oh 'drones' how evil ... let's ban them).

        October 29, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
    • bob aussie

      Afraid someone flipping burgers or mopping floors might be smarter than you or have an opinion worth listening to? Morons are not limited to any particular socio-economic class or particular demographic. Neither are geniuses.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Reply
      • sly

        No problem listening to burger flippers, but I have an issue when they claim that Lincoln was President when this boat was designed.

        Really love it when in between fryin' the fries they tell us all how they could easily sink this boat.

        I guess it doesn't bug you when McDonalds workers offer their opinion that they could design a much better Mars Rover, cause the one NASA built 'looked funny'.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
  24. Bud

    Umm, the Navy already has stealth ships...

    ...they're called submarines.

    Just sayin'...

    October 29, 2013 at 2:53 pm | Reply
    • Hi

      This has been discussed several times here already. Stealth does not mean Invisible.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:55 pm | Reply
      • anchorite

        No, apparently it means "looks like a fishing boat."

        October 29, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
      • Bud

        Submerged sub – not only can you not see it visually, it can't be seen ON RADAR...

        That qualifies as stealth.

        Now get back to work, slave...

        October 29, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • Gman

      Well said Bud.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Reply
  25. anchorite

    I have to admit that is all pretty awesome, especially the Gauss guns. However, a Dodge Viper is also pretty awesome, and when you're behind on your mortgage by about 13 years worth of payments, it's still a giant waste of money.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Reply
  26. FrmerMrine

    I see it. It's right there.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Reply
    • Frank

      Needs a cloaking device.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Reply
    • anchorite

      All I see is a picture of a fishing boat.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Reply
  27. arkay

    Remember the Maine!

    October 29, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Reply
  28. BrainsNotBrawn

    Like so many other "latest and greatest" US military assets, it will probably be junked in twenty years and never see real combat. More Gov millions thrown away. "But it looks cool!" Yes, you sheep, keep paying taxes to defense contractors while our country slides into 3rd world status....

    October 29, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Reply
    • The Guy

      Simmer down there. 3rd World? We're not even anywhere close to 2nd world. Try going to a real 3rd world country and see how good you have it.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:53 pm | Reply
    • Frank Mont

      I wonder how it will stand up against this new radar that's being developed.
      http://www.ibtimes.com/dolphins-hunting-technique-inspires-new-radar-device-1438708

      October 29, 2013 at 2:55 pm | Reply
  29. 42K RAY

    I loved all the warships that I stationed aboard, and I tell u GO NAVY! Be safe watch ur six...1LUV

    October 29, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Reply
  30. john vance

    Pretty cool ship. What do we use it for?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Reply
    • anchorite

      Um, picking up chicks?

      October 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm | Reply
      • Abey baby

        Well done sir. Well done

        October 29, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • Dean

      the same thing these large projects have always been used for : to pay off the General Dynamics officials for funding so many congressional campaigns.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:34 pm | Reply
  31. G D

    How did they even spot it to photograph? Maybe it's not that stealthy....

    October 29, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Reply
    • The Guy

      Maybe you should have read like 5 comments down first.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Reply
  32. Me

    That's so cool. I would love to see it in person

    October 29, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Reply
  33. woodie

    Deadly destroyers? No worries. Long as we don't tap phones or text devices all this other stuff is okay.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Reply
  34. Angus AW 1

    I found this to be an interesting article. Not just for the information but, for the lack of editing.......computer-guided shells that can destroy target 63 miles away. That three times farther than ordinary destroyer guns can fire.
    Its christening had been been scheduled for last month, but the government shutdown forced the Navy to cancel the ceremony.....if you do not have any editors, mybe I can send my resume in and give it a shot? Whachya think?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:44 pm | Reply
    • CnnPlz

      Mybe.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Reply
    • Ahawk

      Maybe you should do a better job of editing your own response before posting about the flaws in this article.
      Mybe is spelled with an "a" in it.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Reply
    • Thetruth

      You spent time pointing out what you see as someone else's mistake yet you didn't edit your own post. Maybe that shows it's not so easy afterall

      October 29, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Reply
      • Sergie Kent

        Or he might have been using sarcasm or irony. Both difficult concepts for some of the people commenting here.
        In any event I am a professional editor and counted eight errors that we can be charitable and just call typos. Either way they should have been caught.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
  35. cnnbannedme

    What a steal. It costs a little more than the obamacare website. I hope it at least floats!

    October 29, 2013 at 2:43 pm | Reply
    • Andres

      With citizens like you, who cares to have enemies. Gosh! That is a formidable piece of technology. Youtube the testing of the destroyer. It is amazing!

      October 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Reply
  36. Exhumator

    Proofreading is desperately needed. How'd this get past an editor?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:42 pm | Reply
    • cmeride79

      Can't even imagine how something like this gets by any editor; if, in fact, it has to. Historically, public displays of illiteracy have been more the exception than the rule. Sadly now that pretense has reversed. This is just one more brick in an ever-growing wall of blatant displays of grammatical ignorance. Please, I'd love to have this job – and it so obviously needs to be done! Articles, then, would not be reaping negative comments such as mine, addressing elements of distraction only deterring from the real subject matter.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Reply
  37. Nomorewar

    If it's so stealthy how come there's such a clear photo of it?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Reply
    • clarity is the word

      "Stealth" refers to its radar reflectivity, not its visual stealth. Just as in the B-2 bomber, the F-117, and other vehicles, it's easy to see with the eyes, but very difficult to spot on radar. If it's hard to spot on radar, then it's harder to lock onto it with fire control radar, and harder to know where it is. That said, if you've ever seen a navy ship at sea on a grey, drizzling day, they are very hard to see because of their grey paint.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Reply
  38. Rageman58

    Google already mapping its location.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:40 pm | Reply
  39. Bilbo

    Leaves a wake? Easy to spot.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:40 pm | Reply
    • Me

      You know they probably never thought of that..

      October 29, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Reply
    • clarity is the word

      Stealth is not referring to visual stealth, but radar stealth.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Reply
    • CaEd

      How does she handle in rough seas, straight sides and all?

      October 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Reply
    • Dr. T

      This is 2nd generation stealth design – the wake is pretty minimal on the 1st generation. Keep in mind that "stealth" is a relative term. I was at an unveiling of one of the B2 bombers, and it's huge and easy to see.... IF you're close enough.... and IF it's daylight. But it flew to the base in overcast conditions, dropped below the clouds VERY close to the hangar – never heard it coming. Never heard it until it was flying away.

      Stealth technology is not about fooling those close to enough to see it. When you can fire a shell accurately at 63 miles, and cruise missiles from much farther, you only have to be stealthy to those far away – those hunting for you by radar. This ship seems well designed for that.

      The "I can see it" comments are ridiculous. I sure hope they were just sarcasm. Unfortunately, some here seem to take it seriously.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:19 pm | Reply
  40. transmickey

    Looks like you hired someone from China to write this. Speaky Engrish?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Reply
  41. Trevor Bryant of Flagstaff, AZ

    Well, now that it is built and paid for and it works, we need to put someone Chinese in charge of maintenance so they can steal the plans with a thumb drive, then set the thing on fire using some cleaning supplies, and cripple our 20 billion dollar super destroyer and build some cheap chinese knockoffs. Why build something new, if we are just going to let China steal it? FAIL.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Reply
    • Andrey

      That is assuming they even need anything like that!

      October 29, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Reply
    • bob aussie

      You've been watching too much NCIS...

      October 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Reply
  42. David

    Between this and the F35 fiasco we are a sad bunch of losers.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Reply
    • anchorite

      But we are a proud bunch of sad losers. Too bad you can't eat pride.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:56 pm | Reply
  43. JJ

    There were supposed to be more than 30 of these built. Then they were discovered to have certain vulnerabilities to missile attacks. They still send out as much radar return as a fishing boat. The Russians and Chinese can see fishing boats on their radars. Even the Iranians likely can. About the only good thing about them is their future ability to use rail guns and laser guns for fire support duties. But those technologies are not ready to deploy yet...maybe in the next ten or fifteen years. Only 3 will be built now, due to mission changes, more realistic expectations of un-ripe technologies, and severe cost overruns. Sorry to put a black eye on this cool-seeming ship.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Reply
    • JustSomeGuy

      If the Chinese can see a fishing boat then they will expect it to be a fishing boat. By the time they realize it isn't then it will be too late.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:49 pm | Reply
      • bob aussie

        Why not just sink the fishing boat? If it's an unexpected fishing boat in non-fishing areas, I don't think any naval commander would hesitate to blow it out of the water and ask questions later, if in a critical war situation. Can you imagine the stir if headlines read "Chinese destroys US Naval Stealth Ship, Mistaking it for a Fishing Boat."

        October 29, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
    • Thinker...

      Its smaller radar signature does mean that it can get closer before showing up on look down radar though. Particularly if the enemy 'knows' there are a few fishing boats in the area. Probably not worth the cost of the stealth, but you never know what will give you the advantage you need in war. Definitely don't need more than 3 right now though. Once the rail guns and lasers are ready though...

      October 29, 2013 at 2:56 pm | Reply
  44. festivusfortherestofus

    If all else fails, perhaps it can be used as an icebreaker with that prow.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Reply
  45. History Bear

    And some yahoo with a RPG wil put a hole in the carbon fiber and sink the boat. Is it any good in shallow water against pirates, how's it do against subs ? Stealth fighters? What about a fleet action- unlikely but yoa gotta prepare- run out of anti=air real quick. Looks like the F-35 boondoggle. Designed to fight last century's war.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Reply
    • uh..no

      wow...talk about an uneducated comment

      October 29, 2013 at 2:40 pm | Reply
    • festivusfortherestofus

      Understand where you are coming from but isn't a destroyer simply an escort vessel designed to be part of a carrier defence scheme? In past wars they acted as convoy escorts. Maybe the navy has re-tasked this vessel after all its longer than the Arizona which could at least put it in a cruiser category.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:43 pm | Reply
    • dadguy

      You have no idea what just one of these things means to a battlegroup. nevermind an eventual fleet of them in time. This vessel represent the apex of littoral combat and technology. It will do just fine.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:43 pm | Reply
    • ReadingComprehension

      Super structure implies the carbon fiber is above the water line...

