Home » Sea » Bath Iron Works Launches First Zumwalt Class Destroyer

Bath Iron Works Launches First Zumwalt Class Destroyer

by Mike Hoffman on October 30, 2013

DDG1000The first ever Zumwalt-class destroyer was launched Monday  into the Kennebec River next to the Bath, Maine shipyard of  General Dynamics Bath Iron Works — the company that built the ship.

Bath Iron Works’ workers transitioned the USS Zumwalt (DDG1000) from its land-level construction facility to a floating dry dock on Monday morning. Officials then flooded the dock and the ship was removed from its cradle. Monday evening the ship “was floated off and tied to a pier on the Kennebec River,” Navy officials said.

The largest destroyer ever built at 600 feet  has been under construction since 2009. The launch was supposed to occur earlier in the month, but the shutdown postponed the transition. 

“This is the largest ship Bath Iron Works has ever constructed and the Navy’s largest destroyer. The launch was unprecedented in both its size and complexity,” Capt. Jim Downey, the Zumwalt-class program manager, said in a statement. “Due to meticulous planning and execution, the operation went very smoothly. I’m extremely pleased with the results and applaud the combined efforts of the Navy-industry team.”

Construction on the DDG 1000 is about 87 percent complete as work will continue in a lead up to the planned delivery to the Navy late next year, officials said.

The DDG 1000 is the first in its class with two more already scheduled to be built. Work has started on the Michael Monsoor (DDG1001) and the third Zumwalt-class will be the Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG 1002). The Navy had originally planned to build 32 ships into the fleet. However, costs spiraled and the Navy instead chose to build more Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

Photos courtesy of US Navy/General Dynamics Bath Iron Works.




Share |

{ 219 comments… read them below or add one }

hibeam October 29, 2013 at 11:11 pm

Now were cooking with gas. Well done.


c mcbryde October 30, 2013 at 1:37 pm

Really a ship with no windows on the bridge cant fight or defend what u cant see computers fail and have to use original human equipment EYEBALLS and a good set of binos


blight_ October 30, 2013 at 2:31 pm

God knows we'll need to see them when we cut sails, run alongside, open gunports and give them a good whiff of grapeshot, eh?


Lizard October 30, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Rest Pal October 31, 2013 at 10:02 pm

"while your original vessel sinks from under you"

I believe that part fits the Zumwalt.

Steve B. October 30, 2013 at 7:41 pm

Need a like button here


CDR Lou October 30, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Rest Pal October 30, 2013 at 3:53 pm

it's cooking with gas alright, just not the kind of gas you may think. LOL.

it's naval version of the F-22.

I can hear the gas bubbling up the champagne flutes at Bath Iron Works.

the contractors deserve a champagne bath for snapping up 4+ billions for one ship. Better than building a CVN.


Dfens November 1, 2013 at 10:32 am

But thankfully they'll only build 3 after spending all those billions designing this crappy boat, that way they can move on to dragging out the design of the next great navel vessel.


Rest Pal November 1, 2013 at 1:52 pm

and the next one will be even more expensive so that the navy can afford to build only 2 …

and then the one following that will be more expensive than a CVN …

just keep making each successive models twice the cost of the previous and soon the navy will only build half or a quarter of the ship and call it a day.


Big-Dean November 2, 2013 at 12:24 am

worse still, they'll keep building the LCS

Nicky October 30, 2013 at 12:32 am

She looks more like a cruiser than a destroyer.


Musson October 30, 2013 at 8:26 am

I was shocked by how much she resembles a Civil War iron-clad.


RCDONE October 30, 2013 at 8:52 am

Somtimes, The classic design of things is better than the newer one. Just give it a few upgrades and it will be better than any other design.


blight_ October 30, 2013 at 9:22 am

I guess we'll see how well tumblehome does in choppy seas. It may be better than the last time these hull-forms were popular.


ddd October 30, 2013 at 10:03 am

Not trolling here, but I'm pretty sure all the other tumblehomes are on the bottom of the ocean.

William October 30, 2013 at 9:25 pm

just wait until they start building the next generation of cruisers.


Tiger November 2, 2013 at 2:11 am

Who has $4 billion Destroyers as big as the Graf Spee?


Roland October 30, 2013 at 12:47 am

It does look sleek, but will it stand a heavy wave like tsunami? And the armaments doesn't look as credible as Arleigh Burke class distroyer.


D_Z October 30, 2013 at 12:30 pm

On the open sea, tsunami wave is very small.


Corey October 30, 2013 at 2:39 pm

armaments havent been added yet


The one armed man October 31, 2013 at 1:34 pm

The box with the vertical tube, you can see on the deck, is one of two 155mm vertically loaded advanced gun systems.


Paul of Alexandria October 30, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Also, most of the armaments are/will be behind covers; it's a stealth ship.


rob October 30, 2013 at 6:11 pm

that is because they are hidden, it has one of the newer model 5 inch guns on the bow but it seamlessly hides in a cradle, along with deck-line tomahawk silos etc. its pretty neat actually..


annoyed October 30, 2013 at 9:52 pm

It doesn't, and won't carry any 5 inch guns


unknown November 13, 2013 at 4:05 am

that is right, its carrying "advanced gun systems" or AGS instead of the 5 inch guns or the compact gun anymore.


The one armed man October 31, 2013 at 5:33 pm

Not as credible. How exactly?

• 20 × MK 57 VLS modules, with a total of 80 launch cells[7]
RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), 4 per cell
Tactical Tomahawk, 1 per cell
Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC), 1 per cell
• 2 × 155 mm/62 caliber Advanced Gun System
920 × 155 mm rounds total; 600 in automated store + Auxiliary store room with up to 320 rounds (non-automatic) as of April 2005
70–100 LRLAP rounds planned as of 2005 of total
• 2 × Mk 110 57 mm gun (CIGS)


Big-Dean October 31, 2013 at 10:27 pm

plus helos


Tiger November 1, 2013 at 9:38 pm

Not a single Harpoon Anti ship missile? Seems to lack a punch in that department.


