No, it is intended for use by our Navy. Ironically, a lot was in creating a type of ship that the SEALs could use to slip into coastal waters and get off (this is what the "mission pod" concept was all about). However, SEALs already do this with submarines, this ship could barely get out of trouble if the Cuban Coast Guard found it, let alone a more serious player. The ship is not a bad ship, I simply don't see the role. For a Coast Guard type mission it is actually pretty damned good. For smugglers, stopping insurgent infiltration, and things like this I can see the use of a stealth ship that can be largely unseen from other ships. But as part of the Navy, I just don't get it. It's can't do escort duty very well, it can't do attack very well, I think the entire concept should just be tossed from the Navy and these ships given to the Coast Guard (who is the force called on to perform those duties to our Navy when deployed in hostile environments). I think a lot of it is simply technology wonks getting together to see what all they could throw at a ship to make it the most "high tech ever". Yea, it has lots of neat toys, and I admit I love the new gun systems on them. Imagine a 12-16" shell with a 100 mile range and what we could have done in the Gulf War with that. In fact, I can think of a mission right this moment if the US ever found itself in a shooting war with Iran. Around 75% of Iran's Ballistic Missiles are based within a 30 mile wide strip, between 20-50 miles from the Persian Gulf. And they were placed there on purpose. As close to the coast as possible to hit US allies like Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia. But also far enough inland to be out of range of the guns from the BB class of ships that were retired. And over the past 20 years they started to build them as close as 10 miles to the shore. Just the fact that we had a ship that could pound the crap out of anything within 20 miles caused them to adjust their entire missile program. And they are only moving them up because that threat is now gone.
But the rail gun projectile is a non explosive warhead, it's a kinetic energy warhead. They have developed a fragmentation round for the naval rail gun but there is no VT or time fuse that's able to withstand the speed the rail gun projectile will be traveling. Otherwise there is no air burst round that is needed for area targets like enemy troops in the open. Also the frail gun is not capable of hitting targets on a reverse slope.
The Navy calls the LCS the "Little Crappy Ship." It's capable of blowing a ski boat out of the water if it's Bofor 57 mm gun is working, usually it's not working.
Plus the fact that it is just so damned small. These are great against things like aircraft, ships, and missiles. But against personnel, it is pretty much worthless. But yes, it is a direct line of sight weapon. It can not even hit something on the other side of a dune right on the beach. This thing fires pretty much like a conventional rifle, not like a mortar or artillery. So unless it is going after a tank or pillbox right on the beach, it is not going to do a damned thing for forces on the ground.
I will admit, there is one thing I do love about the LCS. The gun. Oh, not the size but the fact that decades after the Army and Marines got PGM artillery with capability of rocket assist to extend their range the Navy is finally trying to update it's own artillery to have similar capabilities. There were actually proposals to give this to the 16" round and extend the range of the Iowa class to a staggering 400 miles with it's guns. With ranges like that they could literally have shelled Baghdad from the Persian Gulf (or the Southern suburbs of Tehran). Now if we could pump this gun up to say 8-12" round and throw 3 of them in a turret we could have the capability to do some real serious damage on ground targets. Without having to waste million dollar missiles just to take out a radio transmitter.
Are you saying going beyond the 12"/50 gun that was on the battle cruisers USS Alaska & Guam, something like a fully automatic 12" gun fed from a magazine ? It couldn't be a bag charges but a brass shell casings. It can be done, they did it with the 8"/55 gun. But the 8"/55 gun wasn't fed from a magazine, it was semi auto. A 12" gun would be around a 1,000 lb. projectile. I wonder what the impression pattern was for the 12"/50 gun ? The fragment pattern from a 8"/55 gun firing a HC round (FQ ground burst) was 185 to 410 meters long and 137 to 250 meters wide depending on the range and terrain. Now an air burst with a time fuse (FQ) or proximity fuse (VT), you are looking at a bigger impression area, a whole lot bigger fragment pattern, more than 50% larger.
Yea, pretty much. And yea we could possibly go to fully cased ammunition I am pretty sure. We have gone a long ways in technology since the last ships with real guns were made.
I thought WW2 proved big warship theory had issues, aircraft carriers with a battle group at least it can be argued projected conventional force against non-nuclear lesser states well and if there was a global zombie apocalypse it would be likely were the government would move onto for a period of time. But seriously against a major nuclear player what good are they one volley of tactical nukes could take them out, in terms of us the carried cruise missiles from one bomber. I would make a case if we were at war with China our submarines, new small stealthier ships and such would prove more lethal especially if nuclear armed. But we have ample defense from a serious invasion of any Earthly source, nukes, lots of nukes. So with that in mind a few carrier groups against other people its likely sensible.
