Future Battleship/Capital Ship Discussion

[Dutchman]

It strikes me that most modern american warships are designed on the basis that their weapons will keep them from being hit. The pictures posted above show a series of ships that are vulnerable to large explosive charges. In most cases, as an escort that is a valid position. The big BUT is what happens when you have either a large volume of missles and /or torpedos in bound? What happens when the defenses run out of ammunition?

I don't know the details of the hulls and how the protection is designed, but I have seen little evidence that any of our standard ships can take hits and continue to operate. The enemy does not have to sink a ship to render it useless. Simply disabling it so it can not be repaired in the combat theater is as good as siking a ship.

The destroyers and cruisers of today are marvelous examples of technology, but the undelying question is do they have the ability to take a hit and keep fighting. Our small fleet has no reserves to replace ships on the line.

For example, if Iran wanted our fleet out of the gulf, tosing away several hundred of the small patrol boat is a smal price to pay.

The whole point of building a new BB is to have a ship you could take there without these hits wrecking it. The only US ships that can take a punch are teh carriers due to their bulk. If the weak sided ships are forced to it

[FOG3]

You do realize that DD-532 USS Heermann sent the 65,000 ton super-battleship IJN Yamato into full retreat with a spread of 4 21" torpedoes that ended up bracketing the Yamato at the Battle of Sumar, right?

With the advent of true subs and smarter munitions, without sensors and smart munitions in play there's just subs and targets.

Does anyone want to argue that one 1 Akula or German Type 209 hiding in the littorals isn't capable of taking out any BB, provided the Destroyers can be prevented from interfering.

Honestly the DD(X) is a modern battleship, unless you only count a battleship by pure tonnage in the Dreadnought and post Dreadnought age. The point of the Battleship was to dominate the battlespace, a capacity for which the Battleships were obsolete from their inception. It was the Destroyers keeping the Torpedo boats, and subs at bay that allowed it to even have the appearance of doing so.

With the technology refinements of AEGIS and other systems that DD(X) incorporates it finally realizes that purpose.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by FOG3

You do realize that DD-532 USS Heermann sent the 65,000 ton super-battleship IJN Yamato into full retreat with a spread of 4 21" torpedoes that ended up bracketing the Yamato at the Battle of Sumar, right?

With the advent of true subs and smarter munitions, without sensors and smart munitions in play there's just subs and targets.

Does anyone want to argue that one 1 Akula or German Type 209 hiding in the littorals isn't capable of taking out any BB, provided the Destroyers can be prevented from interfering.

Honestly the DD(X) is a modern battleship, unless you only count a battleship by pure tonnage in the Dreadnought and post Dreadnought age. The point of the Battleship was to dominate the battlespace, a capacity for which the Battleships were obsolete from their inception. It was the Destroyers keeping the Torpedo boats, and subs at bay that allowed it to even have the appearance of doing so.

With the technology refinements of AEGIS and other systems that DD(X) incorporates it finally realizes that purpose.

Does anyone want to argue that one 1 Akula or German Type 209 hiding in the littorals isn't capable of taking out any BB, provided the Destroyers can be prevented from interfering.

Well for one a BB would not enter the littorials as they had in the Korean era. We have smaller boats do that. We also used countermeasures for topedoes such as Nixie and others. Always keep in mind wherever a BBG goes two subs are always there with eyes wide open. Also those subs could not close the range on the BB if she knows they are there. A homing torp from the Seasprite helo would spell disaster for any sub in shallow waters no matter where it hides. Plus if they were to put a BB back to sea one would have to assume that the helo would be carring the newest torp available probably a variant of the Mk 48 torpedo.

You could also bet those subs wont escape a DD or DDG in shallow waters nor any helo carring a homing torp.

Honestly the DD(X) is a modern battleship, unless you only count a battleship by pure tonnage in the Dreadnought and post Dreadnought age. The point of the Battleship was to dominate the battlespace, a capacity for which the Battleships were obsolete from their inception. It was the Destroyers keeping the Torpedo boats, and subs at bay that allowed it to even have the appearance of doing so.

The point of a battleship was to be an all weather, heavily armored, stable gun/weapons platform with redundant damage equipment from two times over to in some cases three times over. For a better part of the pacific island campaign where you found Destroyers you found PT's. The PTs' were there to attack all ships no matter the size. And further the DDX is very very far from even being close to a modern battleship in all senses of the word.

