back to article She cannae take it, Captain Kirk! USS Zumwalt breaks down

Weird new warship USS Zumwalt has broken down while on sea trials, three weeks ahead of her formal commissioning ceremony. The futuristic $4.4bn vessel, which features a so-called “tumblehome” hull, suffered a seawater leak into the auxiliary lube oil system for one of her main propeller shafts, according to USNI News. The …

  1. Jeroen Braamhaar

    Maybe they should water down .... oh wait, I guess they tried that and it broke :D

    1. ElectricFox
      Trollface

      The damage doesn't look so bad from out there in the picture

      Sorry James Kirk, I had to get a Star Wars reference in

  2. wolfetone Silver badge

    iPhone Case?

    Surely it looks like a very weird and specialist sex toy?

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: iPhone Case?

      Sex toys with sharp edges..........ooooooohhhhhhhhhhh

    2. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

      Re: iPhone Case?

      Knowing the internet, probably not that weird or specialist.

    3. Scorchio!!
      Coat

      Re: iPhone Case?

      "Surely it looks like a very weird and specialist sex toy?"

      It's sex Jim, but not as we know it.

  3. Roger Kynaston
    Pint

    El Reg unit

    is that IoW ferry the one that goes from Southampton to Cowes, Portsmouth to Wootton Bridge or Lymington to Yarmouth? Precision please!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: El Reg unit

      Ah, the IoW ferry... whats brown and comes out of Cow(e)s?

      Then they painted is white :-/

      1. ceayers

        Re: El Reg unit

        the full joke is

        What is brown, steams and comes out of cowes backwards?

    2. Kevin Johnston Silver badge

      Re: El Reg unit

      Quite, the Lymington ferry is a fraction of the size of St Claire and the new Red Funnels (Red Falcon?) which is mostly down to the narrow waterway coming out of Lymington and the lack of traffic wanting to drive through the New Forest to catch a ferry.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: El Reg unit

        Red Osprey, Red Falcon and Red Eagle are refurbished, but not by any means new.

        The Lymington ferries, Wight Sun, Wight Sky and Wight Light are not that small, 1500 tonne, 65 cars + HGVs, Wight Sun sometimes works on the Portsmouth service.

        St. Cecilia, Sl Clare and St. Faith do the Portsmouth-Fishbourne (not Wootton Bridge) route.

        1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

          Re: El Reg unit

          Wow, someone with an even more specialised interest than sharp-edged sex toys.

        2. Kevin Johnston Silver badge

          Re: El Reg unit

          The 'Reds' are new compared to Cowes Castle which took us over to the Island when we first arrived

          :)

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Kevin Johnston Re: El Reg unit

        ".....and the lack of traffic wanting to drive through the New Forest to catch a ferry." precisely the reason I used to take the longer road down to Lymington. That and the much more appealing views.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is it running windows?

    'nuff said

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is it running windows?

      Or "Windows for Warships" ?

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/05/windows_for_warships_hits_type_23s/ and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/windows_for_warships_not_on_queen_elizabeth_class_aircraft_carriers/

    2. Brian Miller Silver badge
      Linux

      Re: Is it running windows?

      It's running Linux. And it's various flavors, too.

  5. RachelG

    It's crying out in pain because Zumwalt is no kind of name for a self-respecting ship.

    1. Korev Silver badge

      You're going to love this then :)

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Don't sweat it, it's not a ship, just a wealth-transfer device. Should have been been named USS Pork Barrel.

        cemented US naval dominance well into the 21st Century

        Fighting the wars of the 1900s is never too late!!!

      2. GrumpyKiwi Silver badge

        Not to mention HMS Pansy, and the Gay class of Royal Navy Patrol Boats (HMS Gay Archer, HMS Gay Viking, etc).

        Rum, Sodomy and the Lash FTW

        1. Roj Blake Silver badge

          HMS Cockchafer (an Insect-class gunboat from WW1) is still the finest name for a warship

    2. PNGuinn Silver badge

      Self respecting name

      But Zummie McZumwalt would be rather cute, no?

  6. TRT Silver badge

    Oooh!

    You don't want to get contamination in your shaft lube.

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: Oooh!

      This is exactly the reason for choosing a good quality Shaft Lube....

      1. Danny 14 Silver badge

        Re: Oooh!

        You better not laugh,

        Better not cry,

        Better loosen up

        Im coming in dry

  7. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    looks more like a submarine than a boat to me...

    1. John 104

      Nomenclature...