OTOH couldn't it be that he US is the one behind? All the other nations have recognized we are now in the era of the welfare state. Conquering another nation now means we just have more citizens to take care of whether we recognize them as citizens or not. We also have a greater liability from asymmetric warfare if we have an Empire. Bad business all around, what?
Actually, all WWII proved was that the use of big ships to sink big ships was a failure. Big ships against land targets was a huge success in combination of an amphibious strike. Most people tend to make huge mistakes on what the lessons of WWII actually were. Case in point, imagine if a Battleship could have made a charge into the US or Japanese fleets during the Battle of Midway. Both sides were so obsessed with pounding the crap out of each other's carriers that a single heavy cruiser or battleship could have turned the ending either way. Or even better, Taffy 3. Where a Japanese Task Force was able to punch into a US force and caused horrendous losses (2 carriers and 3 destroyers sunk, over 1,500 killed). And that damage was primarily caused by naval gunfire. Anybody that thinks that WWII "proved" that aircraft dominate over ships did not learn very much to be honest. They only learned part of the lessons. [video=youtube;q9_fvCKFyQY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9_fvCKFyQY[/video] There were several "ship on ship" engagements of WWII, but it seems that all anybody remembers are the spectacular ones where waves of aircraft sunk battleships and other carriers. They never seem to remember that the vast majority of ships sunk were not from carriers at all but land based aircraft. Or from other ships. We are talking about a conventional conflict, not a nuclear war. Sane people do not discuss the two as if they are interchangeable.
No advantage to them, directed energy defeats unguided shells, and HA-UCAV's firing volleys of guided inert hypersonic rounds will crush enemy coastal positions and overwhelm defenses..... plus I think ship's will merge with subs, and you'll end up with a class of shallow submersible frigates... to defeat directed energy weapons and improve stealth.
That would be awesome to have a rail gun or light gas cannon with the muzzle just breaking the surface. The hydrostatic braking, cooling and external pressure would be better too.
[video=youtube;p_uwOrrlKl0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_uwOrrlKl0[/video] The era of battleships was over just before the Second World War and the Japanese battleship Yamato, ostensibly the greatest battleship in the world, was completely useless against America's aircraft carriers. Imperial Japan's greatest naval victory was the Battle of Tsushima Strait, at which the Russian Baltic Fleet was nearly destroyed during the Russo-Japanese War, and it was one of the last major naval battles fought solely by battleships.
Interesting choice of wording. That may have been the last major naval battle with "battleships". So your own definition makes it a very narrow list in the first place - if not impossible to place a single battle at all to fulfill it (only a handful of battles at most would ever would meet your definition). It was hardly the last major battle fought primarily with surface ships however. WWII is full of them, including Savo Island and Samar as previously mentioned. And why do people continue to go back to the idea of using this primarily as a platform to sink other ships with? Like in WWII their best use today would be in support of ground forces, not going after other ships.
Just one point of clarification: The Soviets called their ships "aircraft carrying cruisers" because "aircraft carriers" are banned from crossing the Bosphorus and "aircraft carrying cruisers" are not. It's the same way Japan is banned from having "aircraft carriers" but the rules say nothing about "helicopter destroyers".
Instead of firing a single KEP, the railgun in that situation fires a cage filled with tungsten cubes. At an appropriate height and range, a computer controlled bursting charge fires and shotguns those cubes at velocity over the offending tank regiment. Basically a kinetic energy cluster bomb.
Instead of a modernized Boston, why not a modernized Des Moines? Put a couple of semi-automatic 8inchers on it and that will be more than sufficient for the extremely rare (read has not occurred in 20 years, and even then it was just a distraction) naval gunfire mission. And there is no point in heavy armor. It just slows you down. A Sunburn's HEAT warhead is going to cut through it regardless.
The LCS isn't designed to screen against major surface combatants or aircraft. It's more like a WW2 corvette. They can carry multiple modular mission packages. They can act as minesweepers, VBSS ships, anti-sub, pirate interdiction, close in protection against a swarm of suicide boats, etc. You are thinking in terms of force on force but that isn't what we are likely to see. The LCS is designed for real world missions that occur quite frequently, not for some imaginary Jutland redux.
