Talk:Zumwalt-class destroyer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Naming

I don't see anything on that page saying "Wikipedia must make an exception to their naming standards for this specific ship type." We don't capitalize "guided-missile frigate" or "air-cushion landing craft" or "aircraft carrier".... ➥the Epopt 16:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair point. On the other hand, nothing on the page says "Wikipedians should look silly by being the only ones not to capitalize LCS." Perhaps a distinction might be drawn between the Littoral Combat Ship program and its products, the littoral combat ships -- though this would still leave Wikipedia standing alone. Bbpen 17:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The class name

Earlier it was reported here that the name Zumwalt had been struck from the official records as the name for this ship. Did something change? TomStar81 08:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's really a change, but see this press release. Jinian 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Role section is full of errors

1) The Marines are not opposed to the DD(X) program. The upper ranks are actually strong supporters of the DD(X) program because it should provide the gunfire support they have required. CNN in this case is simply talking out it's ass and have confused opposition to retiring the two Iowas held in reserve, until DD(X) is launched, with out right hostility to the destroyer. They have only a small and inaccurate part of the picture in the article sighted.

The closest possible objection is some grumbling among the rank and file at losing the psychological presence of the battleship's 16 in guns. That's mostly emotional and based not any objective assesment of whether the DD(X) program delivers the required firepower for the practical requirements.

2) The DD(X) is not designed or planned to have a 5 inch gun, it is in fact designed in no small measure around a pair of 155 mm AGS. This will meet the requirements as defined by the USMC and the various laws passed for Naval Surface Gunfire Support. The author of the present article seems to be confused the DD(X)'s gun armament with that of the present Arleigh Burkes, which do indeed mount the inadequate 5 in gun. It should further be noted that the USMC was consulted fairly extensively in forumlating the requirements for the guns aboard the Zumwalts. As such, they absolutely meet official Marine Corps requirements for Naval Surface Gunfire Support.

3) Regarding the Iowa class battleships, the cost figure of $250,000 covers the costs of maintaining them in Class B reserve. They are not in position where they could be readily recalled to service at this point; at best they would require the modernization before effective use could be made of them. As such the numbers provided are deceptive indeed.

In addition to the aforementioned fact that the battleships are not ready to sorty at a moments notice, is the fact that both of the Iowas run on technology which was phased out of service in the 1940s and 50s. They require a crew of at least 1500, more than 3 times that of most vessels the Navy runs today, as well as specialists which the Navy has not had since the mid 1970s at least (during their 1980s activation they depended heavily in recalled and retrained personel). Needless to say, that is even less an option today.

Furthermore, the 16 in shells ceased production in the 1940s; there have been no new shells since then. There is also no longer the technology necessary to produce new ones. This means that the Navy has store 60 year old shells, as well as other necessary items, which is non-replaceable. Needless to say, maintaining all these supplies adds considerably to the cost incurred for preserving the ships them selves.

Riight. So General Hagee is just "rank and file" when he says that loss of naval surface fire support from battleships would place his troops "at considerable risk." http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2005/12/05/177720.html --Mmx1 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that the tiny snippet provided is NOT opposition to the DD[X] program, as Novak and the wikipedian claim. General Hagee objects to the withdrawing of the Iowa-class battleships before any of the DD[X] vessels actually hit the water. The official Marine Corps position, which the Commandant of the Marines would no doubt have a great deal of influence over, is that the pair of 155 mm AGS aboard the DD[X] will indeed meet the requirements for NSGS. So the quote in question is nothing more than an out of context fragment. - AM2783 11:12, 28 April 2006

His rank does not mean he was speaking authoritatively. Some of those numbers in the article are hopelessly optimistic. And the talk about battleships is useless at this point - all the battleships are now stricken from the Navy list and will never go in harms way again. I agree that the Role section should be seriously edited. Spejic 07:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I will point out that the role section adress concerns from the marines, it does not in any way present the marine stance on either the DDX destroyer or the Iowa-class battleships. In addition, most of the points you have raised under the number heading "3" are discussed at length in the Reactivation Potential in the article Iowa class battleship. TomStar81 03:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and fix it as you see fit - or at least suggest a change here to be discussed. Spejic 06:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Will do. The overhaul may take a day or two get up. TomStar81 02:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The changes you made really weren't appropriate. They actually were part of this article many months ago, and were deleted because they became totally obsolete when the battleships were stricken from the Navy list earlier this year. You can't add things that make it seem like there is some debate between the DD(X) or restoring the battleships. There is no debate. The battleships will never, ever sail in harms way again. Spejic 07:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Last Battleships Retired in 1992

The last of the Iowa-Class battleships, USS Missouri, retired in May of 1992. While there is plenty to argue about regarding fire-support for ground forces, the battleships are out of the picture. Few experts believe the mothballed ships could be affordably restored to active duty status.

I know. Its so...DEPRESSING. I curse this day and age, as I am: 1,000 years to late for the sword, 300 years to late for the US Revolutionary War, 200 years too late for the US Civil War, 65 Years to late for WWII, 15 years to late for the Cold War, and now I am officially 14 years to late to serve on a battleship. Its not fair. As per your question, I guess accu-ammo fired from the DDX will work; alternatively, the US could look at the feesablility of maybe redesigning one of there battleship classes with todays weaponry requirements. Consider what a Montana-class battleship could do with VLS cells and a nuclear reactor... TomStar81 03:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Grow up. War is not the same as the computer games your personal page says you spend a lot of time playing. Be thankful you don't have to live through events like The Somme. Have some respect for those people who were forced into surviving those terrible actions either as soldiers or civilians. If you want to help people who fought in combat, become a voluntary helper in a veterans organisation. If you are keen to fight in a war I am sure your local military recruiting office will take you in. Show some respect, war is not a game. Ask some survivors of Pearl Harbor if they thought it was "fun". --mgaved 12:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I do have respect for them. I happen to live right next to the Fort Bliss army hospital, and on more than one occasion I have struck up conversations with veterns who fought in the various wars. I am grateful for their sacrafice on their nations behalf (and mine as well). War is an ugly thing, it is by no means fun and is shares no of the alleged glory that video games give it. TomStar81 00:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I'm 280 years late for the glory days of the Royal Navy. Meh. Unfortunately, much of the romance has gone out of naval combat, and refitting a/making a new battleship would, while making a formidable weapon, not be the same as creating a larger number of small, highly flexible ships. You'd have 1 BBX for the price of 3-4 DDX (guessing, here). I don't think it'd be worth it.

