Question. Do welders do yoga?
New Battleships
- Thread starter Ronsant
- Start date
4wd
$50 site donor 2026
I have seen big boys from NA welding with small Asian welders - and it’s more like sumo wrestlingQuestion. Do welders do yoga?
- Joined
- May 31, 2024
- Messages
- 744
This is an interesting "nuclear" option, if it ever comes to shooting down satellites.
If the Kessler Syndrome is a reality, we will all be in a different world from today. Everyone's modern weaponry will be working in the dark.
4wd
$50 site donor 2026
Well, let’s just say both could weld up the crack of dawn
No, I got all that. Just pointing out the boat wouldn't last long in a shooting battle and the money could be spent on more/ higher tech weapons. I'm still waiting for the call from the Naval Dept. seeking my input.
They need more tanks because they are combat effective. If the were not, they would not be asking....begging....for more tanks. They have found effective countermeasures against drone attacks. Pay attention to the war...you might learn something, too!They need more tanks because they keep getting blown up by drones and missiles.
Seems like the last two times the Navy got their way was with the LCS ships and the now cancelled over-budget and bloated frigate. Sometimes it is hard to tell, though.
There effective when integrated with drones and other tech. Russia and Ukraine have lost a ton of tanks - to drones, and anti tank missiles, and other stuff.
But still better than standing in the open I am sure.
Of course the same group said Kiev would fall in "hours or days" almost 4 years ago, so there is that.
The Australians gave Ukraine 41 M1A1’s last October. But they seem to be getting more use out of the M2 Bradleys.
The Panama Canal now allows up to 168’ beam. The Japanese built the Yamato Class (beam 127’ feet) in part because they calculated U.S. battleships would have to be narrow enough to traverse the canal at the time - 110 feet. So it was an overmatch on paper.
So, let’s design a new warship. Just you and I.
It needs to be capable of independent action, but it also needs to be a force multiplier and work in a group.
So, we start with a stealthy design, that makes it harder to see on radar and other sensors.
It needs to have hybrid propulsion systems, increasing range, fuel efficiency and creating lots of electric power.
Let’s use that electric capacity to power directed energy weapons. Anti-drone swarming defenses using concentrated EM energy, and lasers to kill the sensors on incoming missiles, drones, and boats. Unlimited “rounds” available - countering drones, UAVs, and swarming attacks.
Let’s build a rail-gun, with hypersonic projectiles that have a range of over 200 miles. Shore fire support, delivered with precision (the projectiles would have GPS steering for precise targeting at those ranges).
They kill via kinetic energy, no warhead needed, so, the magazines on the ship are full of relatively safe, explosion-proof, fire proof ammunition, that takes up far less space than conventional ammo.
We will add a 5” gun for conventional engagement against small surface targets. A standard 5” MK54, like current warships have, for commonality in parts and ammo.
We could add hypersonic attack weapons, so that this ship can strike a shore target from 1,000 miles away, keeping it safely out of reach of the enemy.
Finally, we add 120 missiles in standard (again, commonality and serviceability are important) MK-41 VLS tubes. Tomahawk land attack missiles, anti-satellites and anti-ballistic missile hypersonic kill vehicles, advanced surface to air (SM-6) missiles, surface to surface missiles.
All targeted and directed by a new generation of phased array radar that can, itself, be used for EM attack and jamming. Powerful enough to see a hypersonic weapon in flight. Powerful enough to detect a ballistic missile warhead in flight. In space.
We will add Sonar, and sub-surface sensors, and like today’s destroyers, a hangar with anti-submarine helicopters and a landing deck aft.
Let’s call it a cruiser - since it will be designed for long range patrols and independent operation.
Lethal, survivable, fast, long range, with weapons and systems to counter the latest threats and weapons that any adversary cannot yet counter. Able to defend itself, other ships, and in some cases, entire countries against ballistic missile attack. Able to shoot down entire squadrons of threat aircraft, a large number of missiles, and a nearly unlimited number of drones. Able to kill submarines. Networked into other ships and sensors to add to the picture of the operational environment, and to apportion and share targeting against swarming threats from the air, or space, or the sea, or under sea.
Sound good?
Last edited:
Sounds very good, and, as a Bass Fisherman, I'd like to take one for a spin. But, who are we gonna aim it at? For 10 Billion dollars (but who is counting) I'd rather have 91 F35 Lighting 2 Carrier based planes that we already know how to build. I'm still waiting for the Navy to call me for my input on this issue....... lol.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Late to the thread. In my job I work with many of the organizations involved in Navy R&D, resourcing, ship design, fleet operations, etc. A few thoughts:
There is no design or specification for this ship whatsoever. Concepts of a plan at best. Several of the weapons systems listed on that "technical specifications' graphic are between non-existent and not actually operational. Maybe they will in the future. Not in 2.5 years.
DDG(X) is the actual next large surface combatant. It's already in the works and is to both replace the Ticonderoga class and follow on from DDG-51 Flight III. Expected first deliveries are 5+ years out. Suffice to say a ship of non-existent design will not be out before it.
Comments throughout the thread suggesting that Navy force structure and doctrine development is towards a greater number of lower-cost platforms is correct. A vessel such as this does not fit. As described this would be a $10B+ vessel. The frigate program managed to get botched but other systems such as LUSV are moving along. Read about Cooperative Engagement Capability and imagine how that all works.
So yeah, call me a skeptic, for a number of reasons.
jeff
Late to the thread. In my job I work with many of the organizations involved in Navy R&D, resourcing, ship design, fleet operations, etc. A few thoughts:
There is no design or specification for this ship whatsoever. Concepts of a plan at best. Several of the weapons systems listed on that "technical specifications' graphic are between non-existent and not actually operational. Maybe they will in the future. Not in 2.5 years.
DDG(X) is the actual next large surface combatant. It's already in the works and is to both replace the Ticonderoga class and follow on from DDG-51 Flight III. Expected first deliveries are 5+ years out. Suffice to say a ship of non-existent design will not be out before it.
Comments throughout the thread suggesting that Navy force structure and doctrine development is towards a greater number of lower-cost platforms is correct. A vessel such as this does not fit. As described this would be a $10B+ vessel. The frigate program managed to get botched but other systems such as LUSV are moving along. Read about Cooperative Engagement Capability and imagine how that all works.
So yeah, call me a skeptic, for a number of reasons.
jeff
Owen Lucas
$100 Site Donor 2023
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2021
- Messages
- 4,814
Wow, OK, I understand why these ships cost billions now.
Well said. That's what I been tryin' to tell them OL' Boys for 2 Days. It's also what my "Forced Air Induction research" told me, yesterday. Sometimes I amaze, myself.............
Just no need for them. Way better stuff exists.
And yet - every objection in your posts apply to DDG(x) equally - because those posts failed to take into account the capabilities already present in a flight III Aegis, the upgrades in the DDG(x) and how this larger version simply incorporates more of the same.
Nothing obsolete or vulnerable in either of them. So, don’t go patting yourself on the back, you were off in left field talking about the Bismarck. Without understanding what today’s ships can do, or the direction that the Navy is going, and throwing around the word “hypersonic” like it was a magic wand.
Today’s ships are survivable, and lethal, able to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles, aircraft, and drones, able to track and engage surface targets, able to track and engage subsurface targets, able to provide fire support to ground forces via TLAM in the tubes of the VLS. They are already networked. They are already providing ballistic missile defense to other nations.
But they are limited in power available for new weapon systems, and I’ve given a few examples, and an increase in the number of missiles available. Reducing their signature, in radar and other spectra, helps survivability.
There is a place in the fleet for larger ships. There is a need for Cruisers. And smaller. The Navy needs frigates. Always has. Probably always will.
LCS was a complete acquisition failure - smaller than a frigate, able to bring the Navy presence into smaller ports and nations and improve engagement through greater numbers. It was intended to be fast, simple, cheap, and modular, it became very expensive, had limited range and fuel capacity, and limited capability with the various warfare modules installed. In the end it was fast, and expensive, and useless. A waste of money, the result of “good ideas” and mission creep.
New ships are already in the works, new platforms that reduce signatures, that provide more flexibility and capacity in power distribution, and The topic of this thread is a larger version of a new ship. Not obsolete, not vulnerable.
An evolution in design.
An improvement in survivability, lethality, and capability.
Last edited:
O.K. I never referenced the Bismark as you claim, here. That was Sammy in his post #9 when he pointed out that the Bismark was disabled by one bomb striking the rudder. I'm not "patting myself on the back" when saying "sometimes I amaze myself" It's just a backward form of jest. Why do you seem to be taking this so personally? It's just conversation.
I take foolish posts about the Navy personally, after 30 years of service in that organization.
You may not have said, “Bismarck” but you were not talking about new ships, and had not one reference to anything modern.
You referenced the battle of Midway. You talked about battleships being obsolete technology.
No walking that back, you were talking about historic battleships, not modern ships, not ships equipped with powerful phased array radars, directed energy weapons, hypersonic missiles, underwater sensors and stealth technology, which is what the thread was about in the first place.
You used a drug boat as your analogy for how targeting works, a ridiculous comparison in this context.
You made several off-topic, irrelevant observations about old technology and continued to press the point without reading, acknowledging, or understanding that the entire thread was about ships with new technology.
It’s not conversation if you are not willing to read, to go to sources, or understand the points being made by others.
So, yeah, I care.
This^^^^^^^^
