Largest Destroyer Built For Navy Headed To Sea For Testing (ap.org) 331
An anonymous reader writes: The first Zumwalt-class destroyer, the USS Zumwalt, the largest ever built for the U.S. Navy, headed out to sea today. Departing from shipbuilder Bath Iron Works, the ship left to undergo sea trials. The AP reports: "The ship has electric propulsion, new radar and sonar, powerful missiles and guns, and a stealthy design to reduce its radar signature. Advanced automation will allow the warship to operate with a much smaller crew size than current destroyers. All of that innovation has led to construction delays and a growing price tag. The Zumwalt, the first of three ships in the class, will cost at least $4.4 billion."
Straight out of Ghost Fleet! (Score:2, Interesting)
A nice book about this ship and its class in an alternate future is Ghost Fleet.
http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Fleet-Novel-Next-World/dp/0544142845
Ghost Fleet is an amazingly awesome book (Score:2)
The Zumwalt being in it is part of the eye-candy of a brilliantly researched futuristic
setting where China attacks the US and our high-tech stuff turns against us.
Awesome writing, good facts, great insight, and a well-developed plot make it
a must-read.
I agree with the OP!!!
E
Re: (Score:3)
Tumblehome is a poor French joke (Score:5, Interesting)
This "futuristic" hull design isn't anything new. The French did this already, long ago. They sold a small fleet of these "rollover" design ships to Russia. And, Russia lost the only engagement in which they participated to Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Arleigh Burke class has 1.5 times the righting arm that the Zumwalt does, up to about 50 degrees. From 50 to 90 degrees, the Burke has three times the righting arms. Right around 95 degrees of roll, the Zumwalt stops trying to right itself, and capsizes. The Burke continues to right itself all the way to 110 degrees - that is, when the ship is lying on it's side, with the mast underwater, it can still roll itself back upright.
http://www.phisicalpsience.com... [phisicalpsience.com]
Long story short - the Zumwalt is a fair weather sailor, and it won't be worth a shit in the real world.
Re:Tumblehome is a poor French joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Long story short - the Zumwalt is a fair weather sailor, and it won't be worth a shit in the real world.
It won't be worth a shit in the real world for a far more serious reason, that the enemies it'll be facing is Somali pirates, suicidal zealots in zodiac dinghies, and random insurgents in third-world arenas. None of the high-tech toys or cost are justified for this, all it'll do is make the repair bill more expensive when, say, a small fibreglass boat from Yemen blows a hole in the side of one big enough to drive a truck through. It's another example of a US military branch aiming for the most expensive toy they can build rather than something that's fit for purpose (cough)F35(cough).
Re: Tumblehome is a poor French joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, Mr. Smartypants - click my second link. Current research says nothing HAS changed. Righting arms. What is that, you ask? Well - what it means is, a Zumwalt putting to sea from Hampton Roads will have hell just GETTING TO SEA. Zumwalts can't cruise the Arctic circle in the winter months. In fact, they can't cruise the central Atlantic in hurricane season. Tumblehome is inherently unstable in heavy seas. It doesn't matter how much technology has changed, a high center of mass remains a high center of mass.
Now, when the bright boys invent anti-gravity, a high center of mass may not mean anything. Until then, Zumwalt is a death trap.
Read, and learn. There is a career available for you in marine architecture, if you can grasp basic physics.
Re: Tumblehome is a poor French joke (Score:4, Interesting)
So for example, it allows fighter jets to have more aggressive and responsive maneuvering because the system readily veers from equilibrium in the desired way.
The problem here is that rollover is not in a desirable direction. In addition to the capsizing threat, it makes turning more difficult as well as providing less stability for firing weapons perpendicular to the ship's axis (firing stability apparently is the reason for the "wave piercing" hull). Sure, one can adjust for this in other ways, particularly via an active control system, but ultimately, it's a straight trade off of radar stealth for somewhat worse maneuverability and handling.
Re: Tumblehome is a poor French joke (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it was used extensively in wooden sailing ships. That was a different world, and ships had entirely different designs, and reacted to physics differently than today's ships.
First, wooden sailing ships all have deep keels. A lot of the weight above the waterline was counterweighted by that keel. That is, a lot more weight than just the mast and sails, all of which were high above the main deck, adding to the tendency to roll over.
