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. iComment

    Looks like Steve Jobs' iBoat or the iDestroyer

    October 29, 2013 at 7:01 pm | Reply
  2. Stephen Jones

    The Money would be better spent on submarines; true stealth ships with 0 radar signature.

    October 29, 2013 at 6:59 pm | Reply
  3. johndcross1

    Be always be reminded that China & Russia are watching this vessel. They will copy, steal & spy to have a vessel of this kind for their own.

    October 29, 2013 at 6:53 pm | Reply
    • sybaris

      What?! No way!

      You mean to tell me other countries spy and steal classified information?!

      October 29, 2013 at 7:03 pm | Reply
  4. seems a tad pricey

    For that price it better have rail guns and laser cannons...

    October 29, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Reply
  5. Steve

    A real expensive non-essential armament, very profitable for Defense Contractors, today and in the future.

    For the $7B, each taxpayer needs to contribute about $200.. for this one ship, and more to operate and maintain it.

    October 29, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Reply
    • creepin

      You bi**ch now but when its saving your ass you'll be greatfull......

      October 29, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Reply
    • gi gi giggidy

      Non essential? Why don't you go find a story about the kardashians to post comments about. I think that'll be a bit more fitting for our mental capacity.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Reply
    • MIchael John Anthony

      $7bn divided by 350m is $20. Unless you believe there are only 35,000 people paying tax in the US.

      October 29, 2013 at 7:04 pm | Reply
      • Steve

        35 million.. after EITC, etc

        October 29, 2013 at 7:56 pm |
      • John in WNY

        Well first I'd have to ask why there are only 35M taxpayers, and second you also forgot that 30% or so of it is being billed to our children and our children's children.

        October 30, 2013 at 11:55 am |
  6. Dreamer96

    what is really cool about this ship is it can submerge like a sub and pretend to be a whale under water...cool...

    October 29, 2013 at 6:45 pm | Reply
    • wllmshwn

      Cool doesn't win wars. It takes sacrifice paid in blood. War was never meant to be easy. But that is something our generation will have to rediscover. I'm not trying to attack your comment, I'm only trying to tell you that war is ugly and machines don't guarantee our freedom. Blood, steal and souls protect your freedom. The less blood you sacrifice, the less freedom you have. These lobbyist initiated pipe dreams steal billions of dollars from things that actually work; people sending rounds down range. So that is why I think our money should go to creating more Service members and not less. Being that the world has started to become free game. We need to consider bringing back the Draft. Syria should be an example to us all that times have changed and there are other players out there like the Shanghai Corporation. Look it up. Russia, China and a lot of other litttle nations are trying to recreate the Warsaw Pact. We need national cohesion, not expensive equipment.

      October 29, 2013 at 7:01 pm | Reply
  7. Uncle Al

    One intensely doubts a Naval officer would sacrifice his über-expensive ride to accomplish a mission and scuttle his career. Does the carbon composite blister in seawater or decompose in sunlight in the usual manner of carbon composites? Unlike a metal hull, I suspect this one will be shattered rather than dented by a shock wave. How is it repaired at sea? How does it do with incendiaries (re discontinued aluminum hulls)?

    October 29, 2013 at 6:37 pm | Reply
    • Dreamer96

      Boeing's 787 Dreamliner has a possible problem any fire that exceeds 400 degrees F will cause the glue to melt,...and the plane will weaken and fall from the sky...Interesting one of the big problems with the Dreamliner is the electrical system and the need to maintain a very good grounding system...

      October 29, 2013 at 6:48 pm | Reply
    • DasBoot

      The hull is steel, only the superstructure is composite

      October 29, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Reply
  8. JC

    It looks like a damned submarine. Why aren't we just building subs? Aren't they actually the real ultimate in stealth? Besides, being able to engage targets 60 miles away doesn't count for much when 3 guys in a Zodiac can blow a hole in your quarter inch thick steal hull at point blank distance. In what possible way is this ship going to do anything to help us confront piracy, terrorism, or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Let's face it: this ship was designed to fulfill a role that ended over 30 years ago. Go team us!

    October 29, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Reply
  9. Jim in PA

    Just a helpful note to CNN; while the guns on this ship may have a range of 60 miles, the on-board Tomahawk missiles will have a range closer to 1,500 miles. You should really clarify that this ship has a weapons rage far far greater than the 60 miles you state in the beginning of the article.

    October 29, 2013 at 6:34 pm | Reply
    • wllmshwn

      That is 1, 500 total miles of travel, meaning that the current tomakawks have been designed to track terrorist for long hours. That is why their top speed is only 500 mph. That's nothing when an S-300 is in the equation. We have degraded our military to fighting peasant. Everyone eles on the planet is upgrading to fight total war.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:43 pm | Reply
      • John in WNY

        Ummm tomahawks don't track anything, they are given a target and they fly to, and then into it.

        You appear to be confusing drones like the Predator with a land attack cruise missile.

        October 30, 2013 at 11:59 am |
  10. wllmshwn

    Passive radar technology. Look it up.

    October 29, 2013 at 6:31 pm | Reply
  11. Had It

    What a complete waste of MY money. Schools ranked out of the top 10, our infrastructure is falling down around us, our country about to go bankrupt and our Gov. finds ways to pay for JUNK like this... just like that Bosnians, we able to shoot down one of our 'Stealth" planes using cell phone towers... and they mothballed them. The Army just spent 300 Million $ on some piece of crap. then when it didn't work, sold it for 300 thousand. Waste of money and is not helping our troops in any way. Enough of the Toys for the Military.

    October 29, 2013 at 6:29 pm | Reply
    • Ric Ree

      Thank you. How many bridges could we have rebuilt with this money? How many police could we have put on the streets? How many hungry American kids could we have fed?

      Where and what are our priorities?

      This is for the folks who enjoy video war games; what about our people?

      October 30, 2013 at 9:10 pm | Reply
  12. feckless

    "Every gun that is made, EVERY WARSHIP LAUNCHED, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a THEFT from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

    It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

    The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

    It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

    It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

    We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

    We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

    This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking.

    This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
    President Dwight D. Eisenhower, (R)

    October 29, 2013 at 6:17 pm | Reply
    • Chiefdan

      Feckless....get real.....

      October 29, 2013 at 6:26 pm | Reply
    • Tom

      The world is not so simple as to present us with simplistic choices such as feeding the poor vs. building some warships. If a foreign power invades (because we have no military) and then kills the poor, would you advocate THAT as a good idea? Its happened in the past. Study world history.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:27 pm | Reply
      • dan

        How many countries EVER invaded us? How many countries have we INVADED?. Defense is good and necessary, but spending more than the 12 runner ups does not seem like a good investment to me. I think that our shrinking middle class would be better served by increases education, increased research, better health care than by a new war ship

        October 29, 2013 at 6:54 pm |
      • Ric Reed

        You worry about an invasion? Too much time watching "Red Dawn".
        Worry about real people an real problems; we don't have much to worry about from Costa Rica or is it Paraguay?

        Spend real money on real problems for real Americans.

        October 30, 2013 at 9:15 pm |
    • Louie

      Eisenhower is never mentioned by the far right. He would be tar and feathered as a Democrat by today's rampant Tea Bagger idiots that overran the insane asylum.

      And BTW.....fear of a foreign invader? 35% of our spending goes to the military industrial complex on sweet deals inked by politicians on both sides of the aisle to build tanks, planes, and bombs that the Pentagon doesn't even need. We also have the largest allotment of aircraft carriers than any other nation combined. I somehow doubt China will be invading the shores of South Beach any time soon.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Reply
      • raw4mrw

        Louie you are wrong on one thing. We have more working aircraft carriers than the rest of the WORLD combined. Also the biggest carrier of any other nation is less than half the size of our newest carriers. If there was even the slightest threat that another country was going to attack us I would be all for this huge waste of money. In fact no country has attacked the US since WWII. I just want to know how this mega money waster is going to stop a group of crazy jihad terrorist from doing another 9-11? That is what we need to be building system for. As far as a Tomahawk missile going 1500 miles that is real useful for blowing up a convoy of cars at half a million to a million and a half dollars per missile. By the time we finish blowing up all the potential terrorist convoys we will even broker as a country than we currently are.

        October 29, 2013 at 7:21 pm |
    • Koloth

      International politics and history 101. Any world power must be able to project their power over the seas. The English did it with their mighty fleet for over 200 years. The US as reigning world power must be able to project their power to friend and foe alike. You only need to look at China and their investment in their military in particular their navy. Within the next 20 years, their will be another arms race, this time with China.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:57 pm | Reply
  13. viranka

    i would not call it stealthy when you advertise it to the entire world over the net! sheeesh.

    October 29, 2013 at 6:17 pm | Reply
    • mike

      The idea is not to go to war. Projecting an image of military might is a deters war. And besides the oceans are so vast to be looking for the picture posted.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:55 pm | Reply
      • Ric Reed

        Against or toward whom are we projecting military power?

        Who is out there for us to fear? Stop playing games and project your concerns on our nation's real problems.

        October 30, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
  14. Methinks

    So the Bond movie came true......
    The World is Not Enough, or Tomorrow Never Dies?