Rest Pal November 4, 2013 at 10:47 pm

Roland, you mean it looks stupid. I fail to see how the big superstructure look sleek. It's anything but sleek.


unknown November 13, 2013 at 4:03 am

The weapons don't look like much, but now they hide all their missiles in Vertical Launch systems, and this Zumwalt class had more than one deck gun, compared to the single compact gun of the Arleigh Burke class.


MCQknight October 30, 2013 at 1:05 am

She's similar in both size and displacement to WWII era pocket-battleships. And we call her a "destroyer". Ha


PolicyWonk October 30, 2013 at 12:06 pm

Or similar to the size of a WW2 US heavy cruiser…


Nadnerbus October 30, 2013 at 3:57 pm

With the destructive power of a WWII aircraft carrier, if she is loaded out with enough TLAMs. Only she can strike much faster and stealthier.

They can call her a destroyer, but she is a capital ship any way you look at it.


blight_ October 30, 2013 at 4:13 pm

However, an WW2 aircraft carrier (well, any carrier in principle) can sortie against more than 80 targets. Once you've exhausted your VLS tubes you're out for the count, though they are far more accurate than a dive-bombing aircraft, and don't suffer personnel and aircraft attrition.


Nadnerbus October 30, 2013 at 4:38 pm

I still think the Navy needs to fast track a quick and efficient way to reload VLS at sea. As budgets get cut, our destroyer and cruiser force is going to get pressed into force projection and presence missions more and more.


Tiger November 1, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Lawrence October 30, 2013 at 3:11 am

anyone knows what DDG1000 uses for CIWS ? or are such thing passé now.


Aurailious October 30, 2013 at 6:28 am

Behind the bridge is a CWIS concealed like the forward guns.


Gabriel Rassam October 30, 2013 at 1:37 pm

A pair of 57mm MK110s within stealthy turrets firing 3P ammunition. Positioned on top of the hangar. Doesn't look like they're installed yet


Andrew White October 30, 2013 at 3:39 pm

it uses a vulcan AAA system and a Mpds


Timothy Leonakis November 1, 2013 at 9:30 am

Give it time; the ship was just launched. The outside will get cluttered up. Most systems are yet to be installed. Bath Iron works builds ships, it doesn't integrate combat weapons systems. It will be two years before the first live ordinance can be loaded.

Unfortunately, like most new ships, it has old looking hardware installed, like a propeller and a naval gun; very reliable items but not too much different in concept from 100 years ago.


Rest Pal November 1, 2013 at 1:56 pm

why would it need CIWS? it's supposed to be totally stealthy so that no enemy ships can see it, let alone missiles.

if the designers put CIWS on it, it means the designers didn't really believe the stealth properties of the ship, and one would have to ask why bother with a 4+billion "stealth design" in the first place. yes?


Big-Dean November 2, 2013 at 12:23 am

I'm sure that there are some defense onboard they don't want to talk about, such as high power microwave and other EM types of weapons that can be used to disable an incoming missile's electronics


Yaron October 30, 2013 at 3:24 am

She's a beauty. Those sharp lines, the imposing tower and those clean (for now…) decks. I get the feeling that she'd look as comfortable in deep space as she would in deep oceans.


Andrew White October 30, 2013 at 3:39 pm

all the arment is below decks


Dfens October 31, 2013 at 9:18 am

Ha Ha, I couldn't have said it better myself.


Merke November 10, 2013 at 4:22 am

Do you think Yaron meant it that way?


Tiger November 1, 2013 at 9:41 pm

She is a ugly dog…


Montaudran October 30, 2013 at 4:15 am

The first idea that came to me is "Star Wars Star Destroyer"… Impressive really even without her armament.


rick October 30, 2013 at 5:28 pm

You will never see her armament until it is going to be used. It is a stealth ship and all projections are limited


EW3 October 30, 2013 at 4:32 am

"Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG 1002)" ?????????

Some people have very short memories.


Gary Greene October 30, 2013 at 4:32 pm



Timothy Leonakis November 1, 2013 at 8:22 am

Copy that!
Who ever thought the man that introduced the US into a quag. would have a ship named after him? Furthermore, what are we doing naming screening ships after Presidents? They are traditionally named after distinguished naval leaders, as CNO Zumwalt.

Oh, I forgot until I wrote that last sentence; Lyndon was in the US Navy; so was Nixon; so was Ford.


blight_ November 1, 2013 at 9:37 am

Sadly, a lot of naval heroes got their names attached to sad little Perry-class frigates.


Massan November 12, 2013 at 2:57 pm

True that. Very disappointed to hear DDX2 is going to be named after LBJ. Kauffman would have been a much better choice.


Rest Pal November 12, 2013 at 4:34 pm

LBJ made one of the biggest contributions to the coffers of the military industrial complex. That's probably why. LBJ can also be considered a symbol of cold-blooded murder in pursuit of power.

Lewis Smart October 30, 2013 at 4:56 am

I like how it sort of looks like an old ironclad.


Montaudran October 30, 2013 at 4:56 am

Why ? because the Viet Nam War ?


EW3 October 30, 2013 at 8:55 am

Partially that, but also his social policies created the welfare state we have now.
There are only two things about him I appreciate. The space program, and his decision to not run for a 2nd term.


SMSgtMac October 30, 2013 at 1:52 pm
blight_ October 30, 2013 at 2:33 pm

They could've picked any other MoH winner and put their name on, alongside Michael Mansoor. I remain in favor of Roger Young…


Nadnerbus October 30, 2013 at 4:02 pm

A good choice. I am personally very biased towards the need for another USS Ernest Edwin Evans.

Rest Pal October 31, 2013 at 4:15 pm

consider "Edward Snowden" and "Bradley Manning" for the next 2 ships.

they are real heroes, as opposed to war criminals, like LBJ.

Frank Caruso November 12, 2013 at 9:40 am

We don't live in welfare state. LBJ also signed the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act. He was very progressive in some of his policies. I think historians will decide how good a President he was. Take care.

Frank Caruso


Daniel Smith October 30, 2013 at 5:09 am

Something that Canada needs


blight_ October 30, 2013 at 9:25 am

For the right price…and perhaps it'll work better than UK handmedown?


