Talk:Zumwalt-class destroyer

Proposed new first paragraph.

I have been editing this article to bring it up to date, and I eventually got it tidied up somewhat. the new stuff included the cancellation of the LRLAP, but I feel that the consequences are fairly fundamental to the Zumwalt story and are still not clear. I ended up with this paragraph which is in the article as of 2 March:

The Zumwalt-class destroyer is a class of United States Navy guided missile destroyers designed as multi-mission stealth ships with a focus on land attack. The class is multi-role and was designed for surface warfare, anti-aircraft warfare and naval gunfire support. They were intended to take the place of battleships in filling the former congressional mandate for naval fire support but the lack of any ammunition for their advanced guns make them incapable of it. The class emerged from the DD-21 program as "DD(X)".

Now, I want to make the situation quite clear, but this is a big step, so I put it here first. Here is the proposed paragraph:

The Zumwalt-class destroyer is a class of United States Navy guided missile destroyers designed as multi-mission stealth ships with a focus on land attack. Although the class is multi-role and was designed for secondary roles of surface warfare and anti-aircraft warfare, it was designed primarily for naval gunfire support. The class was intended to take the place of battleships in filling a congressional mandate for naval fire support. The ship is designed around its two Advanced Gun Systems, their turrets and magazines, and their unique LRLAP ammunition. LRLAP procurement has been cancelled, rendering the guns unusable. The Navy is re-purposing the ships for surface warfare. The class emerged from the DD-21 program as "DD(X)".

Please let me know what you think. -Arch dude (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I put the proposed paragraph into the article, But still please discuss this here if you wish if there are any issues. -Arch dude (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I in no way want to bring up the supporting fire arguments again given that I worked on this article some time ago. At that time 2/3 of the page was a bring back the battleship. However the AGS issue is relevant and seems very solvable. I did a bit of research and came up with this. https://news.usni.org/2016/12/13/raytheon-excalibur-round-set-replace-lrlap-zumwalts might want to take a look because I think that is the way they are heading.Tirronan (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• You are correct: the problem is technically solvable. In fact, there is no technical problem: the LRLAP works just fine, meeting all of its design objectives, and per your ref, the excalibur could also likely be made to work. However, we are supposed to use refs, and the latest ref says that the Navy has no plans for a replacement and is not funding any development. Sigh. Therefore I (sadly) reflected this in the article. As far as I can tell, that's really the way they are going. The Zumwalts may be usable as technology testbeds given their massive available electrical power, but they are not really warships at this time, and they will not be until they either have a replacment for LRLAP or a replacement for the AGS, and neither is going to happen for several years. When it does, we can update the article. -Arch dude (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Looks like USS Monitor? Really?

We have a real live reference to an LA Times article that likens the Zumwalt's appearence to the USS Monitor. This is of course ridiculous. Zumwalt might reasonably be said to look like the CSS Virginia or any later casemate ironclad, but not Monitor. I hate to remove the statement and reference, because it will lead the interested reader to the Monitor article and the reader will (eventually) figure this out, but it would be a lot better if there is a reliable source that likens Zumwalts appearense to Virginia. -Arch dude (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, casemate ironclad is more appropriate, but the source does state Monitor. If a source for Virginia or casemate ironclad can be found the text could be rewritten and updated. Or we could just remove the text altogether with a consensus here. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I went ahead and made an unreferenced addition to the statement. I know we are supposed to use only referenced stuff, but I feel that this sufficiently obvious that it avoids WP:OR. This is a judgement call: what is the best for our readership in this situation? If you feel strongly that I am in error, feel free to revert: no hard feelings either way and I will not contest a revert. (And thanks for your untiring work.) -Arch dude (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I saw your addition and think that is fine for now. I couldn't find a source via web search for Zumwalt and casemate ironclad yesterday. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to wonder if the notation is really worth having at all? One person made one comment about comparative appearances and in all likelihood used the name in error. I'm sure if he had images of both Monitor and Virginia in front of him as he wrote, he would've used Virginia. But, I realize that's just supposition and we can't base changes on that. If we're to keep the notation, then I agree with Archude's addition. But we should keep searching for an RS comparison between Zumwalt and a casemate. If someone challenged the addition as unsourced or OR and it had to be removed, then I would suggest getting rid the whole notation altogether. (JMHO) - ^theWOLFchild 14:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, an IP editor finally removed the "Virginia" comparison, so I removed the "Monitor comparison. -Arch dude (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said previously, I don't really see any problem with the sourced mention of the Monitor comparison, nor the addition of the Virginia comparison, even without a source, as for the latter, the two images speak for themselves (jmho). I do have a problem with random IP users removing content from an article while that content is being actively discussed, and especially when not even taking part in the discussion beforehand. That should not have happened. - wolf 04:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone found an excellent ref and added it. -Arch dude (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Vessel size

I think the article needs to mention the size. These ships are huge. A Zumwalts displacement is 60% larger than an Arleigh Burke (which are already larger than all(?) earlier destroyers) and is larger than any WWII heavy cruiser. I have seen a few references in older reliable sources to "40% larger than Arleigh Burke", but that was before the Zumwalts grew even bigger. So here is the question: is the following sentence original research, or does it fall under the acceptable category of stating the obvious?

"Displacing almost 16,000t, these ships are very large by comparison with earlier destroyers. They are more than 60% larger than the current Arleigh Burke class, and are larger than all past and present US navy light cruisers and destroyers, and most past heavy cruisers."

As far as I have been able to determine, they are heaver than any active surface combatant in the world except the single remainingKirov-class battlecruiser and various aircraft carriers. They are also larger than any light cruisers the US Navy ever had. A few of the 80-odd prior heavy cruisers displaced more than 17,000t.