DD(X) program not reduced to two ships yet.

"In April 2006, the DD(X) was cut back two 2 ships, effectively ending the DD(X) program as the Navy's future surface combatant and ending the future of the CG(X)."

Wrong on all parts.

Even the chairman of the House committee wants to see the CG(X) program continue and his move to cut the DD(X) program down to two ships is a long ways from becoming law.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060505biw.shtml Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, said the House action should make little difference to BIW because the panel still endorsed designing the new ship and the Navy hadn't expected to start construction on the second ship until 2008.

-HJC

Please feel free to correct the article then. --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Research & Contradiction Tags

The Controversy section doesn't make sense. I don't know where the content in that section was drawn from, so I can't find out why the Marines should protest the commission of replacement ships. There doesn't seem to be a "controversy" regarding the DD(X) itself, but with the current lack of seabourne artillery support. This section doesn't seem to be anything more than wikipedian editorial. Hence, I have implimented the Original Research tag.

Also, this article states that "The United States Navy plans to utilize the DD(X) destroyer project as replacement for the Iowa and Wisconsin, battleships, which were stricken from the US Navy list on March 17, 2006", yet also states that, "the DD(X) was cut back to 2 ships, effectively ending the DD(X) program as the Navy's future surface combatant and ending the future of the CG(X)."

Unless we are to believe that two destroyers somehow equal two battleships, this article needs to clarify how it is not contradicting itself. Furthermore, it is contradictory that a program which is "effectively ended," can somehow supply any replacements. How can it, when it is "ended"? So I have also added the Contradiction tag. This content just needs to be clearer.

Antelope In Search Of Truth 01:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that the DD(X) destroyer is the intended replacement for both battleships. The guns on the DD(X) can fire an artillery round some 100 miles, give or take, which is further than the Iowa-class battleships can fire. This is the reason why both Iowa and Wisconsin have been struck from the NVR. That information was present in a GOA report I got from UTEP and was cited as the reason for the removal of the battlewagons in an online cnn.com news article. TomStar81 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not any particular ship is the replacement is not relevant to the issue I'm raising; citing content that's presented in this article. We seem to have contradictions in this article because some guy decides that the DD(X) is his favorite ship and so he draws some conclusions based on what he has read, which he submits to the article (i.e., Original Research, which is banned on Wikipedia).

Then some other guy decides that the DD(X) is the worst thing since a screen-door on a submarine, and take it upon himself to do submit Original Research of his own, which he submits to the article.

Now these are just guesses based on what I have found here in this article, but the fact remains that this article seems to contradict itself and we need to find content from sources that can be cited. Then we need to make this article internally consistent. It needs to be consistent with more than just some guy's opinion. If readers want opinion, they can find a blog.

Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a whack at both expanding the controversy section and providing more sources. It still needs work, but I think its better now than it was before. TomStar81 23:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of disingenuous to say that DDG-1000 is a "replacement" for the battleships. It is a new solution to naval gunfire support, which is the role the battleships played immediately before their retirement. The DDG-1000 ships are not sea-control vessels, which is the role the battleships were built for; that role belongs to the aircraft carriers. Iceberg3k 19:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Tangent relative to answering Antelope's original issue & the Goofiness that ensued

If I were the enemy and I was asked what would I fear the most, and given the following three options...

-Air Strike

-DD(X) Naval Gunfire

-BB Broadside

...I would pick the BB Broadside.

Why? Simple really the strike from a 2700 pound shell at 23 miles is more devastating both physically and psychologically that a comparatively tiny shell fired from a DD(X) Broadside. And because there is really no such thing as close air support now (only from a distance with PGMs), I can really disperse my forces out for survivability purposes and can attack the enemy in strength for a few minutes before withdrawing before your airplanes finally arrive in the area. Geez ppl think technology is everything these days. The serbs, Iraqis and the Al Qaeda / Taliban in Afghanistan have proved repeatedly that Shock and Awe is BS. At Best Shock and Awe is basically reinventing the wheel, at worst it is expensive window dressing intended to deceive ppl to think that wars can really be surgical and swift. It's all BS! All of it!

Tomcat200 10 June 2006

Not seeing the point. The thing that you (and all of the battleship-booster crowd) fail to get is that the battleships are not in the fleet now, and yet American troops have made countless successful amphibious invasions in the decade and a half since the last BB left service - including an amphibious invasion of a totally landlocked country (Afghanistan)! The raison d'etre of a battleship is to fight another battleship - and there are no battleships left to fight. The bombardment role can be and is very ably filled by other classes of ship. Can it be done better than it's done now? Certainly. But to say that only battleships can adequately perform shore bombardment is nostalgic BS at its finest.