1) Multiple redundancy to damage.
2) All weather capability and sustainment.
3) Sustainability on station to not only herself but her battlegroup as well.

Weaponry and Armor wont be used for this discussion.

[Stitch]

Originally Posted by Dutchman

It strikes me that most modern american warships are designed on the basis that their weapons will keep them from being hit. The pictures posted above show a series of ships that are vulnerable to large explosive charges. In most cases, as an escort that is a valid position. The big BUT is what happens when you have either a large volume of missles and /or torpedos in bound? What happens when the defenses run out of ammunition?

I don't know the details of the hulls and how the protection is designed, but I have seen little evidence that any of our standard ships can take hits and continue to operate. The enemy does not have to sink a ship to render it useless. Simply disabling it so it can not be repaired in the combat theater is as good as siking a ship.

The destroyers and cruisers of today are marvelous examples of technology, but the undelying question is do they have the ability to take a hit and keep fighting. Our small fleet has no reserves to replace ships on the line.

For example, if Iran wanted our fleet out of the gulf, tosing away several hundred of the small patrol boat is a smal price to pay.

The whole point of building a new BB is to have a ship you could take there without these hits wrecking it. The only US ships that can take a punch are teh carriers due to their bulk. If the weak sided ships are forced to it

This is why a BB(X) makes sense; in any kind of a "saturation" attack, a few projectiles are going to get through, no matter how good or plentiful the defenses are. A good example of that would be 10 or 12 Iranian torpedo boats making attacks from 10 or 12 different directions all at once on the same target; something's going to get through. The Iowa-class BB's were designed from the outset to sustain several direct hits from torpedoes; other modern capital ships aren't. For what it's worth, this is from Wikipedia:

"The underwater armor includes side protection and a triple bottom, both multi-layered systems designed to absorb the energy from an underwater explosion equivalent to 700 pounds (320 kg) of TNT—the Navy's best guess in the 1930s about Japanese weapons. However, unbeknownst to U.S. Naval Intelligence, the Japanese 610 mm (24 in) "Long Lance" torpedo carried a 490 kg (1,100 lb) warhead."

IIRC, there is a 12" belt of armored steel all along the waterline of the Iowa-class ships.

[FOG3]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Well for one a BB would not enter the littorials as they had in the Korean era.

Which means their already short ranged guns, would have less range inland. That's a de facto victory, if there ever was one.

Seems as how there is no such thing as a BBG, you're making the rest up by effectively emphasizing what Destroyers and Subs are capable of, and that they're good enough at it to compensate for the BB. That supports the value of DDs and SSNs, not BBs or BBGs. With the same budget and manufacturing base more BBs, means less DDGs and SSNs to do those escort and patrol missions. Hence you just shot yourself in the foot.

As a matter of fact that's exactly how the British Royal Navy got itself into trouble with the U-boats, and required the USN to bail it out in WW1. Which just serves to emphasize what an utterly moronic idea the Battleship was from day 1. Power sitting around collecting dust is irrelevant, and the Battleships never worked as advertised even in scenarios where they could have. As you yourself note wood PT boats could kill anything afloat. A dedicated Artillery ship without the nonsense would have served longer, required less invested resources, and probably have been better in that role.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Plus if they were to put a BB back to sea one would have to assume that the helo would be carring the newest torp available probably a variant of the Mk 48 torpedo.

Since when do helos use 21" torpedoes instead of 12.75" torpedoes?

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

You could also bet those subs wont escape a DD or DDG in shallow waters nor any helo carring a homing torp.

So what? Fighting the USN period is suicide from pure numbers if nothing else. That Diesel boat would have just sent down over five times it tonnage, and won a major propaganda victory in the process. Possibly enough to sway public opinion sufficient to achieve whatever powers goals, with a facillitating media.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The point of a battleship was to be an all weather, heavily armored, stable gun/weapons platform with redundant damage equipment from two times over to in some cases three times over.

According to whom? Did the N-Square Law concept just evaporate into thin air? I don't recall that ever being attached to any definition of a Battleship I've ever seen. Although that definition would actually force the DD(X) to be a real Battleship, with its shore bombardment equipment to the Marine Corps specifications.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

1) Multiple redundancy to damage.

