"DD(X)" Clase Zumwalt

Merchant Marine one

Miembro del Staff
Moderador
Cual es la idea de la proa invertida? Esa cubierta debe ser bastante humeda con oleaje...

La idea es reflotar los viejos diseños anteriores a la WW I , en un intento de hacer más hidrodinámica la proa al cortar las olas.

Algo como lo que sucedió con la gran mayoría de los buques mercantes modernos, la " bulbous bow " o proa bulbo, que reduce el consumo de combustible en navegación , aumenta el rendimiento de la hélice , ya que crea otro tren de olas, independiente del creado por la proa , en la búsqueda de tratar de hacer coincidir el seno de uno de los trenes de olas con la cresta del segundo , reduciendo la resistencia al avance mediante la ley de superposición de efectos.

El Zumwalt y sus gemelos poseen proa bulbo , y al decir de sus diseñadores, la proa invertida haría que la nave fuese más estable en mar gruesa.

Abrazos,

Merchant
 

Merchant Marine one

Miembro del Staff
Moderador
Hay alguna información respecto al rendimiento de las tan mentadas piezas de 155 mm?
No tengo nada hasta ahora Daishi querido....me fijo a ver qué encuentro , pero son medio quisquillosos los norteamericanos a la hora de dar info de esos cañones me parece...!!!
 

Merchant Marine one

Miembro del Staff
Moderador
Con la fortuna que gastaron, no me extraña...................

Pero no estaba demás preguntar.
US Zumwalt stealth destroyers may lose their guns
It’s a disaster for the world’s most expensive warship. It’s sleek, stealthy and full of secrets. But the US navy may be forced to pull its teeth.

The Zumwalt-class destroyers of the US Navy are a marvel of modern engineering. Their smooth, stark lines are optimised for stealth. Everything inside is as automated as it can be. And along with its secret array of radars and missiles are incredible new cannons: but not for long.
Only three Zumwalt-class destroyers have been built. The project proved too costly for a full production run of 30.
Now costs are crippling the ships themselves.
Dubbed the Advanced Gun System (AGS), it works fine — which is somewhat unusual in itself when put alongside other advanced technologies such as the aircraft carrier USS Ford’s electromagnetic catapult, arresting wires and bomb hoists.
It’s just that the gun’s ammunition is too expensive to shoot.

Each destroyer carries two 155mm AGS guns — tucked away neatly in the angular containers behind the ship’s bow.
They’re supposed to fire Long-Range Land-Attack Projectiles (LRLAP)s, developed by Lockheed Martin, to be ultra-long range, guided warheads.
Turns out, their range isn’t really all that great after all — and the cost of each shell makes it cheaper to fire off a bulkier missile.

The first Zumwalt-class destroyer, the largest ever built for the US Navy, heads down the Kennebec River after leaving Bath Iron Works. Picture: APSource:AP
OFF TARGET
Each LEAP shell costs about $US1 million ($A1.37 million). At that price, the Pentagon shut down the production line several years ago.
As a result, there are no shells stored in armouries or aboard ship to be fired.
But the gun itself continued to be fitted to the new destroyers.
The US Navy has reportedly been exploring options of having a new, cheaper, shell designed to suit the guns. But this will take time, resulting in the ships having to sit idle in dock for years to come.
The gun was intended have a 130km range. The range it achieved remains classified.
The challenges the new weapon faces, by the sounds of it, are almost insurmountable: “(this is) a science and technology challenge, not an engineering problem. We just cannot get the thing to fly as far as we want.”
So, the US Navy is considering whether or not to simply rip them out.

An artist's impression of the gun extended from its stealthy housing, firing a long-range guided projectile. Picture: USNSource:Supplied
“We determined that the best future for that ship is to get it out there with the capability that it has and separate out the Advanced Gun System, leaving everything else in place,” Vice Admiral William R. Merz testified before the Senate Armed Services Seapower subcommittee.

“It is a very capable platform with or without that gun. We will be developing either the round that goes with that gun or what we are going to do with that space if we decide to remove that gun in the future.”

But even that capability is being questioned.
Further cost-saving exercises may be damaging its stealth, analysts say.
It was intended to look no bigger than a small fishing boat to existing radars and sensors.
That was achieved through the use of composite materials and sleek, smooth lines.
Those lines are now clearly being disrupted by new equipment simply being bolted to the exterior to save costs.


Noticia del 1 de diciembre del corriente año....!!

Costo de cada proyectil de 155mm: 1 millón de dólares.

Para el que no quiera traducir, la USN cerró la planta de producción de municiones debido al altísimo costo de la munición, dudándose de que sigan a bordo los cañones.
 
desde mi perspectiva, creo que ellos podrian hacerse un DDG común pero de excelentes prestaciones, osea, uno, acostumbrado a la pobreza, se conforma con lo que para ellos, es algo casi ordinario, creo ...
 

Daishi

Colaborador
US Zumwalt stealth destroyers may lose their guns
It’s a disaster for the world’s most expensive warship. It’s sleek, stealthy and full of secrets. But the US navy may be forced to pull its teeth.

The Zumwalt-class destroyers of the US Navy are a marvel of modern engineering. Their smooth, stark lines are optimised for stealth. Everything inside is as automated as it can be. And along with its secret array of radars and missiles are incredible new cannons: but not for long.
Only three Zumwalt-class destroyers have been built. The project proved too costly for a full production run of 30.
Now costs are crippling the ships themselves.
Dubbed the Advanced Gun System (AGS), it works fine — which is somewhat unusual in itself when put alongside other advanced technologies such as the aircraft carrier USS Ford’s electromagnetic catapult, arresting wires and bomb hoists.
It’s just that the gun’s ammunition is too expensive to shoot.

Each destroyer carries two 155mm AGS guns — tucked away neatly in the angular containers behind the ship’s bow.
They’re supposed to fire Long-Range Land-Attack Projectiles (LRLAP)s, developed by Lockheed Martin, to be ultra-long range, guided warheads.
Turns out, their range isn’t really all that great after all — and the cost of each shell makes it cheaper to fire off a bulkier missile.

The first Zumwalt-class destroyer, the largest ever built for the US Navy, heads down the Kennebec River after leaving Bath Iron Works. Picture: APSource:AP
OFF TARGET
Each LEAP shell costs about $US1 million ($A1.37 million). At that price, the Pentagon shut down the production line several years ago.
As a result, there are no shells stored in armouries or aboard ship to be fired.
But the gun itself continued to be fitted to the new destroyers.
The US Navy has reportedly been exploring options of having a new, cheaper, shell designed to suit the guns. But this will take time, resulting in the ships having to sit idle in dock for years to come.
The gun was intended have a 130km range. The range it achieved remains classified.
The challenges the new weapon faces, by the sounds of it, are almost insurmountable: “(this is) a science and technology challenge, not an engineering problem. We just cannot get the thing to fly as far as we want.”
So, the US Navy is considering whether or not to simply rip them out.

An artist's impression of the gun extended from its stealthy housing, firing a long-range guided projectile. Picture: USNSource:Supplied
“We determined that the best future for that ship is to get it out there with the capability that it has and separate out the Advanced Gun System, leaving everything else in place,” Vice Admiral William R. Merz testified before the Senate Armed Services Seapower subcommittee.

“It is a very capable platform with or without that gun. We will be developing either the round that goes with that gun or what we are going to do with that space if we decide to remove that gun in the future.”

But even that capability is being questioned.
Further cost-saving exercises may be damaging its stealth, analysts say.
It was intended to look no bigger than a small fishing boat to existing radars and sensors.
That was achieved through the use of composite materials and sleek, smooth lines.
Those lines are now clearly being disrupted by new equipment simply being bolted to the exterior to save costs.


Noticia del 1 de diciembre del corriente año....!!

Costo de cada proyectil de 155mm: 1 millón de dólares.

Para el que no quiera traducir, la USN cerró la planta de producción de municiones debido al altísimo costo de la munición, dudándose de que sigan a bordo los cañones.

Lo que entendí de este medio australiano y puede ser que yo esté muy equivocado, es que este tipo de buque es casi un fracaso, siendo que quedarán medio inactivos a la espera de una solución para las dos piezas (si las sacan ó no), ó en su defecto agregarle celdas VLS, lasers y demás armas futuras.

Ah, este almirante Merz suena más a que se está cubriendo el culo y su carrerabiuhhhh
 

Merchant Marine one

Miembro del Staff
Moderador
Lo que entendí de este medio australiano y puede ser que yo esté muy equivocado, es que este tipo de buque es casi un fracaso, siendo que quedarán medio inactivos a la espera de una solución para las dos piezas (si las sacan ó no), ó en su defecto agregarle celdas VLS, lasers y demás armas futuras.

Ah, este almirante Merz suena más a que se está cubriendo el culo y su carrerabiuhhhh

Si querido Daishi, entendiste perfectamente lo que dice la nota.

En otras palabras, con lo que gastaron en esos tres bichos raros hubieran construido una preciosa serie de fragatas oceánicas o incluso la nueva generación de cruceros.

abrazoo!!

Merchant
 
El Zumwalt y sus gemelos poseen proa bulbo , y al decir de sus diseñadores, la proa invertida haría que la nave fuese más estable en mar gruesa.



Merchant

Eso sin duda, la proa se clava en la ola y no tiende a montarla, porque el volumen de la obra muerta no aumenta mucho a medida que la linea de agua sube. Lo que hace que el barco no cabecee pero por otra parte el mar termina barriendo la cubierta. Es algo que se sabe hace 150 años por lo menos! No lo veo un barco para operar en alta mar.
 
Lo pienso y lo pienso y no entiendo por qué no lo clasificaron como crucero.
Este destructor gigante esta al nivel de los destructores portahelicópteros japoneses. O las fragatas europeas con AEGIS y equivalentes.
 
Yo los encuentro unos buques de P__a Madre , se me ocurre en una situación hipotética le lanzás una salva de Beam Riders por radar , la detecta y presentan la proa y despiegan un señuelo del tamaño de un potero y Safa .
Como Anégdota creo fué el 2016 lo vi al Zuwalt en Cartagena de Indias , el cordón de seguridad a algo mas de una centena de metros y en mi mejor Argentinglish le comente a uno de los de seguridad que debe ser inprecionante toda la tecno de punta que hay bajo toda esa Chapa , " mas imprecionante van a ser los sistemas que la van a integrar de aquí a 25 años " fue lo que entendí de su respuesta .
Sin lugar a duda el state of the art en guerra naval de superficie en las proximas decadas .
 
Hola:
pues a mi me parece espectacular,como si se pudiera sumergir de repente
ahora creo que le falta chicha de hacer puuum
BeerchugBeerchugBeerchug
Todo lo que digas, esta bien, es mas escapa a cualquier configuración clásica, pero que son fieros son fieros.
El tiempo de uso, las horas de navegación dirán la ultima palabra, sin bien por la tecnología que actual modelo por computación, canales de prueba en escala etc, te aseguran, todas las cualidades marineras, mas la economía de combustible, antes que se ensamble el primer bloque, pero nadie le quita lo espantoso que es ...... El terror de los mares ..... por la capacidad de ataque no no, por lo fulero momas palmfacewv
 
Arriba