Posted on 07/30/2017 3:56:21 PM PDT by Carbonsteel
Atlanta was an anti-aircraft cruiser and had 16 (8 x 2) 5” DP guns. No 6”, though.
Almost like the navy is trying to one-up the F-35 folks with this not ready for prime time DDG-1000.
>> No 6”, though. <<
You might want to share that information with the US Navy. They apparently thought they bought a ship with those:
(CL-104: dp. 14,400; l. 610T’; b. 66’4”; dr. 24’10”; s. 31.6 k.; cpl. 1,426; a. 12 6”, 12 5”, 28 40mm., 10 20mm.; cl. Cleveland)
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/a/atlanta-cl-104-iv.html
At which point, I’d expect you to come back with “we were talking about CL 51” but I specified the one built during World War II, not the one built before World War II. The one launched in 1941 only displaced about 6000 tons; the one I referenced was much larger. (DANFS does say 14,400 tons displacement rather than the slightly smaller displacement I cited in my post. Which actually strengthens my point that the Zumwalt is about the size (displacement) of a light cruiser built in World War II.
” That’s a pretty nice flamingo you’re holding there... “
Now that’s funny right thar.
Little Crappy Ship.
That is what I call 9 x 16” of Diplomacy and it won’t take No for an answer!!!
Such a statement must be delivered broadside as that is how one keeps the Ship rocking a bit vs firing forward as that will push the Ship backwards.
Yep. She's a bit longer and broader of beam than the Ticos.
If I recall correctly, the Iowa-class destroyers were designed as an improvement over the older South Dakota-class PT boats.
> The Zumwalt probably should class out as a light cruiser. <
If I’m wrong I hope someone will correct me. But I recall reading somewhere that Congress has a list of all sorts of things that must be on all future Navy cruisers. The Navy didn’t want to bother with that list. So presto, every new ship is now a destroyer.
“They were built for the rail gun.”
And how many of those do we have, exactly?
L
Great. We have one right now. And let me guess, there are maybe 3 rounds of ammunition for it, at best.
I feel safer already.
L
The ammo is just Tungsten no explosives or propellants.
“The ammo is just Tungsten no explosives or propellants.”
So stipulated.
I’ll repeat my question. How many battle ready rounds of ammunition do we have TODAY?
L
However much tungsten the Navy has procured and has milled
no substitute for cubic inches
It’s blue. Like the sky and water. I can hardly see it!
1) Heads with no urinals
2) Safe spaces for stressed-out sailors
3) Delivery rooms.
“I don’t think the American taxpayer has ever been taken for such a ride as we’re being taken for on this debacle!”
I take you’ve never heard of this thing called ‘welfare’?
I’ve read the Massey books “Dreadnought” and “Castles of Steel” and one of the things that comes to mind is that during the Battle of Jutland there was a German ship that had taken a horrendous pounding yet it stayed afloat.
Due to a fire the crew were unable to reach the stern to strike the flag and the British returned and pounded it some more.
So 100 years ago there were ships that were so tough even their own crews were unable to put them out of action. They suffered hundreds of hits and they stayed afloat.
I hate to say but a Zumwalt would be taken out of action by a single round from a shore-based tank.
Lord only knows what an Iranian Bayliner-class battleship would do to it!
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.