$7 Billion for a Destroyer? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #16 04-13-2012, 11:14 PM

Whollier than thou.

Fulcrum525 · #17 04-13-2012, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anghrist

"You know, I have one simple request...and that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads. Now evidently, my cycloptic colleague informs me that that can't be done. Ah, can you please remind me what I pay you people for? Honestly, throw me a bone here...what do we have?"

Gotta finish it

Sea Bass.
[pause] Right.
They're mutated sea bass.
Are they ill tempered?
Absolutely.
Oh well, that's a start.

retmil46 · #18 04-14-2012, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynalow

Mitch,

I read recently the Navy is cutting out (decommissioning) 4 Ticonderoga class criusers and a few other ships including the USS Rueben James.

11 ships to be decommissioned in fiscal 2013 - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Out with the old, in with the new.

Heads Up: Big cuts coming in DEF in fy13. Enlistments will be way down next year.

Well, I'm not too surprised they'd be decomming some of the Ticos - they started building them in the late 70's/early 80's - the first batch still had the old twin rail missle launchers instead of the later VLS (vertical launch system). Even the newest ones are probably well past the 20 year mark by now. Also, from what I remember, they were basically nothing but a Spruance destroyer hull crammed full of equipment and were considered to be an overloaded design, and given a cruiser designation simply because of the crapload of missiles they could carry.

A good many of them were built before the lessons of the Falklands War could be digested - ie, where the British learned that aluminum ship plus burning solid rocket fuel equals a VERY bad idea - and that's why the Burke class destroyers went back to good old-fashioned steel for most of the ship.

pawoSD · #19 04-14-2012, 09:55 AM

We've wasted far more $$ than that on countless other things....at least it will be a sophisticated ship....and usable.

Solid Snake · #20 04-14-2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Well as long as they work.

I just question very expensive weapons like this when what really wins wars are decent weapons in great numbers.

I rather have 12 ok ships than 3 really good ones.

They need to bring back the battleships, they had the armor protection to absorb hits that these ships just can't withstand. Slam an Exocet into the side of one of these and its going down, slam one into the Mississippi and she will probably do just fine.

I have asked the same question regarding a new heavy attack ship. Instead of antiquated cannons, just slap on hundreds of missile tubes and silos and you have yourself a one stop shop for coast offense.

Dudesky · #21 04-14-2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs899

Well, they are going to be insanely expensive in small lots as the R&D costs for every stinking piece is amortized over 3 boats. Not only that, I doubt that there are any parts on these boats that are competitively procured.

I bought quite a few million bux worth of nuclear propulsion equipment for the 688 fast attack class (S6G) and Ohio class (S8G) subs 30 years ago and there was precious little competition even then. We just don't have than many firms capable of doing this stuff anymore.

This isn't something we can buy from the Chinese either, since they will be the enemy...

Did you read that article a couple weeks ago about all the sophisticated MIL electronic gear we by from the Chicoms?
And fears of imbedded software to kill it by them?

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-30/news/31258334_1_clarke-stuxnet-cyber-defenses

Fulcrum525 · #22 04-14-2012, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

I have asked the same question regarding a new heavy attack ship. Instead of antiquated cannons, just slap on hundreds of missile tubes and silos and you have yourself a one stop shop for coast offense.

If I remember correctly the Ticonderogas VLS system (Vertical launch system) was designed with this type of flexibility in mind. The cells are capable of launching many different types of missiles so the ships mission can be custom tailored. (I.E you can load it with SAMs for Anti-air work or fill it with Tomahawks for ship to ground missions)

Pooka · #23 04-14-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retmil46

Now I'm retired Navy, and like to see that (within reason) the guys are getting enough new ships and equipment as needed to be able to do their jobs - but even for me, this is just way over the top - even the Navy wanted to cancel the bloody thing because it cost so much.

Cutting-edge Navy warship being built in Maine - Yahoo! News

The sub force had a "Cadillac" of their own back in the 90's, the Seawolf class fast attacks, but the bloody things were so expensive that after the Soviet Union folded they only built 3 of them and switched to the more reasonable Viginia class.

Guess the reason this gold-plated skimmer is still being built is it's an election year, and various people need to get their "street cred" when it comes to defense.

Yes, but Bush has been rather quite lately. I guess his desire for street cred knows no bounds since.......

