Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
"Snipe. How can I get you on my side on this? With the anti's thumping around here I need some backup on the issue."
Show me 500 billion of money in the USN budget you can dedicate to the development and construction of six of these ships, and then listen to me when i tell you the ship is simply about 40% too small by displacement to effectively deploy 12x 16"/50 guns.
LOL...at the displacement you propose the ship will be top heavy as Dolly parton. Sure, a lot of weight is freed by going nuke, etc....but you NEED that weight below the waterline to make the ship stable.
You've got well over 1/2 of the ship's mass above the waterline, that will never work. Ships are not tanks, you can't just start adding a lot of mass up high on the ship or it will be prone to capsizing.
You tout the ship you envision as having a double hull. Great....the 60yo Iowas have a triple layered armored hull with spacing as wide as 10 feet in many places.
About materiel', Steel is not steel. The Iowas use Class A, Class B, and STS(Special Tempered Steel) Plating in their armored scheme.
To be honest, the Iowas are capable of being much better ships than what you're proposing IMO.
|
The armor holds it down. As for making it bigger, I could but that makes it more expensive. I could make it bigger, but thats more I have to armor down. I also wanted a smaller ship to fit the navy's big idea for their future fleet.
The Iowa's from what I understand wern't actually double hulls. They had multiple layers of armor on a single hull design. Am I right?
Anyways, I don't even know how to reply to the 500 billion dollars thing. I'm gettin stressed about this. I tried defensetalk.com, but the anti-BB trolls over there beat me over the head.