    October 29, 2013 at 6:07 pm | Reply
  15. Kev

    USA!!! USA!!!! USA!!!!

    October 29, 2013 at 6:03 pm | Reply
    • Ric Reed

      brilliant...

      October 30, 2013 at 9:25 pm | Reply
  16. RCDC

    Hmm building Zumwalt, hmm 100 billion hmm, building more, hmm . This could be were all of the 16+ trillion national dept was going...hmm.. Our economy is sinking..hmm.

    October 29, 2013 at 6:00 pm | Reply
  17. Murika!

    This is just in time to help us avoid the radar on the Taliban's submarines.

    October 29, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Reply
    • Desert Tortoise

      No, the object is to be able to operate close to a certain western Pacific adversary's coast without being noticed by their considerable radar assets.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:00 pm | Reply
      • Ric Reed

        Are we monitoring the US dollars that are streaming to China? What a waste.

        October 30, 2013 at 9:28 pm |
    • NAVY, CWO$

      Submarines use sonar

      October 29, 2013 at 6:25 pm | Reply
  18. cpc65

    I happen to find the fact that it's design resembles the old ironclads to be really cool! Back during the Civil War those ships were state of the art. Now a century and a half later they're using some of the design concepts for improved stealth and speed applications. They just need a big, round turret on the top and they're all set.

    October 29, 2013 at 5:54 pm | Reply
  19. Alicia

    It's ugly

    October 29, 2013 at 5:52 pm | Reply
    • anonymous

      combat effectiveness takes precedence over looks, it has to look like that to be stealthy, that shape is what makes it stealthy.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Reply
    • Methinks

      Please be joking. Anyone who values style over substance is a disgrace to humanity; that said I think it looks sleek, not a word you hear too often when describing Naval ships, the chair force it is not.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:11 pm | Reply
      • Tom

        We'll lets see how many admirals want this as their flagship. What's wrong with commenting on the "beauty" of a warship? Its been going on for centuries.

        October 29, 2013 at 6:32 pm |
    • Craig

      The old architectural axiom applies. Form follows function!

      In other words, first it has to work. If it's beautiful (in your eyes) but doesn't work it's useless. In this case it is somewhat non-traditional, but then so were angled flight decks on carriers, and in an earlier day, so were gun turrets. Times change, some people don't.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:21 pm | Reply
    • homer498

      I totally agree with Alicia. They could have at least given it some pointy things, maybe a longer "stern" and a rounder "aft" deck. But no "masts" on this body, I want to just stare at your curves. Could you send some more pix (Alicia). If it don't have form, I no function.

      October 29, 2013 at 7:01 pm | Reply
  20. KawiMan

    It's time for a Village People reunion to reprise their song In The Navy.

    October 29, 2013 at 5:51 pm | Reply
  21. hitsa

    I just don't believe that a ship like this will not be detected and tracked from the day it is launched by many nations. With current satellite, submarine, drone and ocean sensor technology I find it hard to believe this ship will have any great advantage. Since technological advances are rapid, and the nature of this ship is known...we just dumped billions to the bottom of the ocean.

    October 29, 2013 at 5:49 pm | Reply
    • wllmshwn

      You are right. This huge waste of tax payers money can be tracked. The only way it couldn't is if it had a zero radar cross section. So once again we are spending our hard earned money on science fiction, defense department pipe dreams. And people wonder why we're broke.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:03 pm | Reply
    • Desert Tortoise

      Someone has never been to sea with the US Navy. You can literally hide a whole carrier and it's strike group from detection using weather and very strictly controlling emissions of radars and radios. Aircraft can operate from ships on radio silence using only light signals. Ships at sea practice communicating with signal lights all day every day at sea even in this day of instant satellite communication. You can hide a lot of iron under a big weather system and move about freely. Radar is severely degraded by wet clouds and rain. Infrared sensors likewise do not work well in weather. You can hide from satellites and with precautions to noise emissions hide from submarines too. Friendly satellites and land based aircraft and UAVs can function as the strike group's eyes, relaying sensor data to them with data links. An adversary might know your aircraft are flying around but that doesn't give then any information about the whereabouts of your ships.

      A ship like this will be very difficult for a radar to lock on, and very difficult for any kind of radar guided munitions to find and target, making them tough targets at sea. The idea is that their stealth makes it nearly impossible for enemy sensors to see it at ranges beyond the weapons of the ship, and also making it difficult for an enemy to identify it as a combat ship even after it is detected, givnig the ship the advantage of the first shot.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:07 pm | Reply
      • AM3

        Someone was an IS haha

        October 29, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
      • wllmshwn

        Yes you can on the offensive, but a country defending against a certain battlespace only needs to watch out for certain degrees. What you're talking about requires the enemy maneuvering on you or the other way around, and for that to work you have to operate in the open sea. I'm talking about coastal defense.

        October 29, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
      • RT Colorado

        That's why submarines are so effective, as to to the rest of that mythical belief that "weather" will protect the ship, and "radio silence" communicating with lights....you've been watching too many World War Two movies. Satellite using thermal imaging and electromagnetic search will pick that ship out from 200 miles in space, no problem. The wake of the ship will be visible from space and as for radio silence...yeah, count on that.....

        October 29, 2013 at 7:57 pm |
      • Desert Tortoise

        Hey Colorado, tell that to Admiral Ace Lyons. He snuck the Eisenhower and her escorts from Norfolk to the coast of Murmansk without the Soviets realizing it until a pair of F-14's buzzed a big TU-95 Bear that was being refueled. He hid the whole strike group in weather systems and the Sovs never knew where they were. We repeated this with two carriers in the Sea of Okhotsk. Ivan didn't realize he had company until we launched a mock Alpha strike and deliberately pulled up at the territorial limit. Using weather and other deceptions to hide carriers is a well practiced art.

        October 29, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
  22. Bob

    OK, so the enemy sees a fishing boat in the middle of the Pacific...hmmmmm could it be the stealth destroyer!!!!!!!

    October 29, 2013 at 5:48 pm | Reply
    • aldapal

      Our navy is guant. Honestly it can wage war against all nations combined. We have more carriers then all nations combined. Our strike position is everywhere and anywhere. Screw it rather throw money at this then lazy welfare trash

      October 29, 2013 at 6:19 pm | Reply
  23. MilitaryWaste

    With that kind of money they should have built the USS Enterprise instead. Stealth capabilities and can go in the water or underwater.

    October 29, 2013 at 5:48 pm | Reply
    • Tom

      Its hilarious when ppl like you who obviously know nothing, start spouting strong opinions.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:33 pm | Reply
      • MilitaryWaste

        It was a joke turd nugget. Someone's sarcasm meter is broken.

        October 30, 2013 at 3:55 am |
  24. Juxtapoz

    Boy, I'm sure the billions spent on this has really got all those Somali pirates shaking, because they've been so good at sinking our destroyers, aircraft carriers, and whatever else the Navy has. And just look at how the right wing goober monkeys cheer for this waste of our tax dollars. Spend 2 cents to improve our space program and they howl about NASA being worthless, but spend billions of dollars on warships we'll NEVER USE and they can't clap hard enough.

    Oops I forgot, we might end up using it the day after anyone from the GOP wins the White House, because if there's one thing in this whole sad universe you can count on, it's Republicans starting wars whenever they get a chance. Other than that, this thing will be as useless as the stealth bombers the Air Force doesn't use for much of anything.

    Then in a month, they'll all be screaming about how our govt is too big and powerful, so we need less gun regulation to protect us from the govt they love buying new war toys for. Juuuuuust great.

    October 29, 2013 at 5:42 pm | Reply
    • soysen

      Don't be short sighted. Today US has no major rivals. Tomorrow at a blink of an eye, rivals will be back. Such weapons take a decade to build. If you wait until an enemy has struck the US, it mean you risk losing the next major confrontation. In which case your ignorant views, covered under the freedom of this country will disappear as quickly as your IQ drops every time you post something dumb.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:50 pm | Reply
      • Steve

        Especially if we keep spying on our friends.

        October 29, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
      • jroth420

        Speaking of saying something dumb. Our existing Navy is already larger and vastly superior, technologically, than any other country on the planet, and it's not even close. So I have to agree with the poster you were so condescending to on this one, it's a waste of time and money developing something that we don't actually need.

        October 29, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
      • Desert Tortoise

        Uninformed. The PLAN is very much our naval adversary, and their navy is building destroyers and frigates much faster than we are. Their equipment has advanced hugely in the past decade, easily rivaling the best western European designs and closing on ours in some waysl

        October 29, 2013 at 6:11 pm |
      • remymarco

        His point, in case you missed it is that the Republicans say we are bankrupt yet new war toys no matter what they cost.
        We are shutting down the govt in the name of fiscal responsibility (yet kills our economy, go figure) but we can spend 20 billion on 3 ships we will probably never need. Thinking this makes sense on any level is moronic

        October 29, 2013 at 6:26 pm |
    • knowbeforeyoucomment

      FYI – not that it really matters who is in the white house but, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam – all began with a democrat in the whitehouse.

