Okay. Here's the one I was on in the early 60's
Posted on 10/20/2013 7:09:59 PM PDT by Chode
I thought antisub warfare was the job of the frigates...
Either way... ALL the ships i the carrier task force main job is to take a missle or torpedo before the carrier does...
Ahh..fram cann....I was on an Adams class.....USS Barney DDG -6
Good to know there is another “suspicious” grumpy out there. I think the same thing of most new weapon systems and their non Christian operators.
Heh, heh, my total Navy experience was landing my Army UH-1H on a Navy floating barge at 0500 in the dark at a place called Nha Be in the Mekong Delta in December 1971. Boy did the Navy have some great chow!
I’m only recollecting what WWII Navy vets told me about their experiences on destroyers; there were lots of them still serving in Vietnam then. I especially liked the stories about crossing the equator where pollywogs became Shellbacks or crossing the Arctic Circle where bluenoses became Polar Bears. The rituals they described were verrrry interesting!
The rail guns should be awesome when they are ready
Roger that. Hyman DD732, Waldron DD-699, English DD-696. Before that in ‘67 Lester DE-1022. Less than a tin can. LOL!
Read that the #2 Zumwalt class will be the USS Michael Monsoor (MOH receipient) and #3 USS lbj. WTF? That’s pretty disgraceful.
So, for almost 2x the cost of a Virginia-class boat, can anyone tell me what this monstrosity can do that a sub CAN’T (besides the stupid f’in gun)??? Besides having the armament of 2+ of the latter (and almost 1/3 more crew)?
“Shore bombardment”? Are you f’in kidding me??? The US Navy’s killing the US Navy. We don’t need no enemy...
And amidships, a 50+ cell VLS battery - for those over-the-horizon satellite and ballistic missile kills plus targets beyond rail gun range.
Probably not, as you describe an honest to God civil war, opposition will not nearly organized enough or large enough to be considered a real civil war.
The Zumwalt class is made to support Marine landings with gunfire (artillery support). Subs can’t do that; the ‘stupid gun’ even lets them double the amount of rounds they can fire in support of the Marines. Also, subs can’t do airspace control (they just can’t mount the radar arrays) nor can they kill seaskimming missiles or aircraft screaming in on a battlegroup.
Expensive, Vulnerable and Useless.
The Marine Corps disagrees:
http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/equipment/aircraft/mv-22-osprey
One of our firefighters was on the Barney. I was on the Byrd, DDG-23.
In 1975 I went to sleep on the USS Reeves (DLG 24) and woke up on the USS Reeves (CG 24).
We tied up outboard of the Oklahoma City, a light cruiser, and despite our recent (and bogus) designation as cruiser, we looked like their captain’s gig.
They do that to disguise the shrinkage of the Navy.
And yes, we still need battleships and cruisers, vessels that can provide big-time NGFS.
Where’s the periscope?
Okay. Here's the one I was on in the early 60's
The critical thing about destroyers is that they were regarded as the largest ship that was “expendable”. That is, the loss of which would not severely impact the fleet.
This was also a serious point of pride for destroyer crews, and some of them, led by “real men” Captains, were known for both aggressively taking on far more powerful enemy vessels, as well as having to be being blown to smithereens before abandoning ship.
USS O’Bannon (DD-450), a Fletcher-class destroyer, 17 battle stars and Presidential Unit Citation (PUC).
USS Maury (DD-401) a Gridley-class destroyer, 16 battle stars and PUC.
USS Nicholas (DD/DDE-449) a Fletcher-class destroyer, 16 battle stars and PUC.
USS Buchanan (DD-484), a Gleaves-class destroyer, 16 battle stars and PUC.
USS Russell (DD-414) a Sims-class destroyer, 16 battle stars.
USS Saufley (DD/DDE/EDDE-465), a Fletcher-class destroyer, 16 battle stars.
USS Taylor (DD/DDE-468) a Fletcher-class destroyer, 15 battle stars, Navy Unit Commendation.
USS Morris (DD-417), a Sims-class destroyer, 15 battle stars.
USS Fletcher (DD-445) a Fletcher-class destroyer, 15 battle stars.
They rolled that out what? 1988?
The p-51 Mustang took 23 months to design, build and roll out.
But the navy said they needed a 7 Billion Dollar Toy.
You could Reactive and equip all Four Iowas for YEARS with that money.
Never under estimate the ability of the Military Brass to take a simple solution to a problem and blow it out of proportion (no pun intended)
Seems like it relies to heavily on helo launched ASW weapons. No ship lunched ASW torpedoes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.