man you mentioned all those ships but you left out my favorite the DDx class destroyers now that ship is a beast no doubt

Visby's design is quite different though, with no antennas and stuff on top. The ship is not so big, but I suppose the idea is that if you are invisible and use smart weapons that doesn't matter so much.

Originally posted by Koka
unlike you lot, I don't get a hard on about Weapons of Mass Destruction..!

dont post if youre just going to complain and insult people, grow up and quit judging others, im tired of you posting on these threads to just complain and insult people.

Originally posted by Koka
I don't know why I came into this thread actually,
unlike you lot, I don't get a hard on about Weapons of Mass Destruction..!
[edit on 1-7-2004 by Koka]

If you don't like a thread, DON'T POST ON IT! Nobody is forcing you!

have any of you heard of the Leviathan class. Same trimaran idea, but twice the size and main weapon is 2 railguns firing solid slugs the size of loaves of bread at Mach 10+. This should theoretically do the same amount of damage on impact as the Iowa class's 15-inch guns.

yeah i read about it in popular science. they can also go hundreds of miles but recquire quite a bit of energy. devastating weapon though.

hey the guns on the leviation are nothign compared if you used a smaller slug.

Think again!

The slugs velocity along with it's size determines it's capability of destruction. I they shot a five kilogram round going mach 10-15 that would do alot more damage than a 16 inch naval gun. These guns use kinetic energy to destroy so size's not the main factor anymore.

Aren't the Visby class ships relatively small vessels desgined for littoral warfare, hiding in inlets and bays and moving out to ambush enemy ships? Hence the emphasis on stealth. My understanding is they don't have a blue-water capability and aren't designed for that kind of work.

The future surface combatant, the ship that will be derived from the RV Triton to replace Type 23 Frigates in current RN service, will have to fulfill a number of roles including blue-water operations, hence their size and lack of, compared to the Visby class, emphasis on stealth.

The formula for kinetic energy is energy = mass x square of velocity.
So, a 5-kilo round at Mach 10 would have 544.5MJ (megajoules) of energy which is equal to 272 pounds of high explosive (TNT has an energy density of 2 MJ/lb) . Nasty, but not quite Iowa-class 16-incher-style deadly. What really makes railguns so powerful is their high rate of fire. While the aforementioned battleship gun fires 2 rounds a minute, the railgun would fire around 200. So, in pounds-of-TNT-equivalent delivered per minute, the railgun is way ahead at 27,200 to around 1000.

I'm sure it would launch more than a 5 kilo projectile I was just using that as a suggestion

Originally posted by Bravon03
Aren't the Visby class ships relatively small vessels desgined for littoral warfare, hiding in inlets and bays and moving out to ambush enemy ships? Hence the emphasis on stealth. My understanding is they don't have a blue-water capability and aren't designed for that kind of work.

I guess that's true in a way, since they are to be used in the Baltic sea where there are many small islands. But the bigger ship the more difficult it must be to make it invisible so the future in naval warfare may be smaller ships. It is big enough to take a helicopter on deck.

Originally posted by pATTONME
I'm sure it would launch more than a 5 kilo projectile I was just using that as a suggestion

A hunk of steel the size of the average loaf of bread weighs about 5 kilos. Anyway, with the formula for KE, an increase in mass is not nearly as effective as an increase in velocity.