Comments on: Cool Ship; What’s it for, Again?

By: runningbot

runningbot — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:31:45 +0000

Railguns are probably a more worth while alternative to SS lasers. With a satellite mounted railgun you could send a volley of several, satellite guided, shells at the target increasing your chance of hitting it.

By: Wahsayah

Wahsayah — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:32:07 +0000

Actually these ships are supposed to replace two Iowa class Battleships, which is in my mind, utterly stupid since these thigns only shoot off a 24pound bursting charge and the iowa’s shoot 16in projectiles that weigh 2240pounds to 2700pounds, and a 2700 pound shell would rip a modern destroyer in half! Now for the ammunition for the battleships is senseless in arguing since newer projectiles could be purchased for the battleship today like Ramjet projectiles which have been successfully tested at 100nm (nautical miles). which the advanced gun system these idiots are making can only reach at 59 nautical miles, and at the same time lacks sheer firepower. so if these 4–6 ships are supposed to replace two battleships, and a whole classes of destroyers, just what the hell are we doing in this world!, and simply since when does a battleship get replaced by something that is littorally 10x weaker than itself and unable to take a hit even from a single 5in shell without getting injured let alone cripped! and a battleships can do everything that destroyers and cruisers can do but on a larger scale, so just what the hell is going on?

By: ArmyGUNZ27

ArmyGUNZ27 — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:50:21 +0000

Why the hell do we need a stealth ship? If it’s radar signature is the size of a fishng boat, an advanced antiship missile can still take it out. More tax dollars goin to waste…

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:39:27 +0000

The LCS and DD(X) cannot be compared at all. They focus on two different jobs. The LCS will operate in squadrons of say 3 ships and assist tactical operations in LITTORAL!!! areas. It can switch mission packages to deal with any tactical threat. The DD(X) will operate in a more strategic sense. It will be constantly cruising around waiting until it is needed. It will operate as a deterrent force and will be able to close in and support shore operations from over the horizon while remaining stealthy. It will sorta be like the boomers. The threat of one can deter attacks and since it is stealthy you don’t always know where it is. Unlike the boomers it is very flexible and can take out most feasible threats (feasable as in physical attacks like missiles not the political environment). When operating as part of a carrier battle group it will destroy surface threats and subs while the CG(X) covers air defense. Meanwhile the carrier sends out its super hornets and JSFs and beats the living s*** out of the enemy whoever they are. As you hopefully see neither the LCS nor the DD(X) can fulfill the others role. This is how I see the roles of the two ships. Just my 2 cents thanks for reading.

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:33:46 +0000

Crazy. 3 billion dollars on a very limited ship class. We need to reactivate and modernize the Iowa class, all FOUR of them if possible. Mount 2 61 cell clusters of MK41 VLS (122 cells) Take off the 5/38s and replace them with the newer, lower manpower 5/62s. 4 of the latest block of CIWS. Do some smart ship planning to remove unnescessary crews in engineering and you will still be under 3 billion dollars for a robust, all-weather attack surface platform for the 21st century. One that does have to fear minefields or torpedoes ( not SAYING they wont hurt it, just saying that they are far more resistant to the magic BB affect of a cheap easy mission kill from one ) A ship that can get in close, take some damage if nescessary, complete its mission and get back out again, without risking expensive ($300 million per copy) next generation attack aircraft, ala F35 Lightning 2. The loss of just 4 aircraft would probably pay for 1 ship! These ships can show the flag ( and how! ) perform NGFS ( and how! ) and some CVN roles. Absolutly true that they need escorts, but so do CVNs. ALl of the capital ships from the beginnings of the steel navy needed escorts and IOWAs wont be any different. But at about 1100 crew per ship versus 5000+ on a CVN, there is your manning savings right there. Give it an escort of a CG47 Tico, and 2 flight II DDG51 Burkes and thats about all it would need. It carries enough bunkerage to act as its own tanker, so it can spend and extended amount of time in the upper Persian Gulf, refueling its escorts as needed. It also has extensive repair shops so it doesnt need a forward-deployed tender.
SO what you have is a fast ( 32+ knot ) capital ship, that can deliver round-the-clock ordanance, that cannot be jammed or decoyed. Deliver Tomahawk, Harpoon and possibly RAM and Seasparrow through VLS. ( I couldnt see why not Standard MR through link 16 ) A self-sufficant, floating armory which is also a tanker. So many roles in a combined platform. The navy has never been accused of being completely smart! It just want to get rid of the competition for the DD21 and nextgen CVN.

By: William O'Connor

William O'Connor — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:42:39 +0000

Two Zumwalt class destroyers have been funded. It appears they are intended to protect oil tanker shipping in the Persian Gulf from the possibility of an Iranian blockade in the future. There is a real possibility of war between Iran and Israel at some point, given that both are nuclear powers or soon to be (Iran will have nuclear weapons in less than five years, and Israel has had nuclear weapons for many years). The United States will most probably be drawn into that conflict at some point. Destroyers would be the most effective craft in such a conflict to keep the Persian Gulf sealanes open for traffic.

By: rich

rich — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:09:34 +0000

I think the DD(X) is designed to counter the emerging threats of the 21st century. The LCS is geared more towards the war on terror with its ability to operate in shallow waters and close to land. To me DD(X) and LCS are apples and oranges. The DD(X) can deliver far more firepower. The DD(X) perhaps is better suited to take on nations like China or North Korea. Wars are no longer won in sheer quantity of forces. 30 LCS does not equal 5 DD(X) if the capabilities and technology are different. Putting AGS on an outdated hull is too much of a compromise because it would not have the stealthy technology. What good is the AGS if it can easily be blown out of the water? The Chinese and Russians are ahead in missile technology. Their radar guided sunburn missile which travels at very high speed can defeat our current shipboard missile defense systems. I would rather see a balanced navy which has ships capable of dealing with threats such as this. I would rather we spend the money on programs such as DD(X) and be prepared for the emerging threats than not spend it or make too many compromises along the way and not have the technology available when it is needed. Just because the war on terror is the primary focus today does not mean it will be in a few years or decades away. Conflict is avoided by having the best technology available. DD(X) will put us at the forefront of naval design.

By: OhYeah123

OhYeah123 — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:30:03 +0000

I worked for the company that has been selected to suppy the ships electric power & propulsion plant. I can say first hand that the prime contractor has definitley got a long way to go in developing specifications and requirements that are:
1)understandable
2)implementable
3)cost effective
At this stage we are looking at a “Charlie-Foxtrot’ waiting to be funded. Do we really need this thing?

By: Milguy

Milguy — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:42:19 +0000

Are the DD(X) and other advanced weapon systems we(America) are building similar to systems developed by the Germans during WWII? (Tiger II and ME262 come to mind)
Seems to me most wars are won with “average” equipment in massive qty and very good training.
I would love to see us have the F-22, JSF and DD(X) for example, but I’d hate to see us win battles but loose the war(?). Also, how does this type of equipment apply to the terror front as well?

By: Tom L

Tom L — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:31:39 +0000

There seems to be some question on necessity of advanced aircraft. In any conflict, if you do not have air superiority, you have lost the war. This has been the case since the airplane has been invented. In the latest insurgencies in Iraq, some of the latest technology is closer to the ground, that is the street light cameras, imported from Chicago gang land. Do you think all the capacities of this new ship or any weapon are non-classified? The US military would be fools if they used the any more capability of any weapon if it does not have to. “Look at what I got” please…