|
iyaayas01 posted:They better stick to this. There should always be a Lexington, Saratoga, and Yorktown in commission along with a Big E. A Midway wouldn't hurt either. EDIT: Though I suppose you'd have to be careful about people trying to backdoor poo poo like "Mt. Nathan Bedford Forrest" Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Nov 12, 2013 |
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:How could anybody seriously believe there was a "gap" of any kind of ship with the USSR? Didn't the USSR only start really building a navy in the late Brezhnev era? You cannot reduce DoD funding! You will regret this!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Could someone briefly explain what the gently caress the point of the Zumwalt is? It seems like it doesn't really fill any gaping hole in the surface fleet right now other than a big expensive technology demonstrator. Sure, the potential for electromagnetic weapon systems is cool as hell, but did we really need to build a new class of vessels before we even know the final power requirements of said weapons? And how effective are stealth materials on a ship going to be when, unless I'm mistaken, 99% of it's cruises are going to be hanging out with the big and decidedly unstealthy CVNs It just seems like a giant case of counting your chickens before they hatch. But not quite LCS levels of bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Munnin The Crab posted:Could someone briefly explain what the gently caress the point of the Zumwalt is? Keeping shipyards in business, the technology-testbed stuff is just a side effect. It started out as a pretty ambitious program with 32 ships built around new gun and an all-electric drive and a permanent-magnet electric drive system and a fancy new search radar but it just kept getting cut and cut and cut. So now you have just two being built at Ingalls and a third at Bath and that's pretty much just to keep shipbuilding capacity going, not for any real objective need for what the yards are putting out. We'd be better off with the same amount of money being spent on more Burkes. quote:And how effective are stealth materials on a ship going to be when, unless I'm mistaken, 99% of it's cruises are going to be hanging out with the big and decidedly unstealthy CVNs That's actually pretty handy, at least theoretically. Keep it out there as a picket, when the bombers or missile boats come looking for your carrier they don't see you, then you shoot them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:As a regional force that could gently caress poo poo up in the Baltic or pose a local threat on their Pacific coast? gently caress, they had that poo poo under the Tsars. The Tsarist Baltic fleet was never something to completely ignore and they had a pretty credible Pacific squadron out around Vladivostok. They weren't going to challenge the Royal Navy or anything, but on paper they were certainly a match for the US, Japanese, and German navies of the late 19th/early 20th C. The Russian Baltic fleet has pretty much been the Swedish arch-nemesis since they plundered the Swedish east coast in 1719. That right there basically marks the end of the time of Sweden as big player in Europe. Later on the same fleet (and its Polish and East German partners in crime) would be the reason the strike part of the Swedish air force was so focused on ASM's and anti-ship operations in general and so indifferent to CAS operations. If you discount German radio-controlled glide bombs in WW2, the two first air-launched ASM's west of the iron curtain were Swedish (rb 04, 1962) and Norwegian (Penguin, 1971) respectively, just because of the Soviet amphibious bogeyman. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Cross post from AI... Back in the '80s the T-Birds conducted an exercise to validate the requirement that their aircraft be combat ready in under 72 hrs. They met the requirement:   Story here. Make sure to check out page two, where the OP posts a bunch more pictures. The jet proceeded to fly a sortie on the Nellis range where it expended a full load of 20mm and all 6 Mk 82 snakeyes. \/ You say it like it's a bad thing \/ iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Grand Teton; all good, solid names. You do realize Grad Teton is french for Giant Tit, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:You do realize Grad Teton is french for Giant Tit, right? What's more American than big ol' titties?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:You do realize Grad Teton is french for Giant Tit, right? In light of this, I demand that any US vessel named thusly be named after the range, and not just one mountain, IE: USS Grand Tetons. Take that, France. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
USS Big ol' Titties has a nice ring to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:USS Big ol' Titties has a nice ring to it. This has to be done because I desperately want to hear a typical narrator voice using it repeatedly in a History Channel show. "Big ol' Titties is like a floating city." "Using lessons learned from the USS Cole, Big ol' Titties is less vulnerable to terrorist attack." "With its array of high tech defenses, the sailors in the CIC say there's no safer place to be than deep in the center of Big 'ol Titties."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
I want to see what the patch for that ship would look like
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:This has to be done because I desperately want to hear a typical narrator voice using it repeatedly in a History Channel show. "Due to the positive buoyancy of all of her major structural components, her engineers claim that Big 'ol Tittles could remain afloat after even the most catastrophic damage, up to and including having her keel split." "With technology-aided efficiencies and state of the art point defenses, Big 'Ol Titties has enough extra space to transport and supply just shy of a brigade of Marines, itty bitty titty brigade  , further enhancing her already impressive mission profile"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
"In this picture we can see Big Ol Titties putting to sea for her maiden voyage. Proud white seamen all over her."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
"In this next photo, Michelle Obama has just doused the Big Ol Titties in champagne, Barack is standing just behind her, with a broad smile on his face."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Munnin The Crab posted:Could someone briefly explain what the gently caress the point of the Zumwalt is? It seems like it doesn't really fill any gaping hole in the surface fleet right now other than a big expensive technology demonstrator. Sure, the potential for electromagnetic weapon systems is cool as hell, but did we really need to build a new class of vessels before we even know the final power requirements of said weapons? And how effective are stealth materials on a ship going to be when, unless I'm mistaken, 99% of it's cruises are going to be hanging out with the big and decidedly unstealthy CVNs So, yeah, at this point it's pretty much just a technology demonstrator. If the concepts work out, we might use them in the actual new class of next-gen destroyers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
grover posted:it ended up becoming a giant bloated waste of money that even *I* think was a mistake to fund. I believe the only correct response to this is:  edit: Are there any concepts/bids out there for a next-gen destroyer if the Zumwalt doesn't get a full production run? Hell we're already looking at '6th gen figthers' Diabeesting fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Well, we're looking at 6th gen fighters because the R&D and procurement timetable means they'll probably start flight testing in about 25 years. Given the drastically cut F-22 buy, the AF doesn't have a loving choice. The F-15s that'll still be first-wave fighters will be as old as the B-52 fleet now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Munnin The Crab posted:I believe the only correct response to this is: As silly as it sounds, the core design of the F-22 is nearly 30 years old at this point. YF-22 and YF-23 faced off in the mid-80s. F-22 is supposed to be the "best" fighter until the 2030s, so at a similar development/deployment rate we are already 5-10 years behind schedule
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Really I think the next carriers should be the Yorktown, Lexington, Saratoga, Marc Mitscher, Frank J. Fletcher, and William F. Halsey. Also we need a new USS United States since Harry Truman can't gently caress it up a third time.
Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Really I think the next carriers should be the Yorktown, Lexington, Saratoga, Marc Mitscher, Frank J. Fletcher, and William F. Halsey. Also we need a new USS United States since Harry Truman can't gently caress it up a third time. I wonder if the SecNav who changed the latest USS United States to the Harry S. Truman felt a tremendous wave of irony as he did so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:When, exactly, did we transition over to politicians etc. as ship names for major builds? The pattern during WW2 as I always understood it was: I can add one class of ship to this list thanks to my Grandpa, who was in the Navy during WWII and Korea. Ammunition ships were named after volcanoes during WWII to the best of his knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:After WW2 you're in a whole new world as far as naval power goes, and the USSR went in a largely different direction than massive blue water surface navies as far as their ability to project force over distance. Still, their Baltic fleet was nothing to gently caress with even by the end of WW2. Their submarine arm in particular was making poo poo pretty uncomfortable for the German transports that were running around the Baltic. Their Black Sea fleet was also a pretty credible regional force that you couldn't simply ignore if you were going to do operations in the eastern med. In the imaginable '50s-'60s WWIII scenario, the major naval conflict would be over moving flotillas of reinforcements eastward across the Atlantic. The Soviets focused mostly on submarines, as submarines excel in denial of sea lane access. The US largely focused on carriers, because carriers excel at opening up sea lane access. This largely paralleled the Axis / Allied stance on the same issue in the previous war. SOSUS gets up and running and a few other developments occur (and as WWIII scenarios increasingly leaned towards 'none of this matters, the missiles will fly immediately') this became less focused but still essentially true. This also went with the Soviet strategy of having way, way, way more anti-ship missile launching platforms, from rinkydink patrol boats to full-on battlecruisers; less interest in holding sea space, more interest in denying it, not like they needed to move anything big through it anyway. The Soviet Med fleet was nothing to sneeze at and again was focussed on denying sea lanes for moving NATO troops around with any kind of ease.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Munnin The Crab posted:Hell we're already looking at '6th gen figthers' Actually we're already looking at 8th gen fighters. 6th Gen is projected as the final "one man one ship" design, net centric, better man-machine interface, etc; 7th Gen is projected as either the first true UCAVs and/or a mothership/babyship type concept, 8th Gen is where UCAVs are fully developed and fully replace manned aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Actually we're already looking at 8th gen fighters. 6th Gen is projected as the final "one man one ship" design, net centric, better man-machine interface, etc; 7th Gen is projected as either the first true UCAVs and/or a mothership/babyship type concept, 8th Gen is where UCAVs are fully developed and fully replace manned aircraft. See I'm having a hard time with UCAVS and unmanned Aircraft. The first strike in a nextgen war will obviously be to gain the high ground, space. With the elimination of satellites how are we going to control our unmanned vehicles or are they planning them being completely autonomous skynet AI?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:See I'm having a hard time with UCAVS and unmanned Aircraft. The first strike in a nextgen war will obviously be to gain the high ground, space. With the elimination of satellites how are we going to control our unmanned vehicles or are they planning them being completely autonomous skynet AI? Well, I'm not sure you can make the assumptions 1) that satellites will be a primary target, and 2) that satellites will be easily or assuredly eliminated (really, the far more effective counter is atmospheric RF jamming of satellite signals). That being said I'm not aware of any plans to make UCAVs satellite-only, atmospheric RF may wind up being the first choice anyway due to latency and bandwidth requirements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:With Cruisers everything got screwed up in the '70s with the "cruiser gap" redesignation. The tl;dr version is that the USN was stupid and from the '60s into the '70s were designating vessels that were by any stretch of the imagination cruisers as "destroyer leaders" or "frigates." This led to a non-existent "cruiser gap" with the Soviets that was closed in 1975 with a redesignation...the "destroyer leaders" that were all named after famous Naval officers (because they were "destroyers") now all became "cruisers." There were also some nuke powered "destroyer leaders"/"cruisers" that were given state names during this time period because as nuclear powered vessels they were supposed to super powerful (hence the use of a state name). This clusterfuck is still affecting us today because the Ticonderoga class cruisers (named after famous battles ) were originally supposed to be destroyers (don't ask me why they changed the naming convention from famous naval personnel)...this class was redesignated as cruisers because of the same thought process. The Ticonderoga was the result of the earlier CSGN mess. This was going to be 17000+ tons, have 120+ missiles, and be ruinously expensive. When this idea inevitably went up in smoke, the next revision involved redoing the nuclear Virginia class cruisers with the nascent Aegis system. Still ended up insanely expensive. The backup plan to the backup plan involved slapping a huge awkward superstructure onto a conventionally powered Spruance destroyer hull in order to fit the Aegis arrays, with half the displacement, and calling it a cruiser basically to hide the massive (but necessary) downsizing of the program. The general rule, kinda sorta, was that frigates were for hunting subs (and independent steaming), destroyers were for anti-air picket (especially once the surface torpedo destroyer role vanished,) and cruisers were for hard hitting enemy surface ships and shore targets. The Tico were arguably designed and best equipped for the anti-air role. Really though the 'cruiser' name over a destroyer was as much about displacement / armor plate as it was about cannon caliber, and once those became irrelevant for surface attack the distinctions faded into mist. Munnin The Crab posted:Could someone briefly explain what the gently caress the point of the Zumwalt is? It seems like it doesn't really fill any gaping hole in the surface fleet right now other than a big expensive technology demonstrator. Sure, the potential for electromagnetic weapon systems is cool as hell, but did we really need to build a new class of vessels before we even know the final power requirements of said weapons? And how effective are stealth materials on a ship going to be when, unless I'm mistaken, 99% of it's cruises are going to be hanging out with the big and decidedly unstealthy CVNs The Zumwalt goes back to that idea of cruisers being for naval artillery support of marine landings, which we do have a gaping hole for, if you believe this will ever happen ever. That's a mix