Antiblast technology and compartmentalized PVLS designed to isolate damage if hit instead of the entire magazine being able to go off like certain ships isn't redundancy verse damage?

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

2) All weather capability and sustainment.

The multiband sensor packages, aren't what they're specifically designed to be now?

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

3) Sustainability on station to not only herself but her battlegroup as well.

Translation: The Battlegroup keeping the Battleship from getting torpedoed.

DD(X) can keep itself from getting torpedoed.

"The underwater armor includes side protection and a triple bottom, both multi-layered systems designed to absorb the energy from an underwater explosion equivalent to 700 pounds (320 kg) of TNT—the Navy's best guess in the 1930s about Japanese weapons. However, unbeknownst to U.S. Naval Intelligence, the Japanese 610 mm (24 in) "Long Lance" torpedo carried a 490 kg (1,100 lb) warhead."

The WW2 Mk 8 21" torpedo carried plenty more then 700lb of explosive. 21" ergo 533mm is basically the minimum for subs, with 650mm which is roughly 25 1/2" torpedoes out there as well and modern torpedoes have modern explosive filler. The Yamato didn't simply take the hit when bracketed by torpedoes at the Battle of Sumar for good reason.

[Dreadnought]

Seems as how there is no such thing as a BBG,

So you are stating that Battle Group Romeo (BB62 as lead in BBG) never existed? Hows about Missouri and Wisconsin during Operation Dessert Storm as BBG's?

My friend before you start to state such things I strongly suggest you read up on such things as those who have participated in such things would find that comment humorus to say the least.

Since when do helos use 21" torpedoes instead of 12.75" torpedoes?

If you have read the latest Seapower 2008 edition then you would know exactly what I am refering too as far as the varients are of the Mk 48.
Hell, some Mods of torps even today are used as mines.

So what? Fighting the USN period is suicide from pure numbers if nothing else. That Diesel boat would have just sent down over five times it tonnage, and won a major propaganda victory in the process. Possibly enough to sway public opinion sufficient to achieve whatever powers goals, with a facillitating media.

Would it have? I think your giving it a bit too much credit especially in a littorial enviroment. Those ships are'nt exactly naked sub detection wise.
Especially in a littorial setting.

According to whom? Did the N-Square Law concept just evaporate into thin air? I don't recall that ever being attached to any definition of a Battleship I've ever seen. Although that definition would actually force the DD(X) to be a real Battleship, with its shore bombardment equipment to the Marine Corps specifications.

Read the design specs for the Iowas when they were ordered. Then you will have your answer to your question without a doubt.
They are still classified as the very best all/rough weather ships in any navy and at being 65 years old that says something about their qualities.

The DDX will fire farther because of the funding in the 5" upgrades program.

The very same could be said for the BB however the funding was not given but it was tested numerous times for the 16".

Antiblast technology and compartmentalized PVLS designed to isolate damage if hit instead of the entire magazine being able to go off like certain ships isn't redundancy verse damage?

Whatever missle would get to any of those mags would certainly kill a DDX from inception. She would sink or explode into embers. The Soviets had troubles with the Iowas because a modern missle may not sink her and cost them whatever ship fired such weapon.
Did you not see what happened to Cole? An explosives laden dingy tore the side of the ship wide open. Can the BB absorb that blast. No doubt and still carry on. That would have barely scratched the paint. She also would not refuel in any port it would be at sea as usual and as in the past.

Translation: The Battlegroup keeping the Battleship from getting torpedoed.

Translation: The BB supports/refuels/resupplies/repairs its escorts and has medical facilities like no other but the CV's. The only other ship class out there that can is the CV's and they dont refuel their escorts.
DD's & DDG's cant even come close to fufilling that task.

You are stating that a DDX can replace a certain tool used in certain times. Your observation is incorrect..Two different tools two different usages and one ten times more expensive then the former.

DD(X) can keep itself from getting torpedoed.

How many DD's were torped in WWII. Many, some hit as many as three times and gone in seconds. How many BB's were torpedoed and survived. Hint look at the NC class. Most of the unarmored bow was blasted but the ship survived and its crew safe and returned to action after repairs.And just for measure keep in mind that all of the BB's in pearl harbor that morning were at 1 easy meaning they were wide open and still took brutal damage and survived.