This displacement is remarkable. A WWII Baltimore-class cruiser was armoured and carried nine 8-inch guns in three turrets. It had a "full" displacement of about 17,000t.

There is one complication: the Zumwalts apparently have large ballast tanks to allow them to "hunker down" to increase stability for their guns. I do not know how this is reflected in the 16,000t displacement number. Can anyone find a reference for this?-Arch dude (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

My initial readings failed to consider the differences between "full" and "standard" displacements, so I adjusted the wording. -Arch dude (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

They are much smaller than the Iowa-class battleships :-). Jokes aside, your proposed sentence appears to be true and I agree that the size of the Zumwalt-class ships is interesting. However, I do think including a sentence like that without a reference risks placing undue emphasis on the size. I did a brief search and while I could find sources that mention the size of Zumwalt-class as being comparable to that of a cruiser, I couldn't find a reliable source that emphasized its size in a manner like your sentence does. This suggests that most sources don't find the size as remarkable as you or I apparently do (leading me to the conclusion that this is more on the side of original research). Personally, if it were me, I would stick to a size comparison that I could back up with a reference. —RP88 ^(talk) 23:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I finally found a ref and added a sentence. -Arch dude (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of the term "cancelled" in the infobox

An IP editor removed "cancelled: 29" from the infobox. I restored it. The editor objected because the project was not formally "cancelled". I feel that the term in the infobox refers to the ship, not the project. There were definitely 32 ships in the project originally. 3 were built and the remainiing 29 will never be built, so "cancelled" is the best practical term for the fate of those 29 virtual ships. -Arch dude (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Arch dude: The number of Zumwalt's was reduced to 3 by Congressional mandate so, yeah... pretty much "legally" cancelled. But does this really matter? It's the lone edit of some IP user. - wolf 01:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

My note here on the talk page is for completeness. I don't like trying to have conversations via edit summaries. -Arch dude (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• True. It seem clear that the Orders were canceled even if there's not the best term for reducing planned orders. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"Active"?

I seem to recall that these ships were built and underwent sea trials on the East coast but their weapons were integrated after they arrived in San Diego. If this were any other ship, the status prior to weapons integration would be "fitting out", not "active". The Navy simply redefined "active" for legal or administrative purposes. Did I just hallucinate this, or am I correct? If so, a footnote with a reference would be appropriate. -Arch dude (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I finally have a reference for this: [1]. The first two ships were "commissioned" into a special category: "in commission, special". They are not in commission. -Arch dude (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

".50 cal turrets": dubious

I removed an unsourced addition of ".50 cal turrets". The anonymous editor's edit description claims to have seen these in a "Zumwalt tour video." I suspect he saw the Bushmasters and did not realize how big they actually are because of the scale of the ship. Please discuss before re-adding this weapon, which is not shown on the Navy's site. -Arch dude (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It has 3 50 cals, not on turrets. "Zumwalt guns" in an internet image search will give you media photos where they're showing them off.71.63.160.210 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Availabiliy of LRLAP rounds

@XavierGreen: I realize that 90 rounds of LRLAP were produced, and in fact there may be a few additional rounds (<100) from the original prototype phase. However, we don't know where any of this ammo is located. 90 rounds would be 15 rounds for each of the 6 AGS systems. Unless we see some evidence in a reliable source that any of these rounds are in the magazines of any of the Zumwalts, I think the term "unavailable" is the best description of the situation. Basically a gun is not usually considered operational unless it has been test fired. At most, the existence of these 90 rounds should be in a footnote. If you have further information, perhaps we can work together on the best way state this. -Arch dude (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no other information, as you say 90 or so rounds of ammunition is a paltry amount, but the existance of the 90 rounds is well sourced. The article I cited stated that the 90 rounds in question were to be used for testing on the vessels themselves. I have not seen anything which states where the 90 rounds are now. The statement that preceded my edits stating that "there was no ammunition" is factually false given the information I have provided. But as you say the nominal amount of ammo available makes the system "practically unsuable".XavierGreen (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

IEP or "integrated power"?

Lyla1205 changed "integrated power" to a link to IEP. We need to think about this. the IEP article describes an integrated propulsion system. However, the big deal (at least according to all the Navy's hype) is the availability pf all this electrical power for other ship's systems in addition to the motors. I'm not sure how to address this, but just pointing to IEP is insufficient. Most ships with IEP do not have a need for massive power to non-propulsive systems, so I think the term IEP is imprecise here. -Arch dude (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

IPS Faults Not Listed

Considering the numerous faults with the integrated electric propulsion system I find it rather strange that these faults have not been listed in the article. With this in mind, I plan to update the article to include the IPS problems that has beleaguered the class.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Inadvertent Consequences: Please do! be sure to include your references. -Arch dude (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Zumwalt class destroyer reclassification

In the March 2023 issue of Naval Institute Proceedings a proposal was made by an amateur naval historian to reclassify the Zumwalt-class destroyers as cruisers. Since this author had no official standing with the US Navy it seems inappropriate to include this proposal in this article, but it does seem appropriate that it not be forgotten, and so it is included here. Below is the applicable text:

• Redesignate DDG-1000, -1001, and -1002 to CG-74 through -76. The use of 1000 had some loose alignment with the Kidd-class destroyers (DDG-993 through -996) and the final Spruance-class destroyer, the USS Hayler (DD-997). However, the Zumwalts are far larger than the Kidd- and Spruance-class destroyers and their Ticonderoga-class cruiser derivative, and their new surface strike role is more befitting a traditional cruiser designation.

Thank you. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Tumblehome criticisms

Given that the planform has performed well in practice, the theoretical criticisms may be given too much weight here. Sennalen (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a non-issue in my opinion. The section has three paragraphs and the largest paragraph is in support of the hull form. Therefore it seems well balanced/appropriately weighted to me. Mark83 (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)