Iceberg3k 14:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Iowa class battleships are rather vulnerable to underwater explosives; their torpedo protection was never the equal of their protection against gunfire (nor did it ever truly match up to the standard set by the best foreign warships). Are you, perhaps, not aware that it took several weeks in 1991 for minesweepers to clear out a couple of grid squares for Wisconsin and Missouri to operate in off of the coast of Iraq, while during that time it was the 5"-armed cruisers and destroyers and 3"-armed FFGs which provided shore fires. Third, Zumwalt is a hell of a lot closer to being in the fleet than Iowa ever will be again. Fourth, it's funny you mention adaptability. The four Iowas had a weapons and electronics fit limited by the shock requirements of the 16" guns in the 1980s - the government would have liked, for example, to fit them with more extensive datalinks and a better AA suite than just four Mk 15 Phalanx, but the shock of firing the big guns kept damaging the equipment. It'll be worse with the modern electronics needed to operate with the rest of the 2006 fleet, and without those electronics the battleships will be nothing but a pair of white elephants. Fifth, battleships are built to survive... combat with other battleships. Which makes them very tough against heavy gunfire, but not so tough against even light missiles. Even a light missile's warhead is as heavy or heavier than the bursting charge in a 16" shell, and better yet, they start jet- or rocket-fuel fires, which Iowa's firefighting system is ill-equipped to handle. And imagine a monster like Moskit or Granit - a missile heavier than even a Yamato 18.1" shell, flying in at over twice the speed of sound and packed with more heavy explosives than a hundred battleship shells. The only way to avoid that one is to shoot it down before it hits, and Phalanx is notoriously bad at hitting high-speed sea skimmers. The only real answer to that question is a SAM, which can't be mounted on a battleship. Why would we even think about using battleships as a stores ship? We have real stores ships that don't need the stores they would be offloading to another vessel in order to fight. The debate is NOT between battleships and destroyers, and never has been. The debate involving battleships was with the aircraft carrier, and battleships lost that debate, 65 years ago on the 7th of December. Incidentally, there's a reason we've never fought an amphibious invasion against a built-up beachhead since World War II, and that reason is the helicopter. And as a parting shot, try as a mental exercise to figure out exactly where the Navy is going to get 3,000 sailors, many of whom would end up filling billets that haven't been used since the end of the Cold War, who are going to be willing to sabotage their careers by spending a cruise or longer learning systems that are over six decades old and are not shared by any other vessel in the fleet. If your answer starts with or involves the words "aircraft carrier," keep dreaming. :::Iceberg3k 12:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in getting invloved in this arguement/debate/discussion, however I will remind both side that there are to be no personal attacks her on wikipedia, and that voilation of this policy could result in a temporary edit block. TomStar81 08:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Have rectified my posts. You will hear nothing from me. It does not change my position in that Battleships are tougher, adaptable and exist today, because they are all that. The views promoted by a certain poster are just a play on words and facts that do not pan out when studied more closely. Accusations of nostalgia on the part of supporters for the battleships is quite clearly unfounded. I apologise to the offended parties who thought my posts were outrageous and aggressive in content, however I still stand behind my truthful, factual comments relating to the stupidity of acquiring 2 expensive destroyers (with suspect technology) to replace 2 battleships that have been proven in action and that exist today. My view is that these two destroyers are not as survivable and are too expensive for the capabilities that they will give to the fleet. Furthermore the technologies that have been projected for the DD(X)'s either have not worked to a satisfactory standard, have not worked at all, and all fall short of requirements needed to conduct Naval Surface Fire Support. The Hulls themselves are not survivable enough for the ships to keep fighting once damaged, and the ammunition (artillery and missiles) that these ships contain, while good for set-piece precision land attack missions, cannot provide the volume of fire needed either in a more dynamic situation or against an enemy that might not only be dynamic in thinking but will actually stand up and fight. Because we have not really seen either, especially in an littoral environment as of late, it does not mean it will not happen. My opinion is that eventually it will. We are so in love with new technology that we forget the axiom that "If it aint broke don't fix it". We have to get out of the habit of thinking that new is best and old is less, that all that glitters is gold. The reason why the U.S. Navy has no viable NSFS capability is because it retired the battleships, pure and simple. It is plainly obvious that Battleships will never surpass the aircraft carrier as the primary capital ships, yet the Navy is so paraniod in that it regards the BB's as a threat to their aircraft carrier programs that they sort to terminate the BB program once and for all and go for cheaper less capable platforms that will not take the spotlight away from Naval Aviation and the PGM Mafia. They use excuses such as big billets, old technology, lack of capability to manufacture parts and machinery and main gun ammunition, and other far-fetched reasons to highlight the supposed obsolescence of the battleship. The only thing that is obsolete is the use of the battleship as the primary surface combatant, however as history shows the battleships have proven to be able to adapt to other roles to suit their unique cpabilities and characteristics, conducting missions far and beyond the capability of other fleet components. Battleships are still a symbol of might and power because of their imposing size, massive firepower and survivability, and doubtless the Navy has exploited this psychological aspect of these type of ships, especially during the 1980's. You will not get the same result from a destroyer, or even funnily enough, from a flat top. As we all know the battleship has also successfully conducted deep precision strike through the use of its Tomahawk missiles, in addition to naval bombardment missions to which it had no equal, relieving other naval aviation assets of attacking highly defended targets that would have likely incurred severe losses. They also have routinely refueled their escorts at sea and as I understand it, also have a limited ship repair capability. So in closing I will say this. Retiring the Battleships was a mistake. Relying on PGM's and naval light artillery to support an amphibious "door-kicking" operation is a bigger mistake and an expensive one. And building two new destroyers imbued with suspect, expensive technology, to fulfill the NSFS mission will deny our commanders the capability of force-entry from the sea against determined opposition, in effect denying decision makers options that may just shorten any new wars that we are unlucky to get ourselves into, and that is not acceptable.Tomcat200 10:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Have edited out last post by Iceberg. We were asked to end this. Why do you want to keep going?Tomcat200 12:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All the armor will only aid the power of a torpedo - modern designs create a cavity of gas under the ship's keel, collapsing it under its own weight. The use of "shock and awe" is overrated and studies of WWII landing sites (the shining moment for NGFS, so its supporters claim), showed that other than creating cover in the form of craters, NGFS really didn't do much as far as destroying or "putting terror" into defenders in well-constructed barricades - for the simple reason that it was next to impossible to hit them and only a direct hit could take out a concrete emplacement. Modern PGM's are fully capable of destroying anything we see (in fact, so well that the trend is to smaller warheads). Moreover, the accuracy of the 16" guns, while great by 1945 standards, sucks. I recall seeing a target plot superimposed on a scale drawing of the pentagon, if anyone can find that picture. There are few instances today where such wanton and unprecise destruction would be warranted. Your love of the "psychological aspect" illustrates your emotional bias; anyone not still stuck in the 1950's would realize that they pose little threat relative to modern munitions and platforms. --Mmx1 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Have edited out last post by Tomcat200. You were asked to end this. Why do you want to keep going? BigNate37 04:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

DD(X)Just another item on the long list of defence industry profiteering

It seems to me the defence industry is making a killing, being handed contracts which seem to last years for products that in the end don't seem to work at all, don't work as advertised, and or are just too plain expensive.

The U.S. has atleast 14000 16 inch shells in storage today, that is a fact!