The BB has its own torp defences but that is not its primary function nor was it intended to be but it did use several different varients for torp defence.

The WW2 Mk 8 21" torpedo carried plenty more then 700lb of explosive. 21" ergo 533mm is basically the minimum for subs, with 650mm which is roughly 25 1/2" torpedoes out there as well and modern torpedoes have modern explosive filler. The Yamato didn't simply take the hit when bracketed by torpedoes at the Battle of Sumar for good reason.

When you are deluged with over 200 USN torp/bomb carrying planes how long do you think a DDG or DDX would last against such odds? Chances are nill and none.

IIRC, there is a 12" belt of armored steel all along the waterline of the Iowa-class ships.

And behind that armor are three seperation tanks to control the damage/flooding and splintering effects. No one BB IICR ever fell to one torp be it japanese long lance or german magnetic trigger torps.

But, could the DDX survive even one torpedo hit without breaking its back. Doubtfull and mission killed to say the least.

I myself would trust that class A and class B armor against the kevlar being used in todays ships anytime. There is more armor protecting those magazines and personel then there is kevlar protecting the vitals of the newer classes of ships.

As stated before two different tools two different jobs and I will restate for purposes of this thread that DDX or its varient in the future will never be a battleship nor posses all of it qualities.

[FOG3]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

So you are stating that Battle Group Romeo (BB62 as lead in BBG) never existed? Hows about Missori and Wisconsin during Operation Dessert Storm as BBG's?

As you yourself note they were not type classed as BBGs and seems as how you have no authority to reclass them, that's just a dishonest use of a technicality. Especially in a thread with a OP about a BB(X).

If you're having to scrape the bottom of the barrel that much to score points, you clearly are not in a good position.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

If you have read the latest Seapower 2008 edition then you would know exactly what I am refering too as far as the varients are of the Mk 48.
Hell, some Mods of torps even today are used as mines.

So you refer to mods of the Mk 46 12.75" torpedo, specifically the Mk 50. Mk 60 CAPTOR mine use Mk 46 12.75" torpedoes. The fact you didn't catch that when I emphasized torpedo diameter doesn't brook confidence.

If you were trying to make a point that an enemy could easily enough manufacture enCAPsulated TORpedo mines with bigger torpedoes and set them out there to sink your Battleships, that would simply defeat your point.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Would it have? I think your giving it a bit too much credit especially in a littorial enviroment. Those ships are'nt exactly naked sub detection wise.
Especially in a littorial setting.

I believe it was you in the Kirov vs Iowa thread that made the point the Iowas are not equipped with Sonar, period. Even a new build would have an inherently degraded Sonar compared to a Destroyer-class, because the more noise you make the less effective your measuring equipment is.

Your claims of utter immunity to SSKs hiding in the littorals, doesn't jive with the USNs position on such matters and I think it's fair to say you greatly underestimate the capabilities of the Silent Service. Submarines, not F-22s, are the king of Stealth.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

They are still classified as the very best all/rough weather ships in any navy and at being 65 years old that says something about their qualities.

Last I checked its a lot less of a problem if you're not floating up top. You implying you'd take it somewhere its escorts couldn't yank it out of the fire?

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The DDX will fire farther because of the funding in the 5" upgrades program. The very same could be said for the BB however the funding was not given but it was tested numerous times for the 16".

16" shells were always excessive for shore bombardment, nowadays doubly so. The Marine Corp uses 155mm and 105mm artillery, which with modern advances is as effective as what I remember the real favored cannon for shore bombardment in WW2 was. Not to mention less likelihood of a Marine making a mistake when calling in an artillery strike if there isn't that big variation between 155mm and 16" tubes.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Whatever missle would get to any of those mags would certainly kill a DDX from inception. She would sink or explode into embers.

Keep telling yourself that, and maybe you'll really believe it.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The Soviets had troubles with the Iowas because a modern missle may not sink her and cost them whatever ship fired such weapon.

