Ace-Garageguy Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) Edited January 24, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 24, 2015 Author Posted January 24, 2015 Notice how far out of the water it sits. I would imagine that, as she's just coming out of dry-dock, she's far from complete, is lacking a lot of onboard equipment and systems, and of course fuel and water...all of which will make her ride lower.
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 24, 2015 Author Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) I don't see what is so bad bout it. Boring slab sided. I'm not thinking that styling is #1 in a warship designer's list of priorities. Besides conventional weapons systems, she's rumored to include a rail-gun in her arsenal...which could give her firepower more like a battleship. Edited January 25, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy
Joe Handley Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 I believe they were going for stealth with these ships, low radar cross section does not equal pretty in most cases, especially on something that can be created in a shipyard.
10thumbs Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 Thanks Bill for posting this. One of my favorite topics is US Navy. Guys, rest assured, what you see, is not all that is available. This ships' predecessors are more than able to defeat any old Battleship with a wink of an eye. This is the future. I love the old Battleships from the 40's. Heavy Metal. Bad to the bone in their day. Today, they're obsolete and useless. This ship is badazz. Guaranteed.
Mike_G Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 They're supposed to look like a fishing boat on radar. I was on an old Adams class destroyer in the '70s
Deano Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 Definitely an interesting vessel. Maybe the large tower in the middle is where they house the 'invisibility field generator' ala "The Philadelphia Experiment." THAT would be some cool stealth!
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 25, 2015 Author Posted January 25, 2015 They're buidling them upside down now? Oops...
Greg Myers Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 I would imagine that, as she's just coming out of dry-dock, she's far from complete, is lacking a lot of onboard equipment and systems, and of course fuel and water...all of which will make her ride lower. Although the "waterline" is already on the water.
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 25, 2015 Author Posted January 25, 2015 Although the "waterline" is already on the water. All that broad flat side does kinda make one wonder just how such a low claimed radar profile is achieved. Seems like a big ol' barn door would light up like a big ol' barn door. Definitely an interesting vessel. Maybe the large tower in the middle is where they house the 'invisibility field generator' ala "The Philadelphia Experiment." THAT would be some cool stealth! That must be the answer.
MeatMan Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 Not good news for this boat though. http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/americas-newest-destroyer-is-already-outdated/
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 25, 2015 Author Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) Not good news for this boat though. http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/americas-newest-destroyer-is-already-outdated/ Yes, that doesn't sound all that good. But the role of the Navy in wartime, and the place in it of particular vessels, has been changing and endlessly debated for decades. If she is indeed ultimately intended to be a platform for a rail-gun that can hammer shore positions while standing off 100 miles or so (the 16-inch guns of an Iowa-class battleship had an effective range of around 20 miles), she may yet prove to have a place in combat. Of course, 100 miles isn't really very far if the adversary has fighter-bombers capable of mach+ speeds...or missiles. Remember that fighting vessels of WW II rarely fought alone, and one ship wasn't expected to be able to do everything. I wonder who the theoretical enemy is here. More... http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/capt-kirk-takes-command-of-the-uss-zumwalt/ Edited January 25, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy
MeatMan Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 I'm thinking more rouge nation stuff. Small or no navy. We do have to have the flexibility to fight different kinds of wars. Most of which we can't foresee!
Chuck Most Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Yeah... ship design just ain't what it used to be. Just take a look at Coast Guard cutters. Here's the first Mackinaw, built in the 1940's The new one looks like a salvage barge with some superstructure slapped on...
bismarck Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) I know the shape of the ship is designed to minimize the size of its radar signature, but if its sailing on the open ocean, and its being "painted" by enemy radar, Its going to be the only surface target with any radar echo at all in that particular search area. Unless it could mask itself against a land mass to hide(clutter) its radar echo, it would still be hard to hide. Edited January 27, 2015 by bismarck
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 27, 2015 Author Posted January 27, 2015 There's still ongoing debate about the effectiveness of stealth technology under real-world conditions. One insider critic of current US military aircraft "stealth" claims that, while some planes may have a very small radar signature visible to our own radars, some of the Russian radars (based on slightly different and older technology) can see the things lit up like houses at Christmas. The idea of the angled, slab sides of the ship shown here is to reflect much of the surface radar's signal up somewhat, instead of straight back to the installation. A reduced reflection size translates to the search radar thinking it's seeing a smaller vessel...or so the theory goes. I'm sure this ship also has sophisticated electronic countermeasures that can process an incoming radar signal and send back a falsified reflection, possibly even placing the vessel in a different apparent location.
bismarck Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Even if it could fool radar. I think that thing would stick out like a sore thumb to an orbiting satalite. I'm just looking at it like a potential enemy would. Your searching for potential surface contacts at long range. sat information says you have potential bad guys in long x, lat. X, and to expect contact. You monitor any outgoing and incoming UHF or ULF radio or radar signatures in the search area that may give the target away. They watch for you just like you watch for them. They may use Ultra high freq. burst communications, but they STILL need to communicate, so they still give off some kind of electronic "footprint". I think true Stealth technology is really only possible in smaller ships for quick hit and run tactics. Shoot and scoot missions. Could you see this ship going toe to toe with one of the Russian guided missile cruisers? Reduced radar cross section or not, I think in a true 1 on 1 engagement, it would find itself in trouble pretty quickly. Edited January 27, 2015 by bismarck
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 27, 2015 Author Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Even if it could fool radar. I think that thing would stick out like a sore thumb to an orbiting satalite. I'm just looking at it like a potential enemy would. Your searching for potential surface contacts at long range. sat information says you have potential bad guys in long x, lat. X, and to expect contact. You monitor any outgoing and incoming UHF or ULF radio or radar signatures in the search area that may give the target away. They watch for you just like you watch for them. They may use Ultra high freq. burst communications, but they STILL need to communicate, so they still give off some kind of electronic "footprint". I think true Stealth technology is really only possible in smaller ships for quick hit and run tactics. Shoot and scoot missions. Could you see this ship going toe to toe with one of the Russian guided missile cruisers? Reduced radar cross section or not, I think in a true 1 on 1 engagement, it would find itself in trouble pretty quickly. Agreed entirely. I imagine she'd have a pretty tough time up against a WW II battleship with 16" guns, too. Probably would have a lot to do with who has the fastest-targeting-to firing time, and projectile speed. Survivability with such total dependence on onboard electronic technology and continued ability to fight the ship after taking heavy fire...hmmm. Still seems like a sub is just inherently more "stealthy" by nature, and that money might be better spent developing submersible capabilities than flogging big surface vessels. Whatever, I think she looks pretty cool, and I hope she works as planned. Kinda reminds me of Nemo's Nautilus in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". Edited January 27, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy
bismarck Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) I know when we trained in the field with the tank units in Germany, we were told that the average life expectancy of a tank in battle, even the M-1A2, was about 30 seconds or less depending on how much ground and air support it has. That's pretty sobering. I'll not go into what the life expectancy of a grunt is. I was one!! Edited January 27, 2015 by bismarck
bismarck Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 With the new weapons systems, its digital, where as the older stuff was analogue, newer stuff is faster, its just not as COOL!!!!
dieseldawg142 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) .......... Edited May 11, 2018 by dieseldawg142
bismarck Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Yep. I like the old Battleships and cruisers. They may be obsolete, but to me they had more style. They were still weapons of war, but I think they had more heart and soul to them. I got to see the U.S.S Missouri up close one time when she was still in commission. I couldn't believe the sheer SIZE of that ship!!!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now