      October 29, 2013 at 8:13 pm | Reply
  25. therealwanderingcrow

    ummmm..............does that look like a pumped up Ironclad or what?...............waste of money.

    October 29, 2013 at 5:31 pm | Reply
  26. fed up

    If its stealth, how do we know it was launched??

    October 29, 2013 at 5:29 pm | Reply
  27. mrknowitall

    search China Naval Modernization and you penny pincher will understand possibly why the USA needs to invest to maintain naval superiority.

    October 29, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Reply
    • JPuffin

      The reason why China and the US will never go to war is because China depends on the US for a large portion of its income. That would be like a shopkeeper shooting his best customer.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:43 pm | Reply
      • SixDegrees

        Somewhat true. But in the years to come, there are going to be conflicts with Taiwan, and possibly with South Korea, that will put our two countries at odds. It may not come to an actual war, but it could get pretty unpleasant.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
    • derpa

      yeah their 1 russian recomissioned air craft carrier is scary

      October 29, 2013 at 5:55 pm | Reply
      • yeaosays

        ikr

        October 29, 2013 at 5:57 pm |
      • sumdude

        actually it is ukranian.... soviet might be more accurate

        October 29, 2013 at 7:37 pm |
    • wllmshwn

      It is going to take people and sacrifice to beat china. They are communist and their military isn't all volunteer. They don't care about lossing a battalion like we care about the loss of a Soldier. Do the math. Our only detorient against them is nuclear warefare. And no one wins in a nuclear war. Plus in case you didn't know stealth power is obsolete. Wasn't a stealth drone captured by Iran not even two years ago? How do you think they tracked that? This new ship is apart of our military industrial complex steering us towards the ocean of defeat. Greed and money are causing us to make unwise purchasing decisions.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:15 pm | Reply
  28. super stealth

    Four of the 7 are so stealthy, they're completely invisible ... even in broad daylight.

    October 29, 2013 at 5:22 pm | Reply
  29. Snake Pliskin

    We should get a refund: Stealth ? I can see it !!!

    October 29, 2013 at 5:15 pm | Reply
    • Robert Gemerek

      stealth doesn't equal invisibility. in this case it equals the radar signature of a small fishing boat instead of a massive destroyer.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:17 pm | Reply
      • yeaosays

        Irony is lost on some people 🙂

        October 29, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
  30. lean6

    Haze gray, underway, AND under the radar! Go Navy!!

    October 29, 2013 at 5:13 pm | Reply
  31. austin

    No wonder we are in debt.

    October 29, 2013 at 5:06 pm | Reply
    • derpa

      yeah couldnt be because of 2 unpaid for wars and 100's of thousands of vets needing help that the gop demands they make sacrifices instead...

      October 29, 2013 at 5:57 pm | Reply
  32. Boston Phil

    Waste of money...

    October 29, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Reply
    • WERTWERT32452345

      That it is Boston Phil, that it definitely is! Do any of the right-wing idiots in Washington care as long as they're getting their kickbacks from the war lobby? Of course not!

      October 29, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Reply
      • Andrew

        It's not a right or left issue. If any of the branches of the military tried to close one of the numerous bases located in California, the Dems out there would be throwing a pretty big B!tch fit.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
      • commonsense

        You naive goofballs. This is the kind of ship that the future Navy needs. You want to be speaking chinese in 50 years? The world is not a nice huggy place no matter what your mother tells you. It isn't right wing/left wing, it is common sense. We need a military now and in the future. This is what it looks like.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:47 pm |
      • derpa

        u want to be speaking chinese in 50 years... is as ignorant as saying we could have been speaking german...
        no country on the earth has the capabilities to Invade the USA. and even if they could amass that many troops what exactly are they going to do with them? invade Florida? California? Texas? tell me which state they are going to invade. ignorance

        October 29, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
    • Troy Marcotte

      Are you kidding me? This one ship could destroy half of China's Navy. lmfao

      October 29, 2013 at 5:22 pm | Reply
      • Desert Tortoise

        You might want to study the capabilities of the PLANs Type 052C and upcoming Type 052d class destroyers before you get too smug. They are not standing still and ship for ship their equipment is getting very good. The Soviets never made a phased array radar work at sea while the Chinese series build Type 0052C's with a pretty good radar suite and excellent surface to air missiles.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
      • derpa

        RAIL GUNS are the future of weaponry.
        there is no defense against a rail gun incoming munition. well besides another rail gun munition striking it

        October 29, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • Steve

      Waste of money says the guy who isnt in danger. Next fight you lead the way bro.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:28 pm | Reply
    • austin

      exactly

      October 30, 2013 at 11:48 am | Reply
  33. Sven Bengazi

    This new technology will streamline the Navy to help the economy. More with less!

    NAV VET 1976 – 1982 (CGN-35)

    October 29, 2013 at 4:58 pm | Reply
    • Ben

      Couldn't agree more! Half the men neede to staff the boat!

      NAV VET 1999-2004 USS Pittsburgh SSN-720 OIF/OEF VET

      October 29, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Reply
      • Desert Tortoise

        My concern is that you do not have sufficient manpower for damage control if/when the ship takes a hit. Yes, they have a lot of automated fire fighting equipment on board, but my recollectiions of DC school seem to argue in favor of sheer manpower being required to control flooding and shore up damaged bulkheads, manhandle dewatering pumps and the like.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
    • WERTWERT32452345

      Thank you, Sven. How much did the right-wing thugs in Washington pay you to post the above? I bet that it was a pretty penny, not so? Anything for right-wing propaganda!

      October 29, 2013 at 5:05 pm | Reply
    • Me

      Great cutting jobs. And for what, who are we fighting with these things?

      October 29, 2013 at 5:12 pm | Reply
    • james

      How many years will it take for this ship to be afloat for the cost of the ship to offset the salaries of x number of enlisted navy personnel? Is the US navy now expected to fire that number of people now that the ship is complete? Doubt it and I'm assuming it's going to be more than a few years... There's no way this ship saves money, at least not according to your very basic breakdown of how economics works.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:19 pm | Reply
      • Desert Tortoise

        Manpower has become the Navy's single largest cost. Until quite recently procurement of new ships and aircraft cost more than manpower. Since there is always a considerable turnover in personnel in any branch, bringing these ships on line (and only three of them at that) won't require any personnel being "fired". The difference in crew sizes over a three ship class is negligible. Normal attrition and changes in recruiting can handle this easily.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
  34. steve

    '$20 billion to design and deliver seven ships. But cost overruns cut production to three ships.' and we struggle to find enough money to cover all children with healthcare and provide school lunches.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:57 pm | Reply
    • shutup

      It not for ships like thatslave. Your kids wouldn't be eating lunch much less worry about helthcare

      October 29, 2013 at 5:03 pm | Reply
      • george

        Amen

        October 29, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
      • Robert Gemerek

        That's absurd. If anything its our massive nuclear arms that keeps us safe....the billions of dollars would've been better spent on improving our country....we don't need ships like this but defense contractors need to get rich.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
      • derpa

        yeah cuz of the boogieman...
        no country has the ability top invade the USA. buy a globe. learn stuff.
        ignorance feeds fear, fear feeds ignorance.

        October 29, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • bilbfit

      Enough money to feed every person in the country for a couple of weeks. I didn't authorize this, so my family of 4 wants their $250 bucks back!

      October 29, 2013 at 5:09 pm | Reply
    • george

      Consider the science that goes behind new military technology and other things that benefit from it. That research and technology will go further than just a warship. Not only that but you will never know how many lives are saved by the presence of a strong military. Or how about the times our navy has responded to national disaster areas to set up medical aid.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm | Reply
      • derpa

        presence of a strong military? so spending 2x more than all other countries combined warrants increasing that cuz we all SCARED! and bear arms bear arms...

        October 29, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
      • bilbfit

        At a`ridiculous cost when we're 17 trillion in debt.

        October 29, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
  35. Ross

    A mere 3 ships? That's like the kind of order the Royal Navy would place. American military power has passed its peak.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:55 pm | Reply
    • MIJohn

      3 ships now. Probably more of the next version that is already being designed which will be cheaper and all-around better since it won't have to be break so much new ground.

      Let me guess. Chinese and desperately trying to pretend that you aren't a second-rate nation with delusions of grandeur whose days of cheap labor are past their peak.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Reply
  36. Ben

    Despite the country being run by morons and the incapable....we do need to maintain our sharp edge on military technology. Clinton disarmed the military and look what happened.

    I was on a submarine for 5 years. This looks like one of the most bad ass surface ships I've ever seen. The Navy does need things like this. Probably not one of you was there when "Operation Iraqi Freedom" kicked off in the Red Sea. I was. Things like this are amazing in war. And not to mention keeping peace.

