Shipbucket

Impossibilities? hardly. I just lack the ability to draw them correctly.

Of course the problem is, is that you don't know what you're talking about. A crippling handicap in this instance to be sure. Bombardment, only has value in proportion to the number of targets, and the ranges involved. So if all your targets are within range, it makes a lot more sense.

Afterall, a lot of missions are bombardment to some extent or another. A bomber dropping bombs is just a different application of said bombardment. It all hinges on how you want to deliver said bombardment and how far away the target is.

As for saving money, it all depends on how much you want to save, and how you want to save it.

The Colonel's thesis is more than enough credibility for me to produce such a design.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA481976

So whats flawed here is your way of thinking. Besides, you have to build a platform to launch those cruise missiles. Yet another flaw in your logic.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

Not really. It would produce a minute difference. Especially since all stealth technology hinges on properly curved surfaces. This is no different.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

The problem is you're assuming there will be high value targets in the future, which with the current warfare is a doubtful proposition. We already have the platforms for the cruise missiles. You would need to have almost a hundred meters beam, possible but not a good idea. You don't have room behind the plates for many of your phased array radars. Besides that, no reactor in the world would power that many expensive, delicate and heavy radars for very long. Your turrets are geometrically impossible, regaurdless of where you took them from. And that raises the question, where do the guns come from? We have no infrastructure for heavy naval artillery, nobody does.

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.

Really, even for Nationstates I'd prefer missiles or a smaller gun every day. Come to think of that, in NS I use thermobaric warheads on (much smaller) artillery platforms. Should be pretty much the kind of firepower you are aiming for, albeit a tad more expensive (Still much less expensive then a ship like this.) I don't know about feasability IRL however.

But in short, spare the expense. Go for a real ship, not an uber-arsenal ship with Kirovitis. A ship that is really just for shore bombardment should only have a few guns, and maybe some cruise missiles; that would be closer to a frigate.

_________________
You can call me Andy.

It is mainly for psychological warfare as a bigger ship looks harder to kill and the more and bigger guns you have the more you can scare and kill.

Not really. There's no case in recorded history where someone surrendered because of naval gunfire alone.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

You really are thick aren't you?

You totally missed my point, and worse, you didn't have the slightest clue that you missed it. It is as if you threw up a wall and anything that you didn't agree with got blocked by the wall.
Other than playing a few games (and GCB is used more than Harpoon 3 is) what are your credentials young Miss? I haven't seen you put any forward.
The USN is building three Zumwalts, and after that they are moving back to a regular design. What does that say about the hull form little Miss? Why was the hull form rejected for CG(X)?
Are you saying that the government hasn't spend billions on boondoggles before?
Why don't you try again, after all that's the only way to get better.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

No, you just never had a point.

But of course, you think you do.

Shooting it dry is one type of saturation, true. But the AEGIS system can only engage so many targets at a single time. And with super-sonic missiles, reaction time can in some cases be thirty seconds or less. This can be further complicated if the incoming missiles are approaching from different vectors. In Harpoon 3, this is where the AEGIS system begins to reach it's stressing point. And I have defeated the system through similar tactics applied in varying ways, but ultimately using similar approaches. Yes, this is of course...Harpoon 3. But, it's as close as we can get to understanding the vulnerabilities of the system without access to classified information.

http://wiki.computerharpoon.com/index.p ... stem_in_H3

Harpoon 3 is about as close as we can get to understand the AEGIS system using civilian information.

Like I said, you think you had a point.
So you do acknowledge that Harpoon 3 is used for that purpose. Thank you. Thanks for validating that for me.

&

What are your credentials for making you an expert on naval warfare? Being an engineer in training is great. Kudos to you for studying hard to become that. But that puts you no position as an expert on naval warfare. Sorry.
lol. trying to be snide? Realllllllllly? I stand mollified.

And they are building 1 more over the original 2 they had planned. I'd say that says quite a lot about a ship that was curved to make room for ships that have a higher priority for procurement. So Tim, that says absolutely nothing about the hull form. Especially since the DD(X) isn't intended (nor was it ever really) to replace the Arleigh Burke class.

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"

I'm not sure about using a game to prove a point. May I pull up Civilization 3, and watch as a spearman defeats a tank?

_________________
Probably posting from and iPhone and naval terms befuddle it. If I say a ships' hill, you know what I meant.

the aegis system can track 40 targets at the same time, IIRC. let's say half of that. 64+32 cells on an burke. that means you have 96 missiles at least, of which... well, let's say, 40 are air defence. in those 30 seconds of yours, you have to fire 20 or more anti-ship missiles. that means 10 aircraft or 5 FAC's firing AT THE SAME MOMENT to defeat ONE ship. and even then, we have CIWS, which can take out about 5 remaining missiles......

yeah, you maybe can do that in an game. or the ruskies could do that in the cold war. but in modern warfare? I don't think so.

and: you ignored this part, he did not only talk about the zumwalts.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin