CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
- Jun 3, 2011
- Reaction score
They don't exactly have the best track record there. They ditched the X-47B like it had ebola and every day it's more obvious that was a bad decision.Hood said:The emphasis on emerging technologies that might be the next hottest thing the Pentagon wants to play with is getting the USN nowhere. DD(X) was meant to be the future, based on all the technical goodies the USN wanted.
-- Clarence L. JohnsonStarve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy.
fredymac said:The question for those in the decision making process is whether this is 1939 again and you are reviewing the build plans for the Yamato. I haven't heard of any fleet exercise tests similar to the ones that forewarned the switch to carriers but I assume they run simulations on these things.
China doesn't seem to share that opinion. They now have 4 Type 055s in the water with more building.DrRansom said:fredymac said:The question for those in the decision making process is whether this is 1939 again and you are reviewing the build plans for the Yamato. I haven't heard of any fleet exercise tests similar to the ones that forewarned the switch to carriers but I assume they run simulations on these things.
I think that this is the major question. Based on the recent Breaking Defense article about wargames, something about the recent precision combat wargames has put the fear of God into all branches of the military. I half wonder if they find that their major ships have unacceptably short life-spans in a major conflict. In which case, they would represent a major resource sink without the corresponding military effectiveness.
Retiring the old Ticonderoga cruisers fits into that mold. Maybe they're too expensive to run and not effective enough when missiles start flying.
If you play CMANO, it is probably more accurate than RAND simulations in detail. That being said, we don't have proof that the RAND simulation is bad.marauder2048 said:I've played more realistic games of Battletech than what recently passes for wargaming at RAND.
That's the interesting question, we see opposite responses to probably the same analysis. Though the Chinese can build ships much faster and cheaper than the US..sferrin said:China doesn't seem to share that opinion. They now have 4 Type 055s in the water with more building.
If it were any good they would have fully documented it as they claimed they would. That was three years ago.DrRansom said:
I don't think it will generate that but in the end you have to fund it and make it fit in future budgets at a time you are also going to be building FFGXs, DDG-51 IIIs, and buying or developing Columbia class submarines while trying to squeeze out more SSNs because the Navy is far from meeting its attack submarine needs. while also somehow trying to transform the naval aviation elements to 5th and 6th generation I wouldn't mind the push from late FY23 to FY25 as long as they present a plan and schedule with a clear idea of how they'll fund the class and fit it into all the other priorities they have. It would be highly dissapointing to see a future cruiser turn into the Navy's next gen fighter platform where the rhetoric (CNO - field NGF by 2030) is inconsistent with the reality (abysmal funding over the FYDP)...Colonial-Marine said:Considering what we invest in 90,000 ton nuclear powered carriers I don't think a large cruiser, perhaps even 20,000 tons, should generate the amount of consternation it seems to within the DoD.
Maybe even if them nuclear powered too like the the handful of the CGNs we had during the Cold War.
They'll still be plenty of room for emerging classes of USVs and ships to support the operation of those.
I would like to see those 155s get replaced with 127 mm on the zumwalts for now until they can come up with a solution. There not much fire power on there as for self defense and I don’t think those 30 mm could hold up against a real attack
The question I have is why don't we just start with some simple "dumb" ammunition made for a normal ballistic trajectory? Of course the limited production would still make it somewhat expensive compared to standard NATO 155mm but it ought to still be much cheaper than the LRLAP.The same person who decided it should be a trainable rocket launcher with a range of 100 miles. It's not compatible with NATO 155 because the LRLAP round has to be much longer than any NATO-standard round and it's pretty much impossible to accommodate both in the same gun.
Or. . .they could bite the bullet and finish developing the AGS chain as it will be a better option than the Mk45 going forward.Ya your right they could do a naval version if the Excalibur’s extended range but might have to do a total remodel with barrels and chambering system but what the heck they have wasted far more money on other weapons programs