Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
I will answer the issues you raised in order.
1.) at 5.26 billion it is affordable given its capability.
|
How did you come up with that figure? I would anticipate at LEAST twice DD(X), maybe more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
2.) Doesn't need to, the DD(X) is for that purpose.
|
And every BB we buy would mean fewer DD(X)s.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
3.) TMD is not a defense term that I know of. If it is, inform me please.
|
Sorry, Theater Missile Defense - shooting down short-ranged ballistic missiles. (think anti-Scud)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
4.) Yet it keeps building more.
|
'More' in the context of new missions that need attention. DD(X) and LCS help solve the littorals problem, plus the Burke design is getting old. CG(X) provides next-gen area air defense and TMD.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
5.) It does not need aviation facilities. Thats what aircraft carriers are for. Adding such would increase crew ect ect.
|
Well, if you want it to operate independently, or as part of a SAG, someone needs to have aviation facilities. Who's going to be spotting for your giganto-guns?
At minimum, I'd scrap the rear turrets and dedicate the entire section to a large flight deck and hanger for UAVs and helos. Maybe even a large, multi-misison area like the Danish Flexible Support Ship.
http://navalteam.dk/supportship.htm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
5.) Incorrect. Hullex data proves that 2-4 ADCAP torpedoes would be needed to sink a WW2 battleship. So you can conclude that this modern battleship with more armor and armor of modern design at that, would take 6-8 torpedoes to cause critical damage of a sinking possible nature.
|
Ok, if not sink, then mission-kill it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
6.) NGFS is crucial to the mission requirement of this ship, however this ship is also designed to take any other ship on the sea, providing immense pressure relief to any carrier group it is part of. The naval guns on this ship are designed with the AGS 155mm gun system in mind using concepts I've created.
|
We don't need 16" guns for NGFS. The 155mm AGS is spec'd to provide an entire artillery battery's worth of fire support. Each DD(X) has two. That's plenty.
Ship vs. ship just doesn't really happen anymore, except in the littorals. And if it does, it's via long-ranged cruise missile, not guns.
For littorals, chances are you'll be going up against a gun-boat or fast attack craft and even the 155mm AGS is overkill here. Better to hit them with a missile from a helo or UAV, or a 57mm round or NLOS-LS missile from an LCS.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Littoral missions are irrelvant. The navy is developing smaller ships for that mission. Stand off missiles prevent opposing naval landings or littoral bombardment anyways. So thats where this ship comes in, has long distance extreme offensive power.
|
And every massively expensive BB we bought would mean fewer LCSs and DD(X)s.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
The Mission requirements are these:
1.) Capable of engaging Sea or Land targets with equal effectiveness.
|
As can DD(X), Burkes, Tyco's, LCSs, etc., at a far lower price.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
2.) Capable of defending against Aerial targets as well as submerges force dislocators such as submarines. It is not invincible, but simply designed with the idea that defense is worthwhile.
|
As can DD(X), Burkes, Tyco's, LCSs, etc., at a far lower price.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
3.)Must be capable of sustaining half a dozen or more direct hits and continue fighting.
|
A half dozen hits will undoubtably shred any exposed antennas, leaving you blind and deaf and a mission-kill.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
4.) Must be able to fire with guided shells to allow accurate naval engagements and shore bombardment using its main battery.
|
DD(X), Burkes and Tico's will be able to do this with Excaliber/ANSR/LRLAP.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
5.)High speed
|
No higher (or not much higher) than existing and near future vessels.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
6.) Shock and Awe: Offensive and Deffensive with extreme prejudice.
|
Perhaps, but not worth the price, IMHO.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
7.) Main guns must be effective. The idea is to allow the ship to use 20,000 dollar guided 16 inch shells rather than 750,000 dollar tomahawks.
|
Well, I'm guessing you won't be able to build a $20k guided 16" round, since we're having trouble building $20k guided 155mm and 5" rounds.
Besides, TacTom is somewhat cheaper and can go 7-900 miles and can be fired by any VLS ship in the fleet. What kind of range do your 16" rounds have?
If anything, we should just focus on cheaper VLS missiles. JASSM is less than $500k. But something a lot smaller and cheaper rmight be worthwile - something where 4 to 9 can be carried per VLS/PVLS, but packs the punch of a 250lb SDB and has TacTom range.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Unit price is around 5.26-5.8 billion dollars. An aircraft carrier is 13 billion and a DD(X) is 4.3 billion. Thats for comparison. Current missile cruisers are 1.3-3.3 billion depending on unit.
|
How'd you come up with this price? My guess is a new build would probably be at
least twice as expensive as DD(X), since it's more than twice the size. Probably more, considering how many expensive guns it has on it. Using large amounts of tungsten and titanium in the armor will definitely jack the price up too.
A few other notes, DU is effective in sabots for tank guns, but I doubt it'd really be worthwhile for naval guns. A full-caliber, solid 16" DU round would be MASSIVELY heavy and would probably vastly reduce its range. Besides, penetration was never a problem for battleship guns. The Mk7 16" rounds could go through 30 feet of concrete. That's plenty.
ERA relies on disrupting hyper-velocity shape charged jets or sabots, in order to reduce their penetration. Since no AShM weapons use hyper-velocity as their penetration mechanism, I doubt it'd be worthwhile.
You mentioned 9x16" guns but then you say four triple turrets (12 guns). Which is it?
Why 16 155mm guns? Scattering them about the ship will mean that only, probably, half will be able to fire at any one time. Seems wasteful for such an expensive system. Same goes for the 57mm guns.