To date almost all the technologies related in the replacement for the Battleships have proven to be expensive and disappointing to say the least, and that is after many years and billions of dollars in taxpayers money spent on Research & Development. I believe these companies are leaching off the taxpayers to keep making loads of dough, and are getting away with it.

I believe that there should be stiff penalties both legal and financial against defence contractors and subcontractors for not living up to their end of the bargain in providing weapons and equipment that work to specifications and requirements laid down by the customer.

These companies are rorting the system, and put many more lives at risk for profit. This is not acceptable.

Tomcat200 10 june 2006

I would believe that. I personally think that it would not matter if the USN supported the DDX or the reactivation of the Iowa’s as long as whoever was doing the modernization and armament work got paid their millions at the end of the day. Thats my two cents on the matter. Furthermore, if Constitution can be maintained in the active fleet well past the time she was built to fight in why can't the Iowa’s? TomStar81 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a fine discussion but defense spending policy really doesn't have anything to do with this. 198.111.39.17 16:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I kind of feel the need to respond to TomStar81 even though the whole discussion is superfluous, to correct what seems to be a misunderstanding. The Constitution is kept in service as a museum ship. It never leaves port and will never go to war, since it's made of hundred year old oak and fires solid lead shot. The Iowas are a different story, they would be (in theory) used to bombard shore targets with their guns in a time of war. The problem, though, is that reactivating an Iowa would be absurdly expensive and time consuming, since one is a museum ship and, to be honest, I don't know the status of the other. So the analogy, in short, doesn't work.

Thats true, and I do understand that. The point is more along the lines that the Navy does maintain a sailing frigate with cannons in an age when nuclear powered aircraft carriers and stealth aircraft and guide munitions are the norm. It is well settled that Constitution will never sail into harms away again (unless the crew has a death wish), yet the ship is still on active duty. The vessel HMS Victory is in a similar vain, permently comissioned but also permently drydocked. It just seems a shame to remove the Iowas. Admittedly, the four battlewagons are somewhat poorly suited to steam back into battle, but I think it reckless of the navy not to consider a ship of similar size and characteristics for use in a shore bombardment role. For example: if the US was to build the Montana class today the could design the ship with massive guns (perhaps even the Advanced Gun Mounts set to go one the DD(X) ships), VLS cells, a phased radar array, a nuclear reactor, and so forth. I guess what it boils down to is a polarization of battleships in favor a something so new as to litterally be non existant. TomStar81 22:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this section do anything? I hate to say it but when I 1st saw the heading it sounded like out and out trollery. 68.39.174.238 01:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't do anything, really. I thik we should stop.Gurguvungunit

There's also the fact that the armament is pretty pathetic for a ship of this size. How can you make ship nearly double the size of the Burke class and yet end up with only 5/6 the missile capacity? If designing something that badly isn't illegal, it should be. 71.203.209.0 12:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction tag... and possible contradiction

I don't know why someone put the tag there, so I'm going to ask here. 68.39.174.238 01:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved page to DDG-1000, since it's no longer called DD(X). Removed the entire contradictory "controvery" part, since the detail design and integration contract is awarded. Detail design and construction contract should be awarded very soon.

If you were going to move the page it should have been to "Zumwalt class destroyer" and not DDG 1000, as that is the hull number for the ship USS Zumwalt. Furthermore, I feel that the removal of the Controversy section violates NPOV policy. Simply because the contract has been awarded does not mean that the controversy is gone. TomStar81 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly controversey, but there isn't that controversy. The Zumwalt class is not ment to perform the mission of battleships, and the Iowa class will still stay retired even if no Zumwalt class ship is ever built. The article is far more fitting of an encyclopedia now that that section is gone. Spejic 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, you win. I give up. I do not know if I even care anymore... TomStar81 07:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why?; I explained myself above under the subject heading, "Original Research & Contradiction Tags". That's what the discussion page is for, posting things like the reasons why tags are placed, etc.

Of course, this article has been so drastically edited that those tags don't *seem* to have any relevance. Whoever made the corrections could have also removed the tags, but overlooked it/forgot to/whatever.....  ;)

Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• DDG-1000 → Zumwalt class destroyer … Rationale: To conform to other ship class articles. —Falcorian ^(talk) 19:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as per the nom. TomStar81 19:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I moved it from DD(X) to DDG-1000 this morning. Regarding the requested move from DDG-1000 to Zumwalt class destroyer, I have no objection, either is fine with me, just don't call it DD(X) anymore. Regarding my removal of the controversy section, it sounded like contradictory and confusing information, obviously outdated since the contract is now a done deal. At best, some of it might be usable as anecdotal historical information. You may be right, there may still be controversy, but the controversy discussion that I removed was old and OBE. If someone cares to ammend the article with controversy of a current nature (ie. so-and-so should not have won the xyz part of the contract, or whatever), they can certainly do so.

Article was moved on July 4 by User:Ixfd64. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Two, Not One, DDX Destroyers Funded

Two, Not One, DDX Destroyers Funded

Today the Congress (Senate and House) in the Pentagon appropriations bill allocated enough funds for two DDX destroyers. So the article needs to be changed due to this news (scroll near the end of article).

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060927/ap/d8kctjdo0.html

"The bill includes $2.6 billion for two super-modern Navy DD(X) destroyers. That is significant because it would allow Bath Iron Works in Maine and Northrop Grumman's Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi to build one ship each.

A House-passed defense policy bill had called for only one DD(X) ship, to be built in Mississippi."

Thanks.

DD(X) vs. Battleships debate section

This section has been heavily framed by the pro-battleship side, and is pretty much entirely useless as a discussion of the ship itself (I don't even see why this is an issue, the battleships are not going to be brought back for such a limited role as shore bombardment - their primary roles as main sea combatants and implements of power projection have been entirely taken over by the carrier fleet). I'm really strongly tempted to delete the entire section unless it is rewritten from a neutral point of view, and unless the pro-battleshippers agree to stop vandalizing it. Iceberg3k 13:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Checked it. However, now it has some counter-battleship biased statements. I'd suggest to remove the, actually, nonsense about the gun that takes out the command post and replaces bombardment. This is job of guided missiles, stealth aircraft, precision munitions, SEALs, but not of artillery. Also, the new section about the long run is not fully correct, since costs rise simply due to inflation and ships have limited service time, therefore it is always more cost-efficient to build something later; also, the design work is not yet done, and updating design is optional and increases capabilities. The part about mothballing is correct. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the original version was authoured by me, but removed some monthes ago. It was reinstated here in nearly intact condition, but other people more battleship biased than I seem to have added there own two-cents to the matter. None-the-less, I have/had strived to try and present both sides of the argument equally. I apologize if this latest fiasco inconviences anyone, as that was never my intention. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's gotten worse, not better. The entire section basically reads as a pro-battleship diatribe at this point, puffing up the supposed superiority of battleships to the point of mythology. Do you seriously think an article on Wikipedia is going to affect national policy? I'm not going to get bogged down in a revert war about this article. If somebody wants to fill it with made-up facts, they're free to do so at this point, I am washing my hands of the whole thing. Iceberg3k 14:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some things which are just poorly formatted, in form of responding to the arguments. It's basically hard to compare 9x16" against 2x6.1" batteries, and hard to argue that one set is in a different weight category than another, and actually almost two orders of magnitude apart. Of course, one of them is more modern, but comparing them point-by-point without the general image could be like this joke comparison of battleships. What is lost when diving into this comparison is the fact that Zumwalt class is a guided missile platform in the first place, not an artillery one, and their main armanent consists of 80 guided missiles. It's likely that a better way would be to trim less relevant of the argument-counter-argument chains and rather focus on cleaner facts and the big picture. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody keeps making up the same incorrect fact about the Iowa TDS (steel at the waterline is irrelevant to torpedo defense, as torpedoes hit underwater). Iowa TDS was directly derived from the South Dakota TDS, which was known to be deficient. An improved TDS, based on better foreign designs, was to be installed on Illinois and Kentucky, but neither ship was ever completed. I've never read any naval historian who rated the Iowas as any better than average in underwater protection. Iceberg3k 15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sort this out

This section is completely incoherent, frequently repeating itself and apparently featuring several orphan paragraphs that no longer make sense. Please make some sense out of the mess before replacing it in the article. Dan100 (Talk) 11:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Still a lot of bad grammar in the article in these sections too. GraemeLeggett 16:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Naval Fire Support Role and the DD(X)

A controversial point of the DD(X) destroyer(s) is their planned naval surface fire support role. The original DD21, and the Arsenal Ship had more serious NFS capabilities, which would meet a Congress-mandated requirement related to the Iowa-class battleships. The requirement was eventually relaxed, the battleships stricken from the registry, and the Navy left with small tonnage ships for NFS.

It is exacerbated by the much lower capability of the gun system, the DD21 was to be designed around a advanced "vertical gun" system (which would only have been compatible with guided projectiles), though the project ran into serious technology/cost programs and was radically scaled back to a 6.1" Advanced Gun System (AGS), which only offers a marginal improvement on existing naval guns.

It was slated for a hull of around 14,000 tons displacement, versus over 50,000 for a full-load Iowa. The DDG-1000 is of smaller displacement and firepower characteristics as compared with the original DD21 design. The DDG-1000 has 50% more displacement than the Arleigh Burke class, and both by terms of displacement and firepower is more in line with light cruisers. The Arleigh Burke class, currently still in production with a projected total of 62 ships, is anticipated to be the Navy's main air defense ship for the next fpur decades.

Up to 2006 the remaining Iowa-class battleships were kept on the Naval registry, in part to fill a naval fire support role. Their 16" (405mm) guns are capable of firing 2,700 lbs projectiles approximately 24 nautical miles inland, and sabot shells for the 405mm with several times this range were proposed, but none ever reached prototype stage. Since the 1992 decommissioning of USS Wisconsin and USS Missouri, all naval gunfire support has been through missiles or through 5"-armed cruisers and destroyers and 3"-armed frigates. DDG-1000 is noted to be able to fire a specially designed "guided" artillery shell some 63 nautical miles inland. However, this shell has a reduced warhead size and uses new technology, so most of the shells carried on the DDG would have shorter range.

The same shells placed in a sabot 405mm round would achieve the same effect with much farther range. With only a few hundred shells at its disposal, the DDG-1000 could fire for less then an hour before needing resupply. In fact, with planned number of long-range shells, the DDX could only fire a fraction of that time at the longest range.

Partially as a result of this new gun the last two battleships were struck from the Naval Vessel Register (NVR) in early 2006, a decision that has sparked controversy. Congress had mandated that they stay on the registry to fill a naval fire support role. They were not on active duty since 1992, but were kept ready for return to service.

DD(X) fills NFS requirement proponents

Some thing that the controversy breaks down into two basic camps. The first camp (and arguably the most politically powerful one) holds that the utility of battleship class vessels has expired in the face of technological advances (specifically, in the face of modern amphibious warfare and the inability to produce any more battleships), and that the DD(X) destroyer program should be more than adequate to fill the role that decommissioned battleships leave in the US Navy.

In support of this conclusion members of this camp refer to the cost it would take to modernize ships like the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin. Both are now over 60 years old and would require some modernization to return to the fleet since, since they received many updates during the 1980s refit. The cost of this eqipment would still be much less then an all-new ship because the hull is already built. In addition, some of same 1980s technology is still in use on current Navy warships of the 1980s era that remain in service.

The AN/SPY-3 advanced radar system, derived from the proven AN/SPY-1B/D now in use on the Navy's Aegis cruisers and destroyers, is an extremely powerful and accurate system, giving the destroyers extremely good targeting data against surface, land and air targets.

Debate about 6.1" (155 mm) vs 16" (405mm) guns

While smaller calibers guns and missiles have been used for centuries in naval fire support, the 16" (405 mm) guns have shown they have special capabilites above and beyond smaller calibers. Battleships were re-actived three times after WWII for NFS, more then any other ship type of World War II out-serving much of the later ships they served with also. While the Navy can likely make due with small caliber fire, 16" fire was used in every major engagement of the U.S. from WWII to the Gulf War.

It is claimed by the proponents of the new design that the 6" guns, unlike the much larger 16", have a smaller "danger space" and are easier to use as a close-support weapon for friendly troops, who are less likely to be wounded or killed by friendly fire as they advance. In either event, the primary weapon of close support is aircraft, and is likely to remain aircraft for the forseeable future, with ships filling a necessary secondary role of heavy bombardment

A totally mute argument as non-explosive and lower size-warheads can be used in the 405mm. However, while the 405 mm guns can fire larger warheads when needed, the 6.1" inch guns cannot. 16" guns can be used for close support- in fact they can fire the exact same rounds used in the DDG-100 with a sabot. The battleships can also use their 5"/38 , can actually carry a similar weight warhead)

155mm gunnery is a well-used calibre in American military strategy on land bases system, but is underpowered for many applications compared to 405mm systems. The Advanced Gun System, which uses 155mm ammunition (though not the same ammunition as the Army's 155mm gun artillery systems), is a versatile artillery piece for both land and sea combat in many applications. However, it has only a fraction of the capabilities of a larger gun, particularly in regards to payload warhead. Whatever can be said for the 155mm shells, they can always be put a sabot and fired from a larger gun, whereas the reverse is not true.

It is claimed by the proponents of the new design that the 6.1" guns, unlike the much larger 16", have a smaller "danger space" and are easier to use as a close-support weapon for friendly troops, who are less likely to be wounded or killed by friendly fire as they advance. The battleships can also use their 5"/38. While it is always possible to put a smaller bursting charge in a shell, the 16" weapon's bursting charge is only 24 pounds of a 2,000 pound projectile, and most of the danger to unarmored or lightly-armored objects (people and vehicles) is shrapnel thrown out from the point of impact, up to 300 meters (330 yards) away in the case of the heavy 1,900 or 2,700 pound 405mm projectiles. A subcalibre sabot round had already been partially developed for a battleship gun; 11" subcalibre saboted long-range round for the 16"/50 Mark 7 and was tested in the 1960s. Another, even longer range one was proposed in the late 1980s and was evalulated, the studies for this formed the basis for the orginal (not current) long range AGS gun in the DD21 (but not DDG-1000).

During the 1991 Gulf War the battleships- like all naval vessels were hindered by Iraqi naval mines (the battlesips being much less vulnerable to the smaller mines), and reports on the internet suggest that while some shore bombardments were successfully carried out by US Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates . ( missile launchers and 3in (76mm) guns), with the battleships were also effective . Underwater explosive defense have always been a stong point of American battleship designs, which have generally had more-effective torpedo defense systems than foreign designs, and it is equally true of Iowa with multiple watertight compartments and a foot of steel at the water line. Moreover, this camp believes that a naval gun round that can take out an enemy command post so they can not see the coming invasion is just as effective as a 100 round bombardment against a landing beach to soften it up. Members of this camp also point out that returning the battleships to active duty would entail a large crew, though the Navy has consitently met recruiting goals.

Proponents of the 16" weapon claim frequently that only battleship-calibre offers far exceeding merely adequate fire support, while smaller cailibers have good track record in some applications the large size warhead can do things smaller shells cannot. This is in part why battleships were re-actived three times in less then 50 years to provide fire support (Korea, Vietnam, and the 1980s/Cold War).

In the Pacific theatre of World War II, while battleships armed with 12", 14" and 16" weapons gave good fire support, so too did cruisers armed with 6" (152mm) and 8" (203mm) weapons, with a lower throw weight than the modern 6.1" (155mm) Advanced Gun System weapon- even smaller calibers continued to be used for NFS. However, the usefulness of smaller calibers is should not be confused

While new cruiser-calibre weapons have been occasionally tested since the retirement of the last Baltimore and Cleveland-class cruisers, with the 8" MCLWG tested in the 1970s (and nearly accepted for the Ticonderoga-class cruisers) and the 6.1" AGS in the present, no serious attempts to return battleship-calibre weapons to the fleet (other than periodic reactivations of the existing battleships, and then only the high-speed Iowa-class ships) have ever been made.

While 155mm naval fire support is regarded to have is place and usefullness, it has limitations in penetrating bunkers and range that cannot be overcome. A 155mm gun can only fire up to certain weight warhead, and up to a certian range that a larger gun can surpass. For example, a 405mm shell can deliver thousands, rather then hundreds of pounds in a single blow, with the same applying to penetrator. The 405 mm penetrator can go through over 30 feet of concrete

Battleships due to their far greater tonnage actually being have bigger electromagnetic signatures, but can withstand hits that would destroy smaller ships (being nearly 5 times the tonnage of existing cruiser, and with inches, rather the millimeters of armor). In both cases extensive active mine countermeasures are needed to prevent damage. Arcraft carriers because of their long range aircraft were able to operate in the clear, beyond Kuwaiti territorial waters), and reports on the internet suggest that while effective shore bombardments were successfully carried out by US Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, though the same is said of reports of the battleships 'sweeping the beaches'. Minesweeper aircraft and vessels cleared areas for them (both the battleships and smaller ships) to operate in. Underwater explosive defense have always been a stong point of American battleship designs, and especially the Iowa class (some may have been more so such as the turboelectrically-powered Tennessee-class battleships), which have generally had more effective torpedo defense systems than foreign designs. Modern mines and torpedoes actually fuction the same as a whole class World War II- they detonate under the ship. While many some thing all WWII were just contact types, sub-surface detonation mines and torpedoes used operationall. These are designed to break the target's keel and destroy the strength of the vessel, and the battleship due to its tonnage is invulnerable to all but the largest warheads. Even a relatively lightly armored Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Princeton, survived a double mining during the Gulf War, though had extensive damage. Moreover, this camp point out that a naval gun round that can take out an enemy command post so they can not see that the coming invasion is landing 50 miles away from the expected beachhead is just as effective as a 100 round bombardment against a landing beach to soften it up. Members of this camp also point out that returning the battleships to active duty would entail a large crew, though the Navy has consistently met recruiting goals.

