Good job!
I think it was President Jelly Jar that axed these ships
So, rail guns aren’t going to sea in the near future - at least with the US Navy.
Update the Fletcher class.
So, it's not totally helpless....
I watched them test the 30mm guns on TV. One of them failed (needed a replacement part for the mount). The other one was dead on.
What members of Congress supported this boondoggle?
Another gubment blunderfest. Does anyone ever get punished enough to make others pay more attention to their work? It can’t all be blamed on the capriciousness of politicians and appropriations.
They damn well better focus on the stealth. Because if someone knows they are there they sure as hell can’t shoot their way out if it.
Besides, these days with women drivers crashing them into tankers, instead of stealth they really need radar reflectors, a rotating beacon and a dayglow orange paint job.
——prove itself to be hugely capable ——
capable of what? what purpose will the vessel serve?
Can we say “gunboat”? A very expensive one.
Here’s a question for you armament experts. Do the forces ever try to standardize their guns and ammo across the board, in order to cut costs and simplify systems?
For instance, you’ve got the 30mm round used by the A10 Thunderbolt. Could they use the same round for navy applications, and for the AC-130 gunship operated by SpecOps?
The Bradley has the 25mm in its main gun. Do they use it for other apps?
And in this latest big money flub by the Navy on the main gun in this article, couldn’t they use an existing round that the Army or Marines use, like the 155 or the 120 out of the Abrams?
It seems like we could save money and simplify by making common rounds that can be used by various platforms.
no CIWS?
Personally, I like the Navy’s Sea Hunter autonomous ship. It is 132 feet long and has a range of 10,000 nautical miles. It also costs 1/7th the amount of most other ships to operate. Although the 4 ships that they have are unarmed, they will probably be outfitted with ASW gear and some kind of surface weapon(s) when they finish their 2 years of sea trials.
Stealthy, yes - but ...
Is she safe from Japanese Cargo vessels?
More pointedly, what good is a “stealthy” warship, if the Navy cannot manage to bring onboard actual sailors to man her, rather than incompetent bridge personnel - hired to fill some affirmative action quota?
Based on the photos it only has a single helo hanger - even my OHP frigate had hanger space for 2 and this thing is huge in comparison. It does tell me though that they are treating it like a cruiser with no attention to Anti-sub duties whatsoever.
Anyone know if it even has a tail (towed passive sonar)?
I’m all for stealth and guns - but it’s a multi-dimensional theater out there.
The stealth didn’t work, you can see it really easily.
Why brand a ship with the name of the worst Chief of Naval Operations in American Naval history?