Introducing the USS Zumwalt, the Stealth Destroyer

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


This is "Old Hat" The British Royal Navy has had them for years:-

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Are you confident that modern, smart missiles would even be able to find the damned thing? The thing with the modern ordanance is, that because it relies on tracking systems of various types, it does not have the same capacity as a point and fire weapon might. One would have better luck hitting the thing with dumb rounds.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
This is "Old Hat" The British Royal Navy has had them for years:-

en.wikipedia.org...


The 'stealth' aspect has certainly been done and at least half a dozen navies now operate very stealthy Frigates even if i am not sure if anyone other than the RN and the USN will soon operate stealthy destroyers... That being said the British destroyers are as far as my knowledge goes as currently deployed air defense destroyers with limited ASW capabilities whereas the Zumwalts are essentially land/anti ship cruisers with strong air defense capabilities...

One can remark on the cost disparity until one looks at the displacement sizes and their capabilities/program cancellation to explain away some proportion of the cost disparity!

Stellar



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jcarpenter

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Exactly, they will be unable to get a lock on the ship, and unable to launch against it. The idea of an airplane spotting the ship is laughable, we control the skies.




We control the skies ... until we don't.

The arrogance of dismissing potential adversaries is the mark of history's next passing empire. I can only envision the look on the faces of Roman soldiers when the barbarian hordes appeared at the gates of Rome.

I've gotta admit though -- that ship looks kind of novel. In keeping with our "modern" war doctrine, I wonder how efficiently it can kill or maim civilians?







That's nice, this ship is designed to operate today, when we control the skies. 50 years from now I have no idea what the situation will be, so why bother talking about it? Maybe we will have cloaked destroyers that are invisible to the human eye.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I would not want to be on the receiving end of that gun.

It can discharge 300x 155mm guided shells over 60 miles + range at a rate of 10 per minute. Not as massive as a WW2 battleship but the precision should make up for it.

It sounds designed to support opposed beach assaults but i thought the Marines were moving away from that idea and going to air manoeuvre instead. Hence the decision that USS America doesn't have well decks? Whats the rationale?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


If you look at the possibilities presented by a combination of artillery shells being rained sixty to fifty miles inland, while an air assault occurs, you will see the rationale I believe.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
This is a waste of money.

It was developed and designed under the premise of US air and space superiority.

One of those has already been lost, the other will be up for debate in 15 years or less.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by justwokeup
 


If you look at the possibilities presented by a combination of artillery shells being rained sixty to fifty miles inland, while an air assault occurs, you will see the rationale I believe.


I think this is worthy of a DOH ! on my part. We need a Face-palm emoticon......



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
Hence the decision that USS America doesn't have well decks? Whats the rationale?


I think only the America, and the second of the class won't have a well deck. All the ones after them are going to have a full well deck.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
This is a waste of money.

It was developed and designed under the premise of US air and space superiority.

One of those has already been lost, the other will be up for debate in 15 years or less.


Neither is lost, or close to being lost. If China had 10 carriers TODAY it would take them longer than 15 years to train to the point of being a threat to the US. You have lost all credibility in this discussion.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Most naval warfare technical books that were written in the mid eighties dealt with these subjects along with the AI used for projectiles/support purposes. All of this stuff is available at a college library near you.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
so.....who are we fighting again? Certainly not hunger, poverty or health-issues



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I think the "stealth" refers to the design of the hull. More and more of our new ships are looking like the B2 bomber. (can no longer call it stealth bomber as it was picked up on radar) Here is a pic of one of what "i think" is the new amphibious launching ships.

HERE

Another

It may also run quieter to reduce the ability to be detected by submarines.

(sorry if the links turn out bad, first time posting pics



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by juggernot
I think the "stealth" refers to the design of the hull. More and more of our new ships are looking like the B2 bomber. (can no longer call it stealth bomber as it was picked up on radar)


All stealth aircraft have been picked up on radar. Stealth isn't invisible, it's just not picked up until it's too late to do anything about it.

The B-52 has an RCS of 100 m2 (20dBsm)

The B-1B has an RCS of 1 m2 (0dBsm)

The B-2 has an estimated RCS of 0.0001 m2 (-40dBsm).

The F-22 and F-35 are in the same range as the B-2.

So they do have a radar return, and you can see them from a pretty good distance with certain types of radars. Just the ones that can see them you can't get a firing solution on, and the ones that you can, usually can't see them until they're about to, or have already released their weapons.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
thanks for clarifying. thats what i was referring to. To answer an above question about smart missles being aimed at the new ships. I think almost all new ships have that Phalanx system on it? The anti-missle, torpedo, plane, Flying pig weapon system.

pic and explanation

I think i've seen videos of it and its pretty beast.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by juggernot
 


They have the Phalanx, and most are moving to a missile based system. It's much more effective than the Phalanx, and doesn't leave debris to still hit the ship, like Phalanx would under some intercepts.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by peck420
This is a waste of money.

It was developed and designed under the premise of US air and space superiority.

One of those has already been lost, the other will be up for debate in 15 years or less.


Neither is lost, or close to being lost. If China had 10 carriers TODAY it would take them longer than 15 years to train to the point of being a threat to the US. You have lost all credibility in this discussion.




I didn't realise that air superiority was solely dictated by a carriers.

You would almost think that aircraft are required. Aircraft that are rapidly ageing with no current replacements on the table, in the US.

So, what use will US carriers be when they have nothing but legacy craft (well overdue for replacement no less) launching from them?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


The current fleet of F-18s isn't terribly old yet. Even if you add the A-D models they're looking at about 20 years or so. Only looking at the E-F it's just over 10. They have plenty of life left until the F-35, and whatever F-18 replacement comes along (if they don't wait 30 years to do it).



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by peck420
 


The current fleet of F-18s isn't terribly old yet. Even if you add the A-D models they're looking at about 20 years or so. Only looking at the E-F it's just over 10. They have plenty of life left until the F-35, and whatever F-18 replacement comes along (if they don't wait 30 years to do it).


And what do you think the survivability will be against a gen 4.5 fighter?

And what if China is telling the truth, and the F-18's are forced to face gen 5 fighters?

That leaves the F-35. Awesome.

If the current situation stands, countries like China, India, and Russia will be producing almost as good for a fraction of the cost.

And almost as good is good enough when the quantities are high.

Edit to add:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is inevitable. Unless the US puts China and India back to the stone age now, they win. The world is becoming more equitable, not less. It may feel like less inside some western nations, but they aren't the world, they are a fraction of it. As things become more equitable between countries, population starts to matter...a lot. You would need a massive technological edge to out produce 1 billion + people with 300 million. An edge that has been getting smaller by the year.

The US needs to start acting like it is more equitable or make it so it stays inequitable. Currently, the US is doing neither.

edit on 9-11-2012 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


With current upgrades, a Super Bug can hold its own against a 4.5. It's borderline 4.5 itself. A fifth generation fighter is another story. But by the time most other countries have produced enough fifth gen's to really be a worry, we *should* be seeing the Bug replacement in the works, or entering service.






top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join