      October 29, 2013 at 2:45 pm | Reply
    • northerstar

      Too bad you didn't pay attention to the movie Capt. Phillips; you would know that the pirates that took him hostage were operating 200 miles out to sea. I imagine that this destroyer will manage just fine 200 miles out to sea. I won't waste my time on the rest on your nonsense posting.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:02 pm | Reply
    • NukEvil

      Wait, if a destroyer is designed to be part of a battle group, then what is the point of it being stealth? I mean, what, are the Chinese just going to overlook the other vessels, such as the giant supercarrier the destroyer is supposed to be guarding, and go "Hmm, I see the giant supercarrier, the anti-aircraft ships, the anti-missile ships, the guided missile cruisers, and the submarines, but...wait, I don't see any destroyers! We've got this one in the bag!!"

      October 29, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Reply
  46. FredT

    I want one for Christmas!

    October 29, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Reply
  47. Nogods

    So how exactly is this designed to stop a man with a pressure cooker bomb?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Reply
    • Major Tom

      It's not. We're still fighting the cold war. The Pentagon is always 3 wars behind in tactics.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Reply
      • TallinOK

        So true.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
  48. MDB

    Very cool. I'd like to see it running flat out.
    And to all the bleeding hearts, this is what the feds are suppose to spend money on.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Reply
    • Tom Hall

      Wonderful weapon but at 10 BILLION a ship isn't it a bit excessive? Another case of the military getting a blank check wish list and then Congress slashing funding due to overruns when they find out the new, untested technology is going to cost several times more than estimated.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Reply
      • Wendell

        We could have bought 2 of these for less than what it cost us when the Tea Party shut the government down for a couple of weeks.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
  49. Dan

    I'm sure Admiral Zumwalt would be proud to have his name on this ship, Admiral Zumwalt was the Chief of Naval operations in the 70's and not some low life street person.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Reply
  50. Illumin8ted

    I am a veteran and am generally pro-military as I believe that a strong defense is important. By the time a threat emerges it is often too late to develop new tech in time to be useful.

    But I too question our defense budget. We are spending money like its WW3. But I figure there are few willing question the military, fearing either political or conventional assassination. Barring an Alien incursion, I'd say our military spending could use some trimming.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Reply
    • eatchicken

      Military is one of the ONLY things the Federal Govt should spend money on.
      We are a republic of States. The States are supposed to govern themselves. The Federal Government is supposed to protect our country and our interests overseas. That's pretty much it. Everything else is an abuse of power, and was never intended. The Federal Government is not supposed to affect our lives in the ways that it currently does. Wake up.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:42 pm | Reply
    • JustSomeGuy

      I agree that we are spending far too much money on the military but I am solidly for investing money on new tech that will maintain our advantage that also keeps our soldiers and sailors out of harms way. I think the savings need to be found in the typical government bloat.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Reply
    • sly

      Well put. I am pretty liberal, but America needs a state of the art military.

      And we do spend way too much on the military.

      But, cutting trillion dollar budgets requires analysis and intelligent access to information. You don't just read an article and say "whoa that costs a lot. Whichever military expert with 40 years experience and several masters degrees designed it was a fool. We should not have built this".

      October 29, 2013 at 3:19 pm | Reply
  51. carl

    It's still just a tin can, but then tin cans rule the seas, Go Navy!!!1

    October 29, 2013 at 2:34 pm | Reply
    • TheBob

      You have the ship confused with your skull.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Reply
      • Jim

        2/10.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
  52. MissouriBoy

    Stealth is fine against radar systems, but cheap aerial drones will see it easily. Iran, China, and NK have plenty of these. Even at night, this boat will be detectable by our enemies using IR cameras. The stealth design will make it more difficult to target with long range missiles that use radar guidance systems. Missiles using GPS to get to the general vicinity, then using optical targeting, may be effective against this ship. If I was Iran, I would use drones to locate it and then fast patrol boats with smart torpedoes to attack it. I hope it has good defensive weapons. If it depends mostly on its low radar signature, it may be in trouble.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Reply
    • uh..no

      yeah,. anything is easy to see if you're right over it but drones won't easily be able to seek them out.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Reply
    • He's Dead Jim

      Defense systems aboard ships that have been around since the 80's are still classified. Do you honestly think anything Iran or NK has would actually pose a significant threat to this thing? The answer is no. I can not imagine what type of weapons systems this thing has, but I do know that I would not want to be on the receiving end of any of them.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:40 pm | Reply
      • Dean

        That's what they said about the Stark. They were just as wrong then as you are now.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
    • TheThinker

      You think it will be "easy" to see a ship out at see? The whole point of Radar is to search large areas electronically. Visual search is much more difficult than civilians would expect. Plus, most anti-ship missiles target by radar. GPS targeting is unacceptable since the ship is moving. A radar-guided missile might have trouble hitting a stealth ship.

      Having said all that, $9B for THREEE destroyers????? Armor is cheaper than stealth, get some old battleship plans, put gas turbines in them, remove the main turrets, viola! Destroyer capability for $100M, and the enemy can hit it with all they've got and it won't sink!

      October 29, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Reply
  53. Kedric Wolfe

    Are we never to grow up?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Reply
  54. M

    Great . We are fighting people who live in caves and this should help immensely. And at only $20 billion for 3 ships., what a deal.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Reply
    • carl

      Hey! Defense contractors and their worker bees have to eat also

      October 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Reply
    • Ozzi

      boondoggle. Navy is trying desparately to remain relavent.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Reply
      • Rhino

        Relivant? Last I checked 75% of this planet was covered by water. The Navy will always be relivant. Further more, we don't just prepare for the current threat but also for the threat that we haven't seen yet.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • Wendell

      The Tea Party idiots shouldn't have shut the government down for 2 or 3 weeks, the 24 Billion we wasted during that time would have paid for the ships.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:25 pm | Reply
  55. Badly-Bent

    Is there a landing strip for the drones? How does it retrieve the drones?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Reply
    • MiBigAl

      It doesn't need a landing strip. It uses the giant vacuum created by the enormous hole in the economy to suck the drones right out of mid air.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Reply
  56. George patton

    I can see chinese are already downloading or using satellites to capture images, so they can imitate the DDG-1000 class of destroyer.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:30 pm | Reply
    • Wesley Atkinson

      We could use more of these! We need to do away with Medicare, Medicaid, National Parks, Roads, Food Stamps, Public Schools, Public Colleges, Court System, Prisons, EPA, FDA to name a few and divert the money into making MORE WEAPONS!

      October 29, 2013 at 2:53 pm | Reply
    • Andrey

      They will have to copy your military bureaucrats first: so they would explain why China needs such a ship!

      October 29, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Reply
  57. Staf Coyote

    Vessels like this will never be used. They will be considered too precious to be hazarded in combat, or in situations where they might sustain nonbattle damage. The best use for these ornamental warships will be as a "fleet in being," safely anchored in Hampton Roads or in Puget Sound.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:27 pm | Reply
  58. Rick

    I paid for 7 whatsits the other day but when it came time for them to be delivered the manufacturer gave me 4 and told me they were more expensive to make than he had anticipated so that was all I was gonna get. I wasn't okay with that.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Reply
  59. dbrock

    Is Obama aware that we have stealth destroyers now? Someone should tell him.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Reply
  60. Clarence LeBlanc

    The defense budget is simply am economic stilulous the economy is now addicted to. 500 billion a year could be wiped off the books and the US would be just as safe. We all know calling a defense budget is a joke. Take the offese out of the defense budget and we take care of the debt...simple as that. 3000 tanks no one wants or needs are being built. B 52 that drop bombs destined for museums are being built in all 50 states. If the federal goverment must inject money into the economy to keep things rolling why not do it in something productive like education. Watch "Why we Fight", it was not suppose to be like this. That being said...cool boat. With the other half of the trillion dollars we spend anually...fill your boots!

    October 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Reply
  61. jimdog33

    Money well spent....

    October 29, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Reply
    • Staf Coyote

      Well spent? We must agree to differ.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Reply
      • Darkmyst

        Sarcasm. Look it up.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
    • bob

      You mean Borrowed.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Reply
      • oneslydragon

        Borrowed and spent, GOP economic paradigm

        October 29, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
      • Just Me

        Printed

        October 29, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
  62. Happy Gilmore

    We have a new enemy, and that is climate change. After we solve climate chane, then we can all go back to killing each other!

    October 29, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Reply
    • Organic1

      Just for reference – climate change has been around since the beginning of Earth. Not sure how you plan to change that, but I bet it won't work. And it isn't an enemy, it is a first.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Reply
      • Just Me

        Not even a first; Sorry.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
  63. Gelli

    Very nice! Looks like a pretty good copy of the RN's 'Daring' class that came out a few years ago!
    The comments about the grammar and punctuation of this article are well deserved.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Reply
  64. Tom

    do you think your freedom is free? given the chance the world would love to take it away. why do we need this? because who wants to go to war with even odds...if i am getting shot at, i want the upper hand. before you run your mouth try doing a tour protecting your country.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • Smarter than Tom

      Spoken like a true degenerate. These tools are used to assert dominance across the world. NOT protecting the "freedom" that stupid people think that they have.Thank god that people go overseas to kill other people so that I can have the freedom to not live my life the way I would choose to.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Reply
      • Just Me

        Force is the ultimate in diplomacy; to prove my point look through history for the civilizations that do not exist anymore.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
      • sly

        True – force has always been a deterance.

        For those new to this idea, just study what President Obama did in Syria. His threat of force (not even supported by the right wingers who always love a war) made Syria and Russia sit down and now there are plans to eliminate all the chemical weapons, rather than bomb them all over the world.

        Speak softly and carry a big stick. That is our Administration's doctrine, invented quite a few years ago.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • George McFly

      Oh please. You keep telling yourself that. You people and your cliche propaganda nonsense.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Reply
      • George McFly

        Yeah, what Smarter Than Tom said.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
      • oneslydragon

        Beats the heck out of waking up to reality. Boss, zee plane, zee plane...

        October 29, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
  65. Jack White

    Stealth my @ss. I can see it without my glasses on.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • Staf Coyote

      LOL!

      October 29, 2013 at 2:29 pm | Reply
    • Badly-Bent

      Are you saying it doesn't look like fishing vessel to you?

      October 29, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Reply
  66. are122

    I thought it might have a rail gun.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • Just Me

      Working on it.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:56 pm | Reply
  67. Staf Coyote

    A badly written article celebrating an overpriced monstrosity. That tumblehome hull is the kind of thing that will lose waterplane area in the event of flooding. When, not if, that happens, stability goes away, righting arm and moment disappear, and a multibillion dollar prestige ship capsizes. The taxpayers' money was not well spent, evidenced by the fact that the program was cut to just three units. When will DoD realize that building huge, expensive, toys like this is not the best way to defend this nation?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • Synk

      I totally believe your take! Over, say, you know, the naval architects who were designing a war ship.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Reply
      • Staf Coyote

        Concerns have been expressed by far better informed observers than you. When you have something substantive to offer, ask mom and dad to let you back on the computer, son.

        October 30, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
      • Staf Coyote

        BTW, the righting arm of your brain is nonexistent. You've managed to capsize under the weight of you inability to do anything but snipe at those better informed than you. Your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge. You might want to research the subject before popping off.

        October 30, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • JA

      So what's it like being an armchair general?

      October 29, 2013 at 3:02 pm | Reply
      • Staf Coyote

        You don't need to be an armchair admiral to know problematic design. Now ask mom to make you a PB&J and go back to your basement.

        October 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
  68. Brian

    What an absolutely ridiculous waste of money.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • Taral

      I agree, The Lone Ranger was terrible.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Reply
    • Dean

      If we hadn't wasted money like this in the past, you would not be speaking English now.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Reply
  69. Ryan Texas

    This is a big stick that we hopefully won't have to use.
    I'm not sure that there will be many more though. Seems like everything is going unmanned.
    Take away the people and you don't need ships this large.
    One drone torpedo can sink this ship.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:22 pm | Reply
    • sly

      Amazing number of ignorant burger flippers commenting on here about the work of astro-physicists, electronic's genius's and military experts.

      So in between dropping the french fries into the grease you have time to become a military expert who knows how to sink a $10 billion ship?

      Listen burger flipper – name me one modern US ship that our enemies have destroyed. We'll wait until you are done with your next customer.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Reply
      • Staf Coyote

        Tell us, O sly one, how negligence almost cost us the USS Cole.

        October 30, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
  70. James

    $20 billion for THREE ships, and to pay for it, we need to cut food stamps for the poor ?

    No wonder this country is so screwed up.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:22 pm | Reply
    • Stop the Madness

      James,

      Do you suggest that we terminate our defense budget? Two things will happen if we do:

      1. We will become weaker
      2. Tens of thousands of very professional people will be out of a job.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Reply
      • Treebeard

        Do you suggest that we terminate our defense budget?

        We spend more than the next ten countries COMINED.
        This isn't for defending America.
        Its playing warlord.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
      • Treebeard

        Combined....
        Damned keyboard....

        October 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
      • Stop the Madness

        Treebeard,

        If you cut the budget. Tens of thousands of people will lose their jobs. Do you not see this as a problem?

        October 29, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
      • Bilbo Laggins

        Weaker? We spend more on 'Defense' than the next 13 (or so) nations in the world. What are we defending the US from... backwards countries with a lot of money making opportunities, home-grown terrorists, and kids on anti-depressants?

        Why not put a few of those people to work rebuilding Detroit or reforming the public school system!

        October 29, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
      • sly

        It is hypocritical of Republicans to talk about reducing the debt when they voted 8 straight years to increase it (when the President was white). 'Reducing the debt' is really code word for 'keep those 50 million Americans from getting health care, since most are not white'.

        But, our military is way overfed, and military spending creates fewer jobs than any other industrial spending.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
      • cr

        I don't understand why we have to have a defense budget that is out of control so that professional people can continue to be employed? Aren't their services desirable elsewhere? People complain about wasting money to support the poor (pick a terrible gov't program) but are okay wasting money to support the professional employees? It Is almost like the DoD budget is welfare for those employed in that arena.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
      • Stop the Madness

        @Bilbo – Nice suggestions. However, your solution of moving professionals for here to there does not lower cost.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
      • RMW Stanford

        1. We could signifcantly cut military spending and still have a military in terms of power that dwarfs that of any other nations or any combinations of nations we have any chance of facing in a war.

        2. The money that pays for those jobs is taken out of the private economy either through taxes, that reduces the ability of citizen to consume, or from borrowing, that reduces the amount of funds aviablable for private buiness to borrow to invest and grow the economy. All it does is redistrubt jobs and economy activity from one sector of the economy to another. The military has many uses but being a job programs is not one of them.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
  71. Dee

    This sounds great but why oh why do we tell details like this when we have terrorists that read this $#@!! Why tell us about it? Keep it top secret that way terrorists won't know our biz.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:22 pm | Reply
    • John

      You watch way too many bad movies. How are you going to hide this from ANYONE, especially when 150 people serve on it? And how is this general, obvious knowledge going to assist the sandal-wearing terrorists? The range of the ordinance, the length and width of the ship? How is that in any way going to help the terrorists, you nimcompoop?

      October 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Reply
      • Guy

        If we don't want you to know about something, we will literally spend billions so you don't find out.

        October 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
  72. Brad

    Excellent. I'm glad to see this super secret ship is stealthily being brought out for all the world to see

    October 29, 2013 at 2:20 pm | Reply
    • Taral

      "Stealth" does not mean "It's existence is classified."

      October 29, 2013 at 2:22 pm | Reply
  73. Tony

    Could they come up with a better name?? ZUMWALT – sounds like some low life street word

    October 29, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Reply
    • mg

      zumwalt was an Admiral you moron.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Reply
    • John

      Learn your history, you moron. Amazing how people like you love to share their ignorance with the world.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Reply
    • Metaverse

      Elmo Russell "Bud" Zumwalt, Jr. (November 29, 1920 – January 2, 2000) was an American naval officer and the youngest man to serve as Chief of Naval Operations.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Reply
    • Donald

      Elmo Russell "Bud" Zumwalt, Jr. (November 29, 1920 – January 2, 2000) was an American naval officer and the youngest man to serve as Chief of Naval Operations. As an admiral and later the 19th Chief of Naval Operations, Zumwalt played a major role in U.S. military history, especially during the Vietnam War. A decorated war veteran, Zumwalt reformed U.S. Navy personnel policies in an effort to improve enlisted life and ease racial tensions. He retired from a 32-year Navy career.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Reply
    • raffy1956

      you must be an obama voter! zumwalt is the name of a US admiral

      October 29, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Reply
    • Dan Schulte

      Elmo Zumwalt, youngest rear admiral in USN history, was a highly decorated officer with WWII and Vietnam battle experience. Chief Naval Officer for Nixon's presidency. In a long line of dedicated officers who spent their lives in defense of the country

      October 29, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Reply
    • Seeing-eye Cat

      I like the name Kumquat better.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Reply
    • Dr. T

      Tony, there are people I suspect are ignorant. Others, like you, open their mouth or post their comments and confirm it for the world to see. Wow.... We don't expect everyone to memorize information, but in this day and age, all you'd have to do is Google "Zumwalt" before you post that.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Reply
  74. wow

    War. Our top export!

    October 29, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Reply
  75. Taral

    Gotta say that is pretty snazzy looking. I prefer planes myself but new ships are always neat

    October 29, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Reply
  76. Eugene

    Amazing. Working on that boat would be an amazing experience.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:16 pm | Reply
    • are122

      Calling it a "boat" automatically disqualified you.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Reply
      • Just Me

        Not if he is yardbird.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
      • Navy Vet

        Nah...spoken like a Sailor.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
  77. D

    Not very stealth if CNN reporters found it

    October 29, 2013 at 2:15 pm | Reply
    • Bob

      Exactly what I was thinking....

      October 29, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Reply
    • Mike Dwellinger

      Definition of Stealth: Designed in accordance with technology that makes detection by radar or sonar difficult.

      So you are saying that CNN is radar or sonar?

      October 29, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Reply
  78. The Joker

    Where does he get all those wonderful toys!

    October 29, 2013 at 2:15 pm | Reply
  79. buongiorno

    anyone who abuses advantages to protect life and a country with this type of military equipment should be ostratized

    October 29, 2013 at 2:13 pm | Reply
  80. OldSchool

    Nice!

    October 29, 2013 at 2:13 pm | Reply
  81. Blue Ball

    Who writes for CNN now–4th graders? "Finally it will be able to carry and launch two Seahawk helicopters or four unmanned aerial vehicle."

