Navy launches new stealth destroyer: Longer than a Battleship! (pic)

[preslove]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASROC#Description

It's a torpedo with a rocket phase. The idea is to be able to launch a torpedo without having to go so close as to confuse the ship's sonar. Also allows you to outrange the submarine's torpedos.

You take a modern torpedo with active homing and strap a rocket on to it. When you think you know where the bad guy is, you fire the rocket there. The torpedo plops into the water, turns on its sonar and starts looking.

Ya learn something new every day :thumbsup:


BTW, battleship guy is trolling, has to be.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Iowas only had Tomahawk and Harpoon for surface attack roles. Zumwalt can also carry the Standard Missile family and ESSM for air defense.

All that could have been put on a BB for cheaper.

Zumwalt's guns have greater range and greater accuracy

Same tech could have been applied to the BB guns years and years ago.

Stealth avoids getting hit in the first place.
Far superior air defense keeps from getting hit in the first place.
Zumwalt wins.

Far superior air defense? A BB will have escorts, just like the 3 new ships will. It's not going anywhere alone. Air defense isn't a problem. Never was.

false, crewing those monsters was a severe strain on the navy's budget

And spending 20 billion plus on THREE ships isn't? In the 22 years since the BB's were retired, they could have upgraded them along the way, which would have given us FOUR armored ships that had more capability than the Zumwalts all this time for less than they spent on THREE new ships.

Yet they let the BB's sit all this time, and somehow did without them.....so why do they need 3 ridiculously expensive ships that can't do anymore than an upgraded BB could do, but apparently hasn't been required all this time? If they didn't need NGFS from a BB, why do they need these particular, obscenely expensive ships?

 

[Pacfanweb]

false

Not false. Not compared to how much they've spent on the Zumwalts. The BB's were a bargain in comparison.



they wanted new ships that were more affordable to run (and were more capable in a modern battlefield)[/quote]
No, they just wanted new ships. Upgraded the electronics and new shells for the BB and they have better capability. The designs for long-range shells were already done in the 80's, just needed producing.

The correct comparison isn't between a battleship and a carrier, it's between a battleship and a destroyer

BB is more effective. Carries more missiles, has far more destructive power overall, longer range, just as fast if not faster, heavily armored, can house an admiral and staff for fleet operations, etc.

Because the battleships could provide NGFS. The Zumwalts will provide better NGFS with shells that have better accuracy and more range.

No. Shells were already designed with longer range in the 80's. Easily could have been being upgraded all this time, and they'd have longer range, just as accurate, and far more destructive.

But the Zumwalts can, and do a better job at it and be cheaper to run.

Not when you factor the initial cost. And we don't know how cheap they'll be to run, yet.
But the initial cost is staggering.

We only had 4 battleships and that was all. Accounting for those needing to be in port for refit, they didn't provide any flexibility at all.

In contrast the Zumwalt class was designed to number 32 and then some.

And now we're going to have THREE. All 4 BB's were in service at the same time, usually.
Over 20 billion spent and we're going to have THREE ships.

it very well could mission-kill a battleship depending on where it hit

I don't see how one Exocet could mission kill a BB. I suppose a golden BB is possible, but very unlikely, whereas pretty much any current surface ship is either mission-killed or sunk with one missile, even a carrier.

and where do you think the radar that directs the turrets is at?

Fore and aft of the superstructure, plus the turrets can be controlled locally. One Exocet isn't going to take them both out.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Ya learn something new every day :thumbsup:


BTW, battleship guy is trolling, has to be.

No, not trolling, and I'm not really advocating for the return of the Battleships. What I AM saying is, we've done without the Battleships (over the protests of the Marines) for over 20 years.

We COULD have reactivated them, produced the same kind of shells for their guns that the Zumwalts have, updated the electronics, etc.....and had them all this time, in service and ready to go, for FAR cheaper than these three ugly-ass Zumwalts cost....but we didn't.