While 155mm naval fire support is regarded to have is place and usefullness, it has limitations in penetrating bunkers and range that cannot be overcome. A 155mm gun can only fire up to certain weight warhead, and up to a certian range that a larger gun can surpass. For example, a 405mm shell can deliver thousands, rather then hundreds of pounds in a single blow, with the same applying to penetrator. The 405 mm penetrator can go through over 30 feet of concrete. Proponents of the 405mm gun frequently fail, however, to give real examples of targets so heavily reinforced as to be immune to both cruiser-calibre guns and missiles (as the Zumwalt class is to be a weapon system armed with both guns and missiles, and not simply a floating gun platform), but not to 405mm gunfire.

Modernization vs All-new

Whether recommissioning the old battleships will save the country money in the short run, yet actually cost billions and add billions more to the cost of the new bombardment ships that will eventually be needed, as much design work will need to be scrapped and redone to take advantage of new technology. Further, materials and labor get more expensive with time, not less. Idling the yards needed for new ships will cost even more as the yards will need to be mothballed and then returned from mothball status; skilled workers will move on to other jobs and new workers will need to be expensively trained, and can be expected to be less skilled than the previous workers who left when the facilities were idled, and a host of other secondary effects can be predicted.

Proposals

While a proposal claiming that it would cost $450-550 million (1991 dollars) to modernize the battleships (compared to the cost of $1.2 billion (2006 dollars) for a brand new Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer), this proposal was made in the /Zumwalt Class is multiple times a Arleigh Burke, with the first DDG-1000 to cost over 3 Billion USD.

Modernizing ships like the USS Iowa' ' and USS Wisconsin' ' is one option. Both are now over 60 years old, yet have had numerous refits- indeed there are ships older then there last re-fit still serving. Modernization would be needed, but would save the cost of building a new hull, engines, and propeller among other items. While they received many updates during the 1980s refit, the equipment they received in the 1980s was not state of the art even then, and the data links used to synchronize the modern battle force of the US Navy were not even invented yet. While a proposal claiming that it would cost $450-550 million (1991 dollars) to modernize the battleships (compared to the cost of $1.2 billion (2006 dollars) for a brand new Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer), this proposal was made in the 1990s and proposed reactivating the ships in a 1996 configuration.

Missiles

One point of contention is that it did not include vertical launch systems for missiles-for firing Tomahawk missiles, as now Tomahawks have been converted to a VLS design and the VLS Tomahawk is incompatible with the old ABL launcher). Expert analysis would be needed to determine the impact of this, with the impact ranging from continuing to use the non-vls, simply not using them, or converting to VLS. The Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles are used on both the DDG-1000 and 1980s refited Iowa-class.[1]

Zumwalt Class appears to be multiple times the cost of a Arleigh Burke class ship, with the first DDG-1000 to cost over 3 Billion USD due to various reason. One of which is the amortized R&D costs over a decade of development, a common thread in post-Cold War weapon systems (for example, the "300 million dollar" F-22 Raptor fighter jet actually has a flyaway cost of less than half that, due to the amortized R&D cost which is absorbed in the price of the initial order of 180 jets purchased by the Air Force).

Training

The specializations required to operate the Iowa class ships continue to exist in the US Navy, which is mute point when all new ships require new training. During the 1980s reactivation of the Iowas, training was further aided by senior manpower from specially reactivated sailors who had sailed aboard them during previous service periods (World War II, Korea, and Vietam), who helped train their younger counterparts on equipment. This created a new-generation of people trained on the eqipment, so that while people who served on them in Korean War are now in their 70s much of the latest battleship saliors are not even 40 years old yet.

DD(X) does NOT meet NFS requirements proponents

The second camp alleges that the US still has a use for its battleships, and want Iowa and Wisconsin reactivated, or at the very least maintained with the United States Navy reserve fleets (or less formally, the "mothball fleet").

Members of this camp allege that the US Navy has a "battleship bias", and that the DD(X) destroyer’s guns are not as superior as the 16in guns on the battleships. Some members of this camp even go so far as to claim that the companies overseeing production of the DD(X) destroyer(s) are only in it for the money they will receive as part of the so called military-industrial complex. Members of this camp also point out that the first DD(X) destroyer is not slated to enter service until 2013 at the earliest, leaving a multi-year gap without any direct replacement for this loss of long-range seaborne artillery.

Navy/USMC position

The official position of the US Marine Corps and the US Navy is that the DD(X) destroyer(s) will be adequate for both of the service branches requirements with regards to its intended role as naval surface gunfire support ships, although there are dissenters. On March 17, 2006, the Secretary of the Navy exercised his authority to strike Iowa and Wisconsin from the NVR, which has cleared the way for both ships to be donated for use as museums; however, Congress remains "deeply concerned" over the loss of naval surface gunfire support that the battleships provided, and has noted that "...navy efforts to improve upon, much less replace, this capability have been highly problematic." Partially as a consequence the US House of Representatives has asked that the battleships be kept in a state of readiness should they ever be needed again, and have also directed the Navy to increase the number of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that the Navy is currently modernizing. Among other things this modernization includes is the entension of the range of the 5in guns on the Flight I Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (USS Arleigh Burke to USS Ross) with extended range guided munitions (ERGMs) that would enable the ships to fire projectiles about 40 nautical miles inland.

DD(X) is neeeded but not for NFS

There is third, and increasingly large camp that regards the DDG-1000 as important for blue-water operation in a future large war. Debates about which is the best NFS platform, most see NFS in general taking a back seat to air-delivered weapons and missiles. In that frame it does not matter what happens, or which is better. Another group see the DD(X) and battleship as needed, or a true replacement for the battleship. The cancelled DD21 and arsenal ship among the options.

IPS/Propulsion

Zumwalt will have Alstrom's Advanced Induction Motors (AIM), rather than DRS Technologies' Permanent Magnet-Synchronous Motors (PMM). Someone please correct the article. See: [2] 205.174.22.26 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and noted this has to be changed. Tirronan 16:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Another citation that propulsion has shifted from PMM to AIM [3]:

"...The exact choice of engine systems remains somewhat controversial at this point. The concept was originally for an integrated power system (IPS) based on in-hull permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMMs), with Advanced Induction Motors (AIM) as a possible backup solution. The design was shifted to the AIM system in February 2005 in order to meet scheduled milestones; PMM technical issues were subsequently fixed, but the program has moved on. The downside is that AIM technology has a heavier motor, requires more space, requires a "separate controller" to be developed to meet noise requirements, and produces one-third the amount of voltage. On the other hand, these very differences will force time and cost penalties from design and construction changes if the program wishes to "design AIM out"..."