      @ASAC

      No no. A submarine is a boat. Anything else in naval nomenclature is a ship.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Nomenclature...

        boat vs ship: technically, if it's over ~200 feet long (I think that's right), it's a ship. The exception is a submarine, which is called "boat" by tradition, since modern subs (and the ones in WW2 as I recall) are nearly ALL well over 200 feet long. L.A. class is ~360 feet.

        thinking of the L.A. class, they came out of the factory with a flaw that later had to be corrected. Future versions were built with the correction. However, a trip to a shipyard was required to fix the problem [it affected top speed, probably shouldn't give details]. So with only 3 ships in the class, this kind of thing really isn't all that uncommon.

        Still, it's fun to point fingers and laugh.

        1. peter_dtm
          Pirate

          Re: Nomenclature... @bombastic bob

          ship - 3 masted sailing vessel

          Steam Ship (ss Great Britain; ss British Patience) Steam ship - vessel using steam propulsion (so maybe nuclear as well ? )

          RMS (eg the 'Queens' ) Royal Mail Ship

          Motor Vessel - uses infernal combustion (diesel for instance)

          Motor Tanker - Tank(er) vessel using motor...

          other nationalities use different nomenclature to the Brits - like the Russians using 'he' instead of 'she' when talking about ships (and the PC use of 'it' [shudder] )

          1. Crazy Operations Guy

            Boat vs. ship

            The explanation I've heard from captains and admirals is:

            "If it can't be loaded onto something bigger, its a ship. If it can, its a boat.".

            1. Richard 12 Silver badge

              Re: Boat vs. ship

              So what about ship shipping ships?

              The Blue Marlin would define practically everything else as a boat.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba7eOMhtu9I

          2. Jonathan Richards 1

            Re: Nomenclature... @peter_dtm

            > ss Great Britain

            SS doesn't mean what you think it means! (no, it doesn't mean your thing either, Herr Goebels). SS is an abbreviation for Screw Steamship, to distinguish them from paddle steamers.

        2. Kurt Meyer

          Re: Nomenclature...

          @ bombastic bob - Re: The Los Angeles class

          "So with only 3 ships in the class ..."

          There were 62 boats in the Los Angeles class, 39 of which are still active.

          Perhaps you were thinking of the Seawolf class, the successor to the Los Angeles. There are three Seawolf class boats.

          1. fishbone

            Re: Nomenclature...

            Bob's point was three ships in the Zumwalt class, I'm pretty sure Bob knows that and if you reread the article so will you.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Nomenclature...

        apart from lifeboats.

        oh, and directorships (on retirement)..

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That's why it gives a deceitful radar signature. They're looking in the wrong place for it!

    3. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      With this tonnage...

      15 K tons was the "BattleShip Threshold" in the Versailles piece treaty - everything above that was a battleship.

      That is one extremely obese Destroyer...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: With this tonnage...

        Germany was limited to 10,000 tons by Versailles.

        The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 limited battleships to 35,000 tons. Aircraft carriers to 27000 and everything else to 10,000 tons.

      2. GrumpyKiwi Silver badge

        Re: With this tonnage...

        The Treaty of Versailles had nothing to say on the size of Battleships apart from that Germany couldn't have any.

        That was the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. And it placed no minimum size on them, but rather a maximum size of 35,000 tons standard displacement and a maximum of 16" guns.

        By that stage all the obsolete early RN and USN battleships had been retired/scrapped and 23,000 tonnes+ was about the size of even the oldest and least capable battleship.

        The treaty DID establish a maximum size of 10,000 tones standard displacement for Cruisers along with an 8" gun size limit.

        1. Jonathan Richards 1

          Re: With this tonnage...

          > The Treaty of Versailles had nothing to say on the size of Battleships apart from that Germany couldn't have any.

          > The treaty DID establish a maximum size of 10,000 tones standard displacement for Cruisers along with an 8" gun size limit.

          None of which stopped Germany from building the Panzerschiffe at up to 12,000 tons, with 28cm (11") guns, and all before the Treaty of Versailles was repudiated by the National Socialists.

      3. Dave 15 Silver badge

        Re: With this tonnage...

        Obese? It is American so what do you expect?

  8. LDS Silver badge

    That's what happen when you have a Kirk...

    ... but no Scott!

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: That's what happen when you have a Kirk...

      Makes me wonder how many times one can actually be amused by the executive officer going on the ship-wide intercom and announcing "Bridge to Captain Kirk."

      1. Brian Miller Silver badge

        Re: That's what happen when you have a Kirk...

        "Bridge to Captain Kirk" plus sound effects. When I was in the Army, we (Signal) had the intercom in our hands in short order. I'm sure the Navy lads won't leave it alone!

    2. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      Re: That's what happen when you have a Kirk...

      Two weeks at base. That'll make for a boring episode.

      Unless, they get into some wacky hi-jinks with some cute furry creatures.

      1. Jeffrey Nonken Silver badge

        Re: That's what happen when you have a Kirk...

        Oh, come on. Shore leave episode, and Kirk will seduce or be seduced by some gorgeous alien woman who will turn out to be an enemy spy but will do a last-minute heel-face turn because she's fallen in love.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: That's what happen when you have a Kirk...

          But then when he's back aboard and she's under steam ....

          Cough Cough!

          SUDDENLY CHESTBUSTER!

        2. DropBear Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: That's what happen when you have a Kirk...

          "...gorgeous alien woman who will turn out to be an enemy spy but will do a last-minute heel-face turn..."

          Then of course right before the finale a new last-last-minute threat appears and said spy saves the day, the hero's life or both at the cost of her own - this last part is non-negotiable seeing as how having been a baddie is a sin in the eyes of Hollywood that can never possibly be redeemed to a degree that would warrant a happy ending for an ex-spy regardless of how reformed she might be; much as any villain must die of some convenient consequence of his own actions as to not sully the hands of the hero with his murder yet still be satisfactorily dealt with, any reformed baddie absolutely must suffer the heroic version of the same fate so as to not burden the protagonist with any questionable moral choices. Some wholesome mourning and #sadfaces all around is so much better than insinuating that the real world might not be black and white after all...

      2. Ben Boyle

        @Francis Boyle - Re: That's what happen when you have a Kirk...

        Norfolk is also the home of PETA, so no hi-jinks with any furry creatures or there'll be uproar.

  9. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Meh

    OK it looks small to radar

    But what about that guy with a pair of binoculars?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: OK it looks small to radar

      ... OK, one last time - the radar screen is small but the ship out there is far away - small, far away

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: OK it looks small to radar

      You have two types of radars - those for discovery and those for "firing". Even if you can discover a ship with a binocular (which may still be difficult at night/bad weather, but optronics may help), many weapons - guns and missiles use radars for directing fire and homing. If the radar section of the ship is small, those weapons may have issues to keep a good lock, while countermeasures can be much more effective. You can switch to optronics, but it's less effective at night (even with intensifiers), and less good for ranging (you'd need lasers or the like, or a "telemeter" setup).

      1. Ledswinger Silver badge

        Re: OK it looks small to radar

        You can switch to optronics, but it's less effective at night

        On a big boy like this it doesn't really matter, does it? Unguided weapons would probably suffice.

        And pretending your a fishing boat only helps if that fishing boat is somewhere well away from your real location - as I recall, most missile test firings are against tiny platform targets.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: OK it looks small to radar

          Unguided weapons from what distance? Firing at a moving target at sea several miles away was never an easy task - even against ships larger than this. Unlike tanks, ships can't fire guns straight on because they engage at much longer distances (Nelson era ended long, long ago...). Unguided missiles would have very little chances to hit at these distances. Today, even guns are going to use guided ammunition.

          Many "automatic calculators" were designed exactly to find firing solutions for guns at sea. And it wasn't deck officials with binoculars to input data, it was people with large telemeters in their own turrets. And you still needed to guess the enemy speed and course. Radar-assisted firing gave already an advantage in WWII battles (see, for example, check the battle of Surigao Strait). The less effective the radar lock on a target is, the less effective the fire as well. In these battles often wins who fires first and hits first.

          The size of a ship depends at what angle you look at it at, and its distance. The horizon itself is a limit at sea, and most long-range reconnaissance is made using airborne radars, the smaller your section, the closer you can go before being identified (if you don't transmit, of course).

          You also misunderstood the "fishing boat" example. The aim is not to pretend to be a fishing boat ("steath" technology is not a cloaking device), the aim is being difficult to be discovered early, and then being difficult to be fired at.

          Antiship missiles test targets are not usually so small... and anyway many test targets are designed to be hit easily enough, especially when you're interested to assess the damaging capabilities, and not the guidance system.

          1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

            Re: OK it looks small to radar

            So the ability to bullseye a Womp Rat in a T-16 would be handy here?

        2. Dave 15 Silver badge

          Re: OK it looks small to radar

          We tried using optics in ww1 and ww2, didn't really work too well in either.

          Radar was a big improvement.

          1. WolfFan Silver badge

            Re: OK it looks small to radar

            We tried using optics in ww1 and ww2, didn't really work too well in either.

            HMS Warspite got first-salvo hits at 26,000 yards in March 1941, shooting at the Italian fleet in the Med. No radar. Just optics, and excellent fire-control computers... mechanical, clockwork, fire-control computers. Well, computer. Just one. It was really big, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_Fire_Control_Table That one was for a cruiser, not a battleship.