Also - virtually all of the material used to build the ship was lighter than water. Not so today.
I can only refer you once more to the study of the tumblehome's righting arms. A lot of experts have agreed that the tumblehome doesn't have inherent stability of an Arleigh Burke, or an Adams, or any of dozens of other steel, iron, or aluminum hulled ships.
Conventional hulls acquire greater and greater righting arms, the further they roll. Tumblehome starts losing that righting momentum around 50%, and it falls off yet a little more with every degree of roll.
I can tell you that I would desert if I were sent to the North Atlantic in the winter time aboard a tumblehome ship. I missed the "perfect storm", but we survived a couple other storms that were deadly. If you find yourself out on those waters on an unstable vessel, about all you can do is put your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbuy.
Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, and as long as voters keep voting for warmongers, taxpayer's money is going to be endlessly squandered on weapon systems we will never use. The entire NIH budget is something like $35 billion. Cancer deaths alone in the US are over half a million a year. How many lives are these destroyers going to save?
We are not going to be at war with Russia or China, so please don't try and bring that up as a justification (although I know some of you will nonetheless).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
taxpayer's money is going to be endlessly squandered on weapon systems we will never use. The entire NIH budget is something like $35 billion
The NIH is but a minor agency of the DHHS whose entire budget is something like $1.2T so if you think they need even more you're complaining the wrong way. Meanwhile at least the government got a ship for its $4.4B in this case. Compared to the almost $20B pissed away in Medicare fraud that was detected last year, never mind how much went unnoticed.
Re: (Score:3)
The government got a ship for 4.4 billion and we are supposed to be glad? It will never be used. It is a showpiece. It is a boondoggle. War is a racket.
Medicare fraud has nothing to do with the NIH, and you know it.
NIH may be a small part of DHHS, but it is the major source of scientific discovery that has reduced deaths due to human disease and cancer. I for one would rather waste money on that than showpiece ships that are really nothing more than a jobs program for defense contractors.
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary, that ship will almost certainly see several wars. The odds it will go its entire service life without firing a shot in anger are basically zero.
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary, that ship will almost certainly see several wars. The odds it will go its entire service life without firing a shot in anger are basically zero.
Well it will now, because we'll find a reason to justify it.
Had it not been built, that prediction might be different.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a destroyer though, you might be right though. Destroyers don't even carry cruise missiles right? Seeing as most US conflicts are bombing the snot out of some 2nd-3rd rate nation unless they are near the coast chances are another ship will be doing the shooting. This one will just be part of the screening force.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
War is a racket.
Perhaps. But even if you believe in a strong military, it is hard to justify this ship. Its only purpose is to fight a full blue-water war with either China or Russia. But both of those are nuclear powers, and we have no territorial disputes with either. They use our military spending to justify their own, and in the end no one gains an advantage. This ship will never be used, and it will just encourage our potential adversaries to be more adversarial.
But there are some areas where we should be spendin
Re: (Score:2)
Their guns, for example, are (or soon will be) capable of attacking targets as far as 63 miles inland
Do you have any plausible scenario where this would be useful? China and Russia are advanced, nuclear powers, capable of developing similar weapons to balance ours, so in that case it is zero-sum. Against any other adversary, such as ISIS, they are not likely to give us an easy target, isolated from civilians. The problem with ISIS is not firepower or range, but distinguishing between combatants and civilians, and attacking them in a way that doesn't actually help their cause. Bigger guns aren't going t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The government got a first generation of the next generation of ships for $4.4 billion
The zumwalt does things no other vessel can do. It will be the platform from which the rail gun will be mounted. Need to fire faster? reroute power from propulsion to the rail gun. Need to go faster? ramp up the generators to 110% and cut off primary power to secondary systems. Yep it can do that. from the control room, which looks more like nasa mission control than the helm of a bridge.
I actually support the zumw
Re: (Score:3)
Who are we going to fight with these "new technologies"? Third world countries with no armies, ones that did not even attack us in the first place? This is a solution looking hard for a problem, any problem, anywhere. It will never be used except to test on some poor bastards in some third world country we labeled as terrorists.
I love new technology that is good for people, I really don't like new technology for killing people, so we differ in that respect.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
voting for warmongers
Guess what? There are large groups of militant types out there that would gleefully kill you and everyone you know, just because you're from the U.S.
but we made them what they are!
What's that got to do with anything, even if it's true? Are we supposed to just sit back and let them destroy everything?
it's not even our fight, we shouldn't be involved!
Sure thing, buddy. We'll just sit back and enjoy living in the West, while Sunni extremists and all the other terrorist groups of the world divide up the Middle East, kill millions, and gain power. We'll
Re: Perspective (Score:2)
At least he got in a star wars reference.
That's no Star Wars reference... (Score:2)
It's a trap!
Re: Perspective (Score:2)
It's a well-developed argument for a Syrian...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and as long as voters keep voting for warmongers, taxpayer's money is going to be endlessly squandered on weapon systems we will never use.
The political parties that oppose this waste (Libertarian, Greens, etc.) get a combined total of less than 1% of the vote, so don't expect anything to change. The Chinese and Russians will use our weapons programs to justify theirs. Then we will use their build up to justify even more of our own ...
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, but that doesn't make it acceptable. While the Greens may never win in the US, Bernie Sanders has a chance, and that would be a very different direction than Bush, Obama or Hillary.
Dwight Eisenhower warned that the military would endless chew up resources that could be better spent in the US for schools, hospitals, medical care, education, infrastructure, etc. Someday the US will switch from a guns to butter economy, but the question is how much money will we squander before we finally decide to do
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. People love to forget that Hillary is being actively investigated by the FBI. And that's just for the email lying, if they get into her real corruption, then look out. FBI doesn't investigate like that for fun. Indictments could easily come. The FBI is not run by Republicans so don't even go there. If the FBI recommends charges, even if the DoJ refuses, that's be as good as a jail sentence as far as Hillary winning the nomination.
So then you'd have Sanders and who, Trump?
Sanders is no gun control nutte
Re: (Score:2)
People love to forget that Hillary is being actively investigated by the FBI.
Even if Hillary is indicted, or hit by a bus, her support will NOT go to Bernie. It would go to O'Malley, or, more likely, Biden would jump in. Sanders has no chance of being the nominee. He is unlikely to win either Iowa or NH, and has no chance at all in South Carolina. A week after SC is Super Tuesday, which is mostly southern and midwestern states with large numbers of black voters in the Democratic primary. Bernie will lose those states in a landslide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It either needs to be government run (with a largely non corrupt government that we do not have), or very heavily regulated in terms of pricing (ala the Japanese model).
Re: (Score:2)
No idea.
Does not follow.
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
UK (although quickly changing), Canada, Japan, Sweeden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland....
The bottom line is that healthcare deals with pain, disease and death. There will always be a very vocal group that is unhappy with the current state of things because they or their loved ones are sick or dying despite best efforts. The least we can do is not have private corporations or government stick their hands so far in the pockets of those affected as to bankrupt them and ruin their lives.
Case in point. My grand mother recently had a stroke. I am her power of attorney, and signing papers for her. She is paralyzed and unable to speak. After Medicare, the skilled nursing facility is billing ME over $4000 a month. If needed I can likely get that debt reassigned to her, but that will also cost in time and legal fees and probably still leave a stain on my credit. I do not have $4000 a month. I make roughly 3k per month. Extra is reinvested in a business I am starting as my retirement vehicle (as an ex felon with 10 years in I have no savings or safety net). Medicaid denied covering her care for two very stupid reasons. 1. No balances on provided bank statements (untrue), and an unclaimed life insurance policy. I did not know of the policy, and found no paperwork on it. My grandmother cannot speak, and I asked the social services office to inform me of any assets they found that I was unaware of. They did not (even though the caseworker said she would).
Where in any sane world dose this make sense? Would it not make more sense to say that these absolutely normal parts of life such as illness and injury are covered by the payments you made earlier? And before you say, she could have saved or prepared for this eventuality, not everyone is financially or mentally capable to do so, and not all illness and injury is foreseeable.
So yes, my argument does follow. We have a failed system. Others work better even if not perfect. Even our new system (obamacare) was corrupted from the start by 'free market' interests. To act like the magical hand of the market will fix it is like relying on the tooth fairy for your retirement fund.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, how much of that health care cost is profit for insurance companies? Hmm? And you keep changing the subject with talk about total health care costs. I was talking about saving lives with medical research at the NIH, as opposed to making wasteful, unused weapons systems as military showpieces.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposite to the researchers' swimming pools? Whenever you spend money, somebody is making profit — nothing wrong about that.
NIH is not in the Constitution — and should not exist. Weapons are the government's responsibility. You could have argued, we are spending too much on them, but you lost that line of reasoning before even starting it by making the sil
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell us why the NIH should not exist. I would love to hear the rational. Were corporations in the Constitution? No? Then they should not exist at all. You just said it. The US military is not in the Constitution. There was supposed to be no standing army because of the dangers it would lead to unnecessary wars. So the US military should not exist at all. You just said it. I could go on with a much longer list, but it is obvious you didn't think your response through very well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's false — there simply is no such thing as "market failure", and people telling the impressionable young minds otherwise are selling something.
But the point was, it is not for the Government to do — unlike weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
But the point was, it is not for the Government to do — unlike weapons.
And my point, is that countries that offer the best medical services are run by their governments. And the one country that has the most free market approach to healthcare does not do it as well. So your claim is bunk.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they didn't spend that 4.4bn all at once. It's been ongoing since at least 2005, and maybe 2001.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they didn't spend that 4.4bn all at once. It's been ongoing since at least 2005, and maybe 2001.
So it is was spent on tech that is now 10-15 years old, and that makes it better?
Re: (Score:2)
The OC was comparing the budget of one NASA FY to the total cost of the destroyer, which is an invalid comparison.
Re: Perspective (Score:2)
No other nation is building these sorts of ships any faster, except the Chinese...
Guess why...
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they didn't spend that 4.4bn all at once. It's been ongoing since at least 2005, and maybe 2001.
It's not like it cost $4.4B to weld the steel together - it's mostly R&D cost. There were 32 ships planned in the class, which would have nicely spread out that R&D cost, but then the program was cut to 3 ships. What nonsense: all the same R&D cost, but we only get 3 ships for it.
That's the military spending problem people should be talking about. The R&D budget was actually quite reasonable for a whole new generation of ships, but we're unable to commit to anything, so it all ends up as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and 10-20 years from now they'll need more pork and or decide a navy is a good idea again and will start a completely new project. Which will cost say 10B and 10 years and when it is about ready to launch to save money they'll cut back on the orders. Rinse and repeat. Contractors all get nice high paying engineering jobs and get to tack on all the change spec penalties then don't really need the production compacity to deliver.
Oh well maybe the US can find something more productive to do with their mon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
To compare, NASA's $18B budget is more than the entire rest of the world combined spends on space exploration.
So what's their excuse?
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, but space exploration didn't really exist when it was written, to be fair...
To be further fair, a great deal of what the US government does isn't really in the constitution, that all changed after the Civil War...
Boondoggle and can it combat other ships? (Score:3)
Re:Boondoggle and can it combat other ships? (Score:5, Insightful)
Repurposing missiles as ship killers? You have heard the term "guided missile cruiser", haven't you? The first purpose built guided missile cruisers were put in service in the early 80s, and could sink ships at 10x the range the big guns on the New Jersey could hit. The Harpoon anti-ship missile went into service in the 70s.
Now I understand the big criticism of the Zumwalt is that it has limited anti-ship capability; but it's supposed to be a destroyer. Destroyers traditionally play mainly anti-submarine and anti-aircraft roles, and in the US Navy mount modest 5" guns for anti-ship use. The Zumwalt's gus are actually 6.1 inches and have considerably longer range -- if they work as advertised. The idea of making it more potent in the anti-ship role would fall into the F35 trap: building cost-is-no-objecdt, do-everything wonder-weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Those 5 inch and 155 mm guns are not for anti-ship warfare; they're for bombardment. If you let an enemy warship into gun range you're probably already dead.
There's no reason a ship the size of Zumwalt can't have ASW capability, particularly when Harpoon is VLS (Real Soon Now, supposedly).
Re:Boondoggle and can it combat other ships? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ships really are not good at killing other ships, planes and submarines are better. Ships are best to house huge artillery to bombard inland targets with, or as cargo/carrier vessels.
Re: (Score:3)
The US navy doesn't really have a ship killing problem. We have enough capability to wipe out every other surface combatant in the world, probably a few times over, because there just aren't that many surface combatants out there. The primary anti-ship platforms are submarines and aircraft, both of which the USN has in spades (comparatively, anyway). USN doctrine has the destroyers and cruisers primarily there to protect the heart of battle group, which is the carrier. The carrier is the offensive platf
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. Navy has a ship-killing problem. The service has, over the past 25 years, neglected the basic mission to sink and destroy enemy ships.
Is that really a problem? I mean If I was to list all the problems I think need solutions for, then the ability sink someone else's ship comes quite low on the list.
Re: Boondoggle and can it combat other ships? (Score:2)
We mothballed the BBs, anything-in-range-killers, and they could have missles also.
Not so smart. One of those would be useful.
Catch the captain's name? (Score:5, Interesting)
Captain James Kirk
Re: Catch the captain's name? (Score:2)
Taken.
Crazy. Naval swarm warfare. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is crazy. Any nation seriously interested in naval war should be spending their money on developing a swarm-based navy. If you could develop a small swarm warfare ship with a price tag of say, $250K, you could produce 16,000 of those at this cost. Good luck fighting those 16,000 ships with this one.
Re:Crazy. Naval swarm warfare. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the Phalanx weapon system can target and hit all the falling pieces of the incoming missile it just destroyed? Not a problem with your swarm that will be destroyed quite quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Propaganda. The propaganda is that surface ships have a viable defense. There is none. Against a single harpoon type missile, yes; the Phalanx does exactly what you say it does; propaganda is usually true.. Against what they would actually shoot at our ships, no.
Multiple, staggered, svelte ICBMs coming down at mach 22. With nuke warheads if they are serious. There is no defense against that. All surface ships are stupid and redundant in the real war that the United States is worried about. I guess they are
Re: Crazy. Naval swarm warfare. (Score:2)
Visualize more than one Phalanx on each side of the ship...
And visualize more ammo...
Re: (Score:2)
This is crazy. Any nation seriously interested in naval war should be spending their money on developing a swarm-based navy. If you could develop a small swarm warfare ship with a price tag of say, $250K, you could produce 16,000 of those at this cost. Good luck fighting those 16,000 ships with this one.
And do what with them? Build big sea catapults to hurl them at inland targets?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At 250k what weapon system will they be using??? If you have a massive swarm coming at you over the horizon, one tactical nuke, or thermobaric weapon takes them all out.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you get your 16,000 small ships across the ocean to attack your target? Just hope that the waves aren't very big? Are these 16,000 ships carrying enough fuel to cross an ocean or do you put sails on them too? What about carrying water generators and food for the crew? And what happens if one of the goals of your navy is to not lose a lot of equipment and personnel when you decide to attack something? This [tiarayachts.com] is the kind of boat you can get for $250,000, assuming of course that you don't have th
Re: Crazy. Naval swarm warfare. (Score:2)
Wonder how DIVADS would work against the swarm. Small=vulnerable.
Defense systems? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Defense systems? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Defense systems? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you just enforce the original poster's argument by saying the expensive monstrosity can be easily taken out be a submarine? The Russians have plenty of submarines...
Re: (Score:2)
You'll probably need a minimum of 50 to 75 missiles to get a ship for each Burke defending the Zum. It starts getting really expensive.
Not $4.4B though right? Because if I was Chinese, I'd be allocating an equal budget to counter measures (ie a 1000 missile simultaneous strike capability). Because I reckon you can build missiles a lot faster than you can build ships, so you simply play the attrition game until you win.
Re:Defense systems? (Score:4, Insightful)
"First off, there are no hypersonic missiles and will not be for a good 5 or 6 years at least"
Wut? Hell an old fashioned ICBM is a hypersonic missile if you use it as one, and they have better nowadays. If you don't actually need to traverse a continent, you have the fuel to come all the way down at full power. And be smaller.
The latest Chinese missiles are estimated to come down at up to mach 22. They've put a lot of money into them for a while now. Which is why they don't really bother with a navy to counter ours. They figure they need the one carrier for show, and they can give the Philippines a hard time if they need to.
But they don't have to beat our navy with their navy to win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
50 cruise missiles would likely not be enough if the ship was part of a battle group in blue water. US ships have the capability to coordinate defensive fire, and a carrier battle group has hundreds of anti-air missiles. And that's assuming an adversary can get into range to launch - an early goal of any battle is to take out the launch platforms, and aircraft have a longer reach than anti-ship missiles.
These sorts of "who would win" questions always depend heavily on the scenario. In open water, far ou
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about ships is that they can go places and carry a lot of fire power. You can send the airforce and army if there are friendly countries in the neighbourhood willing to base them. But only the navy can project power on a global scale. Further, pretty much anything can be put on a ship. Cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, air planes, you name it. So if you are close enough to launch a missile at a ship, there is a pretty good chance that the ship is close enough
Re: (Score:2)
The term used is "re-floated" when such events are tested for.
The US war gamed for that mass of different systems and did not like the results. A "reset" of the war games found a more happy, traditional "winning" result.
Millennium Challenge 2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed"
Obligatory ogre reference (Score:2)
Uglier than Steve Jobs yacht! (Score:2)
What's old is new (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It actually looks like they dropped the blueprints for the Monitor and the Merrimac on the floor, scooped them all up in whatever order and went straight to work.
A rather large "destroyer" (Score:5, Interesting)
Just how often (Score:2)
...do you have to plug it into the charger. Seriously, where does all the electricity the ship needs come from?
Do we build them for anyone else? (Score:2)
Size (Score:4, Insightful)
There are names for sizes of ships. There is no such thing a super-sized destroyer. It's called a light cruiser. I guess Congress funded a destroyer, but they get a cruiser instead.
Re:one ugly ship (Score:5, Funny)
It's 600 feet long, so it would only cost $3000 at Subway. Unless you add guac. Guac is extra.
Re: (Score:2)
the rod hit it might just put a small hole
You have a point about the ship maneuvering but you've completely underestimated the kinetic energy involved in a projectile that fell from orbit.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
the rod hit it might just put a small hole
You have a point about the ship maneuvering but you've completely underestimated the kinetic energy involved in a projectile that fell from orbit.
Projectiles just don't fall from orbit you know. They are already just falling, and falling, and falling some more. In order to get them out of orbit, you have to apply some kind of force to them and get them to reenter the atmosphere... Where they will be falling at terminal velocity for the most part...
Problem is that kinetic energy is related to mass and velocity squared so you want to maximize the speed, which is eventually not going to vary with changes in projectile size and the terminal velocity o
Re: (Score:2)
Also depending on what part of the ship the rod hit it might just put a small hole in the decks and hull.
These things are 8000kg traveling at 3.5 km per second. It will be more than a small hole.
Re: (Score:3)
"If it hits something armored like a gun turret, ammunition magazine, or some heavy machinery. But normal decks and equipment and the hull won't offer that much resistance so you are not going to get the energy release you are imagining."
Just below those decks and hulls there is water, a lot of it, that would gladly take all that energy and transform it into a big boom.
A rod from space would sink that boat even without touching it.
Re: (Score:2)
Terminal defenses are no use when you have saturation attacks from 500 missiles to defend against.
A subsonic Tomahawk cruise missile costs $1.5 million, how much do you think a hypersonic missile will cost, $5 million? So they launch $2.5 billion of missiles to destroy one $4.4 billion ship?
Re: (Score:3)
So they launch $2.5 billion of missiles to destroy one $4.4 billion ship?
Only if they paid US retail prices for their missiles. I'm imagining the Chinese can build an anti-ship missile for under $1M, especially a low-tech version that will be used by the thousand.
So yeah spending $1B to take down a $4B asset is a no-brainer, especially since you only have to take down 2 or 3 to change the course of any theoretical war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1998. (Score:2)
I hope it's not running Windows... like the last time
USS Yorktown (CG-48) was a Ticonderoga-class cruiser launched in 1984 and in 1996 a test-bed for the Navy's COTS Smart Ship program. The ship remained in active service until her retirement in 2004. It's telling that the geek never cites a reference to the Yorktown and Win NT published later than 1998 ---- and ignores the integration of W2K into next-generation ships like the Nimitiz-class carrier USS George HW Bush (CVN 77).
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it's not running Windows... like the last time
Red Hat, apparently: http://arstechnica.com/informa... [arstechnica.com]
Re: trolling... (Score:2)
You may want to read up on BIW..
Go find it yersef.