Misplaced Pages

Talk:Zumwalt-class destroyer: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:47, 27 April 2006 edit198.111.39.17 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:58, 30 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,064 editsm Archiving 6 discussion(s) to Talk:Zumwalt-class destroyer/Archive 2) (bot 
(296 intermediate revisions by 99 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
] is capitalized; see . ] 15:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class= B
|B-Class-1= yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-2= yes <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-3= yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-4= yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-5= yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|US= yes |Maritime= yes}}
{{WikiProject Ships}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USMIL=Yes|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(730d)
| archive=Talk:Zumwalt-class destroyer/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=2
| maxarchivesize=80K
| archiveheader={{Archive}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=2
}}


== ".50 cal turrets": dubious ==
:I don't see anything on that page saying "Misplaced Pages 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".... ] 16:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


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. -] (]) 19:44, 15 January 2020 (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 Misplaced Pages standing alone. ] 17:20, 13 May 2005 (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.] (]) 16:50, 21 March 2021 (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? ] 08:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know if it's really a change, but see . ] 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


== IEP or "integrated power"? ==


{{U|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. -] (]) 20:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
==Role section is full of errors==


== IPS Faults Not Listed ==
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.


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.] (]) 10:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
:{{re|Inadvertent Consequences}} Please do! be sure to include your references. -] (]) 17:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


==''Zumwalt'' class destroyer reclassification==
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.
In the 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.
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.


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


== Tumblehome criticisms ==
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.

Given that the planform has performed well in practice, the theoretical criticisms may be given too much weight here. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:58, 30 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zumwalt-class destroyer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 years 
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Maritime / North America / United States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Maritime warfare task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
WikiProject iconShips
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShipsWikiProject icon
WikiProject iconUnited States: Military history / Government Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

".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)

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)
Categories:
Talk:Zumwalt-class destroyer: Difference between revisions Add topic