Dfens October 31, 2013 at 9:20 am

They are only building 3, because GD wants to get to work on designing the next rolly polly ship. Design is where all the profit is. When you build the damn things, then they have to work. It's such a drag — on profits.


blight_ October 31, 2013 at 9:46 am

Indeed. Would the next batch of Burkes be considered profitable if there's little R&D and just continued production of an extant product? In cost-plus-land, there's mitigated risk attached to R&D or production these days…


Nicky October 30, 2013 at 5:35 pm

I don't think Canada can afford it. Maybe a Type 45 destroyer or a Burke Flight IIA


Tiger November 2, 2013 at 2:14 am

The type45 sucks…..


TonyC. October 30, 2013 at 6:57 am

This ship is larger than the US Navy's current cruiser fleet. This ship should have been designated as a cruiser. The hull design is like the old 19th century battleships and that will be interesting to see how it handles in rough seas. The low sillouhette is like an iron clad, as someone posted earlier.


Hector Q. October 30, 2013 at 1:24 pm

Might there have been some sort of political calculations on the part of the Navy (e.g., attempting to make the project more attractive to Congress) that caused them to designate it as a destroyer even though it's actually cruiser-sized? Kind of like the way the Air Force designated the F-22 as the F/A-22 for a period of time…


Dfens October 30, 2013 at 7:18 am

They should have named it, Tippycanoe. I'll bet it floats really well, upside down. At least the Navy got the stealth it paid for this time. I suppose we should be thankful for what little we actually do get from these programs.


dave October 30, 2013 at 8:29 am

You really are thick, aren't you? You think ships float better with the wide parts OUT of the water?


EW3 October 30, 2013 at 9:50 am

You ever take a look at a CVN ?


mhears October 30, 2013 at 10:30 am

The Zumwalt has a wave piercing hull because it provides a smoother ride than traditional designs and reduces the stress on the vessel and crew. Its a similar concept as trimarans, it cuts through the waves instead of floating over.


Dfens October 31, 2013 at 9:05 am

"A single sizable swell that hits the ship’s back end might take the ship down, engineers have said. That’s because these ships sport a new, downward-sloping hull that primes the ship to move stealthily, but not necessarily stably; traditional ships have upward-flaring hulls." http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2013/1030
By the way, this engineer says the same thing. Should be no surprise. We all study that thing called "science".

Nadnerbus October 30, 2013 at 11:40 pm

most ships are wider above the water than below. One benefit of that is that in the event of damage, they stay afloat longer as they take on water, since it takes ever more water to displace the air in the larger sections above the water line. I have seen it mentioned that tumblehome designs sink faster due to that reason.


Dfens October 31, 2013 at 8:51 am

Yeah, and there are other reasons it's not as good a design. Most of them have to do with roll stability. Let's see, as it rolls, does it displace more water or less with this kind of hull? Hmm, seems like a pretty easy test to do. Not that I would know anything about the subject.


gbierl October 30, 2013 at 10:50 am

I'm sure someone at the Naval Design Bureau is slapping their forehead yelling, "We never thought to consider roll in the hull design!" Please, if you are going to be a detractor at least have something better than "it looks like it will tip over".


Dfens October 31, 2013 at 8:49 am

The Naval Design Bureau didn't design this ship. General Dynamics did. If you're just going to be a cheerleader, well, shut the f up.


gbierl October 31, 2013 at 9:26 am

Insults are the first refuge of a weak argument. Just sayin'……

And you are probably right, the Navy had no input at all here.


Dfens November 1, 2013 at 10:23 am

Did I call you a "cheerleader"? Poor baby. It doesn't make you any less wrong about who designed that crappy boat though, does it? Maybe you should check those facts before you write, then you'll actually have something interesting to say.

blight_ November 1, 2013 at 11:28 am

Next, they will propose Stability Extensions and turn the Zumwalt into a trimaran. R&D moneyfuntime!


Dfens November 3, 2013 at 10:56 am

I'm sure canoe style outriggers will really screw up the stealth. That will probably be the reason they cost so much to design.


Dfens November 3, 2013 at 11:39 am

Remember when the US Navy had a real stealth ship that would actually float? The Sea Shadow (http://www.maritime.org/tour/seashadow/doc/seashadow-photo.pdf) makes this piece of crap look like such an embarrassment that they had to have the ship that was designed and built in 23 months cut up for scrap before they could expose this one to the glare of public scrutiny. The Sea Shadow was not only stealthy above the water, it also had a diesel electric propulsion system, much like the submarines our Navy can't find today.


Merke November 10, 2013 at 4:12 am

Dfens, you shouldn't be thankful because you still overpaid. Ships that don't float well are inherently stealthy. No stealthy material or design needed.


Big-B October 30, 2013 at 8:29 am

A beautiful ship for darth vader. Im sure they tested it before with smaller models and computer sims but does the bow really work in rough sea?


blight_ October 30, 2013 at 9:22 am

They built a fractional scale tumblehome demonstrator, but haven't really talked about what they learned from it. So…we'll find out?


Nadnerbus October 30, 2013 at 4:04 pm

I find your lack of faith disturbing.


Governor Tarkin October 31, 2013 at 4:57 am

Enough of this! Nadnerbus, release him!


RRGED October 30, 2013 at 9:00 am

Awesome War Machine!!!


009 October 30, 2013 at 9:23 am

I hope she will be equip with a rail gun, and yes she will cut through rough seas with ease.


Paul of Alexandria October 30, 2013 at 3:12 pm

Actually, that's in the works. Probably as an upgrade, though. http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/ET/railg


Andrew November 1, 2013 at 9:56 pm

I find that unlikely for the rail gun at the moment as to generate enough power for one the Zumwalt would need to house a nuclear reactor. It is possible though that future destroyer designs come equipped with rail guns. This however for now just has an AGS, its still pretty damn impressive.