CIWS does not work against all threats. A great deal of damage in the Falklands was from dumb, unguided iron bombs. CIWS would not have helped against that. Really now, this is very hypothetical at best. The tests have gone nowhere even close to demonstrating such a thing would actually work. I talk in reality and what is actually possible, not theory and what they hope would happen. Because as of this moment, we have absolutely no way to place a "bursting charge" or electronics in a railgun and have them not become scrambled immediately upon firing. To much force, to much heat. Nobody is really taking that proposal of yours seriously, other then some video games. Such a situation has not occurred because we do not have any ships that could carry out this mission. This is rather a no-brainer if you ask me. Like saying we have not airdropped in divisions of infantry. And yea, a sunburn would go through it. Well, a nuke could destroy any equipment we ever make, so why bother making anything? One thing about planning only to defeat a single enemy, is that you are completely unprepared to meet any other enemy. And what "real world mission" would the LCS be suited for? They are not well armed, they are not able to operate for very long. Heck, I have seen patrol boats with more offensive capability then those things have. Good for advance picket and screening maybe, but these things are sitting turkeys if anybody decided to attack one. And why you and others keep bringing up this insane concept of taking a ship like I describe and going after other ships, I have absolutely no idea. Guess it comes from only being able to think inside the box, and going "Der, big guns, sink ships!"
The German Heavy Cruiser Prinz Eugen Excerpts: >" To demonstrate the awesome power of this 'ultimate weapon,' the United States armed forces scheduled a series of three nuclear tests at Bikini Lagoon in the Marshalls with the objective of determining the effect of the atomic bomb on naval vessels in order to acquire data regarding possible changes in (a) ship design, (b) tactical formations at seas and mooring distances in port, (c) number and location of naval bases and repair yards, and (d) strategic disposition of ships. The secondary purposes were: (a) To test the effect of the atomic bomb on aircraft, both airborne and parked, and also upon a wide variety of military weapons and equipment to discover what design changes would be necessary; (b) to learn more about the effect of the atomic bomb on living beings to provide much-needed information concerning protection, early diagnosis and treatment of personnel who might be exposed to atomic explosions, either in war or peace; (c) to gain information regarding the relative value of an atomic bomb attack against naval task forces, compared with other types of targets; and (d) to gain further information on the scientific phenomena accompanying atomic explosions. Originally, 'Operation Crossroads' was to have consisted of three nuclear explosions: Test 'Able' --- an air burst; Test 'Baker' -- a shallow underwater burst; and Test 'Charlie' a deep underwater burst. The first test was scheduled for 15 May 1945..."< >" immediately after the nuclear explosion, task force personnel prepared to enter the target area to assess damage. Initial boarding teams and salvage units commenced operations four hours after the explosion and boarded the target ships, starting salvage operations as soon as radiological and other safety conditions permitted. By 2030 (local) the teams had boarded and cleared 18 target ships. Prinz Eugen's bow lay 1194 yards from the explosion at a relative bearing of 343 degrees 40 seconds, and was substantially undamaged. Only the paint had been scorched and the foremast split..."< http://www.warship.org/no31990.htm A series of two atom bomb weapon tests were conducted by the United States at Bikini Atoll in mid-1946. The follow listings provide details of most of the naval vessels in the Operation Crossroads nuclear test target arrays, plus what happened to them: Carriers >" USS Saratoga (CV-32) Lexington-class aircraft carrier She survived the Test Able blast, an air burst on 1 July 1946 at Bikini Atoll, with only minor damage, but was damaged beyond repair by the Test Baker blast on 25 July 1946, an underwater atom bomb blast which was detonated under LSM-60 500 metres (500 yards) from the carrier. Salvage efforts were prevented by radioactivity, and seven-and-one-half hours after the blast, with her funnel collapsed across her deck, Saratoga slipped, stern first, beneath the surface of Bikini Lagoon. USS Independence (CVL-22) light aircraft carrier Assigned as a target vessel for the Bikini atomic bomb tests, she was placed within one-half-mile of ground zero for the 1 July 1946 explosion. The veteran ship did not sink, however (though her funnels and island were crumpled by the blast), and after taking part in another explosion 25 July 1946 was taken to Kwajalein Atoll and decommissioned 28 August 1946. The highly radioactive hulk was later taken to Pearl Harbor and San Francisco for further tests and was finally scuttled off the coast of San Francisco, California, on 29 January 1951..."