Netherscourge
Banned
It's like a sand crawler, but for the ocean.
Damn Jawas stole that Romulan stealth technology!!!! Gandalf is gonna be pissed!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
U.S. Navy's Largest Destroyer Ever Heads Out to Sea for First Time
- Thread starter commedieu
- Start date
- Status
Damn Jawas stole that Romulan stealth technology!!!! Gandalf is gonna be pissed!
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
A bit over 1400 football fields!
Radar what does it mean
CosmicQueso
Member
Oh man.
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
1585 plus change
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Well the Iowa class had 3x the displacement of this ship, was slower, was covered in giant gun turrets and had extensive armouring. This more resembles a heavy cruiser.
LaserBuddha
Member
I love it. I like the minimalist design. It's quite intimidating in the second pic.
Alex Stroud
Banned
Boss as fuck. I hope we're building twenty more like it.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
It should be a crustroyer. Or maybe destruiser.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
That is HUGE to be a destroyer! I don't see any sea-wiz on there? I wonder about its defensive capabilities. I severed on a Destroyer (DD-997) but hell if it looked like this.
There's no good reason why I should be laughing at this and yet here I am.
The Sum of Zero
Member
Found this from a Google Image search. If that's how the guns are concealed, that's pretty boss.
Winterblink
Member
It seriously looks like Nvidia fucked up the US Navy's Geforce Experience profile and left everything on low settings.
Starblazers. spaceship yamato in japan. It was the Argos rival. More modern more automation bigger. 😃
Let's call it a Galleon.
Pocket cruiser.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
That shape is so weird to look at.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I bet someone could try to make an analogy with level of detail and applying it to how stealth works.
I'm partial to Dreadnought!
Or Sloop. It sounds funny.
Krappadizzle
Member
Good on the plank owners of that ship. Standing up a vessel of that size is no easy task. I'm a plank owner on a USCG ship and it was a fuck ton of work getting that thing up and running, at least on the electronic/I.T. side and it was about 150ft. less than this one. . Good job people. I'd love to see some test shoots of its GWS.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
It's not ugly but it does look rather boring to say the least. They better pick a kick-ass castoff song.
I bet it'd be way stealthier if it were like 6 inches across.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
It's a Heavy Pocket Cruistroyer with Sloop Characteristics.
Done.
Done.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Now we just need a badly photoshopped amalgamation of a bunch of images from Wikipedia as a "before" and this new ship as the modern version!
Ingueferroque
Banned
Good to know billions of our tax dollars go to researching/developing/maintaining/staffing this piece of shit.
I love it!
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
As fancy as it looks, any sub can probably sink it easy.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Subs could sink plenty of ships pretty easily on their own. Hence why there are ASW pickets.
Doubt it could survive an asteroid either.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Let's just not build any new ships since they could be sunk.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
Submarines (almost) always win in workups against surface ships. Just the nature of Naval warfare. (But they suck to live on and have no windows)
They absolutely are still relevant.
The world doesn't have shootouts at sea anymore, but long-range capability flexing is more important than ever.
bodyofanamerican
Member
That hull is missing something...
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
It's just not practical to use armour as your primary ship defence, given how powerful missiles and guided bombs are against ships. Guns were outstripped by missiles in naval combat by a huge margin. Aircraft increased in performance massively while ships remained reasonably stagnant.
Shore bombardment doesn't need 12 400mm guns or anything absurd, it can be carried out by much smaller ships. Railgun tech might see "guns" make a small comeback in that sense, but probably more in the heavy-cruiser sense, not full battleships.
The arsenal ship concept was fairly interesting, essentially a massive ship (perhaps battleship sized or bigger) that just carries bajillions of missiles, and a very small crew to man it. Intended to be slaved to a fleet which gives it targets while it basically sits far away lobbing missiles.
Chezzymann
Member
That looks like a modern art musem
Battleships with modern tech would be extremely potent. There have been proposals over the years as the Marines are Pro Battleship and some elements of the Navy have been.
Arsenal Ship was the closest we got to a new Battleship. Was projected to have a 512 cell VLS system in place as well as emplacements for future guns.
Was basically being considered as a way to deliver the pain and be an alternative to a carrier where you may not need a Carrier.