Jigen III 08:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of Littoral Combat Ship

Littoral Combat Ship is capitalized; see [4]. Bbpen 15:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I have added several popular culture references encountered in warship simulation games. Both of these are personally verified. In addition, it's not some mop-up job either. Bar the AGS, which has a standard model, the hull is the same stealth-style model. I understand if you don't think it fits, but so far, it seems that the DDX has reached at least some forms of naval simulation.

Name of DDG-1001

The article claims, that The second ship of the Zumwalt destroyer class will be named Jeremy Boorda. Is there any source for this? I could not find anything to support it. --Gunter.krebs 20:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Check on google for it, if it isn't there just remove it. This article has been through enough without extra uncited crap in it. Tirronan 00:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the second ship in the class will be named after Michael Monsoor, not Admiral Boorda. Delta-2030 (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Older sections on the talk page have been moved into an archive section and can be accessed by the link in the archive box. Tirronan 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Hazard Perry Class

While I agree with the change I would prefer that at least some notice be put here rather than deciding this proforma. Tirronan 18:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Salamis or Lissa?

Is that nose designed for ramming? I can't see any more use for it. It is established fact that "clipper nose" is best for heavy waves, e.g. german's vertical nose Bismarck, Gneisenau battleships were retrofitted with styled nose for North Sea campaigns and that worked well. 82.131.210.162 07:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow on

The nose is designed for RADAR, not ramming. No matter how the ship is tossed in the waves the hull will deflect radar waves up rather than back to the hostile ship. It's a stealth design feature like the B-2 bomber.

The true follow up class for the DDG 51 is the DDG(X), but that might be counted as the follow up to the DD(X) / DDG 1000 class.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf

Note also that the USN is being forced to extend the lifespan of the DDG 51s to make up for the limited DDG 1000 purchase.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/02/navy_DDGlife_080211w/

Finally the ERGM is no more so there is no long range NGFS option without the DDG-1000.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/03/defense_ergm_032408/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hcobb (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading it there isn't any call out of a difference between EGRM 5" and 6.1" which rather makes the whole program rather redundent. Tirronan (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

DD or DDG?

"In April 2006, the first of the class was announced and will be named the Zumwalt and carry the designator DDG-1000. The ship will be named to honor the former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo R. “Bud” Zumwalt Jr. So doing, the Navy will eschew the guided missile destroyer sequence begun with DDG-1 Gyatt and continue in the previous "gun destroyer" sequence left off with DD-997 Hayler."

The ship is DDG-1000. How is it continung the sequence of "gun destroyers" that left off with DD-997? 70.106.36.134 01:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Difference between DDG-1000 and DD(X)?

According to this article, there is a difference between the DDG-1000 program and the DD(X) program:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,125017,00.html

---

DD(X) was one proposed design and DDG-1000 is the current lead ship under construction.

We should use the DD(X) term only in the past tense for that design and use DDG-1000 for the present and future of the actual ship class please.

Is it okay for me to do a cleanup that replaces DD(X) with DDG-1000 where needed? Hcobb (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a comparison between DDG-1000 and BB's here at all?

Roughly half of this article, by page length, is taken up by a comparison of the relative merits of the Zumwalts vs. Iowa class BB's in naval fire support roles. Obviously someone cares a great deal about this matter, but I argue that the entire discussion totally out of place here. Before one can address this argument at all he must also address:

-The significance of the NFS mission to the overall DDG-1000 project.
-The capabilities of DDG-1000 vs. the real needs for NFS in moden warfare.
-The likelihood of battleships returning largely for NFS.
-Whether or not money spent on DDG-1000 would take away from the return of battleships.

Only the first two questions are truly relevant to a brief summary of the DDG-1000 program, and only marginally so, considering that NFS is only one of many missions that the Zumwalts are slated to perform. Even if one ignores the absurdity of the second two questions and the subsequent comparison of Iowas vs. Zumwalts, they take the debate well outside the scope of a brief summary of DDG-1000.

Other questions and controveries that would be more relevant (and make this article a bit more mature) would include:

-The viability and merits of the "tumblehome" hull shape.
-The large cost of DDG-1000 destroyers as compared to the ships they are to replace.
-What mission roles are most important for a medium sized combat vessel.
-Whether money spent on DDG-1000 would be better spent on things like CG(X), LCS's, modernizing existing ship classes, or something else entirely unrelated to destroyer-style ships.
-Any number of questions that don't take up a dozen paragraphs rambling on about antiquated battleships in a proposed destroyer article!

I would suggest that most, if not all of the discussion about the Zumwalt's NFS capabilites vs. those of the Iowas be removed from the article entirely, and that discussion of NFS in general be limited unless more space is spent discussing other, more significant, aspects of DDG-1000.

NoClass 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that call, I do not understand why so much of this article is about BB vs DDX. The BB's are all stricken and the Navy has spoken on this. No article is going to bring back the beloved BB's and it has no place in a destroyer article in any case. I would suggest that it be moved to the NGS page or create one if it doesn't exist. This needs to be about the DD 1000 project and its ramifications not about BB's. I am an ex-US Navy type myself and I love the old Iowas but they are relics now and pierside is where they will remain. Gentlemen remove the arguements on the main page. Tirronan 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we punt this to the Naval gunfire support page with a short reference so that that page looks into the future as well as the past? (Just so long as that page keeps the focus on the USN and ignores all other navies of the past, present and future of course.) Hcobb (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently any ship that purports to have anything to do with NGFS will have this inserted by those in the "Bring the BB back" group. We would need a page set up with the US Navy NGFS situation to bring this to the proper place. Don't get me wrong there is so much about this ship that is screwed up as well as revolutionary it doesn't deserve to see the light of day but without the EGRM munition this whole project needs to be and will be dropped. As such wasting anymore time or effort on this page is a bit of a loss. Tirronan (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to direct your attention to United States Naval Gunfire Support debate‎, it may be appropriate. bahamut0013♠♣ 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Displacement

Is the 14,564 ton figure for light, standard, or full load displacement? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)