The ships were first proposed in 2001, first approved in 2005 and funding was approved in 2007. All the way there were Navy people fighting to stop this project, and yet after the funding was approved the process for construction got under way.

S124300 · #24 04-14-2012, 03:18 PM

Just think of the British situation then: They had an aircraft carrier, now they don't, they aren't going to get one either, unless they borrow the one France has. Anybody see an issue with that?

retmil46 · #25 04-15-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka

Yes, but Bush has been rather quite lately. I guess his desire for street cred knows no bounds since.......

The ships were first proposed in 2001, first approved in 2005 and funding was approved in 2007. All the way there were Navy people fighting to stop this project, and yet after the funding was approved the process for construction got under way.

They proposed something similar back in the mid-70's, called it a "strike cruiser", remarkably similar design accounting for 30 years difference in technology - and it received the same criticisms - too expensive, jack of all trades and master of none, a ship in search of a mission - and they were cancelled in favor of building a larger number of Ticos and other ships - as Hattie said, better to have a bunch of "good enough" than too few of "the ultimate".

IMO, this is the 21st century version of Jackie Fisher's battlecruisers - good idea on paper, but sucked in practice.

Two 155 mm guns for fire support? 155mm is essentially a 6 inch gun (152 mm), naval 6 incher throws a 200 to 250 lb shell from what I remember. FCOL, if one of the primary reasons for this ship is fire support of troops ashore, then give it something worthwhile, at least 8 inchers. Back in the late 70's, the Navy had already tested a prototype 8 inch gun mount that could be dropped in in place of the standard 5 inch mount on Spruance class ships for this very reason.

Botnst · #26 04-15-2012, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S124300

Just think of the British situation then: They had an aircraft carrier, now they don't, they aren't going to get one either, unless they borrow the one France has. Anybody see an issue with that?

Has the French carrier ever sailed on a mission? Last I heard it hadn't passed sea trials.

Botnst · #27 04-15-2012, 04:49 PM

The old BB's are slow, poor maneuverability and a huge radar reflection. They burn huge volumes of fuel requiring an oiler follow them around. they are vulnerable to torpedoes and air power. The Japanese super battleships (Yamato and Musashi) were both torpedoed and bombed. Most likely the subs got her.

With modern cruise missiles and torpedoes the Chinese or Iranians (our most likely adversaries at this juncture) could sink any WWII BB. And logistically, they'd always be vulnerable to logistical interdiction -- sink the oiler, stop the BB.

Hatterasguy · #28 04-16-2012, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The old BB's are slow, poor maneuverability and a huge radar reflection. They burn huge volumes of fuel requiring an oiler follow them around. they are vulnerable to torpedoes and air power. The Japanese super battleships (Yamato and Musashi) were both torpedoed and bombed. Most likely the subs got her.

With modern cruise missiles and torpedoes the Chinese or Iranians (our most likely adversaries at this juncture) could sink any WWII BB. And logistically, they'd always be vulnerable to logistical interdiction -- sink the oiler, stop the BB.

Yes but it took a lot of firepower to sink the Yamato and Musashi, which I don't think the Iranians heck most of the Europeans could deploy these days. If I remember correctly they were partly scuttled. Its very hard to sink a battleship, ask the British when they sank the Bismark. They kept pouring rounds into her and she only went down when the crew scuttled her.

Also those 16in rifles could rain down hell on anything within 20 miles. The 155 on the new ship is a cherry bomb compared to the 16's. A 155mm shell is a toy would bounce right off the main armor on a proper ship of the line.

Nothing ruins your day like 2,000 pounds of the finest US Navy **** you coming down on your head.

Fulcrum525 · #29 04-16-2012, 09:04 PM

My favorite ship description from Harpoon Classic 97 of the Long Beach class.

"It has two other great strengths: it is nuclear powered, so it can steam at flank speed indefinitely. Also, it was built in the days when steel and armor were still part of a naval architect's vocabulary. This is the only US carrier escort that can get hit by a Shipwreck or AS-6 and keep fighting."

Botnst · #30 04-16-2012, 09:05 PM

A cruise missile carries more destructive power, more accurately, over a greater distance than a 16" rifle can fire. It can also be launched from air, land or sea.

The Iranians and Chinese both have subs with better torpedoes than the Americans or Japanese had in WWII.

Not to mention the vulnerability of logistical support.