ELECTROLYSIS!
Armament and defense issues
Now I find myself wanting the Zumwalt in the game much more.
Armament and defense issues
Now I find myself wanting the Zumwalt in the game much more.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Christ, what is wrong about just simply buying ships that are already designed and produced for that purpose? Or is it just another excuse to blow money just to support domestic industry?
Because often those ships aren't equipped with a decent Sensor suite. Something that will kill a ship faster than the weapons it does or doesn't have. Then of course the ship has been designed with someone elses requirements in mind and that very rarely meets the requirements you have in mind.
The ship may not be able to take a standard American, (Or Royal Navy) sensor suite. It may not have standard American weapons. That all costs money to replace out and add. Especially if you have to rewrite the software to enable this. Before you know it the cheap off the shelf warship ends up costing a lot of money anyway.
Of course there are exceptions to this, though in this case the LCS was a mega-fail. The whole "It needs to do 40+ knots to fight small boat threats etc" is just stupid. If small boats are really a major threat then place 2 30mm guns port and 2 30mm guns starboard. Along with a CIWS that can engage those boats. Coupled with your main gun.... that is going to ruin those ships days...
Fit the ship with Sea Skua 2/Brimstone in smaller VL canisters that can easily be fitted here and there and your going to cause even more problems...
The whole concept is flawed. A ship should always be a stable weapons platform with good range. What matters more is the speed you can get while cruising while also retaining a long range, that is far more important than any "sprint" speed.
At least that's the impression I have got.
I thought NATO solved a lot of those incompatibility issues.
Just as an example of a ship that could simply be purchased: Visby corvette. It has really good sensor suite at the same time as being a stealthy vessel. (I though American military likes everything with stealth technology?). Also unlike this project it actually has anti submarine countermeasures like torpedoes and depth charges. It also has a helipad and decent speed.
It is true that weapons may need to be adjusted if US wants to use domestic weapons on it, but I believe it is cheaper to modify launcher bay for the missiles, rather then an entire R&D project to build a new ship.
Just as an example of a ship that could simply be purchased: Visby corvette. It has really good sensor suite at the same time as being a stealthy vessel. (I though American military likes everything with stealth technology?). Also unlike this project it actually has anti submarine countermeasures like torpedoes and depth charges. It also has a helipad and decent speed.
It is true that weapons may need to be adjusted if US wants to use domestic weapons on it, but I believe it is cheaper to modify launcher bay for the missiles, rather then an entire R&D project to build a new ship.
NATO doesn't solve anything in that respect... The NATO frigate was a disaster and is one of the reasons the Type 45 costs so much. Minus research and development costs the T45 only costs £600 million. Compared to the $1.5 billion for an Arleigh Burke that's not bad.
The EU has also demonstrated that with Typhoon, Tornado... all these projects produce good multi-role and highly capable military assets. What they don't produce is value for money because instead of one political group getting involved you have 3, or 4, or 5. Thus your much more likely to suffer political delays which are usually far more damaging.
Then something designed at home maintains your shipbuilding process. It keeps that process well lubricated so to speak. It maintains the skills needed, furthermore it is your ship. It is built to your specifications with capability that only you know about. For smaller countries this doesn't matter as it is often off the shelf or not at all. For a country like America ensuring that every vessel they have is a "sovereign" design and thus it's real capabilities only truly known by them is very important.
That said, I do think the LCS is a flawed design. But that's because I think "modular" vessels are a flawed design. Not to mention trying to push past 35 knots on a large vessel means sacrifices start having to be made that I think aren't worth it. Especially when to take care of small boats you can just add a few more 20-30mm Orlikeon type guns and the job is a good'un. Afterall a bullet moves faster than your ship ever will be able to!
Am I allowed to say something like "lol" when americans notice that their ship has football-sized hole in it due corrosion :rofl:
To be honest I never thought that it would be so much of a problem, hell US navy used WWI submarines to serve until 1943 or 1944 to harass Japanese and nothing like this was reported even if they were rusty and very unreliable-looking at times.
I mean, it is peace time and 60 years has passed, technology has improved incredibly and these guys are spending 23 billion dollars per year for maintenance. And still soon they'll have to go and replace several ships because they are badly built and unreliable due corrosion.
Well, maybe it's good way to spend the money after US doesn't have to pay for soldiers around middle-east..
To be honest I never thought that it would be so much of a problem, hell US navy used WWI submarines to serve until 1943 or 1944 to harass Japanese and nothing like this was reported even if they were rusty and very unreliable-looking at times.
I mean, it is peace time and 60 years has passed, technology has improved incredibly and these guys are spending 23 billion dollars per year for maintenance. And still soon they'll have to go and replace several ships because they are badly built and unreliable due corrosion.
Well, maybe it's good way to spend the money after US doesn't have to pay for soldiers around middle-east..
It's hardly peace time.. Sorry did the entire middle east, Libya, Syria and about 20 or so minor conflicts just escape your notice?
As for what war reporting in 1943 to 1944... Maybe thats because America was at war... Unlike now were we broadcast our position to the badguys back then we did our best to hide numbers, capability and even our weaknesses from them. The WW1 subs america used had FAR bigger problems than corrosion. Technology might have improved but that itself leads to new problems. Ocean environments are one of the most hostile and corosive environments to things like metal. Your tone shows quite a lot of ignorance to the entire situation.
That said it is still shocking what has happened, however I can think of worse designs that are present. Not to mention worse companies.
However, I doubt the Visby, being built for littoral enviroments, and with pretty short range, is the best choice for the yankee navy. Besides, the Visby may have many different weapon systems, but she cannot carry all of them simulteanously, assuming that ports where you can refit will be close by.
Well, yeah... I should have used some better word. With peace time I meant that US navy or army isn't nearly fully mobilized like in world wars so they actually have 24/7 time to fix several ships that don't happen to be in Libya coast or around middle east.
I agree with the subs and propaganda but if you compare to the situation back then and the situation now these ships get much more love and maintenance than those steel pigs back then so they should be in alot better shape.
Of course it cannot be compared to the past because the speed of technology is advancing but probably none of these ships, even the ones that are considered being most epic of the epic, will be serving after 30 years.
I think this actually something that needs a change, when the corrosion and physical "aging" problems are solved it would save millions and millions to be able to use same "skeleton" of the ship and just update weaponery after new have been developed.
Of course this is being done but not as much as possible and most of the old ships end being scrapped or used as training targets.
Umm.... you do realize that LCS stands for Littoral Combat Ship, the same word you used to describe the Visby?
The LCS still has to get to the Littoral areas from US bases... Which means long trips across either the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean to get to current Littoral combat scenarios. The LCS is also designed to be used as a workhorse. Something to relieve the Arliegh Burkes from the less glamerous Low/Medium intensity tasks.
Both of those requirements put it closer to needing to be a frigate than a corvette/light frigate.
Sorry, that completely slipped past me! Must have been tired or drunk, that should never have eluded my grasp!