< Battleships >" USS Arkansas (BB-33) Wyoming-class dreadnought battleship On 1 July 1946, the Arkansas was exposed to an air burst in the Test Able atomic test, but survived with extensive shock damage to her upperworks, while her hull and armored turrets were little damaged. On 25 July 1946, the battleship was sunk by the underwater nuclear Test Baker at Bikini Atoll. Unattentuated by air, the shock was "transmitted directly to underwater hulls", and Arkansas, only 250 yards from the epicenter, appeared to have been "crushed as if by a tremendous hammer blow from below". It appears that the wave of water from the blast capsised the ship, which was then hammered down into the shallow bottom by the descent of the water column thrown up by the atomic blast. HIJMS Nagato Japanese battleship In the atom bomb airburst Test Able on 1 July 1946 she was 1,640 yards from ground zero and was not severely damaged. In Test Baker, an underwater atom bomb explosion on 25 July 1946 she was severely damaged, eventually capsised and sank five days later. USS Nevada (BB-36) Nevada-class battleship Designated aim point for Test Able air-dropped atomic bomb, she was painted an "ugly" reddish-orange to help the bombardier's aim. However, even with the high visibility color scheme, the bomb fell about 1,600 metres (1,700 yd) off-target, exploding above the light carrier Independence instead. Nevada also survived Test Baker, but she was damaged and extremely radioactive. Nevada was then towed to Kwajalein Atoll by USS Preserver (ARS-, decommissioned on 29 August 1946, and then towed to Pearl Harbor. After she was thoroughly examined at Pearl Harbor, her final sortie came on 31 July 1948 when Iowa and two other vessels used Nevada as a gunnery target for practice. The three ships did not sink Nevada, so she was given a coup de gr�ce with an aerial torpedo hit amidships. USS New York (BB-34) New York-class battleship Surviving the Test Able surface blast on 1 July 1946 and the underwater Test Baker explosion on 25 July 1946, she was taken into Kwajalein Atoll and decommissioned there on 29 August 1946. Later towed to Pearl Harbor, she was studied during the next two years, and on 8 July 1948 was towed out to sea some 40 mi (35 nmi; 64 km) and there sunk after an 8-hour pounding by ships and planes carrying out full-scale battle maneuvers with new weapons. USS Pennsylvania (BB-3 super-dreadnought battleship After surviving the Operation Crossroads atomic bomb test at Bikini Atoll, she was then towed to Kwajalein Atoll where she decommissioned on 29 August 1946. She remained in Kwajalein Lagoon for radiological and structural studies until 10 February 1948, when she was sunk stern first off Kwajalein Atoll..."< Cruisers >" IJN Sakawa Agano class light cruiser The detonation of the Test Able atom bomb at Bikini Atoll occurred 450 metres (490 yards) above and slightly to starboard of IJN Sakawa's stern. The blast caused IJN Sakawa to burn fiercely for twenty-four hours before she eventually sank. The second atom bomb, Test Baker, was an underwater shot about 150 metres (500 feet) away from the sunken Sakawa. Prinz Eugen Admiral Hipper-class heavy cruiser The ship survived two atomic bomb blasts at Bikini Atoll, Test Able, on 1 July 1946, and Test Baker on 25 July 1946. Prinz Eugen was thoroughly contaminated with radioactive fallout, but suffered no structural damage from the explosions. The irradiated ship was towed to the Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific, where a small leak went unrepaired. By late December 1946, the ship was in very bad condition. On 21 December 1946, the ship began to list severely. A salvage team could not be brought to Kwajalein Atoll in time, so the US Navy attempted to beach the ship to prevent her from sinking, but on 22 December 1946, Prinz Eugen capsised and sank. Her main battery gun turrets fell out of their barbettes when the ship rolled over. The ship's stern, including her propeller assemblies, remain visible above the surface of the water. USS Pensacola (CA-24) Pensacola-class heavy cruiser She survived the atom bomb tests of 1 July and 25 July 1946. On 24 August 1946, she was taken in tow for Kwajalein Atoll where she decommissioned on 26 August. Her hulk was turned over to the custody of Joint Task Force One for radiological and structural studies. On completion of these studies, her hulk was sunk on 10 November 1948 off the Washington coast in 1,400 fathoms. USS Salt Lake City (CA-25) Pensacola-class heavy cruiser Surviving two atomic bomb blasts at Bikini Atoll, she was decommissioned on 29 August 1946 and laid up to await ultimate disposal. She was sunk by torpedoes as a target hull on 25 May 1948, 130 mi (110 nmi; 210 km) off San Diego southern California in 2,000 fathoms..."< Destroyers continue -> https://www.scubadoctor.com.au/article-bikini-atoll-nuclear-target-fleet.htm