            Getting the hits was not the problem, the problem in 1916 was that British shells didn't penetrate German armor properly. HM forces got lots and lots and lots of hits at Jutland... they didn't do as much damage as they should have with all those hits. Even so, at the end of the battle the Grand Fleet had 20 capital ships ready for action, at sea, awaiting (in the words of that ass, Beatty) a 'second Glorious First of June', while the High Seas Fleet had 6 capital ships ready for action and were sitting in harbor. SMS Seydlitz had to be towed in, stern first, with 5,000 tons of water in her bows and every gun turret out of action. SMS Derflinger also had every gun turret knocked out. SMS von der Tann had 10% of her crew killed or severely injured. SMS Lutzow was at the bottom of the North Sea. In return, HMS Queen Mary, Princess Royal, and Indefatigable were also on the bottom of the North Sea, HMS Warspite had jammed her rudder and made two complete circles under the guns of the entire High Seas Fleet and was badly knocked about, HMS Lion was short one gun turret (Q turret was, in Beatty's flag lieutenant's fatuous words, 'ripped open like a sardine tin'. Lion was prevented from blowing up only by the actions of Maj. Francis Harvey, RM, VC (post), Q turret's turret officer.) Lion was still ready for action on the morning of 1 June 1916; Warspite, with only A turret operational, and with the fire-control computer out of action, had been ordered back to port.

            Optical systems and low-end computers worked quite well. The guns mostly worked. The shells had problems. This had been a problem with British naval artillery since at least the Bombardment of Alexandria in the 19th century, when one British shell landed in the middle of the main Turkish gunpowder magazine... and failed to explode.

            1. Kurt Meyer

              Re: OK it looks small to radar

              @ WolfFan

              I don't recall ever reading a description of the battle of Jutland quite like yours.

              "HMS Queen Mary, Princess Royal, and Indefatigable..."

              In order of their exploding and sinking, that would be: HMS Indefatigable, Queen Mary, and Invincible.

              HMS Princess Royal, although badly damaged, survived the battle.

              I note your mention of HMS Warspite achieving a hit at long range, claimed to be one of the longest ranged hits ever scored.

              Surely you will have wanted to recall another action in which the Royal Navy was involved in very accurate long-ranged fire, also claimed to be one of the longest ranged hits ever scored.

              It must have slipped your mind.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: Kurt Meyer Re: OK it looks small to radar

                "......Surely you will have wanted to recall another action......" The German ships in that action did have gunnery radar. The sinking of Glorious was part of the Norweigean Campaign, where - again, just as before and after Jutland - the Royal Navy controlled the North Sea and reduced the German Kriegsmarine to hit-and-run actions. Whilst the loss of Glorious was unfortunate, the RN could lose her and many more and still prevent the Germans from controlling the North Sea. Indeed, the Norweigean Campaign was so costly to the Kriegsmarine that it meant the British could safely send naval units to reinforce the Med (including Warspite) and commit more forces to the Battle of the Atlantic. The Kriegsmarine's losses in the Norweigean Campaign meant Hitler did not have a fleet of warships to control the English Channel in 1940, which meant he had to relie on the Luftwaffe to win the Battle of Britain in order to invade Britain. In case you forgot, the Germans lost the Battle of Britain. Both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau spent the majority of the War hiding from the RN, the former being caught and sunk and the latter being stripped of her guns and eventually used as a blockship.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: OK it looks small to radar

        You can switch to optronics

        It is 16 f***ing K tons. That is morbidly obese for a destroyer. More of a pocket battleship than a destroyer. You can probably whack that without any active guidance "the old fashioned way" at 20 clicks using a field howitzer and an optic sight. In fact, that is the way to sink it too as it is not armoured. So a single salvo from a WW1 gunboat (or its modern DIY equivalent) should suffice to disable it (if not sink it).

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: OK it looks small to radar

          Try getting a field howitzer within 20k of it. Betcha can't.

          The threat to warships on the open sea is from guided missiles, not old-school field artillery. If you can dodge a guided missile, you've got much better survivability than an armoured warship that has no defence against taking an Exocet amidships.

          Of course there are plenty of scenarios where this isn't true, armour does still count - any brown-water operations, for instance - but the US Navy is not so small that every ship has to be able to do everything, they can afford to specialise.

          1. Vic

            Re: OK it looks small to radar

            Try getting a field howitzer within 20k of it. Betcha can't.

            Time to rebuild M1?

            Vic.

      3. briesmith

        Re: OK it looks small to radar

        Or a ten quid drone to fly over and have a look?

