30-08-2003 06:23									#31
	Tired of ads?

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.

	30-08-2003 06:25									#32
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: 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

	30-08-2003 06:31									#33
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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...

	30-08-2003 06:35									#34
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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

	30-08-2003 06:35									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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.

	30-08-2003 06:37									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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.

	30-08-2003 06:39									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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?

	30-08-2003 06:41									#38
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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.

	30-08-2003 06:42									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

	30-08-2003 06:44									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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.

	30-08-2003 06:44									#41
	Got spare money?

quote: 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!

	30-08-2003 06:45									#42
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I predict that triremes will be big.

	30-08-2003 07:49									#43
	Got spare money?

quote: 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.

	30-08-2003 08:10									#44
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

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.

	30-08-2003 08:21									#45
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

	30-08-2003 08:33									#46
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I don't see directed energy weapons working against air attack. For one thing, most aircraft are fairly reflective, so laser weapons would be impeded in their effectiveness. For another, energy weapons can't home in on targets. They can only go in straight lines. So you have this plane going at mach 2, and somehow you have to point an energy weapon at the plane for long enough that it does significant damage. Not the easiest thing. Meanwhile, all the pilot has to do is let loose his missiles and fly away.

	30-08-2003 09:43									#47
	weapons Increase Your PM Length

Rail Guns -
Rail guns have a big recoil. The force of the recoil is equal to the momentum imparted on the shell and spread out over the time the shell spends in the gun barrel. Thus, the recoil would be bigger than that of present day guns.

Directed Energy Weapons -
Planes are reflective? Yes and no. It depends upon the wavelengths we are talking about. You could tune the frequency of your energy weapon to something that the plane (or something in the plane) would really absorb. As far as pointing goes, it is a lot easier to point a direct energy weapon at where the plane is than it is to point a gun at where the plane will be in the time it takes the bullet to get there. The real problem with directed energy weapons is that we don't have any in production (all examples are still experimental).

	30-08-2003 09:50									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

OTOH, it's far easier to point a homing missile at a plane than a beam weapon. Yes, it is better than using flak guns or cannon. And, if you could get one-hit kills with your weapon, then it could conceivably work as a pretty effective AA gun.

The thing is, if not, it would be fairly hard to get a second shot. Misdirection techniques such as chaff or flares would still work, because the gun would be just as dependent on guidance systems - unless you wanted to control it manually, which brings back the problem of shooting at the mach 2 target that's busy taking evasive action.

	30-08-2003 09:52									#49
	Russian Navy Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Russians were working on something they called an achronoplon (sp?). It was a huge ground effect plane that flew about 5 meters above the surface. These craft were frigate sized, carried lots of missiles, and could travel at around 300 knots.

	30-08-2003 09:55									#50
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

EDIT: found a site about these suckers. Called "ekranoplans", the general name for such planes is WIG (wing-in-ground) effect vehicles. They did build a number, including one with anti-ship missiles to attack American carrier battle groups. They got great fuel efficiency due to the ground effect. However, they can crash upon takeoff before sufficient lift is generated by ground effect.

A good page about these: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/questio...ics/q0130.shtml

Last edited by Goingonit on 30-08-2003 at 10:00

	30-08-2003 09:56									#51
	homing weapons Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The problem with homing weapons is that they are just as vulnerable (perhaps moreso) to misdrection techniques as directed fire weapons. They use the same techniques (IR, radar, etc.) to home in and their smaller onboard processing systems have less capability to resist/conteract/compensate against the various misdirection techniques.

	30-08-2003 10:00									#52
	Russian Flying Ship Increase the size of your Attachments

They had at least 2 operational that I know of, but they never really got beyond the testing phase. They never went operational. I believe they had about 10-12 hours of jet fuel on board. Then they would sink to the surface and float until they were refueled.

	30-08-2003 10:38									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Whatever. Their troop ships weren't even as cool as the destroyers.

	30-08-2003 11:22									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: we need a large navy, because we need to project power around the globe.

Yeah, so we can bully around more people.

What will ships of the future be like? And plus, if we ever developed a laser that could destroy things it would take a lot of energy and it would be more efficient to have conventional weapons. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

	30-08-2003 11:24									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What we need is a private war - sort of like marriage but instead of yelling, you use rail guns and rocket launchers while smoking in the elevator.

	30-08-2003 11:44									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

From the article:

quote: The ship will carry 80 Advanced Vertical Launch System tubes, two 40mm close-in machine guns and torpedoes. The VLS cells are arranged along the deck edge for much of the ship’s length.

Looks like they will have a significant conventional defense system. One would assume that at least some of those tubes carry anti-aircraft missles.

and

quote: “That can take us to systems that can find itty-bitty targets in the exoatmosphere a lot more efficiently than we can now,” Hamilton said. “That’s why this power thing is so important to us.”

Looks like they are planning on solving the targeting problem as well.

Goingonit, Did you even read the article??

	30-08-2003 11:58									#57
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Like I said YEARS ago - VTOL.

	30-08-2003 12:19									#58
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Is there even a rival naval power?

You know, I'm sure the Brits said something along those lines about a century ago.

	30-08-2003 12:21									#59
	Full PM-box? Change here!

So did the Spanish, and look how it turned out for them.

	30-08-2003 12:34									#60
	Support Apolyton

Exactly.