Alliedassault - View Single Post

Coleman · 05-24-2004, 10:33 AM

[quote="Sgt Stryker":78ea3][quote="Garry Coleman":78ea3]I heard they're working on a Destroyer that has the same concept in design.[/quote:78ea3]

yeah called the DDX [url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x.htm"]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... p/dd-x.htm[/url]

unfortunately the boys in washington are putting way too much attention into this stealth fetish/obsession and not enough in making the ship seaworthy/battleworthy.

First of all, as soon as you turn on your radar to shoot something; everyone will see you; that's why F-117s and B-2s only use IR and laser designators. The Russians have a nice little radar seeking toy called the Kh-31, a supersonic missile that has been sold to just about everyone; it would just love to punch a few holes in CSS Merrimack MkII biggrin:

Secondly: seaworthiness, Navy types say if it looks like the Merrimack it most likely floats like one too. All the ones I've spoken to in this matter say they would not go to sea on THAT in bad weather.

Thirdly: railings reflect radar pretty well, but if they don't put railings on the ship its a man-over-board festival.

They would be better off making the ship harder to hit/sink by increasing her point defense and generally making her tougher; hell a real damage control party wouldn't hurt, the small crews they have planned for these ships wouldn't be able to handle fighting AND fire/DC.[/quote:78ea3]good points there. Sometimes it just seems so damn odd how the US government spends their money on development of "pointless" weapons. In the future, I doubt much war will be conducted with stealth ships when you can just bomb from a plane or shoot a rocket off from your homeland.

	(#9)
Coleman is Offline Major General Posts: 13,482 Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: University Park, PA	05-24-2004, 10:33 AM [quote="Sgt Stryker":78ea3][quote="Garry Coleman":78ea3]I heard they're working on a Destroyer that has the same concept in design.[/quote:78ea3] yeah called the DDX [url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x.htm"]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... p/dd-x.htm[/url] unfortunately the boys in washington are putting way too much attention into this stealth fetish/obsession and not enough in making the ship seaworthy/battleworthy. First of all, as soon as you turn on your radar to shoot something; everyone will see you; that's why F-117s and B-2s only use IR and laser designators. The Russians have a nice little radar seeking toy called the Kh-31, a supersonic missile that has been sold to just about everyone; it would just love to punch a few holes in CSS Merrimack MkII biggrin: Secondly: seaworthiness, Navy types say if it looks like the Merrimack it most likely floats like one too. All the ones I've spoken to in this matter say they would not go to sea on THAT in bad weather. Thirdly: railings reflect radar pretty well, but if they don't put railings on the ship its a man-over-board festival. They would be better off making the ship harder to hit/sink by increasing her point defense and generally making her tougher; hell a real damage control party wouldn't hurt, the small crews they have planned for these ships wouldn't be able to handle fighting AND fire/DC.[/quote:78ea3]good points there. Sometimes it just seems so damn odd how the US government spends their money on development of "pointless" weapons. In the future, I doubt much war will be conducted with stealth ships when you can just bomb from a plane or shoot a rocket off from your homeland.