Yeah the Abrams are tough as hell,the tracks on them aren't though.
Belated Battleships (KanColle) [REHOST]
- Thread starter theJMPer
- Start date
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
"Death is lighter than a feather, a thrown track is heavier than a mountain?"
PAGDTenno
Verified Warmind. Probably on fire.
- Location
- South Carolina
IMO the reason the Burkes are DDGs rather than CGs is because they lack command facilities, which is why the Ticonderoga-class is being kept in-service, except for the five twin-arm ships.
7734
Trust and verify.
- Location
- Philmont
Pretty much, which does make a certain amount of sense considering that traditionally the cruiser lead the destroyers. It would be really nice if we ever designed a dedicated cruiser hull that didn't look like it was ugly enough to use its visual identification to cause our enemies to roll a SAN check.
Eh, maybe that's what we'll do to the Zumwalt-class; just slap in some C3 and call it a cruiser. That would work.
PAGDTenno
Verified Warmind. Probably on fire.
- Location
- South Carolina
Pretty sure TSCEI is incompatible with Aegis, is the big issue. Granted, they could fix that by making TSCEI backwards-compatible, but I've gotten cynical enough to doubt that's gonna happen. Of course, they could refit the Zumwalt-class with Aegis, which would let the do the BMD role too...
- Location
- Perth, Western Australia
Whiskey Golf
Being of Editing & Technical Assistance
- Location
- Chained to my desk
Yay talking about Burkes! 
Turning Zumwalts into cruisers/command ships is a possibility but I don't think it's likely; the Ticos have a bigger CIC with more screens and more consoles, so you have the facilities for the ship's operators to fight the ship and facilities for the staff to manage the Desron. This ties in to the JMSDF's Atagos, which are built 2 decks higher to accomodate flagship facilities on a DDG hull. The other reason the Burkes are DDGs is because they basically came online to replace a whole bunch of cold war DDs and DDGs that were going to be retired, which were less capable than the Burkes; when you compare a Cold War desron to a present Desron, the Cold War desron may have more ships - 4-6 CVBG escorts, vs 3-4 CVBG DDGs - but all the modern CSG's ships are Aegis DDGs, and exponentially more capable.
But on the other hand, at 96 VLS cells, a Burke has 3 times the VLS cells of most other destroyer designs, which generally run 32 cells for generalist frigates or destroyers (Saschen-class frigate, Akizuki-class DD) or 48 cells for AAW DDGs (Type-45 Daring, Hobart-class).
...at least, until their 90s refit, in which the one armed bandit launcher was retired and the Perrys lost their missiles, and so became flat. <.<
Pretty much yeah. When the Burkes were coming online the Ticos had been around for about 10 years by then, and recall that the Ticos were originally laid down as DLGs - Destroyer Leader, Guided Missile. Heck, a Tico is basically a Spruance DD with Aegis (the Spruances were ASW-focused and kinda... lacking in the AAW role).
Turning Zumwalts into cruisers/command ships is a possibility but I don't think it's likely; the Ticos have a bigger CIC with more screens and more consoles, so you have the facilities for the ship's operators to fight the ship and facilities for the staff to manage the Desron. This ties in to the JMSDF's Atagos, which are built 2 decks higher to accomodate flagship facilities on a DDG hull. The other reason the Burkes are DDGs is because they basically came online to replace a whole bunch of cold war DDs and DDGs that were going to be retired, which were less capable than the Burkes; when you compare a Cold War desron to a present Desron, the Cold War desron may have more ships - 4-6 CVBG escorts, vs 3-4 CVBG DDGs - but all the modern CSG's ships are Aegis DDGs, and exponentially more capable.
What amuses me about this is that I was arguing with a fine fellow on SB named Torlek, who was very upset that the USN was no longer building cruisers, and upset because in his mind cruisers should definitively outgun destroyers, and Ticos only had 30 extra missiles vs a Burke...
But on the other hand, at 96 VLS cells, a Burke has 3 times the VLS cells of most other destroyer designs, which generally run 32 cells for generalist frigates or destroyers (Saschen-class frigate, Akizuki-class DD) or 48 cells for AAW DDGs (Type-45 Daring, Hobart-class).
Here's the funny thing: if you go by the idea that weapons determines the bustline, then the Cold War Perry-class FFGs would be slightly bustier American Duckies, what with a missile magazine holding 40 missiles.
...at least, until their 90s refit, in which the one armed bandit launcher was retired and the Perrys lost their missiles, and so became flat. <.<
Harry Leferts
Suave Shadow Cabal Kaiju
No bully the Perrys!Here's the funny thing: if you go by the idea that weapons determines the bustline, then the Cold War Perry-class FFGs would be slightly bustier American Duckies, what with a missile magazine holding 40 missiles.
