Sputnik: Idea That US's New Destroyer is 'Invisible' is a 'Fairy Tale for Fools'
The builders of the USS Zumwalt, the US Navy's new next-generation super-destroyer, have promised that the ship would be nearly invisible to enemy radar. Military analyst Viktor Baranets told Sputnik that this simply isn't the case.
The USS Zumwalt destroyer, set to be officially handed off to the US Navy on Friday at a ceremony in Bath, Maine, has already been touted as the best thing since sliced bread. The ship, set to become the largest and most advanced destroyer in the Navy's fleet, has been described by potential opponents as a dangerous "behemoth nearly undetectable to adversaries until it is too late."
US media, meanwhile, have already called the $4.4 billion, 610-foot, 14.5 ton destroyer as one of the greatest and most advanced warships in world naval history, fawning over its unique angular design and its radar-absorbing materials.
Read more ....
Update: Russian Naval Expert Calls US Navy’s New Stealth Destroyer ‘Giant Washtub’ (The Diplomat)
WNU Editor: I do not know about the "wash-tub" reference, but this Russian analyst is right about how much of these destroyers cost.
3 comments:
4.4 billion seems like a lot for a destroyer of any kind. However, the prospect that it isn't any where near it's billings seems unlikely. The US Navy does test these weapon systems extensively. The analysts making those doom comments all seems to be Russian and with the control the Russian government holds over its media and the fear it's journalists have of the government, anything negative about the US must be taken with a grain of salt. Time will tell, but much like the M1 tank, lots of talk about it being too expensive and not up to its billings have all but been forgotten. Much like the F-35, we will see, but there is a great upside to be had.
14.5 ton destroyer?
Is see Sputnik did there research.
OB: the problem with US "testing" of US weapons systems is the testing is biased to overestimate US capabilities while underestimating those of adversaries or potential adversaries. As such, I'm highly sceptical of the results of such testing.
You do raise a valid point about the Russian media. So this is probably not a giant "wash tub" but it is unlikely as effdctive as has been billed.
WNU is absolutely correct to raise attention to the enormous costs. With the US military overall in terrible shape and the country's infrastructure collapsing spending money of this magnitude on destroyers seems an absolute waste.
As for thd F-35, you could be on to sonething. The critiscism of late is WAY to shrill and WAY to over the top, As Shakespeare said, "though doest protest much." If they can pull this off, it would be something indeed. At what cost though? Given the overall situation of the country and it's vulnerable position, spending precious resources on the F-35 and this destroyer do mot seem to be helpful but seem to undrrmine us.
Post a Comment