$7 Billion for a Destroyer? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Hatterasguy · #31 04-16-2012, 09:12 PM

True but they are just as fast and more survivable, because they are nothing but armored compartments with watertight doors.

A modern battleship with a nuclear reactor and modern hull would be a 50kt boat.

Botnst · #32 04-16-2012, 09:31 PM

Well, if a modern battleship could fly it would be interesting, too. maybe with adamantium armor.

Fulcrum525 · #33 04-16-2012, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Well, if a modern battleship could fly it would be interesting, too. maybe with adamantium armor.

Too easy

retmil46 · #34 04-17-2012, 11:33 AM

In the end, I suggest we ask the Marine Corps and Army which they'd rather have doing fire support for them - one of these ships with two 155 mm guns and an undisclosed number of missiles - or a carrier air wing or two, with the attendant escorts and their weaponry. Not to mention the necessary amphib ships that have their own organic air wings of Harriers and attack helos.

Or the two or three older Ohio class SSBN's that have been converted to special ops boats, to deliver SEAL teams and carry a crapload of cruise and land/surface attack missiles.

I'm thinking the real reasons these 3 ships are being built is to keep certain defense contractors happy, and that Bath Iron Works is in the home state of a long-serving and influential Republican senator (given they were authorized under GWB). Wouldn't be the first time that Congress authorized programs that the various services said they didn't want or need, but were authorized anyway for "political" reasons.

Botnst · #35 04-17-2012, 01:26 PM

The BB's were originally designed to confront each other and to a lesser extent commerce raider and shore bombardment. During WWII their only effective role was in shore bombardment and they only did that after the opposition sub and air forces were ineffective. I can't imagine that has improved since WWII.

If we need seaborne artillery then we need a whole new, keel- up, concept. Not a 60 year-old design.

Hatterasguy · #36 04-17-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fulcrum525

Too easy

Nah much cooler:

Hatterasguy · #37 04-17-2012, 09:46 PM

They have good names too, better than "Bush."

The Silvius, AKA the "death reaper"

Or the original that the Silvius was developed from, the Silvana. AKA, "kill em all Silvana" or "safest ship in the world"

Both are flying escort carriers, the Silvana was more of an older dreadnaught design, while the Silvius placed more emphasis on speed, and had the capability to operate in a limited fashion underwater.

Fulcrum525 · #38 04-17-2012, 10:42 PM

What series is this from?

Botnst · #39 04-17-2012, 10:53 PM

"Not in your wildest dreams".

Fulcrum525 · #40 04-17-2012, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

"Not in your wildest dreams".

But didn't the Moody Blues say otherwise?

The Moody Blues - Your Wildest Dreams - YouTube

retmil46 · #41 04-18-2012, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The BB's were originally designed to confront each other and to a lesser extent commerce raider and shore bombardment. During WWII their only effective role was in shore bombardment and they only did that after the opposition sub and air forces were ineffective. I can't imagine that has improved since WWII.

If we need seaborne artillery then we need a whole new, keel- up, concept. Not a 60 year-old design.

And preferably one that doesn't cost $7 billion apiece, such that you can only afford 3 of them.

If the main requirement is simply to have a floating gun platform for shore bombardment, not refight the battle of Jutland, such that you don't have to fire "expensive" cruise missiles at everything - then what you need is the modern day equivalent of the British "monitors" that were used in both world wars.

The "monitors" were more akin to a self-propelled barge than a ship - just big enough to safely mount a twin 15 inch gun turret on, with just enough armor and just enough of a propulsion system to enable the crew to safely putter along off the enemy coast and lob volkswagen-sized shells at anything worth shooting at.

Build something along the lines of a container or RO-RO merchant ship, with emphasis on flat open deck space. Drive on some self-propelled 155mm or 8 inch howitzers and MLRS launchers from the Army, drop on some containerized VLS systems with land-attack cruise or other type missiles, could even add in containerized SAM systems or Phalanx for self defense even - tailor made when you need it fire support ship.

retmil46 · #42 04-18-2012, 02:57 AM

Here's a link to an article on some of the Royal Navy monitors -

Royal Navy Monitors, Part 2 - Dieselpunks

Botnst · #43 04-18-2012, 08:11 AM

Interesting. I didn't know about those. Butt ugly.

retmil46 · #44 04-18-2012, 12:14 PM

Yep, they weren't pretty - like I said, basically a self-propelled barge big enough to stick a big honking gun on, park off the coast and lob shells - nothing but a gun platform.

Gave the troops ashore decent fire support, without tying up a front line warship in the process.

Dudesky · #45 04-18-2012, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

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.

I was at the sub museum in Groton a couple years ago. They had a weapons display and indicated there are 'hypersonic' torpedoes in the works that can go several hundred knots under water. And you know about it when it hits the hull.