1. Any fighter close enough to accurately drop iron bombs on a ship is well within the engagement window of a Phalanx or C-RAM. The British had nothing. Their idea of CIWS was to strap FN MAGs to their ship's rails and try to shoot down jets with manually aimed 7.62's. 2. The cage of cubes idea doesn't come from me. It comes from a Popular Science article I remember reading about the development of the Navy's railguns. 3. Even when we had active battleships, we didn't use them for support during a landing on a defender coastline. Marines have helicopters and hovercraft now. They can choose where to land. Normandy and Iwo Jima aren't going to happen again. The last time battleships got used, they were only a distraction and we haven't had a need for them since. You like to make claims about "even a conscript with a MANPAD can shoot down a cruise missile" but when his this EVER happened? Also, the Sunburn is a realistic threat. The future is hypersonic cruise missiles with HEAT warheads. If your ship can't survive a hit by one even when heavily armored, then what is point in taking armor? Speed is the best armor ships have. 4. How well armed does a ship have to be to hunt mines? How about to sink pirate dingys? To send VBSS teams to search a ship? How well armed does it need to be to kill suicide boats? Stop trying to compare a corvette or a major surface combatant. They aren't designed to do the same jobs.
The Yamato and her sister ship the Musashi are not Iowa class battleships. Both the Yamato and Musashi design were outdated by the time they entered service. The Imperal Japanese Navy had never perfected a damage control procudure like the U.S. Navy had. It took 11 to 15 torpedos and 7 direct hits by AP bombs to sink the Yamato. It took 11 to 17 torpedos and 19 direct hits by AP bombs to sink the Musashi. Iowa class BB, the only way an Iowa class BB can be sunk is by breaking it's keel. Excerpt: Strafford Morss and Iowa Class Survivability >" Commander Strafford Morss wrote an article in 1984 on the survivability of the Iowa class agaist modern weapons. It is to long to post everything but I will place in quotation marks those areas that are in the article. He first takes on torpedoes. " The following evaluations are estimates of the damage to be expected by an Iowa class ship. The shock wave from an underbottom proximity explosion assumed to be at least 1000 pound TNT will be absorbed partially by the triple bottom structure. Forward in the area of Turrets 1 and 2, storerooms below the powder magazine could be flooded and flooding of the magazines less likely. Detonation of the powder magazines would be unlikely. Beneath the machinery spaces it is assumed the triple bottom will be breached. Depending on damage location one and no more than two machinery spaces would flood. With the alternating fire room engine room no more than one shaft would be affected. This was the intent of the designers. Farther aft the two skegs supporting the inboard shafts should help resist underbody damage however the outboard shafts remain vulnerable. The ship has a full void under the ram room three to six feet deep and has better protection than did Bismarck. Some directional control is possible with propellers alone. However the rudders are the most difficult area to protect in any ship. Forward of the armored citidel there would be concern as to the possible loss of her bow however some reinforcement of the bow has occured during the years of active service. A contact side explosion is expected to result in damage similar to that recieved by North Carolina. In no case should a single hit be fatal to the ship. but each subsequent hit will increase disruption and reduction in capability making it more difficult for the ship to continue." end quote. "Shape charges torpedoes are expected to breach the system but will cause less damage to shell plating. Shape charges torpedo warhead tests on a side protective system based on an aircraft carrier did produce fragments that penetrated the holding bulkhead however this system did not have an armored bulkhead. However, if within range of her objective, she should still be able to employ her missile and gun batteries even with grievous underwater damage" end quote. In no case are we speaking about the total structural failure of the ship. I would add shock damage could be considerable but she does have redundant systems so her ability to recover after damage remains high. Basically what happens is the triple keel absorbs as much of the energy it can and then breaks venting the explosion into the ship. A single torpedo can not damage enough of her structural strength so the keel is crushed locally with the sides of the ship holding her from hogging in any significant way. Her upper strength decks being so strong there is no significant sagging motion either. Therefore you get localized flooding similar to a side hit. This is why Arkansas remained intact despite a nuclear explosion below her keel. The keel is crushed all around her framing and side protection inwards into the hull. The shock wave was transmitted into her hull and two propeller shafts were ripped out. Despite being thrown into the air over two ship lengths or over 1,000 feet she never hogged. Her sides were keeping her intact as the keel was crushed and her armor is cracked in only one location on one side but not torn open. Though she slammed upside down onto the sea floor her upper decks show no sign of hogging or sagging. Her turrets remain in their barbettes