[quote=B.Smitty]Well, until it does, it may not. And even then, it may be cancelled. That's the way of military procurement.
Quote:
'bout time you noticed that. All this talk about SeaWolf... 
|
You've been wrong about several things so far.
Quote:
|
Still, my original statement stands - it won't have the TMD capability of CG(X) (which is supposed to get a new air defense sensor suite).
|
Actually your wrong about that. Considering my ship is based around the 21st century fleet designs (DDX, CGX ect.) It will.
Quote:
|
Actually no, the original PAC-2 Patriot's missile intercept capability was something of a hack. Notice it didn't do that well in ODS.
|
Quote:
|
PAC-3s are better, but they're lack the range and altitude performance for wide-area coverage. That's where THAAD is supposed to come in.
|
This demonstrates nothing. My ship has no patriot missile systems, however my statement is still correct. The Patriot missile systems can target aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Interception is something different.
Quote:
|
When did I say a carrier fleet would run down a freighter? That's a job for regular surface combatants. Or is that job too menial for your uber BB?
|
Carrier escorts wouldn't leave their group. So your entire assumption and arguement on that is incorrect.
Quote:
|
Jeez! What rock are you living under? The war in Iraq is forcing all of the services to cut back on modernization.
|
Never said it wasn't. What rock are you living under?
Quote:
Try reading this report from the Congressional Budget Office describing some of their reservations with the DD(X) and LCS.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...&from=0#anchor
Oh, and as a mental exercise, try fitting your BB in under their budgeted numbers. How many fewer DD(X)s and LCSs will there be?
|
Thats the idea, to have fewer.
Quote:
|
Umm, no. They used 40 Tomahawks on one bunker complex. That's more than one aimpoint.
|
Trying to make it sound like you were somehow right? Bunker complex's don't span that far. And another thing, it was in the middle of a city.
Quote:
|
Plus, guess what, your BBs guns would've been useless in this situation - Baghdad is 340 miles from the coast.
|
Plus guess what, rocket assisted shells could hit it. Go figure. Besides this, guess what, I already stated cruise missiles have a purpose in things that are out of range. But I've proven you wrong on both counts.
Quote:
|
No, they deactivated because they were bleeding the Navy's O&M budget dry and only did one thing, somewhat well - NGFS.
|
Wrong.
Quote:
|
Yeah, I'm sure Rumsfeld is thinking hard about it.
|
It would be the secnav's duty to consider it. Nice attitude.
Quote:
|
I'm sure they are, but an efficient 33,000 ton ship will still be far more expensive to operate than an efficient 16,000 ton ship.
|
Go figure.
Quote:
|
Ok, point me to some current naval doctrine that would lead one to believe a major surface combatant needs 40+kt speeds. (and when I mean major surface combatant, I don't mean LCS or Visby or other oversized gunboats)
|
Your profile says your a software developer. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know where to look.
Quote:
|
Huh? SEAL teams are pointless? I guess all the teams operating in Afghanistan can just come home then. All the teams that went in before the start of ODS and OIF were just wasting their time.
|
Irrelevant.
Quote:
|
BTW, I have no idea what your trying to say with your 'actual war' vs 'conflict' remark.
|
If you don't understand those terms...how sad.
Quote:
|
Well, gosh! I nominate you for SecDef! You obviously have all the answers.
|
More than you, thats clear. Nice attitude.
By the way, I'm not the one who thinks they are...a know it all to keep it simple. Your the one that came here, telling me how I don't know anything about this...in my own thread.
Quote:
|
Who cares if it's ever been used before?! This is a clean sheet design! It's not like you're trying for ammo commonality with Iowa stocks or anything. There's nothing special about 16 inches, or 10, or 8 or whatever. The only 'special' calibers are ones where you might be able to reuse some design and development - primarily 155mm.
|
You don't know what your talking about.
Quote:
|
Start with requirements. What are the target sets? At what range? How quickly must they be dealt with? (DPMIs over time). And recall that there are other systems in the military to deal with the corner cases (e.g. super-hardened bunkers, etc).
|
Then they should use them.
Quote:
|
Note, the USAF believes that a measly 250lb bomb can deal with 80% of battlefield targets.
|
Evidently that also makes cruise missiles impractical.
Quote:
Smaller munitions means lower pricetags and larger numbers for a given weight and volume.
Smaller guns means smaller mounts and more stowed rounds for a given volume.
Smaller, in general, means cheaper.
|
You don't understand ballistics.
Quote:
|
Then I guess the AGS is pointless too. Let's just scrap all calibers below 16".
|
You just don't get it, we have a 5" AGS. Why build a 10" over a 16"? By the way, a caliber has nothing to do with 16" That proves furthermore you don't understand ballistics.
Let me explain something to you, the desert eagle handgun is .50, while the Iowa battleship guns are .50 as well. You don't even know what your talking about here and it's really starting to irritate me.
Quote:
|
Or maybe... 16" guns are pointless, larger missiles and bombs can handle targets that need more firepower.
|
Well then they should use them more often.
Quote:
|
Let me clue you in on a little secret. You can always fire more smaller rounds to get the same area effect as a 16" shell, but you can never fire less than one 16" round.
|
Wrong, different penetration values. You might end up using x30 5" shells to do the duty of one 16" shell.
Quote:
|
This means that big guns have less flexibility. The can't be called close to friendlies. They can't be fired into cities (unless you don't mind flattening entire city blocks). They are massive overkill for hitting vehicles or fighting positions or even exposed infantry.
|
No this means that for some reason your determined to argue about all the little details, when your case is without base. This ship has 5" turrets as well as 16" turrets as well as Tactical Tomahawks and ADCAP torpedoes. Before you were trying to say a single torpedo would sink this ship, well guess what? You've been wrong about so many things now, just like you were wrong about that.
Quote:
|
Ok, let's do a little math. Using your cost estimates, your BB costs a billion more than a DD(X). The production cost of a TacTom is around $600k ($750k is the program cost).
|
Quote:
|
So for each BB, you could by 1600 TacToms!
|
Seems like a good deal to me.
Quote:
|
And each could be carried by any VLS ship in the fleet, not just a the handful of BBs you can afford.
|
Better get rid of the SSGN's then.
Quote:
|
And that doesn't even count the cost of arming the BB!
|
Heres something you didn't count. Arming them is irrelevant. Because all you do is fire them at a target anyways. If it wasn't going onto my ship, it would go onto another. So thats why thats a pointless statement to make.
Quote:
|
Call me ignorant. What exactly is 'salvo efficiency'?
|
When firing un guided munitons you have something called COF. Which is the chance that the munition would land within the designated target zone. The further away you are, the larger the circle of fire becomes. WW2 guns used un guided munitions, so firing more round increased the chance it would hit the target. Thats the salvo efficiency. And thats also common ballistics.
Quote:
|
No, it opens up the reasoning for a DD(X). The reasoning for a BB is still several steps beyond.
|
Then hurry up and get there, I'm tired of waiting.
Another thing, quit posting. You've made it clear you don't like battleships in any shape way or form, yet all you can do is squabble about every little detail you can find.
"Oh, a 5" gun can do the job" No it can't. Ask someone who knows. Rickusn stated very clearly why, and gave a link to clue you in further. The fact it was in Korea doesn't matter. Because it was still talking about 6" shells not getting the job done! So it doesn't matter that we have TacTom's or JDAM's today. Because you yourself stated that you thought a 5" gun would get the job done, which it won't. 5" shells have their place, but it can naver compete with a 16" shell.
And talking about the 16" shell leveling an entire city block, well now you understand the reasoning behind using something smaller to get the job done.
If I were to take your arguement at face value I would be convinced that if you had the chance you would also rule out 1000 and 2000 lb bombs. Because why have 1000 and 2000 lb bombs when you can use 250 lb bombs?