[QUOTE=Defcon 6]That RCS doesn't count for that much in naval warfare.
Gosh I guess we should tell the Navy to stop spending money on RCS reduction! Thanks for clueing us in.
Provide me some links to back that up. My guess is even a crappy Romeo would hear an Iowa from dozens of miles out.Originally Posted by Defcon 6
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../ship/dd-x.htmOriginally Posted by Defcon 6
"It expands the battlespace by over 400%; has the radar cross section of a fishing boat; and is as quiet as a LOS ANGELES Class submarine."
Yeah "capital" as in it costs a lot to operate.Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Ok can you explain how they aren't "flexible in anyway"? Really, I'm all ears. I want to learn.Originally Posted by Defcon 6
"It expands the battlespace by over 400%; has the radar cross section of a fishing boat; and is as quiet as a LOS ANGELES Class submarine."Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Seems the USN disagrees with you.
Well, I wouldn't say I'm advocating it. I'm saying I'd rather see money spent on DD(X)s and/or LCSs or other platforms than on reactivating Iowas.Originally Posted by Defcon 6
For once I agree with you.Originally Posted by Defcon 6
And do a hell of a lot less.Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Originally Posted by Defcon 6Originally Posted by B.SmittySo how do you know the "modernization has already been finalized" if there isn't any public documentation about it? How do you know AEGIS and VLS is on the list? How do you know what the modernization costs will be if there isn't any public documentation?Originally Posted by Defcon 6
From your GAO report again,
"Navy has not developed plans or cost estimates to reactivate or modernize battleships"
So whether they would have AEGIS and VLS is completely up in the air.
*sigh* once again your GAO report,Originally Posted by Defcon 6
"The cost of a ship’s crew is generally the single largest expense incurred over a ship’s lifecycle.8"
Yes, when it comes to surface combatants, it is.Originally Posted by Defcon 6