Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Actually your wrong about that. Considering my ship is based around the 21st century fleet designs (DDX, CGX ect.) It will.
|
CG(X) will have a different sensor suite than DD(X) - specifically designed for area air defense and TMD. You stated in your spec sheet that to lower costs, you were going to use the radar suite from the DD(X). Was this distinction your intent?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Carrier escorts wouldn't leave their group. So your entire assumption and arguement on that is incorrect.
|
Escorting carriers is only one job done by major combatants, and more and more marginal one at that, so my assumption and argument is completely valid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Thats the idea, to have fewer.
|
Fewer, less expensive platforms, not fewer more expensive platforms.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
Oh really? Provide me a source. Don't have one? Here ya go,
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/0321gulf.xml
"Using about 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from four ships and two submarines and a pair of 2,000-lb. bombs dropped by two F-117s, the U.S. Navy and Air Force last Thursday attacked targets in the south and east of Baghdad including radio, television and customs buildings."
Doesn't sound like one big, impenetrable bunker to me. Sounds like a large number of targets.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
The stated range of your gun design is 320 miles. How you came up with this number, I have no idea. Your anecdotal evidence for the need of such system was to perform strikes such as those in Baghdad and Afghanistan. My goal was to point out that 320 miles is insufficient for strikes of this type.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Your profile says your a software developer. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know where to look.
|
Ahh.. here we go - ad hominem rears its ugly head.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Irrelevant.
|
How so? My assertion was that SSGNs are useful for more than just their VLS cells. Your assertion, if I read it correctly, is that the USN is desperate for more and therefore came up with the SSGN.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
If you don't understand those terms...how sad.
|
Yes, I don't understand those terms. Perhaps you could explain them to me? Or did you make them up?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
Well, if you put your ideas out on a public, military forum, you can expect people will pick them apart. Welcome to the Internet.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
You don't know what your talking about.
|
Well, then enlighten me. I frequent these boards to learn things, not just to pontificate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Then they should use them.
|
You didn't answer my question. What are the requirements that led you to believe in a 16" gun solution? What are the target sets? At what range? How quickly must they be dealt with? (DPMIs over time).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Evidently that also makes cruise missiles impractical.
|
No, but it does make them overkill for 80% of battlefield targets.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
You don't understand ballistics.
|
Well, I'm no expert, but I do think I have a grasp of the basics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
Because 10" might give you the range and penetration profile you want without the expense of a larger weapon. I just threw that number out. Frankly I don't know what's possible these days.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
What an apt analogy. IMHO, a .50 Desert Eagle handgun is too much of the wrong type of weapon for any military.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Wrong, different penetration values. You might end up using x30 5" shells to do the duty of one 16" shell.
|
Massive penetration is only required for a small subset of likely targets. For the rest, 'useful' penetration is enough.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Seems like a good deal to me.
|
I don't think you quite got what I was implying. I was saying I think the USN would be far better off, instead of your BB, to buy 1600 TLAMs and a DD(X).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Better get rid of the SSGN's then.
|
Huh? How does bashing your BB equate to getting rid of SSGNs? I've already said I think they have value beyond their VLS cells.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
Well 16" guns won't go on another ship. That's my main problem. TLAMs will.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
Ok, I had a feeling it was something like that.
While that may've been an issue when firing ship vs. ship, I see no reason why a single gun with a higher ROF couldn't substitue nowadays. In fact, that's how virtually all modern, large naval guns do it.
The idea is to hit the target, whether it's one gun firing three rounds, or three guns firing one, we're only talking about a short span of time. OTOH, a single gun turret is far less complex (and expensive) and much smaller than a triple mount.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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.
|
Yes, you're right, I don't think BBs have a place in modern navies. They just don't solve the right set of problems.
So why did you start this thread? Was it so the general Internet could bask in your brilliance, or did you want to have a serious discussion?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
"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.
|
Well, AGS is a 6.1" gun, but that's nitpicking..
No, I'm redefining the requirements. I don't think naval gunfire needs to be able to destroy every hardened target on the battlefield. I think the AGS can deal with the 70-80% case, and other systems can handle the rest.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
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?
|
No. The marginal cost of having 1000 and 2000lb JDAMS in the inventory is zero, we already have them. The aircraft that can carry them can also carry 250lb SDBs (eventually).
Advanced, 320 mile range, 16" guns and the ships that carry them are not in the inventory, nor are they on any serious drawing board, so the onus is on you to prove the need.
I say the selection of weapons we have now and are planned in the near future will leave the US military in good shape, strike-wise. Therefore the focus (and money) should be in other areas.