  10. Ralph the Wonder Llama
    Happy

    Nominative determinism

    My favourite example of this was in Twickenham where I used to work (hello Unep Eurobats), where there was an undertaker called Wake and Paine.

    1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

      Re: Nominative determinism

      At St Andrews Uni in the late 70s there was an actual James T Kirk (probably not Tiberius) He was a theology student, and I have no idea if he chose a career as a military Chaplain in which case he may have made it to Captain.

  11. Aladdin Sane Silver badge
    FAIL

    Displaced, by gad.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer - 14,564 long tons

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer - 8,400 long tons

    Not quite 3 times the size.

    What would the displacement be in El Reg units anyway?

    1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Displaced, by gad.

      I'll trust USNI over some Wikipedia nerd any day, thanks.

      1. Cuddles Silver badge

        Re: Displaced, by gad.

        "I'll trust USNI over some Wikipedia nerd any day, thanks."

        I'm confused. Aladdin Sane pointed out that the Type 45 displaces 8,400 long tons, and therefore the Zumwalt is nowhere near 3 times the size of it. So what exactly are you trusting the USNI about in order to dismiss this point? The only thing you actually appear to disagree on at all is the exact tonnage of the Zumwalt, which is not in any way relevant since the difference between 16k and 14.5k will not magically make the Type 45 any smaller.

        1. graeme leggett Silver badge

          Re: Displaced, by gad.

          As it's Wikipedia the data is sourced.

          Zumwalt-class destroyer displacement to:

          "Destroyers – DDG fact file. U.S. Navy, 28 October 2009."

          and Zumwalt it/herself to "DDG 1000 Flight I Design". Northrop Grumman Ship Systems. 2007."

          Type 45 destroyer displacement to:

          "HMS Daring leaves Sydney after spectacular week of celebrations". Royal Navy. Retrieved 2013-10-13."

          "For Queen and Country". Navy News (July 2012): Page 8. "One hundred or so miles west of the largest city of Abidjan lies the fishing port of Sassandra, too small to accommodate 8,500-tonnes of Type 45."

          "HMS Duncan joins US Carrier on strike operations against ISIL". Navy News. Royal Navy. 7 July 2015. Retrieved 9 July 2015. "As well as supporting the international effort against the ISIL fundamentalists – the 8,500-tonne warship has also joined the wider security mission in the region."

          1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken Silver badge

            Re: Displaced, by gad.

            "Northrop Grumman Ship Systems"

            That would explain the price tag.

            1. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Black Helicopters

              Re: Displaced, by gad.

              "That would explain the price tag."

              some companies exist BECAUSE they're good at inflated-cost contracts with gummint... i.e. "military industrial complex".

              gotta watch out for it. (I think Ike warned us about that)

        2. PNGuinn Silver badge
          Pirate

          Re: Displaced, by gad.

          You might have a point.

          Perhaps they're all confused because noone actually knows yet how much water the poor bugger has got in its lube tube.

          Suitable maritime icon >>

          1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

            Re: Displaced, by gad.

            That's Northrob Gruntman for you.

            If that engineering would only bring us closer to starships. It only brings us closer to captainships...

          2. Dave 15 Silver badge

            Re: Displaced, by gad.

            Probably only a dribble

      2. waldo kitty
        WTF?

        Re: Displaced, by gad.

        I'll trust USNI over some Wikipedia nerd any day, thanks.

        even with the cost figures? one place says $4.4bn while another says $22bn... that's 5.5x difference so where does it come from?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Displaced, by gad.

      "What would the displacement be in El Reg units anyway?"

      Haven't they just established that it is the "Isle of Wight ferry"

      1. Tom 7 Silver badge

        Re: Displaced, by gad.

        The Isle of Wight ferry - the brown steaming thing that comes backwards out of Cows IIRC.

      2. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

        Re: Displaced, by gad.

        The wait for moderator approval on the post made me look stupider than normal.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Displaced, by gad.

          "The wait for moderator approval on the post made me look stupider than normal."

          I blame them too - or I will now.

    3. Korev Silver badge
      Pirate

      Re: Displaced, by gad.

      The Royal Navy "only" spent £1billion on a destroyer that has engines that don't really work very well. The Zumwalt cost thrice that so maybe that's where they got the figure from...

    4. james 68

      Re: Displaced, by gad.

      Weight and size are not interchangeable.

      That's like saying 'this box of lead fishing weights is 3 times as big as that box of tissues because it weighs 3x as much' - when in reality the box of fishing weights is 1/3rd the size of the tissue box.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Displaced, by gad.

        Why do you have those things to hand?

        1. Natalie Gritpants

          Re: Displaced, by gad.

          Understandable, fishing weights are damn sexy.

        2. 080

          Re: Displaced, by gad.

          To mop up the watery lube spill

      2. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

        Re: Displaced, by gad.

        I was using the units which were easiest to copy and paste and which are generally used to compare ship sizes of similar types.

        Dimensions from Wikipedia:

        Zumalt:

        Displacement: 14,564 long tons (14,798 t)

        Length: 600 ft (180 m)

        Beam: 80.7 ft (24.6 m)

        Draft: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)

        Type 45:

        Displacement: 8,000 to 8,500 t (8,400 long tons; 9,400 short tons)

        Length: 152.4 m (500 ft 0 in)

        Beam: 21.2 m (69 ft 7 in)

        Draught: 7.4 m (24 ft 3 in)

        So It's 100' longer, ~10' wider and has a ~3' deeper draught.

        1. bep

          Re: Displacement

          But at what condition? Full load? Light ship? Back in the Washington Treaty days warships could be compared by Standard Displacement, but nowadays it's rarely stated, and it's quite possible the same condition is measured differently by the two navies.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Displacement

            Even then Standard Displacement could be bent to a country's advantage

            eg UK argued that boiler feed water ought not to be part of definition since they operated over long distance between the colonies compared to others (Italians and Med, US and their seaboards).

            And once that was done, it was possibly for the RN to install water tanks inside the armour that were defined as boiler water tanks, and hence contents exempt from the displacement calculation but when filled with water acted as shock absorbers against torpedo impacts (as intended).

  12. kaseki

    "So called" tumblehome?

    It would have been sufficient to just put "tumblehome" in quotes. This naming is not some new 'Merkin English invention. An obsolete Middle English meaning of tumble is in use here, and the term was surely well known to HM naval architects when HMS Victory was laid down.

    1. Kubla Cant Silver badge

      Re: "So called" tumblehome?

      I don't think it even needs quotes. Anyone who's read Patrick O'Brian* knows what tumblehome is.

      * If you haven't, you should start now, as there are about 13 books to get through.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "So called" tumblehome?

        "* If you haven't, you should start now, as there are about 13 books to get through."

        20 books. 20 wonderful books.

      2. x 7 Silver badge

        Re: "So called" tumblehome?

        tumblehome is what happens when my missus gets home from the pub and feels randy

  13. ElectricFox
    Trollface

    Which would win in a fight...

    between a Zumwalt and an F-35?

    1. Sargs

      Re: Which would win in a fight...

      That depends on whether it's raining or not.

    2. Bob Dole (tm)

      Re: Which would win in a fight...

      Depends. Which senator is the Referee for the fight?

    3. Alumoi

      Re: Which would win in a fight...

      Hmm, tough one. The Russians?

    4. Vic

      Re: Which would win in a fight...

      between a Zumwalt and an F-35?

      No-score draw?

      Vic.

      1. x 7 Silver badge

        Re: Which would win in a fight...between a Zumwalt and an F-35?

        whichever has the fewer Chinese parts

  14. Your alien overlord - fear me
    Mushroom

    How many small fishing boats travel at 33 knots? I'd certainly fire at one if it showed up on my radar in the middle of a war !!!

    1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

      "I'd certainly fire at one if it showed up on my radar in the middle of a war !!!"

      As I recall, my father told me that during WW2 the Japanese used fishing boats with a gun mounted near the stern and covered with tarpaulin, so any fishing boat you came across where the crew suddenly headed for a big lump at the stern was liable to be sunk in very short order, owing to the Japanese tendency not to surrender.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Which explains the later US policy f using nukes against Japanese fishing boats - can't take any chances

  15. Thesheep

    Pity that there isn't an Enterprise in commission...

    Although there will be a new one commissioned in 2025. By which time the then Admiral James Kirk may need to be sent out to sea again. To find a whale or something.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pity that there isn't an Enterprise in commission...

      Hope it will never meet a Chinese ship commanded by some descendant of Kublai Khan...

      1. Commswonk Silver badge

        Re: Pity that there isn't an Enterprise in commission...

        Hope it will never meet a Chinese ship commanded by some descendant of Kublai Khan...

        Just look out for the name "Xanadu" on the bows...

        Hint: it may look like a "stately pleasure dome".

    2. GrumpyKiwi Silver badge

      Re: Pity that there isn't an Enterprise in commission...

      Captain Kirk is surface navy. To command a carrier you need to have been a flyer. So he will never command the Enterprise although he may command one of her escorts.

    3. SkippyBing Silver badge

      Re: Pity that there isn't an Enterprise in commission...

      Well there is one in commission, it's just called HMS ENTERPRISE so this Capt Kirk USN is unlikely to get to play with her.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Captain Pugwash

    There's never a tsunami around when you need one....ah well, hopefully it'll sail over a pocket of methane gas and fuckin sink!

