You're right about that. I still think the Adams class destroyers were the most beautiful warships ever built...
Posted on 03/10/2021 9:53:43 AM PST by Incorrigible
I rode the USS Benjamin Stoddert (DDG-22), another Adams class ship.
In addition to being the prettiest ships ever built, they sure could handle rough seas.
50ft swells in the north Pacific.
It was like being on a submarine.
Nothing but coffee and horse cock sandwiches. For four days.
I’m glad the Zumwalt appears to be sea-worthy and is “stealthy.” It nevertheless remains a butt-ugly looking ship.
I wonder how long the Navy will remain a credible adversary of China.
Not very, is what I figure, given our decimated industrial base, and colossal debt, and an officer class that is mostly concerned with political correctness.
Ever see that video of waves breaking over the bow of USS Kitty Hawk in rough seas? That’s almost 60 feet - and that’s impressive.
The biggest difference between the two illustrations is that the Merrimack had thicker armor plate.
There is ammo for the guns. It just costs to damned much to fill the magazines with the stuff. Last I heard was about a hundred grand a round.
Not to rag on the military, but they seem to have long thrown away the KISS principle. Few and incredibly expensive projects, while simple, fast and relatively inexpensive projects ended with WWII.
I bet Trump could have had 20 destroyers designed, built, tested and deployed in 10 years for that same amount of money.
You're right about that. I still think the Adams class destroyers were the most beautiful warships ever built...
No so. CSS Virginia’s casement armor plating was 4 inches thick. USS Monitor’s turret armor plating was 8 inches thick.
My ship, USS Ault, DD 698 is right up there in looks!
USS Charles F. Adams DDG-2 -- first of it's class, and still (Mariner's opinion doesn't count) the best of them all.
>>Hope the navy has the ballast calculations worked out.
Math is racist.
ASW
Anti-ship using long-range missiles
Anti-aircraft using long-range missiles
Shore support using cruise missiles
Long-range capable guns
Carry a helicopter (maybe even an F35 Marine version in the future)
All the electrical power and electronics for the above
Basically, take a tiny ship and expect it to have the defensive and offensive capabilities in terms of ordnance delivery of a WWII cruiser or battleship.
Just the ordnance and electronics alone are very expensive, then we cram all of it into a small hull along with an overpowered propulsion system. Not surprising they cost a fortune are maintenance nightmares.
Been there and done that. That’s the Adam class destroyers, the first US guided missile destroyers.
Was in a typhoon near Hokkaido, Japan on one of them. Seas so large we were “going over one wave, under two” The carrier sailors we were screening said we looked like a submarine.
While going under a wave our screws would come out of the water shaking the whole ship. This while the carrier was taking green water on her flight deck.
Sturdy built destroyers, they were.
? What would give you that reputation?
(Nuclear Eng, 14 years Navy, been in the Navy and power plant fields since 74. )
“they sure could handle rough seas.”
Yes the could, but it was a bitch being on one when they were taking water over the foc’stle and 22 degree rolls.
I was on USS Vogelgesang DD862
They fired the prototype shells - about a million a shot.
“? What would give you that reputation?”
Reading your post!
Half of our sub crew were barfing so bad they couldn’t stand watch when leaving Hong Kong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.