And we managed to get along just fine.

So why do we need these ships now, especially for the cost? The job they're going to do, could have already been BEING done by Battleships, for less money and one more ship.

 

[lupi]

You're a total blathering idiot. The Navys second greatest cost is for personel. All of the newer vesseals have been designed to finally take into account modern electronics to remove as many bodies from the ship as possible. Those "refurbed" battleships would still be a manpower blackhole.

 

[preslove]

No, not trolling, and I'm not really advocating for the return of the Battleships. What I AM saying is, we've done without the Battleships (over the protests of the Marines) for over 20 years.

We COULD have reactivated them, produced the same kind of shells for their guns that the Zumwalts have, updated the electronics, etc.....and had them all this time, in service and ready to go, for FAR cheaper than these three ugly-ass Zumwalts cost....but we didn't.

And we managed to get along just fine.

So why do we need these ships now, especially for the cost? The job they're going to do, could have already been BEING done by Battleships, for less money and one more ship.

K, then you're just an idiot.

Refurbing battleships would encounter just as many cost overruns as building a new ship, perhaps even more.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

No, not trolling, and I'm not really advocating for the return of the Battleships. What I AM saying is, we've done without the Battleships (over the protests of the Marines) for over 20 years.

We COULD have reactivated them, produced the same kind of shells for their guns that the Zumwalts have, updated the electronics, etc.....and had them all this time, in service and ready to go, for FAR cheaper than these three ugly-ass Zumwalts cost....but we didn't.

And we managed to get along just fine.

So why do we need these ships now, especially for the cost? The job they're going to do, could have already been BEING done by Battleships, for less money and one more ship.

What makes you think it would be cheaper? Developing the following systems and then retrofitting BBs: the advanced gun system, the advanced electronic hardware and software, radar, the new missile cells, and who knows what else.

You would just be shifting the R&D costs that went into developing these systems for the Zumwalt, to developing them for the BBs. Then you'd just have old BBs with billions in R&D and hardware poured into them.

 

[Gibsons]

No, not trolling, and I'm not really advocating for the return of the Battleships. What I AM saying is, we've done without the Battleships (over the protests of the Marines) for over 20 years.

We COULD have reactivated them, produced the same kind of shells for their guns that the Zumwalts have, updated the electronics, etc.....and had them all this time, in service and ready to go, for FAR cheaper than these three ugly-ass Zumwalts cost....but we didn't.

designing and producing the shells, updating the electronics, somehow wedging in modern radar... that wouldn't be cheap. Then, *maybe* you've got Zummwalt capability, (minus the sonar) but with almost TEN TIMES the manpower cost, ye olde anciente engines (you want to update those too?) and no stealth. That doesn't sound like a good deal.

I'm not even a Zummwalt fan, but they are a far better option than refurbing some antiques that were outdated before they were built.

 

[tynopik]

Iowas only had Tomahawk and Harpoon for surface attack roles. Zumwalt can also carry the Standard Missile family and ESSM for air defense.

All that could have been put on a BB for cheaper.

False. The Sea Sparrow was actually installed before it was determined that they would not survive the blast from the guns.

There is no room inside the ship, so all missiles had to be mounted externally. There are no external launchers for Standard Missiles. It's VLS or nothing.

More importantly, the Iowas don't have the electrical generating capability to power radars to take maximum advantage of the SM's capabilities.

Same tech could have been applied to the BB guns years and years ago.

A major part of the Zumwalt's expense was developing the gun system.

Far superior air defense? A BB will have escorts

So now you have to include the cost of escorts in the cost of running a battleship.

just like the 3 new ships will.

No, the Zumwalts ARE the escorts.

And spending 20 billion plus on THREE ships isn't?

It's not just 3 ships. Lots of it went into the component technologies like the gun and the radar that will be reused in future classes. They are all technologies that will have to be developed eventually anyways. The Zumwalts are basically technology demonstrators. The Navy will build them, see how they work, and then design the next class using the lessons learned.

