Talk:USS Zumwalt

AGS & LRLAP

@Arch dude:, could you please review your latest edit and the overall information now being provided? The "Role" section of the article states;

---

Role

The Zumwalt class was designed with multimission capability. Unlike previous destroyer classes, designed primarily for deep-water combat, the Zumwalt class was primarily designed to support ground forces in land attacks, in addition to the usual destroyer missions of anti-air, anti-surface, and undersea warfare.

Zumwalt is equipped with two Advanced Gun Systems (AGS), which are designed to fire the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP). LRLAP was to be one of a range of land attack and ballistic projectiles for the AGS, but was the only munition the AGS could use as of 2018. LRLAP had a range of up to 100 nautical miles (190 km; 120 mi) fired from the AGS. It was to be a key component for ground forces support, but LRLAP procurement was cancelled in 2016 and the Navy has no immediate plan to replace it.

---

The infobox, however, presently states;

---

Armament

• 20 × MK 57 VLS modules, with 4 vertical launch cells in each module, 80 cells total. Each cell can hold one or more missiles, depending on the size of the missiles, including:
• RIM-66 Standard Missile
• RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
• BGM-109 Tomahawk
• RUM-139 VL-ASROC
• 2 × 155 mm Advanced Gun System with LRLAP
• 920 × 155 mm total; 600 in automated store + auxiliary store room with up to 320 rounds (non-automatic) and 70-100 LRLAP rounds.
• 2 × Mk 46 30 mm gun (GDLS)

---

As you can you see, it's somewhat of a confusing picture. The article body is in conflict with the infobox. Also, as it's written write now, the AGS appears to serve no purpose. You wrote; (the now cancelled) "LRLAP...was the only munition the AGS could use as of 2018" What about other 155mm rounds? I noted you've made several edits to this content, and I thought perhaps you might still yet have some edits to make, but if not, could you please review the last version (current as I write this) of this article and add some clarification if possible? Also does the info here match up with Zumwalt-class destroyer, USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) & USS Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002)? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 05:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You are correct: I'm still working on this, across several related articles. I found it hard to believe that these guns are effectively completely useless. No, the AGS cannot use any other type of munition, such as the plain old dumb 155 mm round used by the Army. The Zumwalts were more less designed around the AGS, so the Zumwalts are also very nearly worthless. I'm strggling with how to state this while still remaining WP:NPOV. Probably the best article to support this is the National Review ref in the "controversies" section.-Arch dude (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Arch dude: Wow, that is indeed a significant issue with this class that should not only be included, but expanded on. Perhaps add any controversy behind this situation, as well as any potential resolutions on the horizon (there has to be some kind of fix for this in the pipeline). If I may, what I would suggest is start with the Zumwalt-class destroyer page first. Post "under construction" tags on the pages, or relevant sections, of all 4 Zumwalt articles and direct the tags on the other pages to the Zumwalt-class talk page. On that talk page, explain you're making changes to bring all the articles up to date and also making them consistent with each other. This way, people (shouldn't} interfere with their own edits while you're working. Good luck. - ^theWOLFchild 06:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I will post the "under constrution tags, since I've already started. The true place to start was the LRLAP and Advanced Gun System articles, but I started in the middle, so now I'm stuck. The affected articles include United States naval gunfire support debate and others. My basic problem is how to avoid WP:SYNTH. The conclusion is obvious: the Zumwalts' are useless, but the only sources that actually state the conclusion are opinion pieces. I was trying to just state the facts and let the reader reach the conclusion, but you, as a reasonable reader, reached the conclusion that the article must be messed up. I doubt that there is a good way to add something like (not operational) to the AGS section of the infobox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch dude (talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 March 2018(UTC)

Sorry, I just meant out of the 4 ship articles, the class page would be the place to start. I wasn't aware you were working on other related pages as well. You should start (or continue) wherever you think is best. If I can make one more suggestion; you could always post at WP:SHIPS or WP:MILHIST about this. You might find an editor or two who has some info to share, especially sources, or just willing to help with all the work. But I'll leave that up to you. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 06:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Canadian article

Contains some details about the guns amd ammo not included here [1] Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

LAMPS is an outdated term

Change MH-60R, lamps is a term for the Hotels that aren't even in service anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.149.106 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

November 2021 Change of Command

“…Capt. Amy M. McInnis, who became the ship's 5th commanding officer. - [2] — MrDolomite • Talk 00:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Cómo se entiende que el "encargo" se hizo en el 2016 pero que se "probo" en el 2015? Aparentemente, existe una contradicción. 181.120.75.53 (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Similarity

For some reason, it reminds me of CSS Virginia. Did the design take something from the Confederate ship? BurnoutBenja (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)