monkeydelmagico
Diamond Member
Interesting that you should put those two sentiments together. This new ship is designed for littoral missions. Seems like there might be a need after all.....
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Navy launches new stealth destroyer: Longer than a Battleship! (pic)
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Interesting that you should put those two sentiments together. This new ship is designed for littoral missions. Seems like there might be a need after all.....
Possessed Freak
Diamond Member
I would like to place a bet. I bet you that this ship will NOT be used anywhere near its full potential in the service life of the vessel. Sure, it might see "action" in the form of posturing. It might even launch a missile or two. It might be deployed like the the Iowas were in Desert Storm... but that is a fraction of what this monstrosity is capable of.
Regarding support costs:
Talking about support costs of a ship is laughable when they just spent multiple billions of dollars on building these. How many years could an Iowa be steaming around for the same cost? We don't even have an understanding of what it will take to keep this new thing in the sea for decades. Will it need software patches? Will the stealthy nature of the ship require constant engine overhauls? Will they make an error on paint the breaks down prematurely and needs changing. The current ships are KNOWN costs to keep them running. This guy is an unknown. It *might* require less to run, but it is not proven (and some head of maintenance is going to make damn sure his staff is not cut down and what do you know, the ship needs retooling again).
Eureka
Diamond Member
Because as rosy as everything seems, you can't always trust your allies. There are plenty of countries with modernized armies still. Just because we're on good terms doesn't mean that they can't turn on us.
FYI, while we spend a lot, our military is actually not that large for our population and landmass. Per-capita we actually don't field that many active military. We spend a lot because we boost our military with technology.
And it likely won't be used in full engagement. That's not the point of building new ships. We build new ships because we don't want to be stuck with 50 year old technology when we want to build the next line of ships.
The "current" class of ships still uses electronic relay circuits and hydraulic valves for processing. We want to move away from that. Just because none of our current threats field ships doesn't mean modern ships aren't already out there. Plenty of modernized navies in the world. We want to stay a step ahead of everyone else.
Should Intel stop pushing fab processes and IPC just because Core2Duo is still enough to do most tasks? I mean most i-series chips probably sit in computers playing Facebook games.
Last edited:
Gibsons
Lifer
You'd have a huge gas guzzler, requiring huge complement of seamen (huhuhuh), that's only good for one job, NGFS. It's not stealthy, has no sonar, and doesn't handle helicopters.
AViking
Platinum Member
So the point of us spending $700,000,000,000 a year for the military is in case our friends attack us? What about the communists, socialists, fascists, islamists, and other other boogy men? Full steam ahead captain! Lets move our 500 ship navy into position for attacking Somalia, Iran, North Korea, and those shifty eyed pesky Italians! Not going to happen.
No. The reason we spend that much is to line the pockets of people in power and to keep a stranglehold on strategic parts of the world that serve our interests such as the oil rich countries and certain trade routes like the horn of Africa.
We need a military. A modern one. It just doesn't have to be so damn big.
$700B on the Military
$138B for Education
WTF!?
We need to get our heads out of our asses and start prioritizing way better.
No. The reason we spend that much is to line the pockets of people in power and to keep a stranglehold on strategic parts of the world that serve our interests such as the oil rich countries and certain trade routes like the horn of Africa.
We need a military. A modern one. It just doesn't have to be so damn big.
$700B on the Military
$138B for Education
WTF!?
We need to get our heads out of our asses and start prioritizing way better.
Possessed Freak
Diamond Member
Design them all you want, build them... nah. Put the blue prints on the shelf, if we need the ship we build the ship.
And I bet a LOT of people know how to diagnose problems when the "current" ships act up. I bet there was a wealth of knowledge built up for years on how to deal with those setups, how to handle emergencies regarding the older tech, etc. Now the people heading out have no history with the design, have no idea how to solve issues with them... but those manuals will be real useful in all the crap that will happen in the future, right?
The p6 design was milked for a LONG time. The i386 is still around.
The shuttle ran on what kind of hardware throughout its life?
Wrong. That operational costs excuse was a red herring. The Battleships were retired because the Navy wanted new ships. The operational costs are a FRACTION of what it takes to operate a carrier, and other than planes having a longer range, and carrier can't do everything a Battleship can.
