View Poll Results: Next Generation Destroyer Armament Should Have?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Harpoons

    7 50.00%
  • Tomahawks(or the future equivalent)

    11 78.57%
  • 5-inch Gun(s)

    7 50.00%
  • Stealth Technology

    9 64.29%
  • Aegis Weapons System

    9 64.29%
  • Other: List Them Below

    3 21.43%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40

Thread: What Should the Next Gen Destroyers....

  1. #1
    Regular Tibbetts's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Dec 04
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    31

    What Should the Next Gen Destroyers....

    ...have as armament? If I happen to miss an armament, please feel free to add your own ideas.


    Tibbetts
    War is the one constant in Human history. Too deny that, is too deny our vary nature. -- Me

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    30 Sep 04
    Posts
    778
    I'm not sure the poll is very well created. If it can have everything, why not?

  3. #3
    Regular Tibbetts's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Dec 04
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    31
    Sorry 'bout the poll. I was trying thing of more stuff to add to the list but, was rushed and had to leave. As for having everything on the Destroyer, remember, it's a destroyer. It has to be light/fast/agile and still be able to kick some serious butt when in needs to.

    If one adds everything, then it wouldn't be a destroyer. It'd be a heavy-cruiser or a battleship even.


    Tibbetts
    War is the one constant in Human history. Too deny that, is too deny our vary nature. -- Me

  4. #4
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    The Iowa class battleships are actually the fastest warships at sea, especially in rough water, with the possible exception of the nuke carriers(one can never get a straight answer as to their actual top speed).

    In re-acceptance trials back in the 80s the Iowa's were able to achieve 35kts on calm seas.

  5. #5
    Regular Tibbetts's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Dec 04
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    31
    Really? Cool. Why did they take'em out of service then?


    Tibbetts
    War is the one constant in Human history. Too deny that, is too deny our vary nature. -- Me

  6. #6
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Pffft, you tell me.

  7. #7
    Regular Tibbetts's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Dec 04
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    31
    I wish they hadn't. But... I suppose tptb thought it was progress. *sigh*


    Tibbetts
    War is the one constant in Human history. Too deny that, is too deny our vary nature. -- Me

  8. #8
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    They did it for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. BBs are very expensive to man and operate.

    But...you get what you pay for.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    09 Dec 04
    Location
    Santa Barbara California
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    The Iowa class battleships are actually the fastest warships at sea, especially in rough water, with the possible exception of the nuke carriers(one can never get a straight answer as to their actual top speed).

    In re-acceptance trials back in the 80s the Iowa's were able to achieve 35kts on calm seas.
    I don't know what the water-line lenghts of an Iowa vs a Nimitz are, but if you use their overall lengths as an approximation, the hull speeds come out to 39 knots and 44 knots, respectively.


    Hull speed = 1.34 * (LWL)**1/2.

    So if you used the two classes actual waterline-length, the hull speeds would probably come out more like 38 knt and 43 knts, respectively.

    The Iowas used to do 37 knts when they were a slimmer 45 ktons, compared to the 57 ktons they displace now, so it wouldn't surprise me if the original 91 kton Nimitz class variants do 42 knts.

  10. #10
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    The other US supercarriers(the conventional ones), despite very long hull lengths are not capable of anywhere near 40kts.

    In fact, when the USS Iowa was ordered to the Gulf during ODS 'at best possible speed' she ran away from the Kitty Hawk(i think) that was part of her battlegroup and got to the gulf fully 2 days ahead of the carrier.

    Your formula also does not take SHP or prop efficiency into account, which is an obvious problem, lol.

  11. #11
    -{SpoonmaN}-
    Guest
    If you wanted to make a ship with everything it'd probably come out being a cruiser. One thing the USN should do is resurrect their old Major Calibre Surface Weapon program, which was a protoytpe 8 inch gun to be fitted on the abortive strike cruiser program. They'd be rather fearsome at shore bombardment, although nothing compares to the 16 and 18.1 inch guns used by the USN and IJN battleships during WWII.

  12. #12
    Regular
    Join Date
    26 Oct 04
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
    If you wanted to make a ship with everything it'd probably come out being a cruiser. One thing the USN should do is resurrect their old Major Calibre Surface Weapon program, which was a protoytpe 8 inch gun to be fitted on the abortive strike cruiser program. They'd be rather fearsome at shore bombardment, although nothing compares to the 16 and 18.1 inch guns used by the USN and IJN battleships during WWII.
    Battleships are great for the "wow" factor but in practical terms they aren't so great.

