_Design.jpg)
Posted on 11/07/2014 3:48:38 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Generally speaking the time between the concept of a weapons system and it’s actual full deployment is around 10 yrs or more. Since technology advances geometrically it stands to reason by the time a weapon his in production it is already obsolete.
We believed, when I was in the USAF, that once a new fighter is made known to the general public a newer version is already in the works.
I have no idea whether these criticims are justified or not; does anyone with some Navy experience/nautical savvy know if the ship is as bad as the author claims?
If so, why on Earth did they build it?
Sounds to me like the US Navy is all set to quash Third World enemies ... something it has much recent experience with. G_d help them against the upgraded Russian or the quickly modernizing Chinese Navies.
2X 155mm guns.
80 missiles
seems adequate
What horse manure. People are fighting plenty of wars with old equipment. Make do with your “outdated warship” stupid Feds
Which, as a minimum, tends to apply to both sides of a future conflict.
The only reason for the hull’s shape is for reduced radar cross section. This same principle, used on a lesser scale, can be seen on many of the world’s current warships. If you do that well enough, the ship can achieve a rather interesting level of surprise. Beyond that, I’d rather not get into details.
I guess automated damage control make sense when we have crews full of gals who do not have the upper body strength to lug the lumber necessary to plug and patch.
Blame it on Congress and all of the damn policies you have to follow for starters. Then you move on to the Program Managers that change every 2 - 3 years whose sole purpose is to make their mark by constantly changing requirements. I’ll go back to JSF i.e. F-35. It only took 13 years to do the first carrier landing.
Plus coed heads to accommodate the Clinton Navy’s goals.
Brings up an interesting point: can they make “stealth” ships, like the way they make “stealth” airplanes?
I see. Thanks.
It looks like a nice ship to my (admittedly uneducated) eye.
I don’t recall the Monitor having any tumblehome at all. Now the Merrimac (or Virginia, if you prefer) did. This author is an idiot.
Hogwash. Somebody is trying to create controversy where there is none.
This hull design has been tested and retested on computers and models. This is a reliable, proven method that’s been used by the Navy for a long time. They chose this profile for it’s ability to deflect radar AND sea keeping ability.
The ship was not designed around guns and NGFS. She is primarily a missile platform. It’s easy to forget that because VLS hides all those weapons. She’s not only useful parked 20 miles off a coast.
She’s a fine asset. The article is garbage.
Neither of them did. The Virginia looked like it did above the water line but only because her superstructure was angled back to deflect cannon shot. Below the waterline she had a conventional hull.
I had a history professor tell me once that the biggest misnomer in military studies is tge term “obsolete weaponry”.
The concern with the fire suppression system is legitimate. On the Zumwalt, it is Halon-based, which is very effective under normal circumstances but fails if the hull is breached — a high likelihood for a ship of the line.
A lot of the other criticisms are armchair-admiral second-guessing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.