[quote=Defcon 6]No, my ship uses a lot of recycled metal. The idea is that I
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
The USN wants to field fewer ships anyways.
|
Not fewer, massively more expensive ships! They're going to have a hard enough time selling DD(X), let alone a BB!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Yes I understand this now. I already had selected the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and British SeaWolf Block 2 missiles for use. The SeaWolf has a 70km range, enabling it to hit ICBM's. However, its loadout is of greater variety than the CG(X), so it could equip the same missiles that the CG(X) could.
|
SeaWolf?
Umm, no. ESSM is a more capable missile to begin with and it doesn't have TMD capability.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
This ship handles the job of more ships effectively. The Navy already has selected Littoral ships for that purpose.
|
Like convoy escort? ASM? Anti-mining ops? Maritime patrol?
I don't think so. It's marginally better than a DD(X) at area air defense owing to its larger VLS complement. The only thing it really does better is surface strike - and at a rather high cost.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
|
ok.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
I argued this on the other forum earlier. But it's not true. Go and check what rickusn said. The 5 inch shells can only go 100 miles, opposed to my 320 mile range shells.
|
If I read that thread correctly, rickusn said 6" guns had trouble with concrete structures in KOREA!
We're a long ways from that war. We have other systems that can handle hardened structures.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
My ship is capable of 41 kts. It's faster than any ship in service now.
|
And the only time it would use it is for PR stunts.
Seriously, 40kts on an LCS is useful for running down suspicious ships. 40kts on a BB is just for showing off.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
And a fast attack craft can't outrun a missile. if it gets close, my ship has a CIWS.
|
My point was that a BBs armament is tremendous overkill for the majority of sea control missions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
They aren't that expensive compared to a 13 billion dollar aircraft carrier. Like the carrier, this ship is a force multiplier in its own way. And the Navy as I have said wants to field fewer ships.
|
This ship isn't a force multiplier, it's sole value is lobbing tons of ordinance, and it's a value we don't need (at least not given what it'd cost).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
With smaller guns. They don't meet the mission requirements currently needed.
|
Which are??
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Last time I checked the guided 155mm's cost 9k and were working fine. Show some sources because what you are saying just isn't true.
|
ERGM - $50k-100k estimate,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ve_Targets.htm
Excalibur - $50k estimate,
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/arti...0054121018.asp
LRLA - $35k estimate,
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...07/ai_n9458660
Now you can guess these will go up - as virtually all defense industry estimates do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Even then you'll never exceed the explosive force of a 3,200 lb 16" shell.
|
Yes, but it is overkill in most situations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
The 16 turrets is suppose to be downsized to 10. However regardless this ship is optimized as it is. A 155mm turret costs about 3 million dollars with support systems. So really they don't add much cost, and it's reasonable to have more especially when the 155mm's can be unmanned.
|
Where'd you get that number? The Mk110 57mm turret costs almost $7 million.
http://www.army-technology.com/contr...s7/press2.html (11mill Euros for 2 = $13.5mill / 2)
I can only imagine what a triple 16" monster would cost, let alone a 155mm AGS.