Scary Railgun

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(djmtott @ Jan 18 2007, 08:24 PM) [snapback]140090[/snapback][/center]
The railgun being tested in this story is planned for the DD-21s. The destroyers are still just in the concept phase right now from what I know. There's no hurry either. The fleet is fully stocked with exceptional DDG-51s.

And since this is a sidebar to ship classes, my bold prediction is that DD-21s will be the only future surface combatants, so when the CG-47s are being decommissioned they won't be replaced by a new class of cruisers.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have heard similar predictions. The days of the giant, aircraft carrier led, fleets are becoming a thing of the past. It's all about speed and distance now. How fast can ou get to the target, and how quickly can you strike said target.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(djmtott @ Jan 18 2007, 09:24 PM) [snapback]140096[/snapback][/center]
DD-21 is the next generation of US fighting ships. Since our ships pound for pound are better than any other ships in the world, the DD-21, or DD(X) is an effort to continually advance ship technology.

DDG-51 is the Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer, and is the staple of the current US fleet. It was a revolutionary design, much different than anything that came before it.

CG-47 is the Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser. Originally it was supposed to be designated as a destroyer but it was changed. CG-47s hull design from the main deck down is the same as the Spruance destroyer (DD-963).

Edit: DD-21 is no longer valid. It's the DD(X)/DDG-1000
[/b]
Click to expand...

Holy shit, didn't know that.

Yeah, those damn DD-21s have been in the "soon to be released phase" since 1998 :(
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fluffy @ Jan 18 2007, 08:15 PM) [snapback]140100[/snapback][/center]
Yeah, I have heard similar predictions. The days of the giant, aircraft carrier led, fleets are becoming a thing of the past. It's all about speed and distance now. How fast can ou get to the target, and how quickly can you strike said target.
Holy shit, didn't know that.

Yeah, those damn DD-21s have been in the "soon to be released phase" since 1998 :(
[/b]
Click to expand...

I don't think aircraft carriers are going the way of the dodo just yet. When djmtott said "surface combatant", I think he used it in the sense that the U.S. Navy uses it. Aircraft carriers are not surface combatants in that usage, because their primary purpose is not to engage in ship-to-ship combat. Aircraft carriers are still exceptionally effective at force projection, which a railgun-equipped fleet can augment but cannot fully replace.

Railgun-equipped surface combatants will extend the range of a carrier battle group's protection against surface threats, and possibly against air threats as well with further development. Replacement of the bulk of manned aircraft with semi-autonomous unmanned aircraft will further extend the usefulness of aircraft carriers, by increasing the punch of the large carriers and allowing smaller carriers with the equivalent punch.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fluffy @ Jan 18 2007, 08:15 PM) [snapback]140100[/snapback][/center]
Yeah, I have heard similar predictions. The days of the giant, aircraft carrier led, fleets are becoming a thing of the past. It's all about speed and distance now. How fast can ou get to the target, and how quickly can you strike said target.
Holy shit, didn't know that.

Yeah, those damn DD-21s have been in the "soon to be released phase" since 1998 :(
[/b]
Click to expand...
Are those carriers?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Artica @ Jan 19 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]140258[/snapback][/center]
Are those carriers?
[/b]
Click to expand...

No, they are destroyers. They don't carry aircraft, except for a helicopter or two.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Poldano @ Jan 19 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]140260[/snapback][/center]
No, they are destroyers. They don't carry aircraft, except for a helicopter or two.
[/b]
Click to expand...
But it carries people. :lol:
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tavasha @ Jan 19 2007, 03:01 PM) [snapback]140262[/snapback][/center]
Meh, wake me when there are space battleships. -_-

:P
[/b]
Click to expand...
Star Destroyers!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Poldano @ Jan 19 2007, 03:24 PM) [snapback]140256[/snapback][/center]
When djmtott said "surface combatant", I think he used it in the sense that the U.S. Navy uses it.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Correct. Surface combatants are ships that have Surface Warfare as a primary mission. Aircraft carriers and submarines are not in that category.

But I don't think Fluffy meant that carriers were going away either. More along the lines that we'll be going away from the large carrier battlegroups (now called carrier strike groups).
In that, I think is incorrect. We will not be going away from groups of ships deploying together at the same time. It's a matter of training and coordination. Groups operate better overseas when they've trained together specificly.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(djmtott @ Jan 19 2007, 08:15 PM) [snapback]140299[/snapback][/center]
Correct. Surface combatants are ships that have Surface Warfare as a primary mission. Aircraft carriers and submarines are not in that category.

But I don't think Fluffy meant that carriers were going away either. More along the lines that we'll be going away from the large carrier battlegroups (now called carrier strike groups).
In that, I think is incorrect. We will not be going away from groups of ships deploying together at the same time. It's a matter of training and coordination. Groups operate better overseas when they've trained together specificly.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yep, that was exactly what I was implying.

It comes down to a matter of speed and deployment time. The new class of destroyers are going to replace most of the other ships because of it's speed and flexibility in combat. But, I don't think that we will be building any "new" carriers any time soon, we made the last of those super carriers (the class of ships named after presidents like the USS Ronald Reagan) and we will be headed more and more to smaller/faster fleets.

This concept is something I did completely agree with Rumsfeld.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fluffy @ Jan 20 2007, 08:46 AM) [snapback]140339[/snapback][/center]
Yep, that was exactly what I was implying.

It comes down to a matter of speed and deployment time. The new class of destroyers are going to replace most of the other ships because of it's speed and flexibility in combat. But, I don't think that we will be building any "new" carriers any time soon, we made the last of those super carriers (the class of ships named after presidents like the USS Ronald Reagan) and we will be headed more and more to smaller/faster fleets.

This concept is something I did completely agree with Rumsfeld.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Carriers are not going away, and they will continue to make new ones. Their usefulness in both command and control along with power projection will never go away.

Three Gerald R Ford class carrier have been authorised...
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ker-ri @ Jan 18 2007, 08:03 AM) [snapback]139969[/snapback][/center]
Sci-Fi made into reality......... I am picturing a gauss rifle from mech warrior which in an essence works the same way as their rail gun.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Dont forget the railgun they put into metal gear solid when the thing was a thought in a comic book artists head.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fluffy @ Jan 21 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]140448[/snapback][/center]
Are you shitting me, I read they were stopping carriers for at least 20 years.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Hell no. Carriers cost alot of money, produce tons of jobs, adds to the economy, etc...
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(djmtott @ Jan 21 2007, 10:48 PM) [snapback]140451[/snapback][/center]
Hell no. Carriers cost alot of money, produce tons of jobs, adds to the economy, etc...
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why it was such a big deal that they were stopping (now that was 5-6 years ago), and I saw them closing a bunch of ship building yards in the last few base cuts, so I thought all was going as planned.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fluffy @ Jan 21 2007, 08:49 PM) [snapback]140454[/snapback][/center]
Yeah, that's why it was such a big deal that they were stopping (now that was 5-6 years ago), and I saw them closing a bunch of ship building yards in the last few base cuts, so I thought all was going as planned.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Newport News Shipyard is the only location that carriers are built, and that isn't closing anytime soon. David Duke will be president before that happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top