Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday November 28 2016, @01:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the may-return-home-under-its-own-power-one-day dept.

El Reg reports:

The US Navy's most advanced ship yet, the $4.4bn stealth destroyer USS Zumwalt, has had to be ignominiously towed through the Panama Canal after its engines failed yet again.

While cruising down the intercontinental waterway, the crew spotted water leaking from two of the four bearings that link the destroyer's advanced electric engines to its propeller drive shafts. Both engines locked up shortly afterwards, and the ship hit the side of the canal, causing some cosmetic damage.

[...] Repairs are expected to take at least ten days and may mean the ship doesn't get into its home port until next year.

This is the latest in a long litany of failures for the USS Zumwalt that have raised questions over the efficacy of the new class of ships. Originally the US planned a fleet of 32 of the advanced destroyers, but the eye-watering cost of the craft has since seen that cut to just three vessels.

[...] It's natural to get teething problems with a new design, particularly something as revolutionary as the USS Zumwalt. But the Navy has already decided to revert to an older class of destroyer for its fleet upgrade. It seems someone on the general staff actually read Arthur C Clarke's warning tale Superiority .

Previously: USS Zumwalt Breaks Down During Sea Trials

[Ed note. Superiority, linked above, is a science fiction classic; well worth reading.]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 28 2016, @03:31AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 28 2016, @03:31AM (#433896) Journal

    You heard it from me, many months ago. That Zumwalt is a POS. I don't want to go to sea aboard it. Just wait until it sees a storm.

    Wait - someone will spout off about modern ships avoiding storms. Same crap I heard about Steve Job's yacht. And, it's utter bullshit. A ship that can't go where the master wants it to go is a POS. Otherwise, the ship is the master, and the so-called ship's master is just a servant to the ship. If it doesn't fall apart first, the Zumwalt WILL face a storm. We'll just see about that stupid "tumblehome" design.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday November 28 2016, @04:21AM

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 28 2016, @04:21AM (#433904) Journal

    I'm expecting it to eventually roll and sink to the bottom. Most likely it will happen in the first major storm it passes through.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Monday November 28 2016, @04:24AM

    by Arik (4543) on Monday November 28 2016, @04:24AM (#433905) Journal
    Eh, it's supposed to be able to navigate around or through storms about as well as other destroyers. According to simulation and model testing, and with some hemming and hawwing and caveats. Any ship has certain angles it wants to avoid in high seas. One might read between the lines and infer that this design has more and/or worse bad angles than others, but not so bad that it can't be managed.

    Frankly I'm more concerned with the mixing of the categories "stealth" and "guided missile destroyer." At a glance, they seem to work at cross-purposes, and looking deeper doesn't do much to dispel the notion. This thing is equipped with a million-watt radar which completely trumps any stealth features as long as it's on. And I'm having a very hard time thinking of any scenario where you would want to, short of system failure. So why spend all this extra $ making it stealth?

    Also whatever the other features of the tumblehome design, it *does* mean that when punctured the ship will naturally sink faster in comparison to the other design, all other things being equal. This is why the French and Russian Battleships did so poorly, and it's completely logical and follows from basic physics. Ships don't just take a puncture and immediately fill with water - not without a truly massive hole or a large number of holes inflicted simultaneously. What happens is the water flows in through the hole at a steady rate and as it does so the weight of the ship increases and the level at which it floats decreases. In an Arley Burke, with the conventional hull, there's a counter force because as the waterline rises the hull becomes broader all the way up and down - significantly increasing the displacement, and slowing the rate at which the ship sinks.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @05:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @05:12PM (#434100)

      As someone who has ridden a FF during a tropical storm, "able to navigate around or through storms about as well as other destroyers" is not the least bit reassuring. The tumblehome hull would appear to me to want to dive when confronted with something like a rogue wave. No one has mentioned the $800K ammo either.