It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Royal Navies new type 45 destroyer.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
They trialed the RAM system on a RN frigate a few years ago. will try to find a link




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Personally I think it's an ugly tub, capabilities aside.


Everytime I glance at that mammoth protuberance topped with the radar dome I imagine a giant spinning saw blade decapitating the thing.

Somebody needs to design a self propelled, 100 foot diameter, diamond saw blade.

Give that ugly beast a hair cut.


What's attractive about that ship? Yuck.

Of course, if looks were the most important factor in design, the capabilities would suffer...

But still...



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Next will you tell me the YF23 is an "ugl bird" ?
Heretic burn em!


**Starts small fire***



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Personally I think it's an ugly tub, capabilities aside.


Everytime I glance at that mammoth protuberance topped with the radar dome I imagine a giant spinning saw blade decapitating the thing.

Somebody needs to design a self propelled, 100 foot diameter, diamond saw blade.

Give that ugly beast a hair cut.


What's attractive about that ship? Yuck.

Of course, if looks were the most important factor in design, the capabilities would suffer...

But still...



Nothing in naval architecture says a ship cant be fully functional and look good. Infact if a ship looks good, chances are it means you got everything right. Ever noticed how the best cars never look ugly?



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I wouldn't mind some high energy lasers along with RAM on US navy ships especial the larger ones. I think by 2013 the U.S. should be able to put solid state lasers on ships.


Laser are unpractical for ship defense IMO, because they performace is limited by bad weather and clouds (and there is a lot of clouds on the sea). The planes can use them because they fly above most wether effects (10-15 000 meters).


Well the USN is working on a Free Electron Laser (FEL) which is better than other lasers when it comes to use at sea level. Though its range is probably only 5 miles.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Well the USN is working on a Free Electron Laser (FEL) which is better than other lasers when it comes to use at sea level. Though its range is probably only 5 miles.


Yup, that's not much, plus lasers needs some time to "burn through" . So I would be happy enough with Sea RAM.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by NWguy83
Well the USN is working on a Free Electron Laser (FEL) which is better than other lasers when it comes to use at sea level. Though its range is probably only 5 miles.


Yup, that's not much, plus lasers needs some time to "burn through" . So I would be happy enough with Sea RAM.


Well I could be wrong since I am just guessing on it's range, it could be 10 miles.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
And the USN is also working on High Power Microwaves (HPM), which would fry an incoming missile's electronics. Hopefully causing it to either explode, or shut down it's motor and fall into the sea before it can reach the ship.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Well, you're right, there's nothing to say a ship can't be beautiful and functional, but if more effort is put into making it look good, rather than sail well, then there's problems.

In any case, I think the better use for lasers, rather than try to burn anything, is to disrupt guidance computers and sensitive internal computer chips that regulate everything from thrust to angle of descent.

Subtlety is Strength.

Sure, you could crank the laser up to high and shear the missile in half, but you just used 50 times the amps to affect the same result, which is, of course, not getting hit with the missile.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
And the USN is also working on High Power Microwaves (HPM), which would fry an incoming missile's electronics. Hopefully causing it to either explode, or shut down it's motor and fall into the sea before it can reach the ship.


That's better option, because microwaves have no problem with clouds&fog. But it is not 100% effective weapons too, misilles can be shielded. But I think combination of HPM and Phalanx/RAM/something new could be good enough.


[edit on 30-3-2005 by longbow]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I'm not sure but I think that a while back the USN said they were going o experiment with putting a solid sate lasers on modern to large ships. Ill try to find a link.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Well, you're right, there's nothing to say a ship can't be beautiful and functional, but if more effort is put into making it look good, rather than sail well, then there's problems.




You would be suprised how much the looks are linked into a ships seakeeping qualitys. Most things that define a good looking ship (large length to beam ratio, sweeping prow, lower profile superstructure etc) also help to improve the hydrodynamics. All ship design is a balance of competing requirements but when a ship 'looks right' it generally means that the balance between those requirements is about right. The looks of a warship are not specifically a design consideration, but are a by-product of a well conducted design process.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by paperplane_uk]

Edited to correct my lousy spelling

[edit on 31-3-2005 by paperplane_uk]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join