Quote:
Originally Posted by LGB  As the cost of DDG-1000 indicates trying to do NGS, long range missiles strike, asw, and an expensive point defense system results in a large expensive ship in many ways incompatible with NGS.
Since naval guns are no longer primary weapons the BB or CA model for NGS is the wrong way to go. What is really required is a cost effective NGS ship optimized for that mission. A modern monitor. Make it a mine resistant double hulled 20 knot ship. Resist the temptation to put a VLS on it or a hanger. Since it will operate near or inshore make it's secondary mission command and control of inshore forces and support (at least refueling).
As an aside it's very possible given the cost of upgraded DDG-51's it's more than possible we'll see more than 3 DDG-1000's. The 1000's have a smaller less expensive over time to operate crew and superior shallow water asw. If the USN buys more of them they might actually end up willing to risk these ships doing NGS. |
LOL the Navy isnt willing to risk those at what 1.5-3bil a copy? Not happening. A single DDG-1k hasnt even touched the water yet lets hold off on their cost savings.
The Cost of the DDG-1K came from ALL THE SYSTEMS that went into it this thing has more systems than just about anything we've built. Add to that the hull form and the AGS itself and it became a nightmare. Change a little test alot.
A CA or BB wouldnt rely on the stealth technic obsession for cover but on defensive systems. EW, point defense weapons like the Phalanx or such(the phalanx shallow ammo supply and Long loading times makes it a liability in my mind.), Armor.
Whats more such a ship could be upgraded in the future with directed energy weapons and if they become workable railguns.
Still dont see why you couldnt just use ATACMS for Long range strikes where you cant call in a airstrike.
Plus those guns would allow an offensive capablity well past the first expending of missiles. Meaning even if the enemy has alot of well dug in bunkers they wont be able to bring out the guns/missiles etc because they will face a near constant barrage of fire.
If i remember correctly that saturation fire ability was one of the reasons the AGS was chosen. There was another system that used a Large bore cannon i believe around 8in sunk into the vessel alot like a VLS but it could only use guided rounds and its been stated that was the reason it lost to the more traditional system.
Now the AGS only uses guided rounds...go figure.
