Posted on 07/12/2018 7:25:06 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
I say move to ALL CATAMARAN fleet!
Use sails to save on fuel when possible. Plus they look awesome.
Not only has the mission profile expanded, but the potential threat environment has grown to include orbital and hypersonic weapons that might be fired well beyond the former threat envelops. Also, many weapons they will face may have terminal maneuverability making them much more difficult to destroy. As you layer on each new threat you have two choices; make the ship bigger to hold more defenses, or make it smaller so it will be a more difficult target. I’m guessing the Navy will go with the former.
What the hell were they thinking?
All the $$$$$$$ and technology in the world won’t overcome the lack of command leadership the US Navy has allowed to occur in the name of gender equality.
The construction of the Zumwalt feathered a lot of nests in the Midcoast region of Maine for quite awhile!
What’s the difference between a fairy tale and a sea story? There’s your answer.
Fairy Tale: “Once upon a time . . . .”
Sea Story: “This is no shit . . . .”
“...Power For Radars & Lasers”
Covering the deck and superstructure with solar panels won’t do it?
If the role was merely to defend ownship, sure, make it smaller and more maneuverable with a low cross section and robust self defense capacity. But the mission of these ships is to defend the battle group and/or other designated assets. Can't make the carriers smaller realistically. So either more defenders or more capable defenders are called for,
“So either more defenders or more capable defenders are called for, “
The US Navy appears to be the leader in swarm defense. By that I think they mean to defend against swarm attacks and to use swarm tactics in defense and offense. The answer may not be more and bigger ships, but smaller and more numerous unmanned ships spread out over a wider area. In reading about what the Navy is doing, I have a good feeling they are doing the right things. They appear to have a forward thinking group of mission planners.
Time for a catamaran design?
In the early 70’s, there was a humorous “recruiting poster” that showed a pair of WWII destroyers tied together with a pair of crossbeams and huge sloop-rigged masts, hiked up on only one of the hulls as if on a reach.
“...integrated electric drive...”
Bring in Elon Musk?
“... around a 155 mm gun with revolutionary rocket-boosted shells...”
Having worked on those rounds, they were a turkey from the get go. There is no mission for a sea based round that can travel 100+ miles. In order to achieve that range, the warhead is so small it’s practically worthless.
And the rocket motor ignition system so complex that it was expected to fail 20% of the time.
The Marines need beach blasters and inshore support; inshore, as in 20 - 40 miles.
There’s noting wrong with the concept of a 155mm high fire rate gun, it’s the compromises to get the 100+ mile distance that crippled it and made it worthless.
One would think some old and new designs could be combined to get the navy a class of true heavy cruisers. Room for current weapons and built for possible future weapons.
As for shore bombardment that could be done with the proven
8 inch gun from WWII. Yeah it is old but it works and was used through the Vietnam era.
The Zumwalt class, ahhh... what were they smoking?
IIRC, the 16”/50 caliber Mark 7 – United States Naval Guns on the Iowa Class BBs were VERY effective in supporting USMC amphibious landings!
An up close view of full 9 gun broadside FRom an Iowa Class BB is a sight, once seen and, more important, FELT, never to be forgotten!
Nowadays, smart bombs do that kind of work.
HST, I always felt that the USN screwed up by mothballing the Iowas! Lovely ships!
A 16”/50 caliber Mark 7 – United States Naval Gun trumps that 8” popgun, EVERY time!
I doubt the USA has the capability to build a ship that can carry a 16”/50 caliber Mark 7 – United States Naval Gun, but it would be a fun exercise to resurrect the Montana Class BB and update it to modern times! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana-class_battleship#USS_Montana_(BB-67))
Using a current design essentially means a modified Arleigh Burke hull. I don’t know how feasible it would be to make these ships larger to hold more stuff. The big question is whether a longer and perhaps wider Arleigh Burke class DDG can handle much more in the way of advanced weapons and sensors as effectively as a new design can while being more capable of surviving in a combat zone.
They were thinking Rail Gun platform
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.