They had 533mm and 650mm torpedoes they could have easily sank them if they cared to. WW2 533mm were perfectly capable of breaching those things hulls, and modern torpedoes would see no real resistance for triple hulling. A karate guy prefers to space his blocks to smash through all of them, and a modern torpedo makes that all the worse by the flexing the entire structure.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Did you not see what happened to Cole?

Did you? Notice it was still afloat? Notice that DDG-67 USS Cole is still in active service? Remember that proper procedure would have kept the boat away with water hoses? If that dingy had been configured as a PT boat and pulled up along your BB in the same situation, your BB would be resting on the bottom. WW2 PT boats were made out of WOOD, so don't give me that.

Here's your hat, start munching.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Translation: The BB supports/refuels/resupplies/repairs its escorts and has medical facilities like no other but the CV's. The only other ship class out there that can is the CV's and they dont refuel their escorts.

Funny how I've scene pictures of CVNs doing the supposedly impossible of refueling their escorts. Like this one.

Amazing how the Navy doesn't seem to find particular need for this feature in their requirements seems as how there's no BBs to do it.

Reality check: If it needs serious repairs you aren't doing it at sea. Nevermind the obvious question of how a BB is actually of any utility in that role given they have neither cranes, nor the ability to keep other ships afloat, unlike certain other ships.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

How many DD's were torped in WWII. Many, some hit as many as three times and gone in seconds.

DDs that were protecting everything else from torpedoes. Did you forget Destroyer is short for Torpedo Boat Destroyer? You're ripping on them for doing their job, because your BBs would have went down just as easy if they weren't there. Britians beloved Dreadnoughts weren't hiding in the harbor, hoarding England's Destroyers for the entertainment value.

I find your disrespect for the DD crews deplorable.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

How many BB's were torpedoed and survived.

How many effectively unarmored explosive laden CVs, did? Did anyone say Torpedoes were deathwands? Thought not.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

When you are deluged with over 200 USN torp/bomb carrying planes how long do you think a DDG or DDX would last against such odds? Chances are nill and none.

Let's see 4 ESSMs per VLS w/ 80 PVLS leads to 320 ESSMs, not including CIWS guns. If the computers were able to handle it I'd say they all get splashed. AEGIS ships are specifically designed to be able to empty the entire magazine in one go, last time I checked.

Remember how many misses you get with WW2 tech vs Battleships? Think that would be better against a significantly smaller, not to mention stealthy, target? Of course, DD-532 wasn't 200 planes.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

And behind that armor are three seperation tanks to control the damage/flooding and splintering effects. No one BB IICR ever fell to one torp be it japanese long lance or german magnetic trigger torps.

I'm sorry, are we using WW2 torpedo tech? Did torpedoes somehow gain a problem to being scaled up when I wasn't looking? See above.

[Dreadnought]

First and foremost...

As you yourself note they were not type classed as BBGs and seems as how you have no authority to reclass them, that's just a dishonest use of a technicality. Especially in a thread with a OP about a BB(X).

If you're having to scrape the bottom of the barrel that much to score points, you clearly are not in a good position.

New Jersey (BB-62) as the centerpiece of Battle Group Romeo,, the first battleship battle group to deploy to the Western Pacific since the Korean War including Long Beach (CGN-9), Wabash (AOR-5), Merrill (DD-976), Copeland (FFG-25) and Thatch (FFG-43). Taken 12 May 1986 at the beginning of the deployment of the first battleship battle group. During this deployment Battle Group Romeo tested the feasibility, composition, and advantages and limitations of a Battleship Battle Group in environments from the Gulf of Thailand to the Bering Sea.

I guess the USN has no autority in how it classes its battlegroups then correct?

Sounds more like you my friend are in the bad position. See post 152 for a picture of your non-existant BBG (Battlegroup Romeo)

[Dreadnought]

So you refer to mods of the Mk 46 12.75" torpedo, specifically the Mk 50. Mk 60 CAPTOR mine use Mk 46 12.75" torpedoes. The fact you didn't catch that when I emphasized torpedo diameter doesn't brook confidence.

If you were trying to make a point that an enemy could easily enough manufacture enCAPsulated TORpedo mines with bigger torpedoes and set them out there to sink your Battleships, that would simply defeat your point.

Where do you get this from in the above. What I am implying is that the SeaSprite (if in service at that time) would have zero problem handling a torpedo attack for the BB as well as midcourse guidance for a harpoon strike upon the surface for other combatants. They were meant to carry the homing torpedo among other jobs. Also with a new commisioning the BB could carry a completely different aircraft more suited to attack a submerged submarine.Several different helos have landed on the backs of the BB's and most are suited to carry a torpedo. The question becomes which do they want to equip it with.

[Dreadnought]

Ibelieve it was you in the Kirov vs Iowa thread that made the point the Iowas are not equipped with Sonar, period. Even a new build would have an inherently degraded Sonar compared to a Destroyer-class, because the more noise you make the less effective your measuring equipment is.

Your claims of utter immunity to SSKs hiding in the littorals, doesn't jive with the USNs position on such matters and I think it's fair to say you greatly underestimate the capabilities of the Silent Service. Submarines, not F-22s, are the king of Stealth

So you are stating that even know the BB's carried Nixie and Toads behind them you are going to hide a sub in shallow (littorial) waters without being detected by the array or its escorts. Thats a very dangerous situation for both the BB and the sub. Think they would risk loosing a moderized sub over a downing a 65 year old ship? Do the math.

[Dreadnought]

Keep telling yourself that, and maybe you'll really believe it.

Well I been aboard several of the modern DDGs (have listed in other threads) and the older BB's (3 to be exact and all Iowas) and the kevlar used as a muti armor scheme used aboard them will no where match the class a and class b armor of a BB. Those DDG's are built for the offensive mode more rather then defensive one when it comes to the protection outside of the 5" guns and missles and any man here that knows armor or knows ships knows I am speaking the truth. Just ask I can run you a list of names here that would certainly agree beyond doubt.

[Dreadnought]

They had 533mm and 650mm torpedoes they could have easily sank them if they cared to. WW2 533mm were perfectly capable of breaching those things hulls, and modern torpedoes would see no real resistance for triple hulling. A karate guy prefers to space his blocks to smash through all of them, and a modern torpedo makes that all the worse by the flexing the entire structure

The Soviets, Well my friend as it passes I have spoken to one in particluar (even noted it on a thread) and I would certainly take his word over your own due to his standing with the Soviet Navy. I never claimed a sub couln't kill a battleship. What I did state among those lines is that the DDX will never match her qualities and the BB would take alot more damage then the DDX. A battleship fighting a submarine would be the same as a carrier. Not intended for the job however carries the tools necessary to do that job if forced to.

[Dreadnought]

DDs that were protecting everything else from torpedoes. Did you forget Destroyer is short for Torpedo Boat Destroyer? You're ripping on them for doing their job, because your BBs would have went down just as easy if they weren't there. Britians beloved Dreadnoughts weren't hiding in the harbor, hoarding England's Destroyers for the entertainment value.

I find your disrespect for the DD crews deplorable.

I think thats a complete joke. I work alongside men who were on DD's,DDe's DDR's and modern DDG's,CA's,BB'sand as well CV's. Did I tell you my father was a gunners mate.

As far as you telling me what my respect level is for any of those men and women (these days) that is a farse all in its own. I have the utmost respect for anybody who serves their country wether it be land sea or air. Your assumptions of my respect level hold no water and assumingly have about as much knowledge of my respect level as you do about BBG's. Otherwords none.

[Dreadnought]

Let's see 4 ESSMs per VLS w/ 80 PVLS leads to 320 ESSMs, not including CIWS guns. If the computers were able to handle it I'd say they all get splashed. AEGIS ships are specifically designed to be able to empty the entire magazine in one go, last time I checked.

I would say you are sadly mistaken in that theory. A modern DDG against lets just say even 20 modern jets at once nevermind over 200 planes like Yamato faced would loose. If you dont know why then I wont explain.

[Dreadnought]

Reality check: If it needs serious repairs you aren't doing it at sea. Nevermind the obvious question of how a BB is actually of any utility in that role given they have neither cranes, nor the ability to keep other ships afloat, unlike certain other ships.

Now I am laughing. You have zero idea of what they are capable of in a utility sense and have probably never stepped aboard one because if you have then you would know. PS books dont cover such things.

My advice...step into reality (away from your books) and aboard one and see for yourself befor making statements such as above.

Know many Machinists mates do you? I do.