|
|
Great Sage of the Sea
Posts: 619
| Subject: DDG1000
Who authorizes using our money on this kinda stuff?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/22/can-the-navy-s-12-billion-stealth-destroyer-stay-afloat.html
|
|
| |
|
Great Sage of the Sea
Posts: 619
| Subject: RE: DDG1000
PS - Naming them the "Zumwalt" Class makes sense to me.
|
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1107
Location: Tucson AZ | Subject: RE: DDG1000
One thing the ship won’t be able to do is defend against ballistic missile attacks—which is one of the reasons the Navy ditched the design in favor of the older Burke-class design. While the ship’s AN/SPY-3 radar is capable, it does not operate in the proper frequency band for that mission.That’s a major deal. There’s a rising threat of ballistic missiles in the West Pacific, where China is deploying such weapons. Ultimately, the changing threat and enormous price tag doomed the program and only three ships will be built at exorbitant cost.I know it's just poor description, but how does one hit a maneuvering target with a 'ballistic' (i.e. unguided) missile? |
|
| |
|
Great Sage of the Sea
Posts: 932
Location: Milford, PA | Subject: RE: DDG1000
That is one ugly vessel. |
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1576
Location: Wollongong, NSW | Subject: RE: DDG1000
Depending on the underwater area, it may be incredibly stable. For it to have the displacement that it does, there has to be a awful lot under water. Finding it could be very difficult. As always, the bean-counters have a major say when it is "peacetime." |
|
| |
|
Master and Commander
Posts: 1247
Location: Rockingham Western Australia | Subject: RE: DDG1000
Mega tons Bob, mega tons! |
|
| |
DDG1000
