Shipbucket

Colosseum wrote:The only answer to all the US Navy's NGFS woes lies in new-built Alaska class cruisers, built to the original specifications and camouflaged to restore offensive elan:

I fecking love it when you do this in threads, it always makes me laugh!

Well it's like the thread is already ridiculous enough, might as well top it as best I can.

Colosseum wrote:The only answer to all the US Navy's NGFS woes lies in new-built Alaska class cruisers, built to the original specifications and camouflaged to restore offensive elan:

Not sure about combat efficiency, but it would result in a better looking fleet.

Unfortunately the ship I was talking about would be a modernized version of the Erebus.


As to my earlier arguments, For a look at what bombardment of a modern ship can, and cannot, do a YouTube search on SinkX of USS Guam. They hit that ship with in 2 HARM missiles, 2 Hellfire Missile, 2 Penguin Missiles, 4 Maverick Missiles, a number of CBU-99 Cluster Bombs, about 40 Laser Guided Bombs using the MK-82 500lb warhead, 1 air-launched Harpoon Missile, 9 surface-launched Harpoons, Naval gunfire, and finally a MK-48 ADCAP torpedo.

So basically a monitor, rather than a battleship? There's a bit of a difference in the intended role.

then a coastal defense ship is a better chose. they are like a baby battleship.

CDS is build to withstand a lot, have huge firepower for it size (8"-11").

Original plan for a CDS is to give artillery fire, have superior firepower over cruisers, and in packs can give a medium size battleship a small problem (small, difficult to hit, have the firepower to deliver some minor damage)

Wait they shot HARMs at a ship, sorry to get off topic but why shoot an anti radar missile at a ship unless our aiming for the radar which is not on on an abandoned ship
btw agreed Jabba

Colosseum wrote:So basically a monitor, rather than a battleship? There's a bit of a difference in the intended role.

Precisely. If the main use of the ship is going to be coastal bombardment then the ship should be optimized for that task. When you optimize a ship for coastal bombardment you end up with a monitor, or something similar. The Iowas were never optimal for littoral warfare, despite the fact that they spent all but the first two years of their sixty plus year careers doing exactly that. They drew too much water, they were expensive to operate, and their crews were much to large for 21st century navy limited by 21st century budgets. They could do the job and they were available. But in designing a replacement you would optimize the design.

Now if you are fighting ship vs ship on the high seas you end up with something like the Kirov. Oh by the way the Kirov class ships have 76mm of armor over their engineering spaces. Not the 310 mm belt on the Iowa class, but about the same as the Graf Spee (80mm Belt 45mm Deck). Just to point out that, yes there were armored ships being built after the Iowas.

The USN disagrees

Thiel wrote:The USN disagrees

If they disagreed why did they bring the Iowas out of mothballs at the same time they scrapped the Inshore Fire Support Ships?

To have a platform big enough to carry many tomahawk. similar amount does a destroyer carry today.