| Revision as of 17:40, 30 July 2019 editArch dude (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers29,198 edits →Vessel size← 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 | ||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 10 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 |
{{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. --> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |B-Class-3= yes<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> | |||
| | algo=old(730d) | |||
| |B-Class-4= yes <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> | |||
| | archive=Talk:Zumwalt-class destroyer/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |B-Class-5= yes <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> | |||
| | counter=2 | |||
| |importance= high }} | |||
| | maxarchivesize=80K | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject United States |
||
| | archiveheader={{Archive}} | |||
| | minthreadsleft=5 | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive=2 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| ⚫ | {{American English}} | ||
| == 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'''<!--('''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)". | |||
| 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 ] 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|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.<ref name=LaGrone/> 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)". | |||
| ⚫ | Please |
||
| *OK, I put the proposed paragraph into the article, But still please discuss this here if you wish if there are any issues. -] (]) 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.] (]) 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<ref name=LaGrone/> 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. -] (]) 01:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| == Looks like USS Monitor? Really? == | |||
| == ".50 cal turrets": dubious == | |||
| We have a real live reference to an LA Times article that likens the ''Zumwalt'''s appearence to the '']''. This is of course ridiculous. ''Zumwalt'' might reasonably be said to look like the ] or any later ], 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 ''Zumwalt''s appearense to ''Virginia''. -] (]) 02:13, 15 March 2018 (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) | |||
| : 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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.) -] (]) 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. :( ] (]) 14:12, 15 March 2018 (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) | |||
| 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) - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 14:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, an IP editor finally removed the "Virginia" comparison, so I removed the "Monitor comparison. -] (]) 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. - ] 04:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == IEP or "integrated power"? == | |||
| == Vessel size == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| I think the article needs to mention the size. These ships are huge. A ''Zumwalt''s 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 ], 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 {{sclass-|Arleigh Burke|destroyer|4}}, and are larger than all past and present US navy light cruisers and destroyers, and most past heavy cruisers." | |||
| == IPS Faults Not Listed == | |||
| As far as I have been able to determine, they are heaver than any active surface combatant in the world except the single remaining] 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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| This displacement is remarkable. A WWII ] was armoured and carried nine 8-inch guns in three turrets. It had a "full" displacement of about 17,000t. | |||
| ⚫ | :{{re|Inadvertent Consequences}} Please do! be sure to include your references. -] (]) 17:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC) | ||
| ==''Zumwalt'' class destroyer reclassification== | |||
| There is one complication: the ''Zumwalt''s 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?-] (]) 19:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| My initial readings failed to consider the differences between "full" and "standard" ]s, so I adjusted the wording. -] (]) 19:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :They are much smaller than the ]s :-). 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. —]<small> <sup>(])</sup></small> 23:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 02:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Tumblehome criticisms == | |||
| == Use of the term "cancelled" in the infobox == | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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. -] (]) 00:40, 7 October 2018 (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) | |||
| :{{yo|Arch dude}} The number of ''Zumwalt''{{'}}s was reduced to 3 by so, yeah... pretty much "legally" cancelled. But does this really matter? It's the lone edit of some IP user. - ] 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. -] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:18, 9 October 2018 (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