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 06:09, 3 March 2018 editArch dude (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers29,198 edits →Proposed new first paragraph.: new section← 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 
(40 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
⚫ {{American English}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class= B {{WikiProject Military history|class= B
|B-Class-1= yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1= yes <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
Line 8: Line 9:
|B-Class-5= yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5= yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|US= yes |Maritime= yes}} |US= yes |Maritime= yes}}
{{WikiProject Ships|class= B {{WikiProject Ships}}
⚫ {{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USMIL=Yes|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=low}}
|B-Class-1= yes <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-2= yes <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-3= yes<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-4= yes <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-5= yes <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|importance= high }}
⚫ {{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=low|USMIL=Yes|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=low}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
⚫ {{American English}}
| 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 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)

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)

== 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)

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


==''Zumwalt'' class destroyer reclassification==
== Proposed new first paragraph. ==
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.
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:


Thank you. ] (]) 02:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
:The '''''Zumwalt''-class destroyer'''<!--('''DDG-1000''')--> is a ] of ] ]s designed as multi-mission ]s with a focus on land attack. The class is multi-role and was designed for ], ] and ]. They were intended to take the place of ]s in filling the former congressional mandate for naval fire support<ref>Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 421)</ref> but the lack of any ammunition for their advanced guns make them incapable of it. The class emerged from the ] program as "DD(X)".


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


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)
:The '''''Zumwalt''-class destroyer''' is a ] of ] ]s designed as multi-mission ]s with a focus on land attack. Although the class is multi-role and was designed for secondary roles of ] and ], it was designed primarily for ]. The class was intended to take the place of ]s in filling a congressional mandate for naval fire support.<ref>Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 421)</ref> The ship is designed around its two ]s, their turrets and magazines, and their unique ] ammunition.<ref name=LaGrone>{{cite web
: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)
|url=https://news.usni.org/2018/01/11/no-new-round-planned-zumwalt-destroyer-gun-system-navy-monitoring-industry
|title=No New Round Planned For Zumwalt Destroyer Gun System; Navy Monitoring Industry
|last= LaGrone
|first= Sam
|date=January 11, 2018
|website= USNI News
|publisher= U.S. Naval Institute
|access-date= 2018-03-02
}}</ref> LRLAP procurement has been cancelled, rendering the guns unusable. The Navy is re-purposing the ships for surface warfare.<ref name=Eckstein>{{cite web
|url= https://news.usni.org/2017/12/04/navy-refocus-ddg-1000-surface-strike
|title= New Requirements for DDG-1000 Focus on Surface Strike
|last= Eckstein
|first= Megan
|date= December 4, 2017
|website= USNI News
|publisher= U.S. Naval Institute
|access-date= 2018-03-02
}}</ref> The class emerged from the ] program as "DD(X)".
{{reflist talk}}

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