of the weirdness in Congress that reactivated the Iowa class more than once, and the '00s thinking that anything that wasn't tied to groundpounders sticking it to insurgents didn't deserve a dime of defense money. Again, for this (rather questionable) role you need strong defenses and a long-reaching and powerful cannon. The railgun gives the punch and the idea was that stealth would substitute for armor plate. Its air defense capabilities are kind of poor, as it doesn't have Aegis or SM-2/SM-3/SM-6, so it's really not meant to escort carriers; rather, it's supposed to back up San Antonio LPDs, which also are supposed to be stealthy for their class. It's that lack of even current-gen anti-air that kills the class and makes calling it a destroyer extra silly. It's kind of like the F-22 coming online without being able to fire the AIM-9X, but that was far more easily resolveable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
They have the VL tubes, so the decision to not include the appropriate SM support in the software suite is just straight retardation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Ehhh it can still carry up to 320 ESSMs, which are more missiles than most navies can carry in total. Range would be a bit of an issue though, and I can't imagine the FCS could keep up with that many.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
grover posted:...and it ended up becoming a giant bloated waste of money that even *I* think was a mistake to fund.  You need to write a list of US defense projects that end with that sentence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Well, I'm not sure you can make the assumptions 1) that satellites will be a primary target, and 2) that satellites will be easily or assuredly eliminated (really, the far more effective counter is atmospheric RF jamming of satellite signals). That being said I'm not aware of any plans to make UCAVs satellite-only, atmospheric RF may wind up being the first choice anyway due to latency and bandwidth requirements. Isn't RF even easier to block. I'm thinking about an opponent as advanced as the US in this hypothetical. We have home built cell phone blockers now. Anyway. I don't want to turn this into a whatif. It just had me thinking the last few days or maybe I just would feel lost without Maverick in the cockpit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Range would be a bit of an issue though, and I can't imagine the FCS could keep up with that many.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
He just did 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:He just did
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:See I'm having a hard time with UCAVS and unmanned Aircraft. The first strike in a nextgen war will obviously be to gain the high ground, space. With the elimination of satellites how are we going to control our unmanned vehicles or are they planning them being completely autonomous skynet AI? The thing about anti satellite missiles is absolutely nobody wants to start using them because the ensuing debris field would gently caress up launches and orbits for years to come. There's a lot of military communications and spy satellites up there to be taken out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 11:24
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The thing about anti satellite missiles is absolutely nobody wants to start using them because the ensuing debris field would gently caress up launches and orbits for years to come. There's a lot of military communications and spy satellites up there to be taken out. Yeh. I don't pretend to know how feasible that actually is but it is a pretty scary thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
I think in a shooting war of that scale the concerns of space debris interfering with future launches would not be significant. Satellite monitoring is a key component of determining enemy nuclear posture and detecting launches. Taking out certain satellites could be seen as an indicator of an imminent first strike and might encourage a pre-emptive response. At this point all of the countries with viable ASAT programs are also in the MAD club, and would be very careful to avoid anything that might slippery-slope inadvertently into hot nuke war. If and when countries outside that club get functioning sat-zorching capabilities that status quo would likely change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:I want to see what the patch for that ship would look like Different type of vehicle but related subject:   Munnin The Crab posted:edit: Are there any concepts/bids out there for a next-gen destroyer if the Zumwalt doesn't get a full production run? Flight IV Arleigh Burkes. Vincent Van Goatse posted:Really I think the next carriers should be the Yorktown, Lexington, Saratoga, Marc Mitscher, Frank J. Fletcher, and William F. Halsey. Also we need a new USS United States since Harry Truman can't gently caress it up a third time. Don't forget the Clifton Sprague.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
ahahahahahahah
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
The GiP pics thread pointed out that they already name ammunition ships after mountains. Specifically, volcanoes.Ron Jeremy posted:[that] is some black rear end poo poo (humor).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 01:37
|
|