Quote:
|
Not fewer, massively more expensive ships! They're going to have a hard enough time selling DD(X), let alone a BB!
|
Time passes and prices go up, thats the way of the world. The Navy is sticking it out with the DD(X) and thats proof enough. See the bottom of this post for details on why cost is an irrelvant arguement. It's like the B-2. The B-2 is a specialized unit thats costs 1.1 billion dollars a piece.
Quote:
SeaWolf?  Umm, no. ESSM is a more capable missile to begin with and it doesn't have TMD capability.
|
The SeaWolf Block 2 actually does, yes. We are talking missile interception here. The ESSM has less range, while the SeaWolf has greater range and can fire two controlled salvo's.
Apples and oranges, my ship has both. But either way, using the peripheral vertical launch system it's loadout is greater than any current systems. TMD is not something very specific.
http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/...=EN&noeu_id=96
Quote:
|
Like convoy escort? ASM? Anti-mining ops? Maritime patrol?
|
Maritime patrol is called Blue Water patrol as well. And I already listed all of this in my previous post.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Cost isn't very high. I've already given several comparisons. Generalizing like that isn't helping your arguement.
Air defense isn't an issue here since no ship is selected simply for it's air defense. Surface strikes are what ships are built for, so saying "the only thing it really does better is surface strike" is like saying the only thing a ferrari does well is "go fast." Either way you just admitted it does it better. Higher survivability. It is a superior ship when supported by other ships.
Quote:
|
If I read that thread correctly, rickusn said 6" guns had trouble with concrete structures in KOREA!
|
He also have a link. I don't know what point you think your making. As if just because it was in Korea thats some sort of big downside?
Quote:
|
We're a long ways from that war. We have other systems that can handle hardened structures.
|
The USN recomissioned the Iowa battleships during the first gulf war. So very clearly that is not the case. Your trying to push a losing arguement on that issue.
Quote:
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.
|
No, it used for surface warfare and high evasion. However your comment there is peculiar. First you said something like, all future ships will go faster than that. Then when I pointed out that your statement was incorrect, now all the sudden it's just for showing off?
Either way surface warfare is changing for naval ships. High speed has a place in evasive and closing warfare tactics.
Quote:
|
My point was that a BBs armament is tremendous overkill for the majority of sea control missions.
|
The Navy just started converting some of it's Ohio class ballistic missile subs to fire tomahawk cruise missiles. So it seems that your saying one thing here, but the Navy is presently doing something totally the opposite of what you have said.
Quote:
|
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).
|
You need to check the definition for "lobbing tons of ordinance" and force multipliers. Also you need to read the debate on cruise missile attacks counting as a type of force multiplier due to their operating nature.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...ue_13/ssgn.htm
Read that. It's obvious that the U.S navy is looking to do nothing except lob tons of ordinance. The more my ship can lob, the more the navy will love it.
Go and read up on why the Navy recomissioned the Iowa battleships in 1991. They have been mothballed again, however thats simply because they fullfilled their use.
I seen an estimate as high as 145k. We will just have to wait and see what the 155mm gps shells for the DD(X)'s AGS guns cost.
A tomahawk is $750,000 dollars. So alright, you fire those million dollar missiles and I'll use my $50,000 dollar shells when possible. The 250 billion dollar Gulf War 2 currently in progress just demonstrates the need for cheaper ammunition. We can't keep using million dollar missiles.
I remember, the U.S military using 40 cruise missiles on one bunker. Go figure. Guess they really wish they had a few 16" overkill monstrosities then. Perhaps they could have fired...3 or 4 and got the job done at a fraction of the price.
Quote:
|
Yes, but it is overkill in most situations.
|
The Navy is progressing towards more overkill.
Quote:
|
Where'd you get that number? The Mk110 57mm turret costs almost $7 million.
|
Where did you get your number? That weblink is for a Mk. 3 not a mk. 110
In fact the Mk. 110 is still in development. We don't have a unit price, but its supposed to be more economical.
Quote:
|
I can only imagine what a triple 16" monster would cost, let alone a 155mm AGS.
|
Cost doesn't matter, the DD(X) is running at 4.2 billion dollars. Ships are not going to get cheaper.
And guns are cheaper than missile systems. you should get used to this idea. Rail guns are eventually coming into service, and they will outperform even the AGS system.
I've got something else to say about cost. If you build a 4 billion dollar DD(X) and it gets hit with a cruise missile it's probably going to sink. You just found out the hard way, that defense is worthwile. You just lost 4 billion dollars because of bad luck in war. My ship, on the otherhand is designed to protect the initial investment. Thats why I keep dismissing your cost arguement. It just doesn't matter. For a billion more dollars my ship can take a lot more damage and continue fighting.