| Revision as of 01:45, 9 June 2006 editAntelopeInSearchOfTruth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,351 editsNo 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 | ||
| (284 intermediate revisions by 98 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) | |||
| :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 --] 02:06, 28 April 2006 (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) | |||
| ::I would point out that the tiny snippet provided is '''NOT''' opposition to the DD program, as Novak and the wikipedian claim. General Hagee objects to the withdrawing of the ''Iowa''-class battleships '''before''' any of the DD 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 will indeed meet the requirements for NSGS. So the quote in question is nothing more than an out of context fragment. - ] 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. ] 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 ]. ] 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. ] 06:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Will do. The overhaul may take a day or two get up. ] 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. ] 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... ] 03:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 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. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 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 ] and ], 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 ]." | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] 01:45, 9 June 2006 (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. |
|
| 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met.jpg)
.svg)
".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)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Low-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles