USS Zumwalt commissioned
Thread Starter
USS Zumwalt commissioned
http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/dd...x#.WAnE_iTEHYB
In light of all the excitement with the Russian carrier battle group sailing past us, the USS Zumwalt was commissioned this week. Apparently its flight deck can take an F-35B so I read somwhere else and the XO used to be a local resident around here 2 decades ago at JAC ....
Though was not overly sure about if they had hangar space for MH-60R as the Arleigh Burke had helipad but not hangarage?
Best of luck to her on the high seas,
cheers
In light of all the excitement with the Russian carrier battle group sailing past us, the USS Zumwalt was commissioned this week. Apparently its flight deck can take an F-35B so I read somwhere else and the XO used to be a local resident around here 2 decades ago at JAC ....
Though was not overly sure about if they had hangar space for MH-60R as the Arleigh Burke had helipad but not hangarage?
Best of luck to her on the high seas,
cheers
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first batch of Arleigh Burke class DDGs had a helipad but no hangar; they were intended to refuel and re arm other ship's helos within the battle group, and building a ship that size with no helipad made no sense. The first 21 ships (Flight I) and the next 7 (Flight II) have no hangar but all following ships (34 Flight IIA) have a double hangar for two SeaHawk helicopters. The Flight III ships will also have the double hangar.
Wow, that's one very futuristic design. Somehow it slightly negates worrying about Russia's (only) carrier that can't go out of port without a tug incase it breaks down!
Wow, that's one very futuristic design. Somehow it slightly negates worrying about Russia's (only) carrier that can't go out of port without a tug incase it breaks down!
Apparently its flight deck can take an F-35B...
I very much doubt the F-35B will ever operate from a cruiser/destroyer pad. It would be VTOL only with no meaningful payload. Party trick only.
that the US Navy currently has only one ship that was designed after 1985 available for operations, with the rest being tied up in port due to serviceability issues. Don't know if that's true.
That is very much untrue. The LCS ships (both designs) have had some problems keeping them in port, but there are many other ships at sea right now just fine thank you.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the Zumwalts only have hangar space for one MH-60R and two or three RQ-80 UAV helos. Would not be smart to park aircraft on the open deck of a ship relying on stealth.
Administrator
Hmm, did the American Navy borrow this idea from the Kirov cruiser's helicopter hangar idea?
ARKR_Kalinin_flight_deck_with_Ka-25_and_Ka-27.jpg
ARKR_Kalinin_flight_deck_with_Ka-25_and_Ka-27.jpg
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Ah, but Canopus had a ram, did it not?
I suspect there will be a hydrodynamics contributor along shortly to explain the sea-keeping rationale behind the modern bow shape.
I suspect there will be a hydrodynamics contributor along shortly to explain the sea-keeping rationale behind the modern bow shape.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: s e england
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am not a hydrodynamics expert, but have 45 years experience of operating and the general design of ships. The underwater profile at the front of ZUMWALT is the bulbous bow, (not a ram!), which you can also see on many civilian ships. It reduces drag by changing the waveform further back down the ship. It also provides extra buoyancy up front which allows the forward ship's hull to be thinner and thus also reducing drag. The above waterline profile is, I suspect , due to the need to reduce the radar visibility of the ship : 'pointy' bits such as a conventional bow are very visible to radar, so the designers have raked it back to fare it with the rest of the ship's topsides. Not sure how well it will perform in a big 'head sea', but every design is a compromise. The ship does indeed, however, have a strange resemblance to warships of the late 19th and early 20th century.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Good enough for me, Sir ... thanks for the exposition!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
LJ ... Post #5 seems to cover the Captain issue 
As for the engines ... I hope they're not the same as in the T45.
As for the engines ... I hope they're not the same as in the T45.
I do have a bit of a problem with the stealth ship concept. I'm pretty sure I read about early experiments with marine stealth, could be Kelly Johnson's book, worked fine with a cleaned up synthetic display but some aged, hairy a***d operator switched to a raw radar display, tweaked the gain and range settings and there, in the middle of all the wave top returns, was a blank hole, just where the stealth ship was.
