Bath Iron Works Launches First Zumwalt Class Destroyer

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.




About the Author

Michael Hoffman
Michael Hoffman is the executive editor at Tandem NSI and a contributor to He can be reached at
  • hibeam

    Now were cooking with gas. Well done.

    • c mcbryde

      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_

        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
          • Rest Pal

            “while your original vessel sinks from under you”

            I believe that part fits the Zumwalt.

        • Steve B.

          Need a like button here

      • CDR Lou
    • Rest Pal

      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

        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

          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

            worse still, they’ll keep building the LCS

          • Dfens

            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.

  • Nicky

    She looks more like a cruiser than a destroyer.

    • Musson

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

      • RCDONE

        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_

          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

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

          • The one armed man

            They were also built with 100 yr old technology

          • The one armed man

            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

    • William

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

    • Tiger

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

  • Roland

    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

      On the open sea, tsunami wave is very small.

    • Corey

      armaments havent been added yet

      • The one armed man

        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

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

    • rob

      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

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

        • unknown

          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

      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

        plus helos

      • Tiger

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

    • Rest Pal

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

    • unknown

      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

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

    • PolicyWonk

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

    • Nadnerbus

      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_

        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

          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
  • Lawrence

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

    • Aurailious

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

    • Gabriel Rassam

      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

      it uses a vulcan AAA system and a Mpds

    • Timothy Leonakis

      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

      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

        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

    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

      all the arment is below decks

    • Dfens

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

      • Merke

        Do you think Yaron meant it that way?

    • Tiger

      She is a ugly dog…

  • Montaudran

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

    • rick

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

  • EW3

    “Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG 1002)” ?????????

    Some people have very short memories.

    • Gary Greene


    • Timothy Leonakis

      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_

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

        • Massan

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

          • Rest Pal

            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

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

  • Montaudran

    Why ? because the Viet Nam War ?

    • EW3

      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
        • blight_

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

          • Nadnerbus

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

          • tiger

            Fine choice for a DDG.

          • Rest Pal

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

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

          • blight_

            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

            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.

      • Frank Caruso

        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

    Something that Canada needs

    • blight_

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

      • Dfens

        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_

          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

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

      • Tiger

        The type45 sucks…..

  • TonyC.

    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.

      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

    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

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

      • EW3

        You ever take a look at a CVN ?

        • mhears

          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

            “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.”…
            By the way, this engineer says the same thing. Should be no surprise. We all study that thing called “science”.

      • Nadnerbus

        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

          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

      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

        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

          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

            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.

          • Castille

            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.

          • Dfens

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

    • blight_

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

      • Dfens

        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

          Remember when the US Navy had a real stealth ship that would actually float? The Sea Shadow ( 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

      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

    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_

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

    • Nadnerbus

      I find your lack of faith disturbing.

      • Governor Tarkin

        Enough of this! Nadnerbus, release him!


    Awesome War Machine!!!

  • 009

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

    • Paul of Alexandria

      Actually, that’s in the works. Probably as an upgrade, though.…

    • Andrew

      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

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

  • happy ears

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

  • mhears

    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

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

  • Big-B

    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

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

      • Big-B

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

  • Michael

    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

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

    • Thomas L. Nielsen

      “You underestimate the Nautilus. You underestimate her greatly”.

      And yes, great movie.

      Regards & all,

      Thomas L. Nielsen

    • SMSgtMac

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

  • Tad

    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

      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

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

    • gregg

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

      • UAVGeek…

        • gregg

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

          • Rest Pal

            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.

          • SweetV

            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

            how about some examples?

  • Lance

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

  • Venkat Kanakamedala


    • Rest Pal

      Why is it better?

  • Reuben

    Resembles ship from the early 1900s…

  • TBird

    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

    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

    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

      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

        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

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

  • Reuben…

  • Reuben…

  • brian

    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.

    BADASS !!!!

  • Kenneth Barclay, Sr.

    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

      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
      • Citizen of the world
    • Gary Spencer

      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_

      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

    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

      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.

        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

          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

    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

      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

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

  • Big-Dean

    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

      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

        interesting idea

    • Rest Pal

      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

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

        damn me.

  • dale wilkinson

    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

      He was a visionary Admiral.

    • tmb2

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

    • Dale

      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

    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

      Both 155mm guns are mounted fore.

  • Nicky

    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.

    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

      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

        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

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

    • Big-Dean

      hey Steve

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

    • Citanon

      It’s seaworthy. The Navy didn’t just think this through, they’ve been running tons of tests and experiments:…

      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

        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

      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

    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

    i think she ‘s look good ..and she need to a “capt.jack sparrow” type captain …..

  • gmailander

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

    • SMSgtMac

      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

    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_

      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

    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_

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

  • Steve

    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

    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

      With all that “stealth” I’m surprised you saw that massive ship! :-)

  • mick

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

  • SteveD

    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

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

  • Tom Fitz

    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

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

  • MR.T

    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

    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

    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_

      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

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


    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

    Look at that sonar dome! Hell yeah.

  • valon

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

      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_

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

  • Ed221

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

  • CPO

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

  • Timothy Leonakis

    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

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

  • Roland

    We probably need to prepare for this:
    Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.…

    • Rest Pal

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

    • Rest Pal

      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

    Look out for hurricanes

    • Rest Pal

      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

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

    • Rest Pal

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

  • gt350

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

  • bob

    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

    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

    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

    Does it submerge

  • Beautiful Houses Blog

    Its not my first time to go to see this site, i am visiting this
    web site dailly and obtain nice data from here daily.

  • dog training

    It’s enormous that you are getting thoughts from this piece of writing as well as from our

    discussion made at this place.