Ask the Marines....they were pissed that the Battleships were retired.
And a Battleship can deliver the good day or night, rain or shine, a carrier cannot.
The actual operating cost of the Zumwalt is cheaper, but when you factor in the tens of BILLIONS that it cost to design and build them, Battleships are WAY more efficient.
And Exocet could damage a BB, but the line I used is pretty accurate.....one Exocet isn't going to keep a BB from its mission. Even several likely would not. Would barely scratch the paint on the turrets or anything armored. Could definitely rearrange some of the superstructure, though.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
Sorry Brandon, you only get to vote on welfare...
Insomniator
Diamond Member
lol the Iowa was built in 1940. Why don't we just keep Ironclads in service? Hell Jack Sparrow's pirate ship had a lot of cannons...
"Public, how long did the military know about it. "
Maybe the military is building these ships for threats they haven't told us about?
It does handle helos, who cares if it's stealthy, and they have more than one use.
NGFS is one. Fleet command/flag is another. Surface action is still a possibility, albeit slim, but it's still unmatched in that role.
What can a Zumwalt do, other than stealth, that an Iowa can't do better? Nothing. Yeah, there's less crew. Okay, and?
Missiles? Both have 'em.
Guns? Battleship wins.
Armor? Battleship wins.
Speed? Battleship wins, they're the fastest capital ships in the world, including the carriers.
Crew? Zumwalt has less, if that's a concern. There were no problems staffing the BB's, though.
No ship is as popular or as intimidating as a Battleship. We should have them active and a couple touring the world's ports just for that reason alone.
Hell, during the first Desert Storm, one of them made a port call in one country and they were so impressed they offered to pay the operating costs if we'd keep one active and base it there.
If you go through it role-by-role, the Battleship comes out ahead.
There's no arguing it, it's fact. And the CNO admitted to one of the professionals on the military boards who debated him about it awhile back that the Battleships were a better option, but his statement was "they didn't represent the image today's Navy wants".
In-between the lines, that means "we want shiny new things". That's where the money is.
Meanwhile, the Air Force is continually modifying and servicing and keeping the 60+ year old B-52 flying, and even today, just like the Battleships, it has no equal in the world.
There are no threats they haven't told us about. These ships have been in development and delays for over a decade. If there was some new threat, don't you think we'd have known about it by now?
As far as when the Iowas were built.....the last one was commissioned in 1944.
They were designed for 30 or more years of SERVICE life. Most of their life has been spent in reserve, next to a dock. Very little of their actual service life has been used....plus, there's always Service Life Extension Programs like the Navy has used on other ships to keep them going, like the recently-retired USS Enterprise, which was used for 50 years, continuously.
The Air Force currently still operates B-52's, which have been in service since 1955, and still have no equal in any other air force today. They still use F-15's and 16's, which were put in service in the 70's and are STILL being produced, and other than our own F-22, pretty much have no equal.
Just like the Iowa's. They have no equal......hell, there isn't another Battleship in existence anywhere in the world, at least not one that's not at the bottom of the ocean.
NikolaeVarius
Lifer
My god, if we don't spend MORE MONEY on making MORE SHIPS, America is going to fall behind in the arms race. We cannot be in fear of the threats posed by the navies of the world.
Our navy is larger than the 13 next largest navies in the world combined in number of ships and tonnage? Why not larger than the combined navies of our local star cluster? WE HAVE A NAVAL POWER GAP THAT NEEDS TO BE FILLED.
Last edited:
Gibsons
Lifer
It's outclassed in missiles, which far outrange even the 16" guns. NGFS isn't that great either, unless you want to design modern munitions for the 16" guns. That won't be cheap. And don't forget you'll need to upgrade and/or maintain the very old machinery operating those turrets. Just like you'll have to do with the engines. And comms. Plus you'll really want to figure out a way to put modern radar on it. Maybe you can rip out a few of the 5" turrets.
ASW, air defence. Basically everything but ngfs, and even that isn't so clear cut.
Stealth is hard to overrate when your major threats are radar guided.
That's a good thing, it matters.
A few tacked on, outdated ABLs vs 20 integrated VLS modules.
In raw firepower yes. What PGM munitions do Iowas use?
Yes, but "not sinking" isn't as good as "not being hit."
And, for all that armor, when the first exocet hits, what happens to your radar? Fire control? Or a missile boxes? You might likely have a "mission kill," headed back for a 6 month plus repair cycle.
It can only realistically travel as fast as the rest of its battle group. Neither will outrun an exocet or a torpedo.
Smaller crew is a desirable trait.
Yes, they're popular, so were bolt action rifles. Disagree on the last point by a billion percent.
Disagree completely.
See above, where I argued. It's not fact.
apples are exactly like oranges.
dainthomas
Lifer
I'm so glad none of you people are in charge. We should still be using WWII tech in 2013? Lol. Fantastic idea if the Chinese attack us with Zeros. Lol.
Overwhelming naval superiority isn't for fighting wars. It's for NOT fighting wars.
Overwhelming naval superiority isn't for fighting wars. It's for NOT fighting wars.
sdifox
No Lifer
dainthomas
Lifer
Why would China attack with Zeroes?
Because they bought them from a Japanese air museum to fight the 70 year old smoking hulks the Americans were floating around in? Maybe they'd feel bad destroying our entire fleet with one of their subs before lunch.
AViking
Platinum Member
Ok lets run with that for a minute. If the point of our military is for deterrence then is there a magic number we could reduce our military and budget down to?
I was always under the impression that our nuclear stockpile was in place to deter us being attacked. Assuming terrorists attack us and we have nobody to nuke then how are we going to use these destroyers?
I was always under the impression that our nuclear stockpile was in place to deter us being attacked. Assuming terrorists attack us and we have nobody to nuke then how are we going to use these destroyers?
Gibsons
Lifer
Why would China attack with Zeroes?
They captured the plans in WWII. They'll update them with better engines and self sealing tanks, and hang an aesa radar under a wing.
Come on - most military hardware is not used anywhere near its full potential.
Realistically any military equipment that existed during any time period where the country owning it was not at war is not being used to anywhere near its full potential. There are quite a few that aren't used to anywhere near their full potential even during a war
The argument of full potential is a weak one as it hasn't really proved that effective historically.
Thats not to say you don't have good points. This just isn't one of them
The point isn't about fighting Somalia or North Korea but about projecting power to areas where we have interests but no land bases capable of sustaining strike operations while being able to undertake scheduled maintenance in areas far from the operational zones. As long as we insist on making 'friends' I can understand the military's desire to be able to adequately protect their ships and men by wanting vessels that are harder to hit.
Now if we could get leaders who don't see a need to intervene militarily in every civil war that interests them...
I agree
I am guessing thats federal expenditures only. Total government expenditures are far far more. The NCES puts it at about $600billion - the most of any country in the world. That being said it should be obvious that throwing money at education does not mean you will do well in education.
PieIsAwesome
Diamond Member
I can understand not wanting to waste money on shiny new weapons that there is no apparent use for, but the above isn't accurate.
Yes, battleships can carry missiles, but not nearly as many as the Zumwalt. Battleships also do not have the advanced radar and electronics to make use of them. Part of the point of this new design is that it carries lots of missiles in a modular way. Zumwalt is designed around missles, BB around guns, there is no comparison here.
The Zumwalt's guns aren't like the puny things most destroyers have. They carry new guns designed specifically for the Zumwalt. These are big guns, and have much better range and accuracy than BB guns.
MarkXIX
Platinum Member
The larger issue is not their intelligence, it's their self-indulgence. I see too many senior leaders who all but refuse to listen to their advisors because they are hell bent on doing what THEY believe is best.
To pull up a line from GEN Honore, they get "stuck on stupid."
As to the rest of the discussion, some people are acting like the Navy works in a complete vacuum and that unless we have enough ships out floating the oceans, we won't see approaching enemy ships. That might be true only in the sense of submarine warfare, the rest of it would be observed through satellite, aerial, RADAR, etc.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but our remote strike capability should easily act as a stand off deterrent long enough to put ships on target for any naval surface warfare type engagement required. Or are enemy ships somehow immune to Tomahawks, ICBMs, B2 stealth bombers, etc.?
Not saying there's no need for a Navy, but in terms of the scale of our combined capability between Navy and Air Force, I'm fairly certain both can be reduced by some degree and still be just as effective.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