    October 29, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Reply
    • Amar

      Please donot insult our 4th graders.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:18 pm | Reply
    • Vladtheinhaler

      I think CNN is outsourcing their writers and editors to middle middle schools.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Reply
  82. webman6

    This is one of the most poorly written pieces I have ever seen. That aside, what an incredible warship. Too bad it's also an incredible waste of money. A "stealth destroyer"? You have got to be kidding me. There can't possibly be an actual need for something like this. Surface vessels can always be spotted from satellites.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Reply
    • OldSchool

      Iran, for example, has highly advanced torpedoes that this sort of design is built to ward off.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:15 pm | Reply
    • Teej443

      Satellite reconnaissance of naval formations is fairly difficult as you only have a narrow window when the satellite has correct orbital location to snap photos. Therefore it is very difficult to ascertain dynamic changes in position, tactical positioning, etc. Not impossible, but tough as naval formations are not static locations such as terrorist camps, missile (non mobile) sites etc

      October 29, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Reply
    • Laloman

      It is to counter speeding boats and submarines.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:20 pm | Reply
    • JDD

      Cloud cover can negate spotting the ship from space – which is, in any event, more difficult than spotting it on radar – and part of the stealth capability is meant to make it difficult for radar guided missiles to acquire.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • thecactusman17

      Precisely whom do you believe owns those satellites? And even then, you have to spot it first before you can start tracking it. This is a big ship, but it's a big ship on a huge ocean. There are still ghost ships floating around out there that can't be found just because even for a big ship, you could be searching tens of thousands of square miles for the proverbial needle in a haystack. Radar is what allows us to get an idea of where something is when we don't see it on satellite.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:29 pm | Reply
    • MissouriBoy

      Agree, Satellites are useless to detect this, but cheap aerial drones will see it easily. Iran, China, and NK have plenty of these. Even at night, this boat will be detectable by our enemies using IR cameras. The stealth design will make it more difficult to target with long range missiles that use radar guidance systems. Missiles using GPS to get to the general vicinity, then using optical targeting, may be effective against this ship. I hope it has good defensive weapons. If it depends on its low radar signature, it may be in trouble.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:30 pm | Reply
      • Just Me

        What about pumping sea water into pipes on the hull; then not more IR to see; same temp as sea. You did think about that; Right?

        October 29, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
    • For-Whom-The-Bell-Tolls

      From a popular science magazine a year ago: "If geopolitical events call for securing nuclear facilities in an unraveling North Korea or Iran, the Zumwalt is the Navy's surest way to arrive unannounced"

      October 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Reply
  83. Phelix Unger

    Sounds really cool, would like to see it in exercises next year. I imgine it will be classified footage, still, sounds like an incredible ship.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:10 pm | Reply
  84. Grey1

    As much as I understand taking pride in being in the service or formally active it makes no sense to me why in times of social-economic crisis do our tax dollars go for such expensive toys. Boggles the mind

    October 29, 2013 at 2:08 pm | Reply
    • nomad2003

      all spent in the USA... complaint about the tax dollars that went for energy projects built OUTSIDE the USA..

      October 29, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Reply
    • The cost is nothing

      I would spend the money gladly if our Government quit sending billions to our enemies in the middle ease.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • Common Nonsense

      It all boils down to Congress (both parties) – building this ship means jobs in a congressman's district, so while they pay lipservice that they want to cut the budget, they make sure this program gets funded anyway so they can get re-elected. You want to see the debt decrease? Impose term limits on Congress.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • OldSalt

      If you believe in big government, then you should take comfort in the fact that hundreds of shipyard workers and other defense contractors were employed.

      If you believe a strong military is critical then take comfort in the fact that this ship is utilizing the latest technology.

      If you believe WW3 is around the corner and China is just as likely to be our opponent as anyone else, take comfort in the stealth technology that will be used to counter China's published strategy of launching thousands of older technology anti-ship missiles in a potential conflict.

      If the debt is your only concern, the there is small comfort in the fact that only 3 of these were built.

      Hope this helps.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Reply
      • Tony

        Amen!

        October 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
    • Tom

      Amen to that! But careful though, you wouldn't want to draw the ire of the military industrial complex lobbying machine and spoil their little operation.

      Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and now Obamacare expenses simply PALE in comparison to our Department of Offense War Machine.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Reply
  85. civilian reader

    Great engineering. Glad to see ingenuity. Horrible grammar, though. And paragraph 11 calls the ship "DDX" instead of "DDG". Which one is it? Don't write an article that makes Americans proud of their armed forces, and slaughter it with terrible editing...

    October 29, 2013 at 2:08 pm | Reply
    • El Guapito

      Relax...Chill out man. Why so critical? DDX maybe a designation for "experimental". Remember the MX- Missile back in the 80's. MX stood for Missile Experimental. Have a nice day.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm | Reply
    • Not Really

      Not such great engineering. The way the hull slopes inward (tumblehome) is good for reducing the radar profile, but it's inherently less stable than a traditional design. It's so questionable that the style hasn't been used in over a hundred years – not until now, when its stealth advantages (arguably) outweigh the risks. Several engineers have questioned whether this design will capsize in very rough waters.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Reply
    • Navy4Life

      The ship is a DDX not a DDG.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Reply
  86. Joe

    How's that debt coming along there?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:07 pm | Reply
    • The cost is nothing

      Obama said its all for your good.Get used to the spending spree.Blame it on Bush and the Republicans.Remember the democrats can do no wrong.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Reply
    • TazTheSpaz

      The USA's? Less than the typical homeowners I would imagine.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Reply
      • TazTheSpaz

        Debt/income, that is

        October 29, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
  87. Kelly

    When I read this type of stuff, it makes me want to be a writer. This piece is loaded with grammatical errors.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:06 pm | Reply
  88. Donna

    I love coastal Maine! That ship doesn't look like it belongs there.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:06 pm | Reply
  89. Pfft

    The empire must roll on!! While they are gearing up to dominate the world and get ready for future wars, they are cutting off meals for wheels and shortening foodstamps for senior systems who don't make enough from SS/SSI to even feed themselves. Three billion in aid to Israel every year, $100,000,000 to Syria, while over 16 million kids right here in america struggle to eat, and they do nothing but continue to make cuts and distribute wealth from the lower/middle class to the rich. This country is a #ng joke.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Reply
    • Disheartened

      I was thinking the exact same thing....