So why does that not exist then? Sounds cool, although I guess you get none of the glory for being a glorified missile platform I guess?
Not any ships, just this one. And I'll add sunk ..By upcoming technology from our biggest 'rivals.'
Personal delusion is: Lets not build this ship because we don't need em and can do plenty of damage on China/russia/anyone else with our existing armament of, but not limited to,Airframes/Submarines/Satellite Weapons/Black Projects/SR72, If it were to ever come to it. Lets not build them because our nation is heavily in debt, is broke, has terrible health care, mortality, education, etc. Its not like we are in a dire situation without this or would be in our lifetime.
Reality is: Since we have to spend more on our military than anyone else in the world because of reasons. Build weapons that take on the future battlefield. I'd much rather see 20 billion + spent on anti-hyper-sonic weapons to protect the nation, and our own Hypersonic weapons, which we are doing with the sr72. No need when our current air-force/navy/black projects strike the fear of god into everyone and then some.
Boat to land/sea combat in 2016 + with a formidable military foe isn't in the cards imo. We steam roll over our Middle East foes with ease, with existing weapons. I mean rail guns and lasers to take out ... syrian rebels.. or isis..? We are suffering little to no losses with our current and near future setups with these skirmishes.
Every time our nation blows an asswad of money, to some, the justification is always some nonsense that isn't going to happen. And even if it did, the f35/this wont really matter much when you've got hypersonic nukes hitting multiple cities. Just billions wasted with little to no return besides the stock holders. Who are we fighting with the latest and greatest technology, that also aren't soon to be hypersonic nuclear powers? The folks we are fighting, we've got them covered with existing military tech a few times over.
I mean its all out of our hands and theres nothing we can do about military spending in America, but thats my 2 cents. Just a shame to see this machine going and going with our taxes and no real significant point that is worth the amount spent. Could probably retrofit/upgrade/maintain our current superior to everyone technology for a decade and be ok.
Navy had two programs going the Arsenal Ship and what would become the Zumwalt Class at the same time and demanded they both be done at the same time. Congress laughed and said too expensive so the Arsenal ship was scrapped and well Zumwalt turned into a massive disaster from its original plan to now 3 testbed ships.
The Navy has been shit at requisition and design for awhile now seems to be the big issue
The CS-21 program that led to zumwalt was supposed to lead to a new cruiser class etc as well. They all got aborted and the Navy in panic has now had to do a redesign of the Arliegh Burkes
ThankYouDaletech
Banned
Nice. Totally gonna sink the entire ISIS fleet with this bad larry.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
It can be sunk by decades old technology too. ASW aircraft fails to pick up an inbound hostile and a submarine slips through. Regular cruise missiles saturate point defence or its sent out on its own for some reason and it gets hit by an ASM. It's not this ship's job to be immune to incoming fire, it wasn't designed to be armored to the point it can resist even regular supersonic anti-shipping weapons (nor can any ship really be effectively armoured to resist sustained incoming fire). It feels like a silly standard to hold new acquisitions to.
Stealth characteristics and the potential to mount improved laser weaponry may make this a far more survivable ship than others, but we can't just say that a ship type is worthless on the ground that it "probably" won't survive hits from weapons we can only speculate about since they've never seen active service before.
If you believe the US military should be designed exclusively around bombing isis and middle eastern countries, that's certainly one opinion you could have. However it is presently geared towards fighting powerful enemy regular armies, be them Chinese, or Russian, or perhaps some day in the distant future Indian or Brazilian or Nigerian or something. "Hypersonic defence" is the same as regular ballistic missile defence, something the US definitely does spend significant sums of money on. I would consider the idea that the US will never again need a first rate fighting force to be extremely premature.
Right now, or tomorrow, conflict with nuclear powers is extremely unlikely. Although the very technologies that this ship is a testbed for - high powered DEW, railguns and the like - are the kinds of technologies that can disrupt the balance of power, especially in a world where we've gone part-way to nuclear disarmament. Maintaining the technological cutting edge has value, and we can't be sure what's going to happen in the mid-future, beyond a decade or two.
I could agree that some projects have been boondoggles, and that there should be overhaul and increased oversight in weapon acquisitions, cost overruns and so on. But I'm also a pretty big supporter of "out there" high tech projects as drivers of development.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked