Navy now has stealth destroyer

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by waltky, Nov 2, 2013.

  1. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Granny says now we can sneak up onna Russkie an' Chinamens submarines...
    :grandma:
    Bigger, Lighter, Deadlier! Navy launches new stealth destroyer
    October 29th, 2013 - The Navy's newest warship slipped out of dry dock this week into the waters of Maine, marking a new era for war fighting at sea.
    See also:

    Pentagon on Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornet order: Never mind
    November 1, 2013 ~ The day after media outlets reported that the Navy had begun the process of soliciting bids for another 36 F/A-18 Super Hornets, Navy officials apparently changed their minds.
     
  2. AveMariaGratiaPlena

    AveMariaGratiaPlena New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know, I am fascinated with technology such as this but yet I can't help but having mixed emotions. I really wish that our government would drastically cut spending on the military and then spend the money we save on helping people here at home. I am just tired of our nation being so focused on our military and on war. We should not be the world's police.
     
  3. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you only want to help people your government says are Americans? You don't care about helping other people or saving lives, like your navy was able to do in the Philippines? You can talk about helping people and how bad the US is, but guess what gets cut the training, numbers and equipment of the military, not the back office or accounting for procurement or R&D they will still get their share.

    Many people including myself have serious doubts about the capabilities of Zumwalt and see it as a waste of money which could have been spend building 3 new cruisers with proven capabilities. I don't like the AGS or Rail gun, I still think heavy naval guns are just as effective. I also think stealth is an overrated requirement for a surface ship, which can be hunted by submarines just as easily.
     
  4. AveMariaGratiaPlena

    AveMariaGratiaPlena New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have nothing against our military going to other nations that have experienced disasters to help them. What I am against is our military bombing other nations to assist them to defeat a tyrant or something.
     
  5. 4thBattalion

    4thBattalion New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    435
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A destroyer the size of a battleship.?. It's a cruiser not a destroyer...
     
  6. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The role makes it a destroyer. It's full name I think is land-attack littoral combat destroyer. It is built to have the same sort of effect on the enemy the Iowa's did with heavier guns than other escorts and more Tomahawks. It only just has enough VLS cells for limited carrier escort and I don't think it is fitted with anti-ballistic missiles capabilities. It is like a old battle cruiser, the size of a cruiser just with less armament.
     
  7. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you don't think killing Gaddafi, Saddam, Bin Laden where the right things to do. This is what always gets me, people agree that getting rid of those tyrants was good, but they don't like what has happened after. Well ok then.
     
  8. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True, the U.S. doesn't have to be the 'policeman of the world', but it's definitely better off because it decided to be, and besides, other countries participate and support that role extensively, so it's kind of misleading to pretend it's just unilateral egotism at work.

    According to some statistician recently, despite two major wars with high death tolls this last century is the most peaceful and least violent in human history, with the average resident of Planet Earth having a 3% chance of dying by violence as opposed to a 15% chance in the preceding centuries, so things are looking up for humanity when it comes to conflicts.

    Least Violent Century
     
  9. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    " I really wish that our government would drastically cut spending on the military and then spend the money we save on helping people here at home."

    Taxcutter says:
    We have spent trillions on "helping people here at home" ever since LBJ declared his "War on Poverty." It didn't work.



    "I am just tired of our nation being so focused on our military and on war."

    Taxcutter says:
    Since the time of the Pharoahs, that has been the primary reason for national governments.
     
  10. AveMariaGratiaPlena

    AveMariaGratiaPlena New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We never should have participated in Libya's war and we never should have went to war with Iraq either. As for Afghanistan, I am not certain about that one. They were training Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda was the ones who attacked us on September 11, 2001 and so I would say that the war in Afghanistan was more of a defensive war. However, the war in Iraq and the war in Libya were not defensive wars and were therefore unjustified.
     
  11. AveMariaGratiaPlena

    AveMariaGratiaPlena New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well perhaps there needs to be more done here at home then since it hasn't worked.

    As for your second thing, it does not matter if the primary reason for national governments has always been to go to war with others. That does not justify it. The only kind of war that is justified is a defensive war as laid out in the Just War Doctrine:

    http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
     
  12. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "...perhaps there needs to be more done here at home then since it hasn't worked."

    Taxcutter says:
    In Vegas, that's called "doubling down." A good way to increase your losses.
     
  13. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You do know Gaddafi and Saddam killed Americans and supported terrorist acts against US allies don't you? You religious people get on my pip. Now I believe in God, Jesus and so on, I am a Protestant member of the Church of England. It has no bearing what so ever on how I view war and foreign policy.

    Afghanistan was run by the Taliban who allowed Al Quaeda to operate in Afghanistan using money Bin Laden got from his family and the Saudi's. If the US had just paid more than Al Quaeda then the Taliban would have kicked them out into Pakistan. Which the US could have supported Pakistan in defeating Al Quaeda, now the Taliban is a greater threat to peace and security in Afghanistan or Pakistan than Al Quaeda ever was. I hold the view that Libya was the right policy, Iraq was the right policy at the wrong time and Afghanistan was the wrong policy.

    People who act like they have some idea what they are talking about say Afghanistan was a good war, there no such thing as a good war. Or even a war fought for the right reason. You need to remove these idea's from you head if you want to study foreign policy and create strategy. I am very bad at it myself and have made a number of wrong moves in this post, but atleast I don't view things with my eyes shut.
     
  14. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What about pro active war to stop yourself being attacked in the first place, that makes much more sense.

    Fighting a defensive war is so very hard and costs so many more lives. This is why I view people who only see the military being used for territorial defence as norrow minded or even wreckless.

    As for doing what the Catholic Church says we tryed that it didn't end very well. In an event that look place about 950 years ago which my family took part in and took some land. The Crusades.
     
  15. smevins

    smevins New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pretty sure it wouldn't have stopped the people in the boat who snuck up on the USS Cole and blew a giant hole in the side of it. Perhaps we should focus on fighting the enemy we have instead of the enemy we wish we had.
     
  16. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Having astronomic price tag, being overcomplicated and facing high probability of not being combat ready. Ever.
    Just like I dreamed of.
     
  17. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What does the Zumwalt do that our submarine fleet can't do? It might have a smaller radar signature than a fishing boat, but a submarine has 0 radar signature. And the Zumwalt can be seen and tracked by satellite.
     
  18. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Submarines suck for use in shallow waters far from US bases.
     
  19. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It has guns that can put down fire support for marines, it has very few people on board, it can deploy a great range of armaments than submarines. It will be worse at escorts duties than the current US escorts though and that is the main role for US ships defend the carrier. It doesn't have anywhere near enough armaments to act independent of the fleet like the Russian heavy cruisers.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Zumwalt could just be a test project for the 500 cell cruiser. Hahahaha.
     
  20. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Putting a 3,2 billion $ unit under direct threat of artillery strike, let alone anti-ship missile strike, sounds like an idiotic idea.
    So? Didn't help with it's 4 billion $ life cycle cost.
    Pfff, big deal. Any ship of this class can. Also 80 missiles per such a ship is pretty shy arsenal.
    Nevertheless, I must admit, I totally like it's outlook and design.
    Meh, we have an expirence with a 300 missiles one. Still not impressed. Besides, I wish best of luck to our American partners in the complicated business of military budget money laundering. Hehe.
     
  21. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. The old .let them shoot first' trope has long been abandoned, and rightfully so. We aren't in the bow and arrow era or swinging swords any more, and allowing enemies the first strike isn't a viable option these days.

    They were themselves a response to savage aggression and imperialism, and I find the cognitive dissonance hilarious when so many modern 'liberals' use the Crusades as something damning about Christianity and while defending the worst sort of savagery and oppression in Muslim countries, including the use of children as human shields, wildly popular with 'freedom fighters' like the PLO and Hamas currently, and enthusiastically cheered on and encouraged by their western fan clubs; pics of dead babies are big sellers, apparently.
     
  22. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The shells have a range over over 50 KM, so they could sit off shore and be under the protection of some destroyers. Still I think the Iowa's were more effective or my idea for a Mobile Artillery ship which has armor and is defended by frigates.

    Oh trust me it helps with the life cycle costs, have 60% less people needed to crew the ship. Having technology on board telling the crew when to do things and where the problem is onboard ship.

    I am not a fan of the ship or it's design. It is ugly. I like the Formidable class frigate from the Singapore navy.

    They did plan a 500 cell version, but it was scrapped because of cost. They just couldn't launder enough money or rather print enough.
     
  23. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is the means to do both. It's the voters that allow corruption, and we could have the same levels of military readiness for less than half the costs currently, and in fact develop more nifty gadgets, but we don't have the political will; too many X Box games and DVDs to play with and nobody has the time to get involved in things like citizenship or staying informed on issues; so much for 'democracy in action'.

    Actually it was working pretty well, which of course is why it had to be dismantled; big business loves socializing their costs while privatizing their own profits, and there just wasn't enough money out there to keep the pork rolling into their own pockets and give people back their own money as well, so the little people had to do without.

    Wonderful sentiment, but unilaterally ignoring everybody else on the planet and their focuses isn't going to lead to peace, so you're stuck with it like everybody else.
     
  24. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not a Liberal by any means. However I see the Muslims and no threat what so ever compared to the Catholic Church in the UK. As for muslim aggression at that time yes you are right. However the Normans some of which were my family members has just kicked the Muslims out of Sicily and they were on the back foot, it didn't need to save the Eastern Roman Empire, they could have done what Richard the 1st of the Angevin Empire later did send a smaller force to strike points and cities in the holy land so they Muslims couldn't put their full force against the Eastern Roman Empire.

    Infact there is a story in my family about someone telling them to do this.
     
  25. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ugh, destroyers would run out of missiles long before artillery runs out of shells. Also shoting down seweral hundred bucks shell with around million dollar missiles are far from being cost-effective way of fighting a war.
    These are too an economical pain in the ass.
    Nevertheless, I still love battleships.

    I find it being cute in it's uglyness.
     

Share This Page