ORIGINAL: zuluhour
It reminds me more of the Merrimack.
Yes, that would be the Virginia to you.
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: zuluhour
It reminds me more of the Merrimack.
ORIGINAL: dr.hal
It brings one back to the days of ram bows at the turn of the last century.
ORIGINAL: Mundy
I notice the crew carried is about half that of the preceding Burke class DDGs.
I truly worry about the damage control abilities when they start cutting bodies like that.
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Mundy
I notice the crew carried is about half that of the preceding Burke class DDGs.
I truly worry about the damage control abilities when they start cutting bodies like that.
It's been discussed for decades. Not only DC but also battlestations fatigue, cleaning and preservation, food service, etc. But the life-cycle cost of the crew far exceeds the procurement cost of the ship. Over 1/8 of the DoD budget is now health-care costs for example. Getting crew sizes down is not optional.
ORIGINAL: Dili
I think submersibles are the solution for now. No need to go deep, 50m is maybe enough, but air and sea surface is very unhealthy.
Elmo Zumwalt was a transitional figure. Few men have brought as much change to the USN as he. Change almost always begets controversy. He certainly did. Those of us that served through the period of his stewardship can tell many stories , and share many experiences. He saw the end of many WW2 practices , and ships. Even more dramatic was he served during the transition from a Draftee based service to a all volunteer service. Yes the USN rarely has drafted people , if was heavily influenced by the draft. Some fine sailors volunteered for the Navy to avoid the Army , especially during Vietnam. Zumwalt served in a period of great austerity and extreme personnel shortages. He tried to bridge the gap between officer and enlisted (it's said that it was unfortunate that he didn't ask the enlisted). Shortly before his death I got to ask him a few questions and touched on this, particularly the retirement of the beloved "Cracker Jacks". "What were you thinking?" He shrugged and looked down , sheepishly grinning and said "I thought I was doing the right thing. Everybody makes mistakes. I really SHOULD have asked them (the enlisted sailors)".ORIGINAL: Jellicoe
For the ex USN types here. I have seen posts on various fora where the name Zumwalt produces various levels of apoplexy and ire amongst posters.
Never really been able to work out why?
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Dili
I think submersibles are the solution for now. No need to go deep, 50m is maybe enough, but air and sea surface is very unhealthy.
Never happen. Submerging to any depth is 10x as hard as floating. Most of your effort is just keeping the sea from killing you; the enemy is secondary afterwards. Going deep is actually pretty easy after you dive at all. Hardened systems are much less of an engineering challenge than the dive itself. And weapon deployment is very difficult through a pressure hull, as are ordnance volumes.
Subs, even unmanned subs, will be part of the mix, but not the core. Nobody has that kind of money.
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Dili
I think submersibles are the solution for now. No need to go deep, 50m is maybe enough, but air and sea surface is very unhealthy.
Never happen. Submerging to any depth is 10x as hard as floating. Most of your effort is just keeping the sea from killing you; the enemy is secondary afterwards. Going deep is actually pretty easy after you dive at all. Hardened systems are much less of an engineering challenge than the dive itself. And weapon deployment is very difficult through a pressure hull, as are ordnance volumes.
Subs, even unmanned subs, will be part of the mix, but not the core. Nobody has that kind of money.
This actually in part answers my unasked question because I thought along the same lines as Dili.
But I still wonder if the effort to hide that ship from radar is worth the cost in seaworthiness and internal spaces. Also that thing truly looks like a bitch to handle in heavy seas (probably a non-issue with modern steering aids, but still).
What exactly IS the advantage of such a vessle that cannot be handled by either a submarine (stealth) or a more conventional ship design (show flag and sea(lane) control)?
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Dili
I think submersibles are the solution for now. No need to go deep, 50m is maybe enough, but air and sea surface is very unhealthy.
Never happen. Submerging to any depth is 10x as hard as floating. Most of your effort is just keeping the sea from killing you; the enemy is secondary afterwards. Going deep is actually pretty easy after you dive at all. Hardened systems are much less of an engineering challenge than the dive itself. And weapon deployment is very difficult through a pressure hull, as are ordnance volumes.
Subs, even unmanned subs, will be part of the mix, but not the core. Nobody has that kind of money.
This actually in part answers my unasked question because I thought along the same lines as Dili.
But I still wonder if the effort to hide that ship from radar is worth the cost in seaworthiness and internal spaces. Also that thing truly looks like a bitch to handle in heavy seas (probably a non-issue with modern steering aids, but still).
What exactly IS the advantage of such a vessle that cannot be handled by either a submarine (stealth) or a more conventional ship design (show flag and sea(lane) control)?
ORIGINAL: Dili
SSGN is a move to under the sea level.
In WW2 several countries had or were in way to have at least 100 combat submarines (on top of my head: US, UK, Germany, USSR, Japan ,Italy), and now we are several times more rich. Besides the whole anti air capabilities don't need to be so expensive in a submersible.
Btw AW1Steve interesting idea that ship.