    I dislike the government very much. But I fully support our military and keeping a good budget for them. I enjoy my freedom.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:52 pm | Reply
    • Mike

      Gee, I remember the Clinton years as being relatively prosperous. No ground wars, budget surplus, good job market, prosperous stock market. Yes, look at what happened during Clinton.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:00 pm | Reply
      • 8yhuih87y8

        Somalia and "Blackhawk down", yes look at what happened during Clinton. Dream on about the 'wonder years'.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
      • lou50

        He had a Republican Congress. You know the people that try and keep spending down.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
      • george

        Yes, Clinton's numbers looked great. It was not till later when all the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen showed up as unemployed needing financial assistance. How about all the businesses around the bases that closed because there was no more business. What happened to all their employees? Right next to the soldiers looking for assistance. When you fire people with and unemployment rises you spend a lot of money on social programs like welfare and food stamps instead.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
      • bluechunder

        Budget surpluses never existed under Clinton. Go to the US Treasury website. The national debt increased every year under Clinton. If he had a surplus, it would have gone down.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
      • SammyZ

        Republican Congress keeping spending down? LOL! You mean like the Bush had? The one that one that doubled the debt after wiping out the surplus?

        Service members out of a job? So you admit that Defense spending is really just one really large government jobs program.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
    • wjmknight

      You President Clinton who won the first air-only campaign in world history against the genocidal Serbians?

      You must be an army grunt. Marines know when to STF up.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:11 pm | Reply
      • Michael

        Yes, but, he was on the wrong side of the war, bombing US ally Serbia and defending Albanian Muslim terrorists. Oh, and he took out the Chinese embassy to boot.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
      • SammyZ

        That air campaign saved American lives by not putting them at risk to begin with.

        Come on man. Devil Dogs might not be known to be bright, but I've known enough to know you guys aren't dumb either.

        October 29, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
    • smc

      Sorry Ben, but the Destroyer for the 21st Century Program began under the Clinton administration.

      Republicans were the ones who cut it back drastically in 2001.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Reply
    • Boisepoet

      Bush I declared the "peace dividend". I was in the Marine Corps at the time and we starting in March '91 we took a 20% hit to personnel. You can try to make this about Dems/Repubs but the facts are the facts. The cold war was over and the military was bloated.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:29 pm | Reply
    • derpa

      Clinton disarmed the military and look what happened????!?!?!?!?!
      Yeah Bush used that crippled military to invade 2 countries... now how did he do that with clinton doing that OMG!?
      prease tell us chinese invasion prans

      October 29, 2013 at 6:08 pm | Reply
  37. sdsd

    dsd

    October 29, 2013 at 4:52 pm | Reply
  38. GG

    i WONDER IF THIS SHIP WOULD FINISH HITLER EXCELLENT JOB BY CLEANING THE WORLD FROM ALL THOSE UGLY DISGUSTING JEWS and their siblings the animal terrorist Hitler the world misses your excellent job!~

    October 29, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Reply
    • John

      Loser!

      October 29, 2013 at 4:51 pm | Reply
    • jake

      INCLUDING YOU

      October 29, 2013 at 5:02 pm | Reply
    • Mike Rundell

      You, sir are an imbecile. Climb back under the rock in your parents house and go to some age-appropriate websites please. If you do manage to grow up, you may try again... Today you only managed to become an "instant loser".

      From a Man of German descent, living in Sacramento, CA.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:07 pm | Reply
    • ems

      wow that is one stupid comment a very stupid one

      October 29, 2013 at 5:13 pm | Reply
  39. ryan

    guess everyone would rather not defend our country, but would rather make sure people were fat on handouts when we get overrun

    October 29, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Reply
    • George patton

      Defend our country from whom ryan, since today no country on earth poses any threat to us whatsoever? This is why this country is broke and will stay that way for years to come! This is getting quite ludicrous!!!

      October 29, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Reply
      • Carlos

        And why do you think is that? It certainly did not happen by chance and by not investing on R&D.

        October 29, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
      • Ben

        Defending it from anyone who wishes to imposed upon our freedom. Are you one of those people that thinks freedom is free? I spent 86 days under water on a submarine for Operation Iraqi Freedom.....waiting to shoot a load of Tomahawks at Iraq.

        Remember the people that took a shot at us in 2001? Or did you forget that too?

        You're welcome.

        October 29, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
      • jake

        THAT INCLUDE RUSSIA CHINA N KOREA IRAN ALQUEDA??????

        October 29, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
      • rob

        Ben, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. After numerous investigations by the government and independent groups it has been found the allegations used to invade Iraq were false regarding the suspected ties to al-Qaeda. Thank you for your service to our country.

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

        Ben, I hope you realize Iraq had nothing to do with the 2001 attacks.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
      • SammyZ

        In reply to those that replied to you...

        But that's the point. We outspent, our R&D'd and our shot all of our enemies and when we were done with them, we outspent and out R&D'd them again until we now outspend more than the next 7 countries in line COMBINED.

        Freedom is not free either in the cost of blood but also the cost in financial drain. At what point is too much enough because at this rate, we may not need to worry about an enemy storming our shores but instead storming our financial markets when we can no longer afford to support the large defense budget we currently have?

        October 29, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
      • knowbeforeyoucomment

        the reason people like you can confidently assert that there is no one we need to fear defending our country from is precisely because we spend money to develop technology which allows us to maintain military superiority.

        October 29, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
      • Sammy Z

        Ahem.....I'm a twice over Combat Vet; Iraq, Afghanistan. More so, my job specifically entails developing alliances and working relationships with other nations and their military.

        October 29, 2013 at 11:10 pm |
    • BeepBeep

      Tea Party Clown Alert!

      October 29, 2013 at 4:49 pm | Reply
    • You're Almost There

      That, or maybe they would like to see our crumbling bridges, water treatment systems, outdated transportation facilities, and over demanded power grid get some federal dollars to fund construction and create more sustainable employment.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:52 pm | Reply
    • Miss Demeanor

      Do you actually know anyone getting fat on handouts or are you buying into dogma that lets bigots believe that hating people who are fat, poor, non-white or unemployed is justifiable? It's just another version of Ronald Reagan's "welfare queen's are bankrupting America and stealing from the hardworking simple folks who will vote for me if I just give them something to hate that can unite us." That's what Hitler did. Think about it. On second thought... ask a non-fundamentalist non-evangelical pastor to explain it to you.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:44 pm | Reply
      • Matt

        Miss Demeanor, that was one of the greatest things I have ever read. Thank you!! 🙂

        October 29, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
  40. the breeze

    you still have to stick your butt over the rail to take a dump however

    October 29, 2013 at 4:41 pm | Reply
  41. Aud

    I wanna be the capt'n!

    October 29, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Reply
    • oneWayfarer

      The $20,000,000,000 that was WASTED Building 3 Warships to Fight 18th Century Naval Battles
      with Bogus 'Stealth' Technology that is MEANINGLESS for something as BIG and SLOW and a Naval Destroyer
      could have funded the NASA Space Programs for four Years

      October 29, 2013 at 4:46 pm | Reply
      • Carlos

        You certainly have no idea of the mission of the Navy and what it accomplishes every day. I recommend you follow the US Navy on facebook. It is amazing.

        October 29, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
    • Bob

      AUD- if you want to be Capt. you might want to know the real length of the ship. You will most likely run out of a channel or hit a dock if you think it is 610'

      October 29, 2013 at 4:55 pm | Reply
  42. oneWayfarer

    NOT INVISIBLE – I can see it Quite Clearly in the Photo
    So What Good Is It? Does anybody think we are going to be having Stealth NAVAL BATTLES in This Realm of Reality?
    What in the Name of God is it going to take to STOP Building these Billion Dollar Military Cathedrals that have no purpose in the world of Drones and Satellites. We have a DOZEN Aircraft Carrier Floating Cities when nobody else has more than one. We have THOUSANDS of Very Expensive TANKS that the Army said it already has TOO MANY of being built to go to Storage Yards to wait to Rust.
    Over Fifty Percent of Every Tax Dollar is Wasted on this Monstrous Military Industrial Intelligence Complex
    That President Dwight Eisenhower WARNED US about a Half Century Ago.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:37 pm | Reply
    • Ed G.

      To evade enemy ship and sub radar systems.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Reply
      • RT Colorado

        Ed...The Zumwalt will be as vulnerable as any comparable sized ship. Unless it's equipped with a Klingon cloaking device and doesn't actually touch the water, it can be seen, especially from space. The electronic signature will be unique and yes, while it will be different from other electronic signatures, its uniqueness actually makes it stand out even more. The hull design is suspect, and is not unique. The sea keeping aspects of the "sea cutting" hull design may limit it in heavy seas. But if there's an undeniable argument against the design, it is the massive expense. The original number has been reduced to only three...three, that's it. It should have provided 20+ ships, but we can only afford three!

        October 29, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Ed

      Wow.

      The sheer ignorance represented in your post is embarrassing.

      You can SEE it?

      Stealth has very little to do with your ability to see the ship.

      It has to do with how detectable the ship is via radar, from miles away.

      When I was about 4, I wondered whether the radiator fan on a car was what made the car move. I was pretty sure that wasn't the case, since the fan was blocked (by what I later learned was the engine).

      I suspect that my age-4 understanding of automobiles was superior to your understanding of naval vessels.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:14 pm | Reply
      • RT Colorado

        Ed (wow)...I guess you missed the whole satellite technology wave...ever hear about those pesky things, you know the one's that can detect the magnetic disturbance caused by a ship cutting a wake through the water. Forget thermal imaging ( a vessel moving through water, doesn't have the same temperature as the water its in, well thermal imaging can detect that (just like they do with submarines) , don't worry about communication intercept either, encrypted or not, that big chunk of metal and equipment makes a lot of "noise". Oh yeah, ....the Zumwalt will be near invisible...you keep believing that....

        October 29, 2013 at 8:05 pm |
  43. jacob

    looks like steve jobs boat

    October 29, 2013 at 4:37 pm | Reply
    • oneWayfarer

      Meaning a Stupidly Overblown Waste of Money – Yup

      October 29, 2013 at 4:39 pm | Reply
    • iPhony

      If Jony designed it, it will look fashionable in port (iMops will keep it looking shiny) but iMeh (the new maps) will keep it stranded in port and the navy will need to buy all new hardware in a few years when the next OS comes along? An Apple ship = bobbing in the ocean.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:01 pm | Reply
  44. jack2

    I'm not proud of our administration but one thing i am proud of and that's our military. Humans in this world are human and greedy, therefore we need a deterent. We should always stay miles ahead. I'm worried Obama letting our economy go to the pits will derail us from staying ahead..

    October 29, 2013 at 4:37 pm | Reply
    • George patton

      Good grief jack2, you sound just like another mindless Tea Partier by bragging over this monster that we built with money borrowed from China. Now let's all hope that China continues to finance our huge deficit or otherwise the right-wing thugs in Washington will gut both Medicare and Social Security in order to keep these monsters afloat!!!

      October 29, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Reply
  45. LFP2012

    A colossal waste of taxpayer money.

    The last taboo in American politics: discussing how to cut the ridiculously bloated defense budget.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:34 pm | Reply
    • on the other hand

      Farm subsidies. If a farmer can't make a living, he needs a different job. Use the money to feed those in real need. There are plenty of people who really cannot earn enough money to eat well. Sick, elderly, disabled and so on. I know the Teed-off Party/Tevangelicals (formerly the Eugenics movement) believe gawwwwwds intended for them to starve to death so we don't have to look at them and pay an extra two dollars a month out of our paychecks, but there really are people who need help far more than dairy-farmers who have been milking (so to speak) the taxpayers for decades.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:10 pm | Reply
  46. john

    it's so stealthy i can't see it on pictures

    October 29, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Reply
    • 8yhuih87y8

      So (not) funny...dumbaXX

      October 29, 2013 at 5:15 pm | Reply
  47. iReason

    Wow! The satellites can't see this huh? Amazing.

    And the emperor really looks great in his new birthday suit.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:31 pm | Reply
    • sly

      um ... iMnotsmartEnoughtoReason ... you may wish to open a book, or the internet, and learn a little bit about what military experts call 'stealth technology'.

      It's a bit more complex than someone like you would be able to understand by just looking up 'stealth' in the dictionary.

      Once you are a bit more informed, then by all means come back on here and hopefully you wont keep tossing out ignorant comments.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:35 pm | Reply
    • Carlos

      Do you really think there is a Chinese dude remotely controlling a satellites looking at the big blue ocean looking for anything grey that might resemble a USN destroyer? I hope you dont think stealth just covers the visible light range of the spectrum.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:57 pm | Reply
  48. Edgrrr

    This will come in handy hunting terrorists in their mud huts in the middle of whatever 3rd world desert they're in.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:31 pm | Reply
  49. jack2

    Lets test it on Iran

    October 29, 2013 at 4:31 pm | Reply
  50. John

    Great technologically advanced ship. Probably outfitted with all the best high-tech gadgets and other electronics all made in China.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Reply
    • John

      Oh, and don't forget the Chinese-made American flag that will be flying on the ship's tower to project American military might worldwide.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:30 pm | Reply
    • Jim

      You realize any DOD contracts need to be manufactured in the US.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:35 pm | Reply
      • John

        Don't get me wrong, I'm really disgusted at American manufacturing being outsourced to places like China and weakening this country in the process. BTW, what is made in the USA anymore?

        October 29, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
      • Riko221

        Even the manufacturing process made in US, many small parts made in China, German, etc. this includes cabling system, power management chips, magnets, etc. But technology wise it is all made in US.

        October 29, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
      • Taxman

        Actually, there are tons of loopholes that allow the DOD to buy all sorts of things from outside of the U.S., including China. Sadly, the flag and a whole host of other components probably are made in China. Luckily, none of the important weapon systems, etc. are made there, but there are separate exceptions that allow a certain percentage of components of these systems to be imported from abroad.

        October 29, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
  51. taylormade

    Wasn't there something on CNN a week ago that says our US government has only 32B dollars cash on hand.......

    October 29, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Reply
  52. M. Edward Triefler

    If a for-profit company had cost overruns that cut production from seven ships to three ships, heads would roll. Why is it that no matter whether it's local government or the federal government there always seem to be "over runs?" Here in Broward County FL, a major East / West road I-595 was contracted out to a French company, with a start to finish price that included penalties for failing to meet specific deadlines and the road is on tract to be completed as contracted. This was a massive undertaking since the road was already built and the contract called for new lanes and over passes. Does that mean the French are smarter then we are or less crocked.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Reply
    • wfjackson3

      No, it means that they were different kinds of projects. Building a road with no new technological innovations is a matter of execution. Developing a new type of ship that has never been seen before is a project that is extremely likely to have estimation errors.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Reply
    • James Band

      Over runs occur because at time of conception the technology was still advancing. So to keep it the tip of technology there are changes to design that have to occur. Not to mention a couple Admirals who want more shiny stuff. Lets take an example, during original conception they probably didn't think about UAV capabilities, so that is an added upgrade to original design.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:51 pm | Reply
    • Carlos

      Sure because building a road is completely comparable to researching, developing and manufacturing a state of the art Navy destroyer.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:00 pm | Reply
  53. nodat1

    time for our US steel worker to learn how to fabricate carbon fiber panels progress

    October 29, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Reply
  54. Rev.Christie Bliss Ley

    Just what this country needs; lots more money spent on the military. Our infrastructure is collapsing, much needed programs are being cut left, right and center and we are up to ours ears in debt to China. No problem Just build a few more extremely expensive stealth warships.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:24 pm | Reply
    • sly

      This was funded in 2001.

      Curious, Republicans voted 100% for debt increases EIGHT (8) years in a row under Bush.

      But now ... wow, they've changed for some reason, and now they shut down government because of debt increases.

      Gee ... what's different? Two words: Black skin

      October 29, 2013 at 4:28 pm | Reply
      • ett

        ...gee, all dressed up and no place to destroy...we'll find sumpin don't worry, keep up the distractions

        October 29, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
      • Brian O

        Thomas Bruce, Is that you?

        October 29, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
      • James Band

        You should read more, there was never a debate over debt limit increase. I am pretty sure it was about the CR. And looky looky now, some of the warnings are coming true about the ACA. All the Rep wanted was to delay the mandate, not even delay ACA just the mandate like the big companies got. But don't worry, the rest of us will stay educated and keep our jobs so you and the rest of your peeps and keep your hand outs.

        October 29, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • John in WNY

      Care to inform us what needed programs are being cut, with so many I'm sure you could provide a few.

      Oh, and BTW, I mean actual cuts, not the baseline budgeting lie our political leaders use to try and make increasing spending, but by less then originally planned, is actually a cut.

      October 30, 2013 at 11:47 am | Reply
  55. J Gatsby

    The stealth part is not just the design; that one is obvious. There is another part of this ships technology that makes it much more powerful. Aside from Electromagnetic rail guns, it also has a texture system that; when in the open water, blends the ship into the background. The only way to see it is from overhead. 😉 but that is all hearsay.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:20 pm | Reply
  56. Russasaurus

    I love it! Vrooom Vroom

    October 29, 2013 at 4:19 pm | Reply
  57. Tim O'Conner

    I can't see it

    October 29, 2013 at 4:18 pm | Reply
    • jack2

      I'm slow today and it took me a minute but it was funny.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Reply
  58. ett

    the U.S.S. Stapler, commanded by Admiral Swingline

    October 29, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Reply
  59. George patton

    This is exactly where our hard earned tax dollars go! Just think of how that same money could go for medical research on diseases like Alzheimers, cancer, ALS, multiple sclerosis, spinal bifida, etc., but no!!! The right-wing thugs in Washington would rather throw it away on garbage like this! How sickening this is!!!

    October 29, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Reply
    • calmdown

      go occupy a tent asking for a bail out

      October 29, 2013 at 4:18 pm | Reply
      • 8yhuih87y8

        Ha! Ha! Ha! Good one, maybe those tent cities will deter attacks...