...at least, until their 90s refit, in which the one armed bandit launcher was retired and the Perrys lost their missiles, and so became flat. <.<
Spectre
eternal servant to the Fire/EMS gods
- Location
- NY
you know that gives me a lot of ideas...
also explains why they didn't do so hot when you consider what WW2 class that sounds like.
Last edited:
- Location
- Canada
There is a Picard emote under Smilies...If I could use the Picard here, I would.
7734
Trust and verify.
- Location
- Philmont
I think they'd do a good sight better then the traffic cone sisters and related. Remember, what's important is focus. Sendai-class and Tenryuu-class were originally designed to bring 5.5in guns and belt armor to a destroyer fight. By contrast, the Tico were designed as a C3 ship, with some extra missiles slapped on as a bonus fun item to help do sky sweeping. As you always need C3, I'm thinking that lets the Tico age better than the Sendais
PAGDTenno
Verified Warmind. Probably on fire.
- Location
- South Carolina
Heck, they tried to refit the twin-arm ships with VLS, but discovered it was impractically expensive. Which is too bad, given the delays we're seeing in new CGs to replace the Ticonderoga-class.
Whiskey Golf
Being of Editing & Technical Assistance
- Location
- Chained to my desk
Part pf the lack of impetus for the Navy to move to a new cruiser design is that the Navy itself doesnt know what it wants in a new CG yet. Right niw it's focusing in the Flight III Burkes, Columbia SSBNs, Ford carriers... there's not much money left over for a new cruiser.
There are also questions of whether you really need a new cruiser or not, given how capable burkes are...
PAGDTenno
Verified Warmind. Probably on fire.
- Location
- South Carolina
Given that Burkes lack C3 facilities... I'd say yes, we do need them.
Decim
On again, off again lurker.
- Location
- St. Louis, MO
Well one option would be to use the JMSDF's solution to the lack of C3 capable ships. Add a couple of decks to the superstructure of a Burke to make room for it. That's what they did for at least a few of their Aegis equipped DDG's.
And this is pretty much the crux of the issue. It's really hard to see what a new cruiser would bring to the table that a Burke doesn't already. The Navy has even been working over the last couple of years on increasing their lethality with a concept called 'Distributed Lethality'. Basically they've been doing software updates to all the missiles that can fill a VLS cell to allow them to perform roles outside of what they were originally intended. As an example, SM-2's and ESSM's were made for anti-air work, but they've updated the software on them so that they can now nail surface targets if need be. By doing that, now an enemy has to treat each DDG as a major threat rather than targeting specific ones based on their loadouts. Destroyers? More like 'big honking ships who show up and destroy your day'.
As a caveat though, a new cruiser might have a place for railguns if the Navy gets the rail life to a few thousand shots like they want rather than the few hundred they have now (or at least in 2014
). Otherwise, forget it.
Dirtnap
Kanmusu Affecionado
JDS Atago shows that a variant can give a Burke C3 capability.
PAGDTenno
Verified Warmind. Probably on fire.
- Location
- South Carolina
Sure, and if you want to get technical about it, Ticonderogas are Spruance variants in a lot of ways. Heck, I think any Ticonderoga replacement should be built on a Burke hull.
Dirtnap
Kanmusu Affecionado
I can agree on that. It's a great hull and we're already going to be building them, so why not just take how ever many you need to replace the Ticos and make them C3 variants. It'd streamline production a little.
Vebyast
Nascent Transhuman
Didn't the guns on the Iowas have barrel life of <400 rounds during WWII, before they figured out the plastic liners? Or would the different mission requirements for a modern railgun deployment (lots and lots and lots of ground-support bombardment) mean they'd be firing OOM more frequently?
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
16" battleship guns are only fired at targets that need a LOT of killing; battleships did a lot of the work of providing fire support with their 5" secondary guns, which were relatively cheap to maintain and replace barrels for.
The railguns are going to have fairly complicated and no doubt very expensive barrels, among other things because a railgun barrel isn't just a steel tube, it's an integral part of the system that accelerates the round and exerts force on it directly. So short barrel life is more of a problem, just like it's more of a problem to have to replace a car's $5000 transmission than to replace its $50 brake pads.
The railguns are going to have fairly complicated and no doubt very expensive barrels, among other things because a railgun barrel isn't just a steel tube, it's an integral part of the system that accelerates the round and exerts force on it directly. So short barrel life is more of a problem, just like it's more of a problem to have to replace a car's $5000 transmission than to replace its $50 brake pads.
Vebyast
Nascent Transhuman
I guess the memories I have of the Iowas doing bombardments with their big guns were all well after WWII, by which time their barrel life was in the thousands of rounds. Fairly sure that the big gun barrels are just as difficult to manufacture as railgun rails - size is a problem all its own - but yeah, that makes sense.
PAGDTenno
Verified Warmind. Probably on fire.
- Location
- South Carolina
By then the guns also shot a little cooler, which helps barrel life quite a bit.