Happy ears October 30, 2013 at 10:09 am

form is beautiful. diffuse weapon systems suggest survivability with 80 VLS and 2 AGS. anyone within 80+ Nm will get a shock.


happy ears October 30, 2013 at 10:10 am

v2 with a rail gun and we can engage in old fashioned gun ship colonial ops :)


mhears October 30, 2013 at 10:32 am

The Zumwalt has a wave piercing hull because it provides a smoother ride than traditional designs and reduces the stress on the vessel and the crew. Its a similar concept as trimarans, it cuts through the waves instead of floating over.


Robert October 30, 2013 at 10:45 am

I bet low speed maneauvering (e.g. docking) is a real challenge when the wind is up……..


Big-B October 30, 2013 at 10:48 am

The Zumwalt vs. all other Destroyers/Cruisers = Deathstar vs. ISS :-)
Hopefully the USA are able to repair their economy. With the budget in mind even 3 of these beauties will be difficult at best. 32 of them (as planned) sounds rediculous in any kind of universe…


Corey October 30, 2013 at 2:42 pm

they said in the article that they cancelled the order for 32


Big-B October 31, 2013 at 4:10 am

I know, thats why i wrote "(as planned)"…


Michael October 30, 2013 at 11:23 am

Did any one ever see the movie the Extraordinary Gentlemen? The Nautilus comes to mind. . . Anyway, looks like a job well done. May she have "Fair winds and Following Seas." Cheers


Ernie October 30, 2013 at 12:04 pm

Hey, that's exactly what came to my mind too. Great movie BTW.


Thomas L. Nielsen October 31, 2013 at 4:48 am

"You underestimate the Nautilus. You underestimate her greatly".

And yes, great movie.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen


SMSgtMac November 1, 2013 at 5:47 pm

When I saw the movie, the Nautilus reminded me of the DDX ;-)


Tad October 30, 2013 at 11:31 am

With three ships in the class, I'm assuming these will be used more as technology testbeds than as active fighters. After all, as with LCS, build and procure came before develop and test. And I'm not complaining about that since there are only going to be three ships, and using them for testing the new technologies and the new hull design is appropriate. If the navy was working on building 30 more of these, though, as they'd originally planned, then I'd be kind of upset as a taxpayer.


Dfens October 31, 2013 at 9:13 am

You should be upset that only 3 are going to be built. Why 3, because GD wants to get more free money from the US taxpayer by designing the next great naval vessel. They don't make nearly as much from building these crappy pieces of junk as the do from designing them.


UAVGeek October 30, 2013 at 1:11 pm

Anyone else catch that it's being Captained by Captain James Kirk?



gregg October 30, 2013 at 4:44 pm

Huh? It doesn't say who it is being captained by at all….


UAVGeek October 31, 2013 at 6:32 pm
gregg October 31, 2013 at 9:25 pm

Got it after digging around, but this didn't say a thing about it…


Rest Pal November 1, 2013 at 1:35 am

the Zumwalt is designed for show / entertainment / propaganda. The Navy might as well let Jack Nicholson be the captain.

I doubt that in a real naval battle, this ship will fare any better than a Ticonderoga or an Arleigh Burke.

Lance October 30, 2013 at 1:39 pm

Hope they work on more we need this a lot more than LCS!


Venkat Kanakamedala October 30, 2013 at 2:39 pm



Rest Pal November 1, 2013 at 2:27 pm

Why is it better?


Reuben October 30, 2013 at 2:45 pm

Resembles ship from the early 1900s…


TBird October 30, 2013 at 3:02 pm

It is most likely that these vesseles are going to be involved in very low profile missions. Their unique hull shapes are radar and sonar deflecting and are probably only going to be used in hit and run missions.


HGR October 30, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Rail guns and lasers. That is what this ship ultimately will be about. That is why it is electrical propulsion. So it is sort of experimental.


Donald Bacon October 30, 2013 at 3:23 pm

DefenseTech has turned into a Pentagon PR outlet. The Zumwalt is a perfect product?

The $3.5B Zumwalt, a destroyer the size of a battleship, has a wood composite superstructure plus that delightful tumblehome hull innovation that means she will not be seaworthy. .


SMSgtMac October 30, 2013 at 9:46 pm

Yes. By all means. Offer us a link to a nut-job's site. Where no doubt in thy punkin' noggin', his eyeball analysis of test photos and videos somehow, SOMEHOW!, produces a different and 'more believable' (/sarc) dire conclusion than the guys who actually– y'know–ran the tests and collected the real data.

Adjust your tinfoil- "they" are getting through!


Dfens November 3, 2013 at 11:15 am

Yes, because usually "nut-job" sites have computer generated videos of computer generated ship stability models. That's typically how I spot a "nut-job" site. Of course, it's always easier to spot someone who only posts on a website because they are paid to by a defense contractor (like maybe General Dynamics, a defense contractor known for their upstanding ways) to pollute discussions by actual taxpayers who have a right to know how their money is being spent.


Rest Pal November 4, 2013 at 10:43 pm

What's wrong with the site? You didn't understand it because it involves mathematics?


Reuben October 30, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Reuben October 30, 2013 at 3:39 pm
brian October 30, 2013 at 4:18 pm

with the massive amount of coin spent on this , i am sure it will not be "top heavy", also its capabilities have not been stated, on purpose im sure, but i bet everyone would s*#t themselves if they knew.



Kenneth Barclay, Sr. October 30, 2013 at 4:28 pm

WTF???????????????????? Aircraft carrier's get named for Presidents that were members of the GOP. Democrat Presidents only get there names much smaller ship's on Destroyer

On a different note. Anyone else notice that Destroyer was misspelled in the story title?????


Albert October 30, 2013 at 5:32 pm

It's about the cost of the vessel not the tonnage. That's why submarines went from cities to states when the Virginia class was build and the reason SSN 23 USS Jimmy Carter (submarine) was named after a president.


Citizen of the world October 30, 2013 at 7:54 pm
Citizen of the world October 30, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Gary Spencer October 30, 2013 at 8:25 pm

You seem to forget the USS John F. Kennedy, the USS Franklin D. Roosivelt, the USS Theodore Roosivelt. But6 not only Presidents but other important people,USS John C. Stenniss.


blight_ October 30, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Politics. From the list of Nimitz-class carriers:

USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
USS George Washington (CVN-73)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)

Notice the first is named for the admiral, the second for Eisenhower (R), Carl Vinson, TR (R), Lincoln (R), Washington (I), Stennis, Truman (D), Reagan (R), Bush Senior (R).

Three for military men, 7 for presidents. 5 for Republicans, one for Dems, one Independent. Three Republicans are pre-Southern shift, and could be considered relatively safe (additionally, being deceased helps with the partisan rancor). Eisenhower, TR, Washington and Lincoln are uncontroversial choices.


Albert October 30, 2013 at 4:38 pm

Just another target. Should have just used the money for the Virginia class and the new SSBN submarine programs. If a mk48 can disable a super carrier and two can break it in half the same thing can happen to this ship. She'll be just as vulnerable to submarine sonar as the rest of the fleet so not even close to how stealthy a submarine is. Doing war games with surface ship's has shown me that our submarines and crews are vastly superior to even a whole surface action group. Sort of a waste of money, looks like the military-industrial complex wins again.


Former artillery guy October 30, 2013 at 6:12 pm

Unfortunately a fleet of submarines off an enemy coast does not quite bring it home to the enemy as well as a few f-18 s can . You still need a surface Navy to dive the point home.


Steve B. October 30, 2013 at 7:58 pm

When 154 Tomahawks out of an Ohio are raining down on your head and you have nobody to shoot back at, it certainly drives the point home.


Tom Billings October 31, 2013 at 12:41 pm

True, but then you have a problem. Instead of deterring a war, you've already started one. A *visible* Navy helps the minds of another set of politicians on the far side of an ocean to focus on what might happen if they are not really cautious . Not so much with subs till shots are fired. Keeping the peace, by being able to shoot, without having to shoot, demands "presence", which subs offshore, by their nature, cannot project.


Uma October 30, 2013 at 4:56 pm

Looks awesome!! question is how did the Navy will or plan to do with it?? Since costs a lot of money for Americans people "taxpays". as Tad had mentioned early in here. Can the Navy give more detail to the taxpays?? Do not get me wrong please I always support all of you guys. I just had came to the points that I am getting tired to hear. Working class Americans is deserves to known and understand more…God bless you all.


SMSgtMac October 30, 2013 at 10:03 pm

LOL! Seriously?
Well Uma,
We will "deter", and failing deterrence, we will smite down our Nation's foreign enemies as needed in the future. Assuming of course we can hang on long enough against our internal enemies.
Oh, and we shall float around….a lot.

(Sorry "Uma". Not buying it.)

Soft Troll, Sugar Troll,
Little Ball of Fur
Pacifist Troll, Foreign Troll
Grrrr Grrrr Grrrr.


Tony Parker October 30, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Looks like the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia from the 1860's Civil War.


Big-Dean October 30, 2013 at 5:33 pm

I don't think a lot of people appreciate the differences between this program and the LCS program, let's put a few reminders out there

-the DDG-1000 is a complete ship, will all weapon systems on board, installed and ready to go, the LCS on the other hand is an empty hull awaiting some future vapor ware module that will give it some reason to call itself a warship

-the DDG-1000 overall is on time, on budget with no foreseeable major glitches. The LCS, both designs have major design and structural flaws, they are both peer queens and need constant maintenance

-the DDG-1000 is built to fight, not RUN away like the LCS

-the DDG-1000 will put the Navy forward, the LCS is dragging the Navy backwards

-the Chinese respect the DDG-1000, they laugh at the little crappy ship LCS

-The DDG-1000 is ready to serve and fight now, the LCS will never be ready and it will never be able to fight. All it can do is sink


Big-B October 31, 2013 at 4:23 am

i totally agree with every point.

Maybe the Zumwalt can use some remotecontrolled LCS as a decoy? The LCS is nearly unarmed anyway. Just get rid of the few weapons installed and instead put an emitter into the empty hull that makes it look like a big cruiser or carrier on enemy radar…


Big-Dean October 31, 2013 at 10:17 pm

interesting idea


Rest Pal November 1, 2013 at 1:27 am

Why would the Chinese (or Russians or others) respect the DDG-1000? They don't even though anything about this empty hull – no tests, no trials, no exercises.

Ultimately, it's the caliber of the sailors on board that counts.

No, it's not ready to serve and fight now. And when it is, it will be serving and fighting for Wall St., the oil cartel, and the military industrial complex, NOT the people of the United States.


Rest Pal November 1, 2013 at 3:07 pm

edit: (first parag) … They don't even KNOW anything about this empty hull …

damn me.


dale wilkinson October 30, 2013 at 5:50 pm

Zumwalt-class who was he ? Who gets to name these ships ? Why not medal of honor winners those who are not with us because of thier sacrafice for our country and take the politics out of these War-ships but honor our dead soilders,sailers,airmen and marines.


Former artillery guy October 30, 2013 at 6:07 pm

He was a visionary Admiral.


tmb2 October 31, 2013 at 12:37 am

Google – and a mild appreciation for military history – might answer your question for you.


Dale November 1, 2013 at 3:29 am

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


Former artillery guy October 30, 2013 at 5:54 pm

Hull like a HMS Dreadnought (the first modern battleship) and the conning tower and superstructure built for stealth. With a 155 mm fore and aft w smart artillery with a 100 mile range Not Bad well done Bath..


annoyed October 30, 2013 at 9:54 pm

Both 155mm guns are mounted fore.


Nicky October 30, 2013 at 6:05 pm

In comparison
Kriov BattleCruiser: Displacement 24,300 tons; Standard : 28,000 tons (fully loaded)
Zimwalt class Destroyer: Displacement 14,564 tons
Ticonderoga Crusier Displacement: Approx. 9,600 long tons (9,800 t) full load
Burke destroyer Displacement
Flight I: 8,315 t (8,184 long tons; 9,166 short tons)
Flight II: 8,400 t (8,300 long tons; 9,300 short tons)
Flight IIA: 9,200 t (9,100 long tons; 10,100 short tons)

In terms of Tonnage, I would put the Zimwalts on the same level as the Long Beach-class cruiser, Baltimore-class cruiser, Providence-class cruiser & Boston-class cruiser.


Steve B. October 30, 2013 at 6:55 pm

Anybodies guess whether the tumblehome design is going to be seaworthy, especially when it hits some 60ft plus waves. Not sure the Navy though this part through…

It's also oriented towards the so-called "littoral" mission, so fewer VL tubes then a Burke even though it's a LOT bigger. Cool that the VL's are all on the peripheral. The 5" is certainly an amphibious support weapon and I suspect that might get needed when we least expect it.

Lot of money for what is essentially a technology demonstrator.


Gary Spencer October 30, 2013 at 8:34 pm

I served aboard the USS Leahy CG16, ex (DLG16), with all the masts and radar antena she was very top heavy, started rolling as soon as we untied from the pier. The tumblehome design puts a larger area under the bow and helps to eliminate the rolling. Lowers the center of gravity and places it beneth the waterline instead of above it.


Rest Pal November 1, 2013 at 2:25 pm

What is important is not the relative position of the CG and the waterline, but the relative position of the CG and the CB (center of buoyancy). For a stable design, CB must be higher than CG so that a counteracting moment is created whenever the ship tilts to one side. Otherwise the torque from a roll will reinforce rather than resist the roll.

CB is always below the waterline. So having CG below the waterline doesn't mean the ship is stable. Only when the CG is below the CB can a ship be considered truly stable.


Merke November 10, 2013 at 4:25 am

It doesn't help eliminate the rolling. Where do you get the idea that the area under the bow is larger?


Big-Dean October 30, 2013 at 11:30 pm

hey Steve

FYI, she has two 6 inch guns not 5 inch, big difference


Citanon October 31, 2013 at 1:52 pm

It's seaworthy. The Navy didn't just think this through, they've been running tons of tests and experiments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-s3S3F8Mao&f

Beyond the sea worthiness question though is how well the new hull and operational concepts will work in real war. However, if no one ever took a risk, we would not have the submarine, the carrier battle group, the guided missile, heck, any of the things that make the modern military effective.

War is a competitive endeavor. To prevail a nation has to be willing to take greater risks and make greater expenditures than competing nations. We could rest on our laurels, stick with the same "reliable" and "affordable" teclaurels. All that would mean is that one day our men and women would be dying at the same reliable rate as their enemies operating the same dependable equipment. It was reliable, risk free and saved tax payer dollars is poor consolation when you are dead, or worse, when you've lost the war while dying in great numbers.


Merke November 10, 2013 at 4:08 am

They were testing it using tiny little toys, and without accurate weight distribution. LOL.

Another F-35 like product is coming out, only this time it's a naval vessel.


Rest Pal November 4, 2013 at 10:50 pm

I don't know whether it's intended as a technology demonstrator, but it's definitely a "here's-how-to-skin-the-taxpayers-big-and-easy" technique demonstrator.


Hunter76 October 30, 2013 at 7:02 pm

Generally, the tumblehome design was expected to be more seaworthy than traditional designs; the tumblehome was expected to "tumble home" (right itself) if it got pitched hard– more buoyancy on the low side from the wide beam under water, and more counterweight and leverage on the high side with the wide beam out of the water and pressing down. However, I'm not aware of practical studies of this.

Tumblehome battleships were immediately disdained after the battle of Tsushima (1905), when the Japanese Navy annihilated the Russian Pacific Fleet, including sinking 3 of 4 tumblehome battleships. But the design wasn't the fault. The Japanese simply had better officers and gunnery.


රාගම චුටිපුතා October 30, 2013 at 7:16 pm

i think she 's look good ..and she need to a "capt.jack sparrow" type captain …..


gmailander October 30, 2013 at 8:29 pm

I guess I'm getting old. It doesn't look like a destroyer. This shape will protect it??


SMSgtMac October 30, 2013 at 10:15 pm

2% the radar signature of the current types. It can see you and shoot you before you know its there.
Navy Fact Sheet: "DDG 1000 will triple naval surface fires coverage as well as tripling capability against anti-ship cruise missiles. DDG 1000 has a 50-fold radar cross section reduction compared to current destroyers, improves strike group defense 10-fold and has 10 times the operating area in shallow water regions against mines. "


blueiis0112 October 30, 2013 at 8:38 pm

I am sure that many of the Navy's ships need to be retired. I know that many believe that investing in such items is not a good economic decision. But, remember that good ole Bill figured we did not need NASA as big. Our daughter graduated with a boy who won a full scholarship to the Air Force Academy with all intent on going to NASA and into space. He had been dreaming of being an astronaut since he was in the 3rd grade. All the years of studying and maintaining a 4.0 to get there were demolished when Big Brother Bill decided that we did not need to invest in our own kids and their futures. This boy came from rural farm stock not middle-class inner city. How do we encourage our kids to dream big and study hard if idiots in Washington make stupid decisions.


blight_ October 31, 2013 at 9:56 am

NASA's been toast since the last Saturn V rocket. The space shuttle was its dying gasp.

At least you are courteous to not blame Obama.

Nothing wrong with going into the air force and becoming a pilot. You can always be a test pilot, or join the astronaut corps and go up on Russian rockets. I guess it's good we propped up their space program in the '90s…or nobody would be in space anymore.


Red October 30, 2013 at 8:41 pm

This is like the surface-combatant version of the Seawolf SSN class. Originally meant to be many more ships of her type built, but there'll only be 3 vessels, just like Seawolf. And she's extremely capable, just like Seawolf.


blight_ October 31, 2013 at 9:53 am

Debating if the next step is a cheaper, stealthy destroyer, or the return of a CG/CGN?


Steve October 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Hey Semper Fi, that is without question a very nice peach of Engineering for sure.
On the Hot Ride side of me, I love the lines for sure..

You know how Marines hate to say go Navy, but ! that is totally Hot..

