US navy will cancel new destroyer

Discussion in 'Boats, Planes, Other' started by GT40 2, Aug 3, 2008.

  1. Sucks for the Japs who always wanted to have their own versions of that ship.
     
  2. shame, but do we honestly need it? how much more advanced can destroyers get before theres no point anymore? most the of the firepower now comes from missiles, and you can mount those on anything these days, hell im thinking of getting some for my cat.


     
  3. you can't have 3.5 billion dollar destroyers.
     
  4. well, they called it the DDX for a reason. Programs like this are necessary to advance technology and figure out what does/doesn't work. Same as the commanche, we learned a lot from their construction and testing which can be used in future platforms if necessary.

    The primary job of destroyers is to protect carrier fleets from threats. The biggest threat that they address is submarines. Having a quiet destroyer with excellent ASW capabilities is key if we plan to keep all our carriers in the event of any serious war.

    What I can't figure out is why we haven't made an anti-torpedo torpedo. The ones in service don't travel faster than 60 knots. It doesn't seem like a difficult challenge and would save us a ton of worry.
     
  5. #6 GTRFreak, Aug 3, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    The VA-111 Shkval (from Russian: шквал - squall ) torpedo and its descendants are supercavitating torpedoes developed by the Russian Navy. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shkval
     
  6. #7 Will939, Aug 3, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I recalled those, but I didn't think any were in service. Looks like they actually are. Either way it still wouldn't be a stretch to put a torpedo between them and the boat, as long as you detect and launch with enough room to detonate it safely away.

    If I was running shit we'd just make destroyers and cruisers back into what they used to be. We need to quit depending on small numbers of the best technology and mix it up. Destroyers are supposed to be expendable, no big deal to the power projection if they get sunk; they're the body guards. So why don't we act like it anymore? Automate, keep a small crew, limit destroyers to screening functions. Keep the size and cost as low as possible for an ocean going ship and build as many as possible. That way you have more redundancy in case anything does happen, they can cover more space, escort more ships, and be more likely to take the hit in place of other ships with important functions. Now if any ship gets hit you've lost a large part of your capabilities.
     
  7. #8 stewacide, Aug 3, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I have to think there's some fundamental problem with the concept, since the West stole a bunch when the Soviet Union came apart but AFAIK have never gone ahead with their own version.
     
  8. They can get a lot more advanced.

    Sure, you can mount missiles on a lot of things, but without a system that can detect and track all possible targets they are pretty useless.

    Then there is the stealth issue, just like with fighter jets (which also gets their firepower from missiles). You can do without it, but you surely have an advantage if you have it. In the case of surface warships, that would refer to both radar and underwater acoustics.

    Operational cost is another thing that can be improved, and then in particular, the cost related to crew size. A more modern ship can be operational with a much smaller crew.
     
  9.  
  10.  
  11. That destroyer doesnt even have anti ship missles.
     
  12. that is the Russian sub they sank testing one or whatever? I forget what happened (it blew in the tube? it turned back at them?)
     
  13. The kursk. Maybe it was just speculation, but I hear they were doing tests with the high speed torpedos. They're pretty sure it blew up in the torpedo room along with several others.
     
  14. #15 Atomic2, Aug 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  15. wars arent what they used to be anymore. yes we still need large ships to preserve our supremacy but when was the last time we've actually had a large scale naval battle?

    and carriers can hold their own against pretty much anything these days defense wise. without even taking account the armada of fighters at their disposal, they have tons of offensive and defensive weapons systems on board.
     
  16. It doesn't matter when the last time we had a large naval battle was, only that we're prepared for one in the future. The Russians and Chinese are the obvious militaries we need to prepare for in conventional war.

    I'm sure the skipper on a carrier would shit himself if he was all alone in a warzone. With the retirement of the S-3 sea vikings their anti-sub capabilities have been very degraded. With their air wing they can spot air threats and engage them. They can also take on surface vessels from far out. With a country like Iran it wouldn't matter because planes could take off and launch missiles before you could react, and then the entire ship depends on a phalanx cannon and a sea sparrow launcher. Submarines are a different issue, they're hard to detect and the only way they can kill them is now by flying a helicopter out there at 160 mph or so to drop a torpedo.

    Carriers are really pretty weak when caught with their pants down, especially compared to destroyers or cruisers which don't depend on having the right aircraft in the air at any given time. They can instantly engage any threat, carriers can only instantly intercept missiles. Even then the carrier has limited capacity to fight them off on board, whereas the other ships have 5-6x the capacity. Just a lot more advantages to having smaller tougher expendable ships acting as bodyguards.
     
  17. your concept of "expendable" ships is frightening.
     
  18. What they out to do is make like 10 of these and keep making the current destorers. Does't sound like alot but 10 destroyers is a good amount, and used wisley could be very sucseful.
     
  19. What they out to do is make like 10 of these and keep making the current destorers. Does't sound like alot but 10 destroyers is a good amount, and used wisley could be very sucseful.
     
  20. #21 stewacide, Aug 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  21. An expendable ship doesn't mean it's a death trap. It just means that its loss doesn't greatly affect the mission. What's terrifying about that?
     
  22. and that's only 18,300 tons of displacement in the water. The Typhoon is 48,000 tons of displacement.

    In the second pic the typhoon is on top and the Oscar (Kursk) is two down.
     
  23. Historical experience has shown that certain ships have to be expendable so the real important ships, the carriers, can be safely be in position to launch their strikes.

    The point of a carrier having escorts is to protect the carrier, not the other way around.
     
  24. If we start calling them expendable boats it's much less so.
     

Share This Page