        October 29, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • jack2

      You'd rather let ourselves look weak and vunerable toour enemies. Things like these deter war.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Reply
      • RT Colorado

        Jack...you are so right...at these prices and limited availability, the US can't afford to fight these ships for fear of losing them. Image a really quiet diesel boat "pops" a torpedo into the Zumwalt....just like a bank...too big to fail? The bad guys realize that the Zumwalt is a "White Elephant". If used as intended, in the Littoral Combat role, it's close enough to be in the range of land based systems. The limited number of the Zumwalt class makes it difficult to use...where would we risk such a valuable asset? You want to take the chance of hazarding one of only three ships in the class against some third world military getting lucky with a land based missile system? Why not break out the Missouri class Battleships, they'd be cheaper and anything you could mount on the Zumwalt you sure as hell could mount a couple on the Missouri class battleships. This is a boondoggle of the highest class, it ranks up there with the F-22 and F-35, we can't afford to build enough of them to be useful and this technology hasn't been tested in a scale large enough to know if it'll work as designed and with our track record there's a better than even chance the Zumwalt class won't pass its fleet tests any better than the recent fighter programs. So let's all run down to the seashore and jump up and down and cheer the new waste of haze gray.

        October 29, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
    • Alex

      This was funded 13 years ago, stop comparing the two

      October 29, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Reply
    • TJ

      Calm down. This project started during the Clinton Administration and funded during a time when the House was controlled by the Republicans and the Senate by the Democrats. So quit pointing fingers at the Republicans.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Reply
  60. vghjvgh

    I have mixed feelings and could argue for or against building new destroyers.

    But, one thing is certain, building only 3 seems just stupid. IF you are going to build them, and you have already spent a massive investment in R&D to build them. You might as well just build the 7 that were deemed necessary in the first place.

    At the same time we have stupid things like congress forcing the army to buy another half billion dollars of tanks they dont want. They already have more tanks then they would ever use. In a world where tanks are virtually useless.

    Can the stupid programs like that and let them build the things they think they need instead.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:14 pm | Reply
    • steve

      One would only have to look where those tanks are made to see why we build useless tanks. They are made in Ohio in John Boehner's district. Building useless things via military contractors is exactly what Washington does best. I know , you know and Ossama Bin Laden knew it.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:41 pm | Reply
  61. jamison

    Ships, subs, jets are all obsolete. The next war will be fought with Satelites. Remember the Star Wars project. It was built though no one knows about it.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm | Reply
    • sly

      Yes jamison, you are so much smarter than everyone in the Pentagon put together.

      What do you think folks? jamison on here wants us to destroy all of our bombs, all of our chemical weapons, all of our airplanes, all of our boats, all of our tanks, and of course, fire all soldiers.

      Now, that is really some forward thinking. I wonder why those dummies at the Pentagon didn't think of that!

      October 29, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Reply
    • Greg

      Subs will be a more effective fighting weapon than any system for the foreseeable future. Trying to detect an Ohio Class is like trying to find a pin in the state of Washington currently. pretty incredible.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Reply
    • Mike

      No it won't. At least the satellite part. Spacecraft are too vulnerable and the collateral damage is too great for any power to take the risk. Sure, you might take out an enemy spy sat. But three orbits later the debris cloud has crippled your own assets. If you'd said RPVs though, you'd probably have it dead on. F22 and F35 are probably going to be the last manned combat aircraft. It won't be long before RPV's are scaled up to do the jobs of everything from foot soldiers to battleships.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:36 pm | Reply
      • 8yhuih87y8

        Countries like China don't care about those consequences. Look at all the crap left over when they test destroyed their own satelite.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
    • steve

      Star Wars was another wastful Reagan boondoggle that cost the tax payers millions. Nothing but a bunch of 2×4"s nailed togather in some remote hanger in AZ no one is allowed to see.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:43 pm | Reply
  62. Matthew

    eat that, Iran

    October 29, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Reply
    • Splunge

      Yeah! We sure showed *that* third-world country. Who's next? Azerbaijan, you want some?

      October 29, 2013 at 4:28 pm | Reply
    • Alabao13

      Actually, we have one already. The problem is that our ships is invisible and with lasers. Stealth technology is old already.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:33 pm | Reply
  63. GatorDude

    This ship is a very cool technology platform. The Navy has a mix of hi (tech and dollar) platforms and low platforms (tech and dollar) I hope that the Navy has doctrine in place to create a high tech strike group for war against advanced adversaries, but builds enough low mix ships to cover all our nation's obligations around the world. Using this ship against Somali pirates would be a complete waste. Being prepared to use this ship in a conflict against China or Russia would make more sense. We need more low dollar/low technology ships to handle Somali pirates and conflicts with less developed countries and non-state actors.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Reply
    • Dawn Kieballs

      Yes I agree, so long as we are confident we can beat the Chinese with 3 ships.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Reply
  64. jim

    Another corporate WELFARE program. Overbudget, and of NO use in Afghanistan mountains! Too funny! But so, so sad !!!

    October 29, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Reply
  65. lol

    The government doing what it thinks is best for us and spending our money to get it done at all costs regardless of what you or I think. And the defense of our nation is not just a big example of socialism, how?

    October 29, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Reply
  66. Josh

    Hopefully it works better than the F-22 and F-35

    October 29, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Reply
    • jack2

      Those are very good jets. Other countries are far from developing something as advanced. Any complicated high tech design needs the bugs worked out of it

      October 29, 2013 at 4:28 pm | Reply
      • Paper Tiger

        F-22 maybe, not counting the oxygen system issues it has had.

        The F-35 though? That thing can carry only FOUR missiles as opposed to the F-22's 8, and it has been said numerous times, even by the DOD that this thing is inferior to the Russian SU-30. Poor turning, wing load, not to mention it has bad rear visibility according to pilots who have flown it I believe I saw a report by the DOD that listed 719 problems with it. Nice to know we're ultimately going to sink $1 trillion into it isn't it?

        October 29, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
      • Desert Tortoise

        Both aircraft have limited payloads if all weapons have to be carried internally to maintain it's low observable properties. Early in a conflict with an enemy like China with a high density of the latest surface to air weaponry and radars, only low observable aircraft will be survivable, so comparing weapons counts between an F-35 and an F/A-18 is moot. The Hornet will be shot down long before it can deploy any weapons while the F-35 will survive to destroy it's targets.
        When air defenses are thinned out and low observable properties are no longer needed, the F-22 for example can carry 16 air to air missiles (6 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9X internally and 8 under the wings) and the F-35 can carry a large array of air to surface ordnance under wing. The F-15. F-16 and F/A-18 are not survivable against the most recent integrated air defenses and will have to sit out the opening stages of a war against China except as stand off cruise missile platforms.

        October 29, 2013 at 11:38 pm |
    • FM

      You may have missed that despite its solved problems, the F-22 cannot be matched in aerial combat by anything flown by any country today. The US has approx. 200 5th gen fighters operational. No other country flies a 5th gen fighter, all in R & D.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:37 pm | Reply
  67. Mitchell

    Wouldn't it make more sense to develop better and built more submarines as I believe they are even more stealthier than a surface ship.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Reply
  68. hans solo

    It still has to sail with a non-stealth fleet and supply ships.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Reply
  69. cal ripson

    I can save the US Navy a lot of money. I have designed the ultimate stealth ship – it's called a submarine.

    October 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply
    • FM

      LOL! Good one Cal. And true....

      October 29, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Reply
  70. Rob

    Kinda ruin the stealth part with a press release and all......

    October 29, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
  71. Kevin

    Who exactly is the "shipbuilder"?

    October 29, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
    • Fierce Badger

      The shipbuilder is Bath Iron Works, located in Bath, ME. It is a subsidiary of the General Dynamics Corporation.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Reply
  72. Buck Turdigson

    Rihanna will be manning the weapons system.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
    • Mandrix

      Some day she'll be Mrs. Buck Turdigson.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:33 pm | Reply
      • Marcus

        Good movie that.

        October 29, 2013 at 9:33 pm |
  73. Rob

    It's a stepping stone to bigger and better things. See the USS Monitor, HMS Dreadnought and HMS Argus, USS Langley, and USS Holland (among others) for it's relations and ancestry.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
  74. Richard

    Sorry, but even as a former surface fleet sailor on Destroyers, the stealth technology of it is really needed on a Destroyer. First destroyer primary function is escort and protection of carriers. So it is not like they are going to be hard to find in the first place. And as protection for the carriers, if a destroyer takes a missile rather than the carrier it is good, so reducing the radar signature puts the carriers at greater danger.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
    • DrTom

      I don't think this ship is meant as a carrier escort. Maybe 'destroyer' is a misnomer.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • fjaowpefjowe

      The word "not" can make a big difference.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • kenny

      yeah .. that's why were building 3... for our 11 carriers... doh...

      October 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply
    • David

      If only they had consulted you personally first! LOL

      October 29, 2013 at 4:04 pm | Reply
    • BluePhoton11

      This is designed to be a Littoral (coastal) waters ship – it is designed to get close to shorelines (e.g. China) to accomplsh its mission. As such, it needs stealth to help avoid getting sunk by onshore missile systems.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Reply
    • rhisa

      My daughter served on a destroyer (just got out 2 months ago) and they went out numerous times without carriers. In fact they only pulled carrier escort twice. Most of the time they were with other destroyers...they are not only defenders, but hunters also. And in that the stealth will be invaluable.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Reply
    • Carlos

      Destroyers are the Navy's multi-mission platforms. With no replacement planned for our Ticonderoga-class cruisers and frigates being phased out, destroyers will be assuming the primary responsibility for the anti-air, anti-surface, anti-subsurface, and electronic warfare areas. Destroyers perform a great deal of independent steaming as well.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:41 pm | Reply
    • Rob

      That's because its really a cruiser dressed up in destroyers clothing. Land attack role.... 600 ft long.... 15,000 tonnes.... 6 inch guns.

      "In the later 20th century, the obsolescence of the battleship left the cruiser as the largest and most powerful surface combatant. The role of the cruiser varied according to ship and navy, often including air defense, commerce raiding and shore bombardment."

      October 29, 2013 at 4:51 pm | Reply
    • housellyrandor

      Actually the term "destroyer" is from "torpedo boat destroyer" ie a light warship designed to carry smaller weapons to engage targets other than those traditionally engaged by line-of-battle ships. Any sailor worth his salt would realize that in the modern Navy our warships perform a variety of roles regardless of their class or tonnage. Ticonderoga cruisers are technically destroyers by weight and their primary job is fleet air defense. OHP frigates act as fleet picket ships and torpedo-sponges, ie ASW. Modern US destroyers fill the role of cruisers traditionally – stand-alone warships.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Reply
  75. Realityblowz

    Money well spent, to go after those pirates in little fishing boats off of the African coast. What else do we need it for? Oh yeah..China.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
  76. kenny

    "Bigger, Lighter, Deadlier"... you forget WAY more expensive... and practically useless in current AND future conflicts. As soon as we build it millions are figuring out cheap/easy ways to make it ineffective. We seem to still be fight WW2... the last time this ship would've been useful... 1 idiiot in a speed boat took out the cole. One of our own idiiiots started a fire to get the day off... we live in the past but can't remember history and we predict the future but don't want to plan for it... humanity is its own worst enemy and its only savior ...until we understand the former... we will never achieve the latter...

    October 29, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
    • 8yhuih87y8

      Useless in current and future conflicts, yes of course you know better than all those folks in the Pentagon.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:22 pm | Reply
    • Jerry

      Explain to me how 1 speedboat "Took out" the Cole when she's still in active service as of today. The ship never came close to sinking.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:15 pm | Reply
  77. sly

    I understand how many of you 'experts' know how to sink this boat, and know that you could've designed a better one.

    After all, I can throw more TD's than Peyton Manning, and I definately can whip LeBron James one on one. Oh, and I can hit Wacha's fastball a lot better than David Ortiz.

    Yep ... we all know we're much better than the experts, that's why we're blogging here.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
    • Bren

      I sing better than Christina Aguilara too! pfffft, know it alls!

      October 29, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Reply
    • GatorDude

      We are the people. We vote. We hire the experts. When the experts turn out to be wrong, we need to fire them. Each comment here is a vital part of civilian control of the military. This ship is a quantum leap forward in technology, but we have a right to question the expense and the usefulness of a Navy that has only 3 high tech destroyers to cover 7 seas.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Reply
      • sly

        Very true – especially the 'we vote we hire the experts'. Most Americans seem to forget exactly WHO votes politicians into Congress every 2 years, since it is 'always Congress fault'.

        I have no problem with intelligent people questioning the cost-effectiveness of high technology military weapons.

        I do lose patience with the burger flippers on here who claim:

        – All Navy weapons are obsolete, since they don't work in the mountains of Afghanistan
        – 'This boat aint stealth cause I can see it'
        – Anyone can sink this ship with just a little home made bomb
        – Radar stealth technology isn't useful, cause other countries like Somalia use satellites
        – We shouldn't spend any dollars on the military – it should all go to fund food stamps for seniors
        – Military technology experts don't know as much as burger flippers

        I'm not making any of these up – that's the quality of criticisms all these 'experts' on here throwing out there.

        October 29, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
  78. Matt

    Call me crazy but wasn't there an issue with the stealth bomber that it did not work in the rain? So it makes sense to make a ship out of that technology, right? Should it fail, it will be the fault of the overpaid teachers, unions, immigrants, over-funded public schools and lazy people on unemployment and disability are the reason this failed...right?

    October 29, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
    • Sithbot

      You're crazy.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Reply
  79. justino

    does Obama know?

    October 29, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
    • fjaowpefjowe

      |d|ot.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Reply
    • Kelso..

      hahaha...that was a good one.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Reply
  80. Nova

    Nice, only $10B each. That sounds like a good deal for us.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Reply
  81. Brickell Princess

    An arrogant waste of tax payer dollars that any Somali pirate can sink with a home made explosive. Amazing how Congress steals trillions of dollars to pay for such waste and fund the lavish military machine yet the nation cannot afford to provide free lunches to school children. This country is not worth saving folks; not like this.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Reply
    • Nova

      I am with you. We have lost this country to big business who buy out our politicians who get this type of over, over kill expense. WE ARE BEING SOLD OUT !!!

      October 29, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
      • Matt

        Exactly Nova, we can fix that though. We need to fix campaign contributions by how much and who/how they can be given and we will take this country back.

        October 29, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • Matt

      Yep, ask any member of the tea party, they will set you straight. Well we will be ready should they hear one of our allies is going to attack us. SMH.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
    • ger344

      "An arrogant waste of tax payer dollars that any Somali pirate can sink with a home made explosive."

      What? That haven't even been able to sink a current generation of Navy destroyers, what makes you think they would have any more luck with this thing.

      "Amazing how Congress steals trillions of dollars to pay for such waste and fund the lavish military machine yet the nation cannot afford to provide free lunches to school children."

      They didn't steal anything fool. Yeah yeah, collective national self defense and helping those stupid lazy foreigners resist jihadism and putin style authoritarianism is a waste of money to parochial charles lindberg isolationists like you spouting shallow populists "think of the children" nonsense, I've heard it all before.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:22 pm | Reply
      • 8yhuih87y8

        Well said.

        October 29, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
      • cjccja

        Well yes a waste of money. You can see that because they reduced the program from 7 to 3 ships. I am more concerned with the total size of the military than with this. It needs to be cut in about half. This might even help that goal if it means they can reduce the crew size. If they can build these three and retire six others they are doing OK. But that is un likely

        October 29, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
  82. Joey Isotta-Fraschini ©™

    The more advanced and powerful our weapons are, the happier I am. This stealth destroyer is money well spent.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Reply
  83. Dave C

    A few things to consider:

    1) This was made in the USA. A whole bunch of people were employed building this ship, so while some may think it is a waste of money, that money became food on the table for many.
    2) This ship, if needed for combat, will improve the safety of our sailors by reducing the number put in harms way, the advanced weaponry that will keep them further from the enemy, and defensive capabilities, including the stealth which will make it more difficult to target with anti-ship missiles.
    3) The US Navy still enters the Persian Gulf regularly, and while tension with Iran is a little lower than it has been, anything that makes entering the Straits a little safer is a good thing.
    4) While the "need" for these new ships is uncertain right now, we can't sit back and assume that there is no longer a need to maintain a strong, modern military. We really don't want to be trying to build these kinds of craft when we actually need them. It will be a little late at that point.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Reply
    • SK

      Why not use the money to benefit all like infrastructure and healthcare....

      October 29, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
    • Jesse

      And where did the money come from to pay those employees? The tax payer. So I guess it is a good idea to "rob Peter to pay Paul."

      October 29, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Reply
    • Syndrome Zed

      Shhh....Dave, don't tell anyone, but thinking farther ahead than about a month is something the human race has an awful lot of trouble doing. I think we're too hooked on microwaves and high-speed pr0n downloading – too much "instant gratification" these days.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:13 pm | Reply
    • Splunge

      "A whole bunch of people were employed building this ship, so while some may think it is a waste of money, that money became food on the table for many."

      How is this possible? The government doesn't create jobs. Rand Paul told me so.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Reply
    • cjccja

      If the point of this is a jobs program for ship building, why not have them build something we all can use? Basic infrastructure.

      That if the TOTAL number of ships can be reduced then build new ships. But will that happen?

      October 29, 2013 at 6:23 pm | Reply
  84. T

    You can see sections of it being built on Google Earth – interesting. http://goo.gl/maps/kwC34

    October 29, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Reply
    • Rob

      Glad to know there is a Holiday Inn and Walgreens right down the street...

      October 29, 2013 at 4:00 pm | Reply
  85. dutchtown

    Holy crap! carbon fiber. No wonder it cost so much. I'm sure a lot of high dollar greed was involved because they knew the tax payer was paying for everything. Still, we always need to keep updated on technology no matter what greed is involved.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Reply
    • anonymous

      The cost comes from ridiculous government oversight and having 10 government officials breathing over the shoulder of every engineer and shop working that is working on the project.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:10 pm | Reply
  86. Marcus

    Heck, I'd build a model of it just because it's so strange ( read 'different from current norm').

    October 29, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Reply
  87. max

    well, i guess telling the apponent what ya have is really stealthy

    October 29, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Reply
  88. Josh

    The real question is how long will it be until Russian and Chinese radar systems can detect it anyway... if they can't already.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Reply
  89. T

    Did CNN stop proofreading? Or did they ever?

