Posted on 11/07/2014 3:48:38 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
And it is unarmored. These things won’t survive combat. They are suited for anti piracy ops and nothing more, a task which seems to be less important now as more traditional ships and multinational participation seems to have got that problem down to its old desultory level.
Concure. My only concern is the low manning making it hard to do damage control. If you look at the Stark and the Roberts, neither of them should have survived the hits they took. The difference was damage control.
Yup. Where did all those Zulu warriors with spears come from?
The Germans had a terrible problem with military technology in WWII. Their scientists were continually developing new models, upgrades, add-ons, this, that and the other to their weapons, and then fielding them. It caused chaos.
Everything from small arms to heavy tanks, all incompatible with each other, were sent to the fronts, guaranteeing there would never be enough ammo, and that the loss of a single major weapons system would be a disaster.
The pinnacle of this over-design was likely the “Elefant” heavy tank destroyer, that was so overloaded with gizmos that by the end of the war it was almost immobile. Since then it is still remembered for its over-design, and total reliance on theoretical quality instead of quantity.
But the extreme of this was when German scientists were asked to develop the perfect artillery cannon, which on paper would have likely been the best artillery piece ever created. Unfortunately, it needed to be made with a tungsten alloy, needing more tungsten for a single tube than the known world reserves of tungsten at the time.
He sort of lost my credibility when he disparagingly compared the hull shape to the Union’s Monitor. It more resembles the Confederate CSS Virginia. The writer apparently has trouble with naval history and the modern concept of radar signature reduction. His points regarding whether the ship is suitable for use against its probable opponents may be valid, but with multiple cruise missile launchers, a VTOL platform, and a pair of 155 mm (6”) guns the ship looks pretty capable of defending herself and inflicting damage. Its cost may be the biggest issue.
When I asked our dealer why he was succeeding so well against the cheaper and more advanced and aesthetically modern German machines (this was back in the Reagan days when the Dollar was hugely strong against the D-Mark and we were at a major cost disadvantage) he said our machines would last and do the job but when the Pakistanis and other uneducated oilfield laborers got hold of the German machines they would start playing with all the buttons and dials and ruin it in hours. And the design was so complicated that the service engineers (also Pakis and worse) were hopeless in making repairs. Rugged, reliably, and simple enough for an illiterate peasant to fix served the Russians well in WWII and as my story may illustrate Germans can find it hard to change habits.
That is what low radar cross section is all about.
How many of those buildings were hit by enemy shells and missiles? Shipboard battle damage control involves a great deal more than just extinguishing the fires. Holes need to be patched. Power needs to be restored. Flooded compartments need to be dewatered.
My understanding of the ‘stealth’ aircraft is that they’re all but invisible to radar.
Is it possible to make ships like that, or will you always get more radar ‘ping’ with ships?
You’re right; I have since looked at a picture of the Virginia. In any case, the Monitor sure didn’t have any sort of tumblehome, as claimed by the author.
For ships, it’s all about angles. Look at some close up pics of an Arleigh Burke DDG. They’ve replaced round and flat structures with diamond and angled structures, even down to side rails, cleats, capstans, masts and gun turrets. this does not make ships invisible to radar. It reduces their RCS (radar cross section)so they might not be detected at longer distances and they might be mistaken for smaller vessels. The Burkes also have a system to reduce heat/infrared signature from exhaust stacks. Noise reductions under water...that’s touchy.
Fascinating; thank you.
Everything, including stealth aircraft, can be found if you use the right technology. You may remember that one of our F-117’s was shot down during Clinton’s Balkan war. The intent of any low-observable technology is to allow your aircraft/ship/personnel to get inside the line that the enemy thinks he controls. When your assets are in that position, the enemy has less time and opportunity to defeat them. Putting things in a more conventional framework, when we stealthily put specops teams behind enemy lines, we are essentially doing the same thing. The first inkling that the enemy knows they are there is when things start blowing up.
They still have he same tendencies today given what I think I know about German cars. I still like German cars, but you have to have the right mindset about it, and be willing to put up with reliability quirks for the handling at speed. I see them as reliable Italian cars.
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.