    First off, the bigger it is, the easier it is to find and the harder it is to miss. In modern sea war, a battleship would go down real fast. It would need protection and end up sailing with the carriers, behind the picket of smaller ships and fighter cap - rendering it useless as an offensive ship-to-ship platform.

    With the advent of anti-ship missiles, even frigates are heavy hitters now. In fact, if you took the tonnage of one battleship and sent out the equivilent tonnage of frigates, the frigates would kick a battleship's butt quite handily.

    Battleship guns are great at shore bombardment but - stealth aircraft and smart bombs are much better at actually taking out land targets. For one thing, you just have to be on the inland side of a hill and the battleship cannot hit you. Them sneaky planes have no such limitation.

    Basically, Battleships are outdated. Modern weapons technology has made smaller better.

  13. #13
    New Member EclipsetheRuin's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    San Marcos, TX
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodan
    Battleships are great for the "wow" factor but in practical terms they aren't so great.

    First off, the bigger it is, the easier it is to find and the harder it is to miss. In modern sea war, a battleship would go down real fast. It would need protection and end up sailing with the carriers, behind the picket of smaller ships and fighter cap - rendering it useless as an offensive ship-to-ship platform.

    With the advent of anti-ship missiles, even frigates are heavy hitters now. In fact, if you took the tonnage of one battleship and sent out the equivilent tonnage of frigates, the frigates would kick a battleship's butt quite handily.

    Battleship guns are great at shore bombardment but - stealth aircraft and smart bombs are much better at actually taking out land targets. For one thing, you just have to be on the inland side of a hill and the battleship cannot hit you. Them sneaky planes have no such limitation.

    Basically, Battleships are outdated. Modern weapons technology has made smaller better.
    Not necessarily, if a new generation of Battleships was devloped. The Iowas could still be an incredible asset to the US Navy, however if a new class was created they could reign supreme on the seas. Stealth technolgy would be employed, and an extensive Phalax system could be used. The 16'' guns could be an excellent way to save money, although not as accurate, you can lob hundreds of shells for the same price as one missile. Nevertheless a large arrmament of missiles could also be used...(like an arsenal ship). The sheer intimidation of a colassal battleship would be a very useful tool. I might not be a naval expert, but in my opinion Battleships could be a benefit to our navy.

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    5,911
    An Iowa class battleship fully loaded with cruise missiles and parked in the Indian ocean would be a huge deterrent. As part of a battle group, the battleship can be well defended against our current adversaries. Carriers have largely taken the place of ship to ship encounters. I would like an old salt to back me up on this, but I believed the 16" guns to be highly accurate. Such a battleship coupled with good surveilance and information could put a stranglehold on troop and material movements in nearby countries.

  15. #15
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jul 05
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodan
    Battleships are great for the "wow" factor but in practical terms they aren't so great.

    First off, the bigger it is, the easier it is to find and the harder it is to miss. In modern sea war, a battleship would go down real fast. It would need protection and end up sailing with the carriers, behind the picket of smaller ships and fighter cap - rendering it useless as an offensive ship-to-ship platform.

    With the advent of anti-ship missiles, even frigates are heavy hitters now. In fact, if you took the tonnage of one battleship and sent out the equivilent tonnage of frigates, the frigates would kick a battleship's butt quite handily.

    Battleship guns are great at shore bombardment but - stealth aircraft and smart bombs are much better at actually taking out land targets. For one thing, you just have to be on the inland side of a hill and the battleship cannot hit you. Them sneaky planes have no such limitation.

    Basically, Battleships are outdated. Modern weapons technology has made smaller better.

    You're about to be hit by a barrage of criticism. I don't think there is more avid support oustide of this board for battleships in the 21st Century. I lean more towards your side, but I wanted to prepare you for the worst.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 22 Jul 13,, 13:59
  2. Carrier Battle Group Essay
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 05 Sep 07,, 17:27
  3. 64 dead in Samjhauta Express : Terror Attack ?
    By Samudra in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 215
    Last Post: 01 Mar 07,, 22:13
  4. Pakistani Genocide
    By lemontree in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 200
    Last Post: 24 Sep 05,, 17:09

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •