(06-20-2021 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 06:44 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  On the new cruiser topic I thought the Flight 3 Burke basically was the cruiser replacement? Upgraded power generation and air defense that matches the ticondaroga was one of the goals.
The narrow beam of the ticondaroga seems to be a road block to modernization.

The Burke III's lack substantial capabilities that the Ticos had in the area of command and control. I think the Navy unfortunately sees the FFG(X) converted FREMMs (which have significantly less capability) as the numerical replacement for the Ticos, and the Burke III's taking over the Tico command and control functions. Basically it's a step down in capability from Ticos to Burkes and from Burkes to FFG(X)s. Meanwhile, nothing has been done to address a crucial shortage of reliable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms and anti-surface (ASuW, including anti-ship) missiles.

But the Navy has wasted so much on colossal wastes like the LCSs ($30B for 35 ships that don't work and have to be towed back home when they try to deploy), the Ford carriers (probably $55-60B on 4 carriers that the catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts, and now toilets don't work), the Zumwalts ($12B for three ships with guns for which there are no bullets), the F-35s ($100MM each for an airplane that tries to combine three different needs and ends up meeting none of them) that I simply don't trust their judgement on any new ship or weapons system.

I saw an idea the other day that was too logical for the US government to use. Ditch the fancy gun with no ammo and mount MLRS on a stabilized mount on the zumwalts to give them 70km ground pounding range. It sounded like the marines had tested firing a tracked MLRS from an LHD.

I know it would have been stupid expensive, but it would have been cool to put the Iowa class back to sea with the rear turret replaced with a 96 cell vertical cell launcher to go with the 10 coffin box launchers and 6 x 16in guns.