Moderator: Edi
Yes, I miss it too.Nathan F wrote:Whatever happened to the form of ship building...
Ships used to be the epiphany of power and had a unique beauty about them, but now we have this computer designed box on water. Whatever happened to the actual human design...
The Extended Range Guided Munition is .... uncertain at this point.Boba Fett wrote:
...and those advanced guns will fire GPS guided ammo!!!
General Accounting Office Report."the development and testing of an extended-range guided munition for this gun has again been delayed by technical and contractor performance problems, and the achievement of an initial operational capability has slipped by 4 years to fiscal year 2005. Recent flight tests of this munition have achieved some success, but it is still too soon to know if its development will be successful. For example, it is still not certain that the munition can meet range and lethality requirements. Even if this munition is successfully developed, it will not provide the capabilities needed by the Marine Corps."
"What we`re in the future damn i thought this was the presentSpanky The Dolphin wrote:Come on, this is the future!! We're suposed to have stuff that looks like this. Where were you in the 1980s?kojikun wrote:yanno what it looks like? a sub. it does, like some U-Boat or sommat.
a heavily weighted keel could solve that. it would resist capsizing, and when it did, it could roll much like the coast guard mortor rescue boats, although this is much larger, i'll admit. But, with the minimal crew and minimal exposed structure on the weather deck it is at least feasable....The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Unfortunately, it bears a close resemblence to French pre-dreadnought battleships in design. The ones famous for rolling over and sinking after suffering from only a small amount of damage - due to their hull form. Wundar ship here is probably going to have the same problem, especially with that huge superstructure. *shudders* Welcome to the era of the colonial patrol boat with no actual naval combat survivability, USN!Sr.mal wrote:That ship is shaped that way because it is designed to be stealthy to radar.
For comparison, Bouvet
So the reason for the fucked up seaworthiness is stealth? Has the USN lost it's mind with this idea, or do they have some whizzbang way to overcome it?Warspite wrote:That is a fucked up design, even the new french stealth frigates are more elegant than that... thing. (And I've seen one up close.)
The bow is totally wrong, modern day ships have evolved from those types of bows for a reason, and that is: (TA DA!) seaworthiness.
Standard bow design allow the water to spread outwards, specially with incoming waves or in rough weather, avoiding unnecessary, and dangerous, taking of water.
Besides the long term corrosion problems, it can damage structures (there have been cases of ships in storms loosing welded capstans (winches for the laymen), and during WWII there was a case of gun barrels bending... but, that's another story), and more importantly, if the water can find its way inside the ship, it can affect the balance of said ship, since it's a unwanted added weight aboard. (Refer to several ferry accidents, for a better explanation.)
The supertructure "seems" a little too tall for my taste, but without the dimensions, it's not possible to say anything else besides, butt-ugly. (In defence, I can say that the height of the superturcture can be off-set by the beam of the vessel, a larger beam lessens capsize tendency, since the ship will be "fatter".)
Stealth in ships are stupid. A certain amount of care can be used in the design and building process, to diminish the radar-reflectivity, and it would be very welcome in prevention of anti-ship missile attacks, specially with the fielding of supersonic missiles. Nevertheless, the very nature of design and construction of marine structures makes this whole exercise silly, the money spent in stealthfying a ship would be better spent somewhere else.
Actually, I haven't the faintest ideia... Some of other concept art has this same type of bow (the carrier concept of the pyramidal type ship). It may be a "flash-show" to impress some congressman/woman in to giving more money to the Navy, look at the attached systems, they all suffer from the same aillments: integrated, advanced... the usual.Vympel wrote: So the reason for the fucked up seaworthiness is stealth? Has the USN lost it's mind with this idea, or do they have some whizzbang way to overcome it?
Vympel wrote:The Extended Range Guided Munition is .... uncertain at this point.Boba Fett wrote:
...and those advanced guns will fire GPS guided ammo!!!
1: It costs $50,000 per round.
2: Very complicated and failure prone due to the high pressures invovled when it is fired from the 'Advanced Gun System'
3: Rounds are falling far short of the program objective of 63 miles.
4: $2 billion wasted on it so far, delivery date extended from 2001 to 2005.
5: Barrel overheats due to the powerful charges involved"the development and testing of an extended-range guided munition for this gun has again been delayed by technical and contractor performance problems, and the achievement of an initial operational capability has slipped by 4 years to fiscal year 2005. Recent flight tests of this munition have achieved some success, but it is still too soon to know if its development will be successful. For example, it is still not certain that the munition can meet range and lethality requirements. Even if this munition is successfully developed, it will not provide the capabilities needed by the Marine Corps."
General Accounting Office Report.
- Assuming the barrel heating problem can be solved, it can only be fired at half the rate of current ballistic rounds because the ERGM missile requires double ramming.
- Since it is twice the length of ballistic rounds, fewer rounds can be carried in each ship's magazine.
- ERGMs are fired at high angles to allow accurate GPS reception, but this hurts responsiveness. The ERGM operational requirement document specifies the need to respond within 10 minutes to a call for fire (i.e., ordnance must be on the target no later than 10 minutes after the FO initiates the call for fire). At maximum range, ERGM flight can be up to 7 minutes, leaving no more than 3 minutes to prosecute a call for fire. By contrast, the Marine Corps requirement for artillery fires responsiveness is 2.5 minutes. This means that Marines 40 miles ashore must wait at least 5 minutes for an ERGM round to impact. A charging horde infantrymen can can cover half a mile in 5 minutes, and vehicles can move miles during that time.
- The ERGM will prove inaccurate in windy conditions because it is designed to explode and release it submuntions 300 meters above earth. The Navy is considering a unitary warhead to compensate for this and provide the ability of penetrate small bunkers. However, a 19lbs warhead doesn't seem worth the effort, which is why ERGM salesmen stick with the 72 submuntions angle.
- The cost of ERGMs have been estimated from $35,000 a round to $60,000, although the Navy uses low-ball estimates based on a screwy "FY9? dollars" formula to confuse people. An expert in a recent article in "National Defense" magazine noted that: "When it comes to cost, ERGM is no different than any other guided munitions program", said Don Kennedy, a warhead designer who worked on the ERGM project during the early stages of the program, when it was managed by Texas Instruments. He added: “Every program I’ve ever worked on starts out as ‘low-cost ammunition,’ and then it turns out to cost 10 times as much.”
Heck- at least *one* battleship would be nice ... the cost is prohibitive though- but hey- when you need 16'', you need 16''.Stormbringer wrote:
So much for the wonders of the advanced gun system. I don't advocate bringing back battleships just for the hell of it but we have no naval gunfire suport. If we do have to storm a beach where the hell is the gun fire support? It doesn't seem like it'll be there.
Yeah.Vympel wrote:Heck- at least *one* battleship would be nice ... the cost is prohibitive though- but hey- when you need 16'', you need 16''.
I know but todays navies seems to favor missiles over guns,and the guns are getting smaller.Stormbringer wrote:Because, for some missions a cruise missle just isn't the right tool for the job. Naval fire support in particular is one of those.Montcalm wrote:Why would they make new battleships when they`re relying on the missiles.
I'm for the battleships, but with air power nowadays, keeping 9x16" just for fire support (excluding cruise missile boxes) is too expensive, the same effect can be achieved by helicopters... Iraq Fredoom is the latest example, with total air dominance, the Marines could afford the Cobras doing multi-passes (in a carrocel (sp?) sort of way) over the objectives.Stormbringer wrote: Yeah.
We need something with a real gun. And so far the Iowas or other big gun type ships seem to be the best option. If they're out of the question we need to build a ship with a real gun not these half ass pop guns.
Hell, a few modern cruiser size ships would be ideal. Give them a decent gunnery armament and load them down with missles. Make them a real cruisers and they'd fit the bill. Less price and more utility than the Iowas but still capable of naval gun fire support. It won't happen until it's too late though.
I guess talk Marina into it when she becomes Emperess.
I'm for the battleships, but with air power nowadays, keeping 9x16" just for fire support (excluding cruise missile boxes) is too expensive, the same effect can be achieved by helicopters... Iraq Fredoom is the latest example, with total air dominance, the Marines could afford the Cobras doing multi-passes (in a carrocel (sp?) sort of way) over the objectives.
No, the old Iowas aren't. What I'm talking about is a cruiser. Essentially a next generation AEGIS platform. A cruiser outfitted with a heavy missle armament and a pair of fairly heavy gun turrets (not Iowa type, more in line with WW2 era cruisers). Capable of providing decent shore supporty fire but also usefull in other roles.If the same purpose can be achieved by more economical platforms (cruisers and destroyers), more versatile systems (helicopters), then the BB's are just not worth it.
Type 45 seems to have a conventional bow as well though none are yet in service.Warspite wrote:Curious, though, the French stealth frigate, has a normal bow... and they are the only ones so far to put the ships in operation.
Imho 2 to 4x16 is a bit practical, through I do favor 10 to 14 in. guns instead.Warspite wrote:
I'm for the battleships, but with air power nowadays, keeping 9x16" just for fire support (excluding cruise missile boxes) is too expensive, the same effect can be achieved by helicopters...
Quit being silly. That's a weird rant sprung out of an awkward leap of logic based on a picture. You have no idea what the engineers put into that thing. What do you want, to review their calcs?The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Unfortunately, it bears a close resemblence to French pre-dreadnought battleships in design. The ones famous for rolling over and sinking after suffering from only a small amount of damage - due to their hull form. Wundar ship here is probably going to have the same problem, especially with that huge superstructure. *shudders* Welcome to the era of the colonial patrol boat with no actual naval combat survivability, USN!Sr.mal wrote:That ship is shaped that way because it is designed to be stealthy to radar.
Not you too? Why do you both give so much weight to the outside appearance and say "Oh gee, we could weight the keel"? You know what would do a better job of keeping it afloat? Proper design in the first place! So why assume that bec it has some superficial resemblance to a dreadnought, it must not be designed correctly? I've never seen any employer so concerned about safety as the military. I have no reason to think that they would float an idea that itself can't float stably. I have better reason to think that they would, however, design something that does work after all. The people who design boats and build them are not like you and I: they, unlike us, are not laymen. They, unlike us, have experience in CFD. They, unlike us, have jobs doing it. And if YOU can tell us abt the French dreadnoughts, then SO CAN THEY. So why, being in your position of not knowing how to design a ship, and of not knowing what goes on in the fleet, do you assume that there must be some fault that only you can rectify?Col. Crackpot wrote:a heavily weighted keel could solve that. it would resist capsizing, and when it did, it could roll much like the coast guard mortor rescue boats, although this is much larger, i'll admit. But, with the minimal crew and minimal exposed structure on the weather deck it is at least feasable....The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Unfortunately, it bears a close resemblence to French pre-dreadnought battleships in design. The ones famous for rolling over and sinking after suffering from only a small amount of damage - due to their hull form. Wundar ship here is probably going to have the same problem, especially with that huge superstructure. *shudders* Welcome to the era of the colonial patrol boat with no actual naval combat survivability, USN!Sr.mal wrote:That ship is shaped that way because it is designed to be stealthy to radar.
For comparison, Bouvet
I understand your point, but with the new doctrines borne out of Iraq Freedom, there will be no need for... heavy fire support.Stormbringer wrote: That's the problem, we're counting on missles and aircraft. Missles have there drawbacks and aren't the best for naval firesupport. And counting on total air dominance is a dumb idea. If we have an opposed landing against a near equal foe it's going to be messy indeed. We don't have the eqipment to make a forced assualt.
)A heavier caliber is not desirable by current day Navy doctrine (there have been voices against the 5 inch turrets already), that role being taken over by missiles. Fire support requires the ship to be close to shore, or in other words, within the striking distance of shore based anti-ship missiles, and that is the problem, missiles can afford a greater range, avoiding the firing ship to be close to land, and diminishing the danger posed by enemy missiles.No, the old Iowas aren't. What I'm talking about is a cruiser. Essentially a next generation AEGIS platform. A cruiser outfitted with a heavy missle armament and a pair of fairly heavy gun turrets (not Iowa type, more in line with WW2 era cruisers). Capable of providing decent shore supporty fire but also usefull in other roles.
I like French predreadnoughts and armored cruisers my self. They look so cool yet sucked so badly...Stormbringer wrote:I miss the battleships. Especially the Iowas, now those were good looking ships.