      October 29, 2013 at 2:16 pm | Reply
    • mike

      They do nothing? I'm guessing the nearly $700 billion in social expenditures is considered "nothing" to simpletons.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Reply
    • doug

      There's an opening in Denmark available for you...

      October 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Reply
  90. Jonathan

    Why do we need this?

    October 29, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Reply
  91. daeh ttub

    Time to go pirate hunting off Somalia and Nigera... Surprise!

    October 29, 2013 at 2:04 pm | Reply
    • Gub

      not sure those pirates are using a lot of radar my friend, defeating the purpose of the stealth ship. Not sure their boats all have motors!

      October 29, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Reply
      • The cost is nothing

        Obama gonna give dem motors for der boats.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
      • Dr. T

        Riiiiggggghhhhtttt!!! They're out there in canoes paddling REAL fast to catch up to the freighters they target. (rolls my eyes)

        October 29, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
  92. Erik aka Educatedsnob

    Great. Nobody is going to push us around at sea now! We really needed this . . . to feel . . . safe.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Reply
    • CBruce

      Must not be paying much attention to what China's been up to.

      Everyone openly mocked MIttens for talking about building new destroyers. Obama mocked Romney for it. Yet here we are.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:08 pm | Reply
      • lorynx

        Actually, everyone mocked Romney about air craft carriers.

        They also mocked him about his idea to give more to the military than the military had asked for.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
      • JMV

        You must be a Repub, Obama had nothing to do with, that started way before his time, go back in your hole.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
  93. Donna

    I love Maine waters!

    October 29, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Reply
  94. Andrew Klein

    A ship that is whoafully overpriced, in an environment were surface warships haven't seen combat since Operation: Preying Mantis in the '80s against the "Navy" of Iran. What a terrible waste of money.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Reply
    • Dr. T

      Surface warships have seen action much more recently than that. Do you remember watching clips on the news of surface ships (Destroyers and battleships) to fire cruise missiles? You know, those thing mentioned in the article that the Zumwalt can carry?? Did you read the articles when the US was considering striking Syria – "surface ships" with cruise missiles would have been involved in that strike.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Reply
  95. SpenderH

    This article is poorly written and obviously not proof-read. That's CNN for you.
    "That three times farther than ordinary destroyer guns can fire." "The shipbuilder, plans to finish construction and turn the ship over to the Navy next year."

    October 29, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Reply
    • Kelly

      Yep. I was a bit blown away by the writing. It almost overshadowed the whole story.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:08 pm | Reply
    • Sad

      I wish I could "thumbs up" your comment.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:28 pm | Reply
  96. David York

    Great! How many people will we kill with this thing???

    October 29, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      Probably none, we don't really engage anyone on open water anymore.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:12 pm | Reply
      • Donna

        Send it to intercept pirates off the coast of Africa.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
  97. Martin R

    Frightening.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Reply
  98. david

    What an extraordinary feat of engineering! I read this article with pride. Congratulations.

    October 29, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Reply
  99. America

    USA USA USA!!!

    October 29, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Reply
    • Wow

      Who are you afraid of now?...oh right...everyone.

      October 29, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Reply
      • Tony

        Sounds more like pride than fear. There are such things a massive Chinese naval efforts and
        Somali pirates.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
      • anchorite

        Somali pirates have outboard motor boats, and no, the Chinese navy is not attacking us. I think I would have noticed that.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
  100. Bill Ball

    Wish they had this when I was in.

    October 29, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Reply
    • Juan

      Me too, I thought I was doing something when I was on an Aegis, but this is too cool

      October 29, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Reply
      • The cost is nothing

        We had them river boats when I was in Nam.They was state of the art back then.Just ask the Cong.

        October 29, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
      • Dr. T

        The Zumwalt is pretty awesome, but the Aegis system is no slouch!! I'm guessing they have that on the Zumwalt, actually. Pretty effective defense system!

        October 29, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • lordbinder1

      Thank you no. I liked my P-3's

      October 29, 2013 at 2:04 pm | Reply
      • Marcus

        I spent many happy hours in P-3's back in the day, Julie, Jezz, and radar was my beat. WestPac warriors, we had our fun. The ship looks interesting and a radar cross section of a fishing boat is pretty good for a ship that size, but I ran in on a floating palm tree from 20 miles out while on a patrol in the India Ocean west of PhuKet back in '73.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply to bob, Kansas City


 

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.