Remove ads

Belated Battleships (KanColle) [REHOST]

Reader mode
Darth Herobrine said:
'Kinda hard' does not mean 'won't go over budget', just 'pretty close to the budget' unless someone's actively pushing it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The only modern US warship I can find that didn't go radically over budget is the Virginia-class, and that's probably because they're a low-cost Seawolf.

Virginia-class: 4% under budget for Block II, on budget for Block I

LCS:63% over budget (Assuming follow-up units don't follow in the footsteps of the lead unit in the Independence class, that is. Which seems like it may actually work out.)
Ford-class:30.5%, using initial cost estimates of $8 billion/per unit, adjusted for inflation, and excluding research and development costs.
Zumwalt-class: 183% overrun, excluding R&D.

So pardon me if I'm just a little skeptical that another new ship class would stay even remotely within budgetary constraints, given recent history.
 
PAGDTenno said:
The only modern US warship I can find that didn't go radically over budget is the Virginia-class, and that's probably because they're a low-cost Seawolf.

Virginia-class: 4% under budget for Block II, on budget for Block I

LCS:63% over budget (Assuming follow-up units don't follow in the footsteps of the lead unit in the Independence class, that is. Which seems like it may actually work out.)
Ford-class:30.5%, using initial cost estimates of $8 billion/per unit, adjusted for inflation, and excluding research and development costs.
Zumwalt-class: 183% overrun, excluding R&D.

So pardon me if I'm just a little skeptical that another new ship class would stay even remotely within budgetary constraints, given recent history.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The BBG-72 concept art I've seen looks like a Zumwalt with the tumblehome cut down and a smaller superstructure, so it could follow the Virginia's example. And then there's the 'build San Antonios with VLS instead of landing craft' idea Huntington Ingalls brought up. Those are the low cost arsenal ship designs I've seen.
 
Darth Herobrine said:
Railguns are powerhogs and due to RoF restrictions to preserve the rails, they aren't suited to AA work. 5"/54 guns are simply more practical for DP use.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For now. They'd be the first line of defense against enemy warheads tho.
But power hogs, yes. That is why BBGs need to be nukes. And also lasers, which have also been tested and are effective. What's better, a supercarrier with multi-million-dollar planes with million-dollar missiles, or a superbattleship with million dollar missiles, $.25 per shot (speculating) lasers, and 25k guided projectiles that can bring the role of bombardment back into a ship's reach?
 
Darth Herobrine said:
A BBG has the 'G' because its main armament is missiles, not guns. Otherwise it's a missile armed battleship. And nuclear propulsion is expensive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
ah. then... what would the designation be? and wait, what about the Kentucky conversion? It still had its guns.
And yes, expensive. But if you're going to build a capital ship, you're going to have to spend some money. Again, this would take the place of a supercarrier for each ship.
 
Last edited:
Farmerbob1 said:
Metalstorm AA could be downright scary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Metalstorm was garbage. Sure you get a massive RoF, but at the cost of it being extremely difficult to reload, short range, and miserable accuracy. I can see it as an "Oh shit, the Granit is twenty feet from the hull" weapon of absolute last resort, and just about nothing else.
 
It does tend to get pretty tiresome pretty fast.

Admittedly it's not as bad here as it is on another forum I'm on, where if the article mentions "warship survivability" or carrier prices you get fifteen people going "IOWAS NAO!!!!1!!!ONE!"
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top