PubFather

Absolutely... in just 18 hours, flying from Koenigsburg, with 8000 passengers...

Lol.. sorry Analyst, didnt mean to crush the enthusiasm out of you.... I tried to resist but just couldnt...

BTW, you're not the only one to think along these lines...

http://www.combatreform.com/battleships.htm

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

-{SpoonmaN}-

They aren't serious about this are they? Why do people have this thing about BBs being some sort of indestructable weapons platform like the death star?
And no one actually believes the PLA has anti-ship BMs do they?

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

gunnut

I think a far more reasonable design would be an enlarged Burke with light armor, multiple guns, proper helo support, weighing in at about 15000t. Maybe upgrade it with flag support, maintain the stealthy hull form, expand missile complement to that of the Tico class. Oh, and increase the illuminators to 4, maybe 6, since the biggest knock on the Burkes is the lack of illuminators after lack of helo (although Flight 2a rectified the helo problem).

gunnut

I have an unrelated question though. Do we need smaller and cheaper escorts? Maybe my question was answered already in the "Do we need mid size carrier?" thread already but I just want to hear more views on this subject.

The Burks and Ticos are all around 10000t and aren't cheap to build. LCS look more and more like carrier platform for different, specialized mission modules than traditional ocean going fighting ships. DDX and CGX will all be around 15000t and expensive, meaning reduced hull numbers.

Do we need smaller escorts for ASW screening for the CBG, and to provide outer screen for DDX and CGX in lower intensity areas where CBG is not needed? I guess the DDX and CGX can form the core of the Surface Action Group led by the battleships in the 80s under Reagan.

A frigate in the mold of the Norwegian F85 class in the 5000t range. It will have SPY1F radar, a single 5" Mk 45 mount, 16 VLS cells, 2 RAMs, 2 helo hangers, and sonar equipment for sub hunting.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ope/nansen.htm

I truly believe that numbers is just as important as size and capability. We can't be at all places at the same time unless we have the number of hulls available. Lower intensity operations don't need a full destroyer squadron. A cruiser or a destroyer with 3 frigates is more economical.

I don't know. Just throwing this out there to see what y'all think.

Wraith601

Sparky has lost whatever sanity he had left he can't even talk about battleships without mentioning the M113 uberGavin.

A BB that launches F-35Bs? WTF?

I love this picture though:


Of course F-35B inserted SF teams, what a brillant idea!

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

Galrahn

Some people believe smaller warships would be better in the future. Personally, I'll wait and see how effective the LCS is before I decide.

I will say this, while some people credit the cost of large warships as the factor in deciding the outlook for the future fleet, for me the single largest factor that will determine what the future fleet looks like is CEC.

If multiple small warships are able to operate as a network as efficiently as a single large surface combatant, I think the game changes instantly.

Example, for the cost of 7 DDG-51 Flight IIAs, I could build the following:

3 DDG-51 Flight IIAs
3 LCS GD version (1 ASW, 1 MCM, 1 ASuW mission module)
3 LCS LM version (1 ASW, 1 MCM, 1 ASuW mission module)
3 FSF-1 style missile platforms with 252 VLS cells per ship.

Now, if CEC enables the ability of a Standard, ESSM, or TacTom missile fired from a FSF-1 missile ship to be guided and controlled from one of the AEGIS DDG-51 platforms, I see this model as much more effective. It would allow a commander to use the FSF-1 style ship as an offboard arsonal to expend munitions from. Under the F/A-18E/F AESA + Advanced Hawkeye CEC model, the FSF-1 platform could be used as a distributed screen around a blue water task force, which allows engagement of enemy forces by a distributed force to engage at a much longer range.

But that is still based on the theoritical direction of CEC, not the capability of existing CEC, so until theory matches capability I haven't made up my mind personally regarding which model is better long term.

Versus

It's...it's...it's...raining men, halleluiah...
Jesus Christ
Deploying S.E.A.L. team, that way,is a very bad idea.

Amaterasu

you mean something like this?