Those next classes will reap the reward of the investment in the Zumwalt and its systems.

If they didn't need NGFS from a BB, why do they need these particular, obscenely expensive ships?

"You go to war with the Navy you have, not the Navy you want."

 

[tynopik]

BB is more effective. Carries more missiles, has far more destructive power overall

False.

The battleships could only carry missiles in external boxes which limited them to 32 Tomahawks and 16 Harpoons (48 total).

Zumwalt has 80 far more flexible VLS tubes.

Fore and aft of the superstructure, plus the turrets can be controlled locally.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Marines aren't going to appreciate NGFS from a turret under local control. Talk about 'unfriendly' fire . . .

 

[Nintendesert]

Good lord, battleships... what is this? 1890 again?

 

[Eureka]

Jutland! Jutland! Jutland!

 

[pmv]

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.

Good job none of them were in charge when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour!

 

[Gibsons]

Good job none of them were in charge when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour!

He's on a roll...

 

[Number1]

1921/1923 GENERAL MITCHELL BOMBS BATTLESHIPS

The mighty Hood, 1400 men on board when one well placed shell sank her. 3 survived.

There are very good reasons why battleship are not built or used anymore.

 

[uhohs]

1921/1923 GENERAL MITCHELL BOMBS BATTLESHIPS

The mighty Hood, 1400 men on board when one well placed shell sank her. 3 survived.

There are very good reasons why battleship are not built or used anymore.

those videos are obviously just anti-battleship propaganda.

 

[OutHouse]

Do you foresee any drawn out naval engagement EVER happening again? I certainly do not. We need "stealthy" carrier escorts for a non steatlhy carrier? Why?

We have missile platforms, in planes. We need larger missiles, we got those in subs (which are plenty stealthy).

What am I saying, 'merica! Must spend money!

wow you sure in the know for what the US Navy needs.

 

[dennilfloss]

Mitchell was a hack. SMS Ostfriesland had remaining damage from Jutland that was never repaired and all her bulkheads were unsecured. He could have sunk her just by breaking a lower scuttle with a hammer.

The HMS Hood sunk during the engagement with Bismarck was not a battleship. An earlier, predreadnought Hood (Royal Sovereign class) was however a battleship.

 

[OutHouse]

LOL @ the posters who are "experts" in naval warfare, Armaments and Needs who have probably never seen the ocean much less been on a warship and have absolutely no clue in planning the long term needs of a country's Naval power.

 

[Number1]

Mitchell was a hack. SMS Ostfriesland had remaining damage from Jutland that was never repaired and all her bulkheads were unsecured. He could have sunk her just by breaking a lower scuttle with a hammer.

The HMS Hood sunk during the engagement with Bismarck was not a battleship. An earlier, predreadnought Hood (Royal Sovereign class) was however a battleship.

What was Hood than if not a battleship?

 

[Eureka]

What was Hood than if not a battleship?

Battlecruiser.

 

[sdifox]

What was Hood than if not a battleship?

battlecruiser

 

[Possessed Freak]

wow you sure in the know for what the US Navy needs.

I do not think we need to have the size of Navy we have had for the past 50 years. Fleet engagements are OVER. What engagements have we had since WWII required anything more than a carrier and supporting vessels (and the support is just to make the carrier feel more secure).

 

[Gibsons]

Battlecruiser.

Everyone knows this. :sneaky:

I think Hood was scheduled for a refit on the armor, supposedly a big upgrade.

Bismarck was a bit lucky in that regard, Hood was too old and Prince of Wales was too noob. I dunno if Hoods upgrades would have allowed her to survive the same hit. Of everyone here though, I think I know who the biggest nerd is - what say ye Dennilfloss? 🙂

 

[BladeVenom]

Battlecruiser.

Which sacrifices armor for speed. Just like at Jutland, they were no match for a battleship.