  17. graeme leggett Silver badge

    Sub heading surprise

    "Water got into where water should not have been"

    It's a ship, ie a vessel intended to be in a very "water-rich" environment, I would design it on the understanding that water might get ANYWHERE and - knowing that - have something in hand for when it did.

    1. LDS Silver badge

      Re: Sub heading surprise

      Just, lubricants and water usually don't play well together...

    2. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

      Re: Sub heading surprise

      A lot of US ships and boats use Cutless bearings which are sea water lubricated and cooled - as well as being simple in construction they have the advantage that they don't leave an oil slick.

      You would think by now after over 150 years of development stern tubes and shaft bearings would be idiot proof, but I guess that with that amount of money the DoD can afford a better class of idiot.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge

        Re: Sub heading surprise

        Seawater lubricated bearings notwithstanding... [they work nicely for shaft seals and bearings located outside the main hull]

        it probably wasn't caused by an oil-lubricated shaft bearing that was directly exposed to water. Most likely it was a lube oil cooling system that leaked water into the oil. These ships typically use sea water for cooling things like oil and sometimes directly cooling rotating machinery. Oil gets hot when it's used to lubricate things like turbine reduction gears, so you need an oil cooler. If the oil cooler has a defect causing a leak, it probably requires a shipyard to replace it. In the mean time, watery oil makes a poor lubricant, so they'd lock the shaft and run on the other one(s).

        that's my take on it.

  18. D@v3

    weapons?

    For a warship, doesn't appear to have many weapons. They could of course be hidden by the RADAR obfuscation tech....

    1. flearider

      Re: weapons?

      they get the crew to stand on deck with there pea shooters ...

      weapons would have cost extra .. :)

      1. Jack of Shadows Silver badge

        Re: weapons?

        flearider, been there, done that. Compare Spruance-class destroyers (DD-963) which is what Congress paid for in the 1970's versus the Kidd-class (DDG-993) which was the original design before Congress cheaped out. Pea shooter is right. Had to go back to the yards to get real weapons later on at much more expense.

        1. Kurt Meyer

          Re: weapons?

          @ Jack of Shadows

          "... which was the original design before Congress cheaped out."

          You are wrong.

          The Spruance class came before the Kidd class, and were specialized for the anti-submarine warfare role. Which they performed very well.

          They were designed for and with space for, additional weapons which were not ready in time to be fitted as the first units were commissioned, but were, as you said, retro-fitted later.

          The Kidd class were originally a modified Spruance designed for the Imperial Iranian Navy as specialized anti-aircraft ships.

          After the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Navy was happy to take delivery of the four ships, which were brought up to USN sensor and electronic standards, and subsequently renamed the Kidd class.

          More info on the Spruance class here, and on the Kidd class here.

      2. Dave 15 Silver badge

        Re: weapons?

        Could use the Royal Navy technique of shouting bang with your fingers in your ear... doesn't waste so much expensive ammunition, doesn't break the ships hull, doesn't get anything dirty... top job

        Or (again as with royal navy) you can fit the necessary tools to fire the weapons but save money by not having any missiles or shells.

    2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: weapons?

      The designers obviously watched those episodes of Thunderbirds/Capt'n Scarlett/Space 1999 where weapons 'magically' appeared out of the Hull/wings etc and were remotely controlled.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: weapons?

        A lot of ships seem to be going the way of vertical launch missile silos rather than having a moving deck-mounted launcher fed from a magazine below.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: weapons?

          I was hoping for a line of hatches opening along the side and cannon being run out.

        2. Robert Helpmann?? Silver badge
          Childcatcher

          Re: weapons?

          A lot of ships seem to be going the way of vertical launch missile silos...

          Have an upvote, AC. The USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is a guided missile destroyer and this is exactly what was done, with the design providing better safety and storage options on a number of levels. Additionally, it looks like this ship might get, or already have, a railgun as part of her armament. It will not take up a lot of room, either, but packs quite a punch.

  19. Hurn

    Leak

    "a seawater leak into the auxiliary lube oil system for one of her main propeller shafts"

    Probably a leak from auxiliary sea water into the lube oil system via a heat exchanger.

    Good reason for the oil pressure in the heat exchanger to be higher than the water pressure: so that oil leaks out instead of water leaking in.

    1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

      Re: Leak

      Oh dear! That would result in your ship being declared non-operational in the middle of a battle due to excess pollution...

  20. 1Rafayal

    has Apple patented this yet?

    1. PNGuinn Silver badge
      Devil

      Has Apple patented this yet?

      Well, it looks like a bit of origami perpetrated by someone high on tumbleweed, so they probably have ...

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Simple Fix

    The solution is simple: Just keep it somewhere dry.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Simple Fix

      It's more complicated than that, actually. There are four things that are really bad for equipment in a marine environment, those being water, salt, oxygen and sunlight. Some would add a fifth, human stupidity.

      HTH :-)

  22. Chris G Silver badge

    Launch Mistake

    It looks as though they have launched it upside down, perhaps that is why water is leaking into the prop tube. The props are probably airboat props al la the Everglades.

    I'll bet that thing has a wet deck in a bit of a sea, it doesn't look as though you could stay on the pointy end in a storm for more than a couple of seconds.

    1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

      Re: Launch Mistake

      Agoraphobic? Can't afford psychotherapy? Join the USN and travel the world while staying indoors all the time. It wouldn't surprise me if the lifeboats launch like the pods in 2001 so the crew don't need to go outside. It seems to have less available deck than a submarine.

      1. Chris G Silver badge

        Re: Launch Mistake

        It is definitely not a sailing man's boat but then I guess the whole thing is filled with nerds on keyboards.

        I have to say, being on deck during a bit of weather and having some kind of horizon to look at is better than being battened down below even if the horizon is moving quite fast and going up and down a lot.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Launch Mistake

      > it doesn't look as though you could stay on the pointy end in a storm for more than a couple of seconds.

      I don't think US Navy sailors and sailoresses are allowed to do the whole Kate Winslet bit.

  23. Blipvert
    Alert

    Does it have a 'PooP' deck?

  24. DougS Silver badge

    Here I was expecting some sort of computer breakdown

    And it is just an old school water leak. Oh well, I'm sure it will have something odd happen to it eventually, like only turning left below the equator or something fun like that!

  25. TJ1

    Weapons: 750 x 155mm shells, 2 launchers, 154km range

    It's a few things but the 155mm launchers are a 'traditional' naval gun platform, although looks like another application of asymmetric warfare.

    It's ironic that for general navigation and interaction with civilian vessels they are going to have to hang damn great RADAR reflectors on the sides so that other vessels can 'see' it!

  26. John Jennings

    This ship was due to carry a railgun. It didn't work to schedule, so it carries 2 155mm canon. (as well as missiles etc)

    The tumblehome is little to do with radar. The point was to create a wavepeircing hull, to provide stability for the railgun/guided shell launcher. This boat sinks (it has ballast tanks fitted to flood before firing). The problem with that is that it will basically unstable in this configuration, and liable to capsize in anything greater than a force 4/5 (as waved are likely to crash the deck)

    So imagine the hull 6 feet lower in the water, moving at 10 knts (to fire). Generally low radar profile doesnt matter when 10 24LB shells per minute are detected!

    It might be a submarine after all!

    1. Chris G Silver badge

      Fair weather sailors

      @ John Jennings, "and liable to capsize in anything greater than a force 4/5 (as waved are likely to crash the deck)"

      IIRC the East coast Scottish sailing trawlers who used to fish for herring, never left harbour unless at least force 5 was in the offing as they needed that much wind to power the sails to move the huge drift nets or trawls.

    2. GrumpyKiwi Silver badge
      FAIL

      Sigh!

      Long ago before the very first piece of the keel was laid down, that was all tested in tanks and in simulations. You know, the same things we as a species have been doing when building ships for the past 140 years.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Missed headline...

    Shirley you missed a headline opportunity:

    Shafted ship shuffles shoreward...

    navy girl limping home after unlubed shafting...

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > The futuristic $4.4bn vessel, which features a so-called “tumblehome” hull

    A feature common in warships of the 1900s...

    The radar minimisation is based on the angled flats of the superstructure; they are arranged such that the reflected radio waves are bounced away from the radar receiver so less reaches it.

    When the sea starts getting up the ship will start to roll (something exacerbated by the tumblehome) and the large flat sides will be constantly swinging back and forth going from minimal radar cross section to an extremely effective radar reflector.

    The Zumwalt is going to be the one on the radar screen that's flashing...

  29. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    This looks terribly like the A yacht. Perhaps that was also low radar signature to minimise assassination attempts by aircraft...?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_(motor_yacht)

    That was built for a Russian oligarch. And it didn't go wrong. For obvious reasons...

    1. x 7 Silver badge

      Son of a friend was captain of that "A" boat for a while.

      Never saw him without a gorgeous russian bird at close hand. That ship is one heck of a fanny magnet.

  30. Daniel B.

    Oh the lost opportunity

    of calling it the USS Enterprise. After all, CVN-65 is inactive.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019