Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
Umm, well we'll see how far they stick it out. Remember, the DD(X) is a cost cutting measure from DD-21. Plus they have a ton of other priorities like a new carrier design, LHA(R), CG(X), etc.. I have a feeling a new BB would be at the bottom of the list.
And if we had 20/20 hindsight, the B-2 program would've never made it out the door with that pricetag.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
SeaWolf is designed to intercept
cruise missiles, not ballistic missiles.
Oh and BTW, I seriously doubt SeaWofl outranges ESSM in anything but a manufacturer's brochure. Just look at the missile weights - 140lbs for SeaWolf, 640lbs for ESSM.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
I'm not sure what you mean by "not something very specific". The TMD term is generic, but its usage is specific - defending against ballistic missiles.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Maritime patrol is called Blue Water patrol as well. And I already listed all of this in my previous post.
|
Yes, you listed it as a mission for your BB, but my point is, using a BB for maritime patrol is
massively wasteful. You don't use a BB to runk down junks in SWA, you use an LCS. Nor would you use one to run down open ocean freighters. It's just not cost-effective.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Cost isn't very high. I've already given several comparisons. Generalizing like that isn't helping your arguement.
|
When the cost of a DD(X) is already considered high - potentially too high for the USN's budget - an even more expensive BB seems out of the question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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?
|
I thought I made my point clear. There were no PGMs in Korea, no TacTom, no LRLAP, no JDAM or LGB. So I'm not terribly surprised that 6" guns had problems with concrete structures. Nowadays we have other means of dealing with them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
And fought the second Gulf War without them, so what's your point? Clearly, they didn't make a big enough impact to keep around.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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?
|
Huh? When you said high speed was a benefit of your BB, I said "No higher (or not much) than existing or near future vessels". I never said future ships will go faster.
I admit that your 41kts is faster than a DD(X)s 33kts. But I submit that it wouldn't be useful and would pose additional costs and design constraints. Against an AShM, a difference of 8kts is going to mean squat. Against a torp it will help a little, but unless this behemouth can accelerate like a Ferrari, it may not get a chance to use it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Either way surface warfare is changing for naval ships. High speed has a place in evasive and closing warfare tactics.
|
"Closing warfare tactics"? What is this, the 1940s? High ship speed means squat when then confronting an opposing surface force. It just means you'll outrun your escorts and make a ton of noise for every sub in the area to pick up.
High speeds are potentially useful for LCS, but that's due to it's mission of running down ships during maritime patrols.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
Yes but the Ohios already exist and only require a conversion. Your BB is bran-new.
Besides, the Ohios can sneak up to a coastline undetected, while your BB and it's escorts will be seen from hundreds of miles away by maritime patrol aircraft (even with stealth treatments).
In addition, the Ohios are being configured to carry and support SEAL teams, UUVs and are already capable ISR platforms - so they aren't just strike assets.
Your BB doesn't even have a helo pad.
Some other questions,
Why 9x16" guns? Why not 2x8" or 10" or whatever?
The rationale for the Iowa's 16" guns was ship-to-ship BB vs. BB engagements. Since nobody operates BBs these days, and you're planning on a clean-sheet gun design, why stick with design decisions made in the 1920s and 30s?
Plus, automated ammuntion handling on modern turrets means that a single gun can do the job of many WWII style guns. And rocket-assist and advanced propellants mean that smaller caliber weapons can reach as far as larger gun.
Also, how'd you come up with the 320 miles range requirement? What was your rationale?