Oh... if you think the Fletcher-class is "well-developed" just wait until you see how big modern US destroyers have become. Like the Zumwalt-class. That's about as big as a Takao-class heavy cruiser.
It's actually kind of odd that there hasn't been more of Nagato glomping onto RJ or Tone or other petite types and declaring them legal lolis... Colorado would amusingly be a good chance for Nagato.
Eboreg said:
Oh... if you think the Fletcher-class is "well-developed" just wait until you see how big modern US destroyers have become. Like the Zumwalt-class. That's about as big as a Takao-class heavy cruiser.
The London/Washington Naval Treaty was the only time there were any solid guidelines for what constituted one class of ship from another. Even during WW2, the (treaty-ignoring) Germans had "torpedo boats" the size of cruisers. Japan nowadays has "helicopter destroyers" that are carriers in all but name, and Russia has some similar "guided missile cruisers" that are also helicopter carriers. There's nothing really stopping a nation from building a battleship and calling it a coastal defense vessel.
It's actually kind of odd that there hasn't been more of Nagato glomping onto RJ or Tone or other petite types and declaring them legal lolis... Colorado would amusingly be a good chance for Nagato.
The London/Washington Naval Treaty was the only time there were any solid guidelines for what constituted one class of ship from another. Even during WW2, the (treaty-ignoring) Germans had "torpedo boats" the size of cruisers. Japan nowadays has "helicopter destroyers" that are carriers in all but name, and Russia has some similar "guided missile cruisers" that are also helicopter carriers. There's nothing really stopping a nation from building a battleship and calling it a coastal defense vessel.
When do you think the Japanese will build a nuclear powered Yamato-class Railgun Destroyer.
“Don’t worry China, it’s just a really big destroyer with state of the art 18 inch railguns. Purely for dissuading illegal fishing vessels. I swear.”
When do you think the Japanese will build a nuclear powered Yamato-class Railgun Destroyer.
“Don’t worry China, it’s just a really big destroyer with state of the art 18 inch railguns. Purely for dissuading illegal fishing vessels. I swear.”
The problem with that is that modern railguns kind of suck to the point of being basically useless. The amount of heat put out from all the power it takes to fire one melts the barrel after just a few uses, and a railgun doesn't have the range that a ballistic missile has, anyway... so why bother until some new unobtanium that can actually conduct electricity efficiently enough and with enough resilience to withstand the ludicrous pressures comes along?
Also, just keep in mind that China has been building trucks that have long-range cruise missiles on them and placing them on the coast basically to nullify the US carrier fleet. A couple million dollars worth of missiles on relatively cheap trucks keeps carriers and airfleets worth hundreds of billions of dollars from even entering the theater. Until the US has point defense systems they believe are impenetrable enough to risk letting carriers be shot at by dozens of missiles at once (which isn't coming anytime in the forseeable future), it's a cheap and effective way to prevent anything on the surface from even coming close. And sure, they can be hit by stealth aircraft... but they're cheap enough to be spammed, and China has pretty good odds of being able to keep them in hardened bunkers that are too difficult to wipe out before they can be deployed. It's not how big the weapon is, it's how resource-efficient it is. There's an efficiency of scale that moves things towards a smaller number of more powerful vehicles, but when the balance of warfare is on the attacker's side, it inevitably becomes more effective to just have a larger number of cheaper and more expendable weapons. (One of the proposals for dealing with these systems is just to flood the air with drones launched from Japan because they're much easier to replace.)
The problem with that is that modern railguns kind of suck to the point of being basically useless. The amount of heat put out from all the power it takes to fire one melts the barrel after just a few uses, and a railgun doesn't have the range that a ballistic missile has, anyway... so why bother until some new unobtanium that can actually conduct electricity efficiently enough and with enough resilience to withstand the ludicrous pressures comes along?
Hey, it may be impractical, but it's cool. As long as it gives random military fanatics rock hard boner and fulfills their geopolitic wet dream, why be a party pooper?
Hey, it may be impractical, but it's cool. As long as it gives random military fanatics rock hard boner and fulfills their geopolitic wet dream, why be a party pooper?
I'm not sure how much of a "party" there was in there just being one comment mentioning it, but regardless, it's a little like missiles that shoot other missiles, man-portable lasers, or hoverboards - something that we know we'll work out eventually, but more science fiction than fact for now.
Hypothetically, one of the strong points of a railgun over just using a missile is that the AP tank shell-like ammo a railgun fires is a lot cheaper than a missile that is functionally a kamikaze drone aircraft with a computer and sensor system advanced enough to understand what its target is, and control fins that allow it to steer, however, the US Navy basically stopped testing railguns because they were too expensive to even test, due to prototypes breaking so frequently. Again, we'll almost certainly eventually develop some kind of unobtanium that can manage the stress, it's just not here now.
I'm not sure how much of a "party" there was in there just being one comment mentioning it, but regardless, it's a little like missiles that shoot other missiles, man-portable lasers, or hoverboards - something that we know we'll work out eventually, but more science fiction than fact for now.
Hypothetically, one of the strong points of a railgun over just using a missile is that the AP tank shell-like ammo a railgun fires is a lot cheaper than a missile that is functionally a kamikaze drone aircraft with a computer and sensor system advanced enough to understand what its target is, and control fins that allow it to steer, however, the US Navy basically stopped testing railguns because they were too expensive to even test, due to prototypes breaking so frequently. Again, we'll almost certainly eventually develop some kind of unobtanium that can manage the stress, it's just not here now.
Well trump wants all the aircraft carriers to use steam, so if that goes through, all the electronics that were put in to support the catapult, as well as laser-derived defense systems, are going to be gutted out.
That way the air-force can still make supersonic close-air support, stealth, multi-role, VTOL/STOL, fighter-bombers that don't do anything because reality has become Robo-cop.
Oh... if you think the Fletcher-class is "well-developed" just wait until you see how big modern US destroyers have become. Like the Zumwalt-class. That's about as big as a Takao-class heavy cruiser.
or the JS Izumo Class
Alright, I've announced my arrival.You shouldn't wander around like that, or else you might get lost... Hm? You're very small. Are you a destroyer?Now, let's take a look around the base.I'm one of the Big Seven!Hey!Stop right there.Stop smirking and help me!Ngya!Wha!? How rude! I am a battleship!ColoradoDestroyers?A lot of destroyers these days, particularly ones from your country, are quite well developed.Oh, sorry!Is this your fault, Fletcher!?
And you too, Johnston!Who in the world are you talking about?You're very light.
