Posted on 11/29/2015 11:24:59 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
It appears, however, that there's no purpose to being on deck. All access seems to be internal.
And, after all, the paint-scraping can be done at anchor, in port.
Once the missile leaves the tube, does it really care how big the ship was that carried it into the fight?
Where is the anchor? Coming out of the bottom?
So what happens if the onboard computer stabilization system is knocked out, either in combat or by electrical failure?
Today’s ‘cruiser’ is the size of a WWII battleship. We saw one going through the ‘manning of the ship’ in Mississippi. Huge things.
That is one ugly ship. I pity the crew that has to man it.
fyi wwii BBs were 50k tons and up.
I recall when the Cruiser Des Moines was to be brought up to Duluth to become a tourist destination. Liberal Goody-Twoshoes in Minnesota shouted this down and the Des Moines was scrapped.
Looks more like a sub than a destroyer.
JMHo
"Looks more like a sub than a destroyer.
In the original design, the DD21 stealth destroyer was supposed to have buoyancy tanks which would allow it to settle lower in the water for an even stealthier profile when needed. I don't think that made it to the final plans.
Being a former squid myself, I'm not crazy about these new sissy-looking boats. I still like the design of my old destroyer, the Charles F. Adams DDG-2. Now THAT was a bad-ass looking boat!
Might want to go look again, several of the battleships that saw action in WW2 were under 30K tons displacement.
The Yamato was 62 k tons!
I’d lean towards calling it a Panzerschiff. But there’s not a chance in Hell of that happening.
The Japanese Fuso class was under 30K at time of construction and despitee multiple upgrades were still under 35K at the time they were both sunk at the Battle of Suriago Strait.
The Japanese KongÅ class battleships all started off at under 28K and finished the war out at under 32K. In fact, most Japanese battleships were well under 50K.
As I understand the problem with tumblehome is that
less water is displaced as the ship lists thus not
providing as much righting moment naturally.
I can see where this could be countered by computer
through fins or counter flooding of water tanks but
that only works when it works...
Glad I’m not a sailor.
I was a soldier of the Sea however.
The Ticonderogas were built on Spruance class Destroyer hulls. In fact the first few Ticos were laid down as DDGs before the decision to reclass them as cruisers. Which happened in no small part to preserve the sea command O6 billets in advance of the decommissioning of the Leahy and Belknap class cruisers (which themselves had started life as Destroyer Leaders/DLGs, being reclassed as cruisers upon the retirement of the WWII legacy cruisers and CG conversions.)
The lower-tonnage WWII battleships were WWI battleships that had been upgraded due to restrictions and the “building holiday” imposed by the London and Washington treaties.
The “true” WWII battleships are the post-holiday construction ships. For the US it would be the Washingon, South Dakota and Iowa classes (and Montana, if you want to be technical about it) for the US, the KGVs and Vanguard for the RN and the Yamatos for the IJN.
The Iowa class’ design displacement was under 50K as well - 45K. South Dakotas were 35K.
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.