What about Navy's Stealth Destroyer - the Zumwalt

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by El_Guero, Oct 29, 2013.

  1. michael pierzga
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 4,862
    Likes: 115, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1180
    Location: spain

    michael pierzga Senior Member

    Evidently its stealth is questionable. The ship is so energy intensive that its thermal footprint is huge.
     
  2. J Feenstra
    Joined: Jan 2012
    Posts: 79
    Likes: 6, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 100
    Location: The Netherlands

    J Feenstra Junior Member

    true, but it's also that ugly, no radar want to look at it...... ;)
     
  3. El_Guero

    El_Guero Previous Member

    You noticed that as well?


    TOO funny.
     
  4. El_Guero

    El_Guero Previous Member

    I apologize, I didn't think I was greedy, just honest.

    ;)
     
  5. El_Guero

    El_Guero Previous Member

    Quoting your WIKI:
    David,

    I don't have a horse in this race. I have been fair with what I wrote, I have not tried to exaggerate. I don't know what you are looking for.

    Wayne
     
  6. DCockey
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 5,006
    Likes: 500, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 1485
    Location: Midcoast Maine

    DCockey Senior Member

    Wayne, I also don't have a horse in the race. Cost depends on how R&D is allocated. Originally 32 DDG-1000s were planned which so $9.6 billion R&D allocated to 32 vessels would have been $300 million each. With the build reduced to 3 vessels the same R&D allocated to 3 vessels is $3.2 billion each. That needs to be added to the actual cost of building the vessels to get close to the quoted $7 billion cost.

    Back to your original question: "Are these destroyers worth $7billion each?" Another question could be "Would 32 of the class been worth something less then $4 billion each?" That's what it looks the cost would have been per vessel if the original number of vessels was to be built rather than reduced to only 3.
     
  7. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    The armament of a carrier is its aircraft. Does your $6.2 billion cost for the USS George HW Bush include the airplanes on board? if not, Waterwitch's comment applies:
     
  8. El_Guero

    El_Guero Previous Member

    Well, if it has 5 Billion in weapons systems, plus 3 billion R&D, plus build cost - it is ONE expensive ship!

    Better not let it leave harbor, so it won't run aground ....

    :(
     
  9. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

  10. El_Guero

    El_Guero Previous Member

    You got that right!

    Go back to F-4's

    ;)
     
  11. Stumble
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 1,906
    Likes: 71, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 739
    Location: New Orleans

    Stumble Senior Member

    No the 6.2 billion just includes its own weapon systems, nuclear reactor, ships systems, ect.

    For comparison the Ohio class boomer subs run about 2 billion, the Wasp class amphibious assault ship is 700 million.

    While I love the idea of a new battleship which is really what this thing reminds me of, more than a traditional destroyer. I have a hard time figuring out what this ship offers that is worth so much more than oh say the five Arleigh Burke destroyers that would run about the same price (7 billion) or the two at the lower 3 billion dollar price.
     
  12. Stumble
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 1,906
    Likes: 71, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 739
    Location: New Orleans

    Stumble Senior Member

    Troy,

    That $1 trillion is supposed to be fore 2,500 planes.

    Frankly I think our military spending is grossly inflated, but even assuming we want to spend this much on the military I think we should at least get reasonable bang for the buck.
     
  13. El_Guero

    El_Guero Previous Member

    Greg, that is $400 MILLION per plane .... I don't think F4's would cost 40 million each with advanced avionics, weapons, and radar ....

    F15s would be GREAT. Even F16's ....

    That is REAL money, no wonder they are spending so much on welfare .... 1/3'rd of our budget ..... I guess they think this is 'payback' or something?

    Anyway .....
     
  14. Stumble
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 1,906
    Likes: 71, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 739
    Location: New Orleans

    Stumble Senior Member

    No argument from me. Like I said, our military spending is insainly high.
     

  15. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    The old Phantom II's (aka 'lead sleds' or 'flying bricks') were, and are, pretty awesome planes. They weren't the most maneuverable things around, but had enough thrust and vertical climb to engage or disengage pretty much at will. They were also sturdy; they could make it home with damage that would have downed most other planes. And they were around long enough for most of their kinks and shortcomings to get ironed out.

    That said, I think modern technology can do even better....
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. hardcoreducknut
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    5,016
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.