    October 29, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Reply
  90. Bobby Da

    Poor grammar, but an interesting article. Note 1, if it has a cross-section it is not a stealth ship.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Reply
    • mark

      Bobby Da: It has a radar cross section of a fishing boat, You do know what that means, right??

      October 29, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Reply
    • Ryan

      You obviously don't understand how radar works. Everything has a cross section. Rain drops have a cross section. If something has the cross section of a fishing boat, then it's going to look like a fishing boat to the operator. If you don't understand how valuable that is, then you obviously have no business commenting about this ship.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Reply
    • anonymous

      a single hydrogen atom has a radar cross section, it's just a matter of how small you can make it. This thing would blend in with all the waves in the ocean.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:08 pm | Reply
  91. M

    How do they know it was launched? It's stealthy! 🙂

    October 29, 2013 at 3:40 pm | Reply
    • DrTom

      It can be easily seen for now. But just wait until they cover it with the invisibility cloak.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Reply
  92. Chuk

    Good, let's keep building "advanced weapon systems" but tell everyone else not to. Do as I say, not as I do. Working really well.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:40 pm | Reply
    • anonymous

      Who are we telling not to make advanced weapons?

      October 29, 2013 at 6:02 pm | Reply
      • Nemo

        I believe it is spelled I-R-A-N, and also N. Korea (nukes)

        October 29, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
  93. codyfranklin76

    Shhh.....everybody be real quiet so the Chinese and Russians don't find out.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:36 pm | Reply
  94. Mark

    I think it will take a little while for her looks to grow on me; she looks a bit awkward and boxy.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:34 pm | Reply
    • Rob

      Not quite a match?!?! Maybe just a little like it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSSAlbemarle.JPG

      October 29, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
    • John in WNY

      Yeah, I almost sort of, kind of like the looks of it, but the limited missile loadout concerns me, although many newer ships have the same limitation.

      Consider that if we actually get into a fighting war where this ship will need to be involved in offensive and defensive operations 80 missiles is not very many, especially when it's split up between SAM, anti-ship and land attack missiles.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
      • Allan

        CNN's reporting is inaccurate as usual. The ship has 80 VLS launch modules. Each module can hold one OR MORE missles depending on the size, so 80 is a minimum load.

        October 29, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
  95. wuzzup

    If you show a picture of it, it can't be that stealthy...

    October 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm | Reply
    • flaitguy

      How dare you make a joke sir!

      October 29, 2013 at 3:36 pm | Reply
  96. Chris

    so much for privacy and keeping things top secret, why not just tell the Russians or Chinese or Iranians or whoever hates as the moment the missle launch codes since they already know the lenght, width, composite material, speed, distance and weapons on this ship

    October 29, 2013 at 3:31 pm | Reply
    • David

      It doesn't matter what we tell them, these are the materials that have been in use a long time for stealth. The technology to detect simply doesn't exist.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Reply
    • Jason

      They probably know more about the ship than CNN was able to get from the press release...

      October 29, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Reply
    • The Truth

      It's a stealth vessel, meaning hard to detect by radar, does not mean the vessel is classified. It's armament, sensor package and other unclassified characteristics have been open to the public for about 20 years, including artist conceptions.

      How would you plan to keep a multiship class of 600 feet long, 15,000 ton vessels hidden from view? Were are these magical naval bases that can hide vessels that large with all the infrastructure to support them? Were are you going to find the Sailors to man and maintain them since most of the rates required to operate large vessels do not have security clearances? This is not a stealth bomber or sea shadow which needs very little manning and an average hanger/covered pier to hide them. We can not even hide submarines from public veiw and they can submerge!

      October 29, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Reply
    • anonymous

      It doesn't have to be secret to be devastatingly effective. There currently isn't a radar that can detect this.

      October 29, 2013 at 6:04 pm | Reply
  97. Reasonable Descent

    Wobbles needs to move.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:31 pm | Reply
  98. Pat

    While this is a great step forward in the employment of stealth capabilities for our 21st century U.S. Navy, we all should question the rationale for only deploying 3 of these ships. Now before anyone comes back and says you want to have U.S. taxpayers pays for more of these ships costing $6.67 billion a piece, bringing the total cost to $46.67 billion, my response is no. What we should have is 6 or 7 of these ships which are almost as good for the same cost as these 3 ships.
    Here are my reasons:
    1. The 7 original ships were probably expected to replace a significant portion of the older destroyers in the U.S. Fleet, and although those ships to be replaced might still be considered state of art by many of our adversaries, how will some of those ships that were stated to be replaced, fare some 20 to 30 years down the line.
    2. I personally believe that the cost of stealth technology is more cost effective on smaller scale devices than on larger ones. So what does that mean exactly? It means that you are putting a lot of your eggs into the basket of the stealthy capabilities of a single physical ship. Such stealth capabilities while confronting an adversary employing similar high technology low manpower systems should be effective. But what if you adversary employs a lower tech approach and employs hundreds of boats for visual surveillance off their shores and similarly employs hundreds of guns with dumb ordinance.
    3. Since stealth technology is not the cutting edge, was the cost of 9 billion on research and development justified. While I know that many will counter with the fact that some of the information gained from this research for future stealth vessels, I want to be sure that the same could be said of this project, and that is that they employed existing research to keep their costs down.
    Less than 50% is a Grade of "D" as far as I am concerned.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:30 pm | Reply
    • Mike

      Any ship that can be seen with the naked eye can be sunk no matter how "stealthy" it is. Dumb bombs and shells will be very effective in sinking this ship. Plus it's one ugly ship

      October 29, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Reply
      • sly

        Mike, after you get out of class today, maybe you can tell us all how many high tech US war vessals have been sunk lately. I can't seem to think of any.

        But ... you make a very good point – who cares if this technology can save millions of lives – if Mike thinks it's unattractive we should just let everyone die.

        October 29, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • okiejoe

      The trouble with cutting production to save money is that by the time you actually start building ships you have already spent most of the money for the entire project. You have to do the research and development of the technology and build the support structure and train the builders and a million other things. And then you can start building ships.
      I don't know the actual costs, of course, but if the project is to cost $46 billion then probably $25 billion has been spent before the first keel is laid and now the more units you build the lower the UNIT costs are.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Reply
    • okiejoe

      If you never build anything that is not "cutting edge" technology then you will never build anything. R&D moves faster than anybody can keep up with in construction. All you can hope is to be ahead of the other guy's technology.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • Sithbot

      This platform does not support the new railgun. It's better to have a standard cross section and hit the enemy 150 miles out than sneak attack at 60.

      October 29, 2013 at 4:57 pm | Reply
      • anonymous

        Mostly because that railgun is experimental still, and not neccessarily better than a missile.

        October 29, 2013 at 6:07 pm |
  99. hillbillynwv

    Who was Zumwalt? I will have to Google that.

    October 29, 2013 at 3:30 pm | Reply
    • M

      There is a portrait of Admiral Zumwalt in this presentation but you can find more info on him at Wikipedia or just do a Google search.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:39 pm | Reply
    • Marcus

      Admiral Zumwalt was CNO back in the early 70's. Among other things he made life for sailors a good bit better. Biggest mistake in my view was the change of uniforms from the bell bottomed blues and whites to that gastly business suit thing, I hated that suit. When they changed it back they couldn't get the original blue melton(sp?) wool and had to settle for something else that wasn't as nice because the original maker scrapped the machinery to make it as the navy was the only customer for it (so I was told).

      October 29, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Reply
  100. wobbles

    I'd rather pay for this with my taxes than for for my taxes to be financing my deadbeat criminal neighbors being able to be sitting on their rear ends collecting welfare while simultaneously victimizing the neighborhood and burglarizing our homes while we are at work...

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

      You know without government welfare your home is MORE likely to get burglarized. The system is not perfect but the answer isn't to take away all welfare especially since it accounts for such a small part of the overall budget. The problem of disproportionate living situations didn't grow overnight and it won't be fixed by saying "why don't the just pull up their bootstraps and get a job". Most poor people have multiple jobs and still can't afford rent or food. Educate yourself about the problem before you maker blanket judgements about an entire section of the population. My solution Is requiring community service in order to receive government payments.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm | Reply
    • gblack333

      I would rather not pay for ether.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:33 pm | Reply
    • to save

      unfortunately, we will get taxed which will fund both. we don't really have control of where our moneys get spent.

      October 29, 2013 at 3:34 pm | Reply
    • allenwoll

      .
      Wobby - Then get busy pressuring Investors and Entrepreneurs to invest in America rather than to outsource. . Their problem is getting quick, high profits - but at what cost to the Nation AND to YOU ! ! ! - The cost is Recession and NO JOBS - which translates right into your unfortunately valid complaint..
      .
      Your PRIMARY enemies are the lazy ones sitting IN Mercedes & BMWs - Your PRIMARY enemies are NOT the ones sitting in the streets on their butts. . Enemies, maybe - Primary enemies, NO ! ! ! . They are victims, too ! !
      .

      October 29, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Reply
    • wjmknight

      White trailer trash talk. I bet half his family is on welfare.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:12 pm | Reply
    • SammyZ

      Darn.....I wish I could edit these posts and correct my typos.

      October 29, 2013 at 5:48 pm | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply to Kevin


 

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.