Great Job !!!!!!!!! let's pray we newer have to use it


Earl Dean October 30, 2013 at 9:57 pm

looks like that massive con tower will be a major target! May as well wright f**& me up here on it! I am guessing all the arms are on the inside? MMMM limited field of fire? Sorry just dont look that hot to me!


Donald Bacon October 30, 2013 at 10:09 pm

With all that "stealth" I'm surprised you saw that massive ship! :-)


mick October 30, 2013 at 10:10 pm

VERY NICE!!! but will Obuma let it have guns ? or will he use it for a his cruse ship?


SteveD October 30, 2013 at 10:26 pm

Okay, I'll be the goose. What makes a Destroyer a Destroyer and what makes a Cruiser a Cruiser? What makes this a Destroyer and not a Cruiser?
I am not kidding around (well maybe a tiny bit), I'd really like to know.


SCPO October 30, 2013 at 10:29 pm

That will sure look funny doing Carrier escort duty trailing behind a super carrier.


Tom Fitz October 30, 2013 at 11:02 pm

That 1890s ram bow looks cool and may cut thru waves well, but that forecastle is going to be a very wet place: hope it's well waterproofed. As a taxpayer, I would just say I think they could have built "testbeds" at a frigate or even patrol vessel scale and gotten as much useful data on stealthiness, etc.


Tushkah August 22, 2014 at 9:18 am

They did make scale Models and a patrol boat sized test boat.


MR.T October 30, 2013 at 11:27 pm

I am pleased with the launch of this new Naval Ship. I'm surpised at the look of it but we Naval Veterans should know we can't compare this ship to another vessel built 75 years ago thinking we know it all. GO NAVY 1968-1974


Brian Goode October 30, 2013 at 11:38 pm

I was stationed on the first Adams Class Destroyers launched. That looked like a ship. These new ones look a bit Stealthish.


Chuang Shyue Chou October 31, 2013 at 12:33 am

It would appear that each succeeding destroyer class will be smaller in number due to the higher unit cost and capability. I wonder about that because I think sometimes, sheer numbers are needed. A ship can only be at one place at any given time.


blight_ October 31, 2013 at 9:48 am

That's the hot mess of the Littoral Combat Ship. Littoral combatant, mine sweeper, drone mothership, high seas escort, fast-mover, high-station-time boat.


Chuang Shyue Chou October 31, 2013 at 12:34 am

Perhaps, there should be an austere class of vessels for escort purposes.


RICK SORRELL CD October 31, 2013 at 6:15 am

as an ex sailor(canadian navy) these ships shows how technology has progressed since my days in steamers. god bless this ship and all that saIL IN HER


J. D. R. Wilkinson October 31, 2013 at 7:01 am

Look at that sonar dome! Hell yeah.


valon October 31, 2013 at 7:06 am

Bit wierd it being a destroyer being there goal is mainly anti missle fighter support and giving it a larger mass will just make it easier to detect and destroy in a modern war plus the bow design is a bit wierd i thought they were designed tip up for several reasons one being it wont through a tone of water onto the deck in rough seas and for bad weather ect fuck being in a war on this thing in bad weather more chances of getting killed by the sea rather than enemy


LukeS October 31, 2013 at 7:46 am

I believe all the crew are well buried inside the structure, no deck crew etc, etc, looks good in the water. As such I doubt there is much access to the decks for the crew inside. Isn't it these where Darpa is testing the robotic firecrews for?
Tumbelhome hulls went out went shells came in on an angle side ways at higher than cannon velocity, as it gave a 90 degree impact to surface, and punched straight through, defeating going to iron hulls. This is purely built for modern warfare. Missiles tend to come in level to the water these days, so weather getting a 60 degree, or 120 degree impact changes little. This one will be hard to see, esp over VR. That combined with it's electronic back grid makes it extremely versatile for the next 30 years. Where entering the missile generation, they'll get smarter and smarter. Worrying about it's ability to get hit with long range kinetics, is only going to hold you back. America has the Arleigh's for general duty, these are next level.


Richard DeFord October 31, 2013 at 9:22 am

I heard it looked fine but when people started trying to board it the ship started to sink. So they were told to try to get on board at off peak hours so that they would not experience any issues. It has yet to have a single crew member successfully board the ship.


Charlie October 31, 2013 at 11:50 am

I noticed they brought back the old style cutter bow from the 1890s. I think it is a nice looking ship. I think it will do our fleet well!


Tele_whacker October 31, 2013 at 4:51 pm

She is a beauty. My ship ( USS Thomas J. Gary, DER 326, keel laid in '42, retired to the Tunisian Navy in '75) would look like a Model A next to the Zumwalt. Say what you will about Elmo but under his watch we got to look and act like sailors. Man, how old does this ship make me feel. I hope she sails as good as she looks…pure SEX!


Paulwsc October 31, 2013 at 10:26 pm

I haven't seen the data on how that type of hull rides in rough seas. "Cutting through the waves"? This doesn't look like a submarine, it is billed as a surface ship. I wonder how the real thing will hold up to twisting and bending in 10' – 20' seas? How many years is the hull expected to hold together before the superstructure and main hull will need to have major repairs?
I think I'll reserve my opinion until the real thing gets out to sea and rides out its first hurricane. It just looks like a surface ship designed to perform something like a sub but is not a sub. It would be a shame if it can only ride safely in calm seas. What a Navy that would make!


Big-Dean October 31, 2013 at 10:49 pm

I see that DDG-1002 will have a steel deckhouse rather than a composite one.

A steel design has got to weigh many times more than the composite. Makes me wonder how they are going to pull that off with so much weight up high?

Does any one have a clue about this?


Rest Pal November 1, 2013 at 1:22 am

they aren't.

you are looking at Navy's version of AF's F-22 and F-35.

there is one positive though – its air drag is less than conventional designs. better fuel efficiency.


blight_ November 1, 2013 at 9:38 am

I saw that. Changing the materials will add to the cost of the ship…the savings will evaporate! Stupidity at its finest.


Ed221 November 1, 2013 at 10:53 am

As other have stated, it blends sleek and modern with late-19th Century, by having what appears to be a "ram bow."


CPO November 1, 2013 at 1:19 pm

If nothing else, it will scare the crap out of the enemy.


Timothy Leonakis November 1, 2013 at 3:21 pm

A bow wave would certainly wash off faster. There is also less bending moment from less wash over–blue water–weight.

The membrane on the sonar dome will be in constant need of maintenance. Nothing can be done about that; it goes with the territory. It’s just like the 196o’s Destroyer Escort Knox Class Sonar Domes–I was on the O’Callahan in that class (DE1051 later converted to FF1051 by my time).

The Navy wanted to start off experimentally small (conservative approach) with a destroyer but for hull design reasons of ratios, it actually grew to the size of a cruiser, rather than give up weapons platforms.

As for Electronic Warfare stealth design is a naval innovation.

The esophantom (inner phantom) appearance poses a different set of psychological attributes:
1) Its unnerving provocation dares the observer to imagine the terror it has hidden within.
2) It seduces the nation to a bunch of beggars–for an oceanic smack down. That could be a bigger problem.

–Performance test data pretty please.



Ron Taylor November 4, 2013 at 9:21 am

Very impressed ! Pity we don't have a Navy anymore, BUCK Taylor, EX Royal Navy.


Roland November 5, 2013 at 3:51 am

We probably need to prepare for this:
Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/ins


Rest Pal November 5, 2013 at 4:21 pm

Washington Times is a known propaganda outlet filled with neo-con(artist) nutjobs and fanatics. Not to be accorded any credibility.


Rest Pal November 6, 2013 at 2:34 am

It's Washington Times. What do you expect. The same old warmongering trick to help defense contractors, their senators and reps BS for additional spending on more expensive useless hardware.


Mike November 5, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Look out for hurricanes


Rest Pal November 6, 2013 at 2:41 am

LOL. And be sure to sail into it so that we can have a good look at how well it tumbles, or better still, how long it takes for it to Tumble home.


joe calabro November 10, 2013 at 10:48 am

Why no Vulcan Phalanx CIWS? NOTHING beats a gun for last-ditch, balls-to-the-wall missile defense. Big mistake.


Rest Pal November 11, 2013 at 1:31 pm

Somebody said a while back that the ship submerges easily, you know, like a submarine.


gt350 December 28, 2013 at 3:53 am

it sure looks great but I would have bought some evil subs the first stealth bombers.


bob January 19, 2014 at 8:41 pm

You guys need to do a google about this. It got cancelled because the USN does not think it can defend itself against submarines and is is vulnerable to attack by both aircraft and ships. The admiral who orders warships – Roughead? – has basically said this and wanted to cancel after just the first one was built. But politicians wanted to keep the shipyards open so the Navy was forced to complete the second two. You can get 2 new Arleigh Burkes for the price of one of these and the navy is now planning on building loads more ABs. The Zumwalt is an expensive disaster just like the LCS – neither can defend themselves against all modern threats.


Wayne February 4, 2014 at 8:42 am

The armaments for this thing will make it an archer of the seas, it's designed for long range missile support, just one or two of these is sufficient to lockdown a coast while remaining undetected. The number of missiles this thing can carry is more than enough to take down a WW2 battle group.


veronicawilson235 March 4, 2014 at 5:06 am

2013- An another remarkable year in World Navy, Technology has gone peaks many changes has been made some innovative concepts came live in this year , game changing naval craft, UAS, weapons and other hardware came of age in 2013 as several exciting new technologies were either launched or achieved significant milestones.



ASAWChief March 14, 2014 at 11:40 am

Does it submerge


Curt October 30, 2013 at 10:14 pm

Nope, 57mm it is. At 200rpm the MK110 shoots fast enough, and 3P ammo gives you a much greater lethal range, which has always been the complaint against the Phalanx. With ESSM you have layered defense, and the stealth design makes countermeasures much more effective. How it works in the real world is yet to be seen, but the same thing can be said for Phalanx, Goalkeeper, and every other CIWS.


The one armed man October 31, 2013 at 12:55 pm

They were also built with 100 yr old technology


The one armed man October 31, 2013 at 1:07 pm

Here's a quote from a blog on the topic. 

The seas aren't any more violent than they were in 1900, and seakeeping gizmos are certainly more  effective these days. The DD-1000's better center of buoyancy vs center of gravity arrangement, overall lower mass distribution (remember a lot of the superstructure volume above the bridge is empty space) higher freeboard, higher fineness ratio (length to beam) and overall much larger size of the Zumwalts should mean these ships will have very little in common with the experiences of the Pre-Deadnought, wave piercing/tumblehome designs


Castille November 1, 2013 at 10:56 am

Gbierl is correct. An insulting weak argument. Because of your ad hominem fallacy "….poor baby…." and insults, you are more of a baby than he is. Shut up, learn to reply as adult instead of a child, and then try discussing things intelligently again.


tiger November 1, 2013 at 9:44 pm

Fine choice for a DDG.


Dfens November 3, 2013 at 10:48 am

The LCS cost more to both design and build than an Iowa Class battleship in inflation adjusted dollars. I'd think you'd be used to getting less for more by now.


Dfens November 3, 2013 at 10:52 am

We were discussing roll stability. What topic exactly was it that you chose to pursue?


SweetV November 6, 2013 at 11:42 am

When I saw that info I started feeling bad for the crew. Captian Kirk was the captian of the last ship I was on (USS DeWert FFG-45). The crew has their work cut out for them…


Rest Pal November 6, 2013 at 3:01 pm

how about some examples?


blight_ November 12, 2013 at 10:18 am

I'd have to think about Snowden. It's probable in twenty years there will be a mythology spun around him: Conservatives will call him the brave warrior who attacked the Dragon of Big Government; Liberals will call him the "Martyr of the Corporate States of America", then find a way to blame Bush Jr for starting this mess (while forgetting that Obama could have opted to change course at great political cost, but did not).


Rest Pal November 13, 2013 at 7:24 pm

It'd take a revolution coupled with retroactive trial of criminals like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, GW Bush etc. Is that probable in twenty years? I hope so.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: