The Future of Naval Warships

[Goingonit]

Why does a coast guard need a stealth ship? Not like the smugglers are gonna outrun them...

Also, what does the US navy envision using this DD(x) for? It's really cool, but what's the last time anyone used their navies for shore bombardment? To project power, a carrier battle group is far better. The propulsion system advances are definitely a good thing, though.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Why does a coast guard need a stealth ship? Not like the smugglers are gonna outrun them...

Also, what does the US navy envision using this DD(x) for? It's really cool, but what's the last time anyone used their navies for shore bombardment? To project power, a carrier battle group is far better. The propulsion system advances are definitely a good thing, though.

Uh, Gulf War II?

In fact, I distinctly remember a video of an Australian ship providing fire support for British troops in Umm Qasar

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Why does a coast guard need a stealth ship? Not like the smugglers are gonna outrun them...
...

They can sneak right up to the bad guys and board them before they even know what happened...

[Lonestar]

Yep. What with their hidden Harpoon-knockoffs and all...

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Lonestar

...

isn't that like the biggest ship in your fleet? Didn't you have pocket battleships once upon a time.

Pocket battleships are easy to sink. Stealth ships are not. We don't need bigger ships than this. Our navy is supposed to sink enemy ships, not bombard enemy shores. We have the airforce for that. This boat will do the job.

[Goingonit]

Um. I guess I was wrong about the shore bombardment; but still, there's a reason why the US decomissioned all its battleships.

As for the stealth coast guard, if you're a "bad guy", you can still see. It's not like the stealth boat is invisible; plus, if there's a boat you can see with your eyes but not with radar, you'd be pretty sure it's bad news.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Um. I guess I was wrong about the shore bombardment; but still, there's a reason why the US decomissioned all its battleships.

Obscene personnel and mainteance costs?

[Chemical Ollie]

Yeah, but it's also very fast. The bad guys will only get a short notice. If they even care to check the horizon in 360 degrees.

[Goingonit]

That too. Still, there is much less shore bombardment now.

[st_swithin]

The Navy will probably be OK as long as they don't name any of their ships the USS Titanic. Or the HMS Titanic, for that matter.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Um. I guess I was wrong about the shore bombardment; but still, there's a reason why the US decomissioned all its battleships.

As for the stealth coast guard, if you're a "bad guy", you can still see. It's not like the stealth boat is invisible; plus, if there's a boat you can see with your eyes but not with radar, you'd be pretty sure it's bad news.

The biggest reason was as Lonestar said. Plus the fact that they were almost 50 years old.

The BB's, in theory, could be brought out of mothballs, if needed.

ACK!

[monolith94]

I predict that triremes will be big.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Also, what does the US navy envision using this DD(x) for? It's really cool, but what's the last time anyone used their navies for shore bombardment? To project power, a carrier battle group is far better. The propulsion system advances are definitely a good thing, though.

"Directed energy weapons"

"100 mile gun"

Additionally, these ships should be vastly cheaper thana carrier and able to operate much more independently than a carrier.

[Goingonit]

The rail gun isn't an energy weapon; it's a weapon that uses electricity to fire a conventional bolt. Otherwise you couldn't hit anything over the horizon, because energy goes fairly straight.

Also, this thing doesn't have planes or, for that matter, much AA capability. An enemy air attack could take it apart.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Goingonit
The rail gun isn't an energy weapon; it's a weapon that uses electricity to fire a conventional bolt. Otherwise you couldn't hit anything over the horizon, because energy goes fairly straight.

Also, this thing doesn't have planes or, for that matter, much AA capability. An enemy air attack could take it apart.

Your right, rail guns aren't directed energy weapons (duh). I never said they were. The article does refer to directed energy weapons, rail guns, and 155mm weapons with a 100 mile range.

I would imagine that directed energy weapons would be far more effective against air attacks than traditional AA. I would highly doubt that they forgot to protect the ship from air attack.