and her casemate guns and battery deck are unaffected. One side is crushed flat as the sea fell back on top of her but the type of structural failure you see with small destroyers taking a torpedo under the keel does not apply to an Iowa or a large carrier. I can not think of a more extreme test to demonstrate this. The Baker bomb was tens of thousands times more powerful then a single conventional torpedo and could not produce the type of structural failure seen in small warships. New Quote; " Bomb Damage - Based on 1,000 lb HC bombs the main deck along with the superstructure can be extensively damaged. Bombs which penetrate the main deck can cause extensive damage to the side shell from an internal explosion. Shape charged bombs 1,000 to 2,000 lbs in tests simulating superstructure, weather deck, armored deck and then splinter deck one bomb gouged the armor and one penetrated but fragments did not penetrate the splinter deck." end quote. New Quote; "Gunfire damage - The largest guns in service today are no more than 6-inch claiber. What can be expected is damage similar to what South Dakota took in November 1942 with extensive superstructure damage and damage to her electronics. Niether her strength, buoyancy, nor stability should be impaired." - end quote. New Quote; "Guided missiles - While Exocet was able to penetrate Sheffeld, there has to be a question about missiles of the Harpoon type penetrating the 1.5" shell plating or main deck. Portions of the superstructure are more vulnerable as would the lighter bow and stern areas. Soviet missiles with shape charged warheads of up to 2,200 lbs could cause deck and superstructural damage on the order of shape charged bombs. While the ship should survive several hits of this type, mission capability could be severly reduced." This was written in 1984. More modern missiles today with shape charges should be able to penetrate her armor protection. They travel much faster and hypersonic missiles that travel at mach 10 will go through any armor period. The size of the ship and her subdivision should allow her to absorb multiple hits before she is mission killed or sunk unless she suffers an internal magazine explosion. No amount of armor can protect from all threats..."< continue -> http://warships1discussionboards.yu...rss-and-Iowa-Class-Survivability#.VNEMwdX3-iw
There are a number of problems with the Zumwalt class destroyer the it's railguns. The railgun isn't capable of hitting targets on a reverse slope. The railgun will not be affective on area targets especially troops in the open. The Zumwalt class destroyer only has two railguns and are not capable of firing a two gun salvo. For example you have an enemy force advancing on your position lets say an enemy battalion size force occupying a 450 yard wide and 600 yard deep position you need a six gun salvo where all of the projectiles arrive over the target at exactly the same time with an air burst detonation lets say 25 feet above the enemy troops. Then there's the problem with the Zumwalt itself. Remember it was the Naval Sea System Command that gave the U.S. Navy the "Crappy Little Ship" (CLS) that can't fight or survive in battle. Now we have the Zumwalt that won't work in a bathtub test. >" One those doubts includes a potential Achilles heel the ships bizarre stealthy hullwhich is the most obvious new feature of the new destroyer. The hull looks like it is upside down. Unlike a normal ship, the bow slopes upward from the water up to the deck. Meanwhile, the rest of hull is wide at the waterline and slopes inward. If one were to look at the ship directly from the front, it would resemble a bell rather than the traditional flared hull with a V or U shape that is most common. There have been persistent concerns about how stable the tumblehome design is in any sort of rough seasin fact, one of the concerns about the design is that it could capsize if it is hit by a large wave from the wrong angle. This is an area that the Navy is taking seriously, one naval architect familiar with the design told The Daily Beast. The Navy declined requests for interviewsand would not directly address the issue. However, slides presented by the Naval Sea Systems Command in April show that the service has not yet completed certifying the hull for stability. The Navy recently upgraded a maneuvering and sea-keeping lab facility in Carderock, Md., where the ships design is being tested. This is a high priority for that facility, the architect said. There might be reason for concern. A 2007 engineering paper presented at the 9th International Ship Stability Workshop in Hamburg, Germany, shows that tumblehome designs are more prone to capsizing especially went the ship is hit from behind. The number of capsizes for the most- probable sea state 8 [30 to 46 ft waves] conditions increased drastically for the tumblehome topside for following, stern-quartering, beam and head seas, the report reads. The capsize risk for the tumblehome geometry had a greater increase for small increases in KG [center of gravity] than the flared topside geometry...."< http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...12-billion-stealth-destroyer-stay-afloat.html
