Tour of Navy's newest destroyer

[Kreon]

The newest LCS, the USS Freedom, is having public tours tomorrow from 12:30-4:30.

It's at the Charlestown Navy Yard, right next to the USS Constitution.

Looks really neat

Link to news story. Times are stated at the end

Edit: Better Link

Edit: fixed for accuracy

 

[MotF Bane]

Aww man, of all the times to be away from home.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

We should just attach that think to a couple of Shuttle boosters and launch it into orbit. Humanities first space destroyer class vessel

 

[Newbian]

Good thing we show this to everyone that wants a look.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
We should just attach that think to a couple of Shuttle boosters and launch it into orbit. Humanities first space destroyer class vessel

The USS Freedom is not a Destroyer-class vessel though

But a space Destroyer would be pretty damned sweet.
I'd say the USS Freedom, if going to be given a historical class name, would be a light-cruiser.
It's a coastline ship though, meant to serve only on the US coastline, capable of ferrying troops around but more importantly capable of launching helicopters and unmanned aerial and seaborne craft.

According to wiki, the true name of its purpose is Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), which like I said is strictly water along the coast (I believe that is considered like up to 200miles off land), but other than has no special purpose, but rather is more capable in multiple mission types.
The Navy is beginning to move away from specialized ships, like frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc etc, in favor of more multi-purpose ships, the main difference will be in size, armament, and either littoral or blue waters (deep water/international).

As far as Littoral ships go, I'm more looking forward to the Independence-class (USS Independence is the prototype for that class, whereas the USS Freedom is the prototype for the Freedom-class).
But as far as future ships in general, I'm really looking forward to the new DD(X) class of Destroyers. They look freaking amazing. Hmm, looking up the wiki page for them, just discovered they've given a class and changed the reference name: now the DDG-1000, and the Zumwalt class (USS Zumwalt).

One thing is they have changed what the type of main gun is: now it's the Advanced Gun System, which is just a more advanced normal gun system. Whereas the original concept, based on a Navy ad I saw quite a few years ago in a military magazine, was to include a kinetic gun system in place of the AGS.
But the progress of the R&D for the kinetic gun is likely taking far longer than they had anticipated.
I can't wait till the kinetic projectile guns are in use, because those things just sound amazing based on the current progress and anticipated possibilities. They are estimating a possible Mach7 kinetic projectile launch, but as of right now are gunning for a Mach3 launch in the very near future.

 

[Jumpem]

Not a destroyer. It's a Freedom class LCS.

 

[Fenixgoon]

destrektor:

railguns have limited use because they require insane amounts of energy and can only take out very specific areas (direct damage vs. area of effect)

it's great for when you're fighting another ship, but terrible if you want infantry support.


to date, no ship is able to replicate the offshore firepower of the iowa class battleships.

 

[Balt]

Nice ship.. but I think they could have come up with a better name.

 

[The U Fan]

Thats pretty cool, lol i was just in Boston this past week, I wish it was there then lol.

 

[TheInternet1980]

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but that ship is not a destroyer.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
destrektor:

railguns have limited use because they require insane amounts of energy and can only take out very specific areas (direct damage vs. area of effect)

it's great for when you're fighting another ship, but terrible if you want infantry support.


to date, no ship is able to replicate the offshore firepower of the iowa class battleships.

well, remember, we are no longer servicing battleships.
It is an era the world seems to desire to move away from. Naval warfare isn't something the nations of the world seem to want to commit, likely because smaller ships can easily decimate battleships, which yes, were more for either battling other battleships, or for providing infantry support by firing onto land.

Current ships no longer seem to have any focus to fire onto land. Naval bombardment is awesome but doesn't seem to be something that is going to be used anymore.

But railguns do have the ability to fire onto land, as the sheer energy from impact would definitely take out key buildings, bunkers, or even severely effect troops in the immediate impact region. So while it is a direct damage weapon system, an interview with some researchers on it described it as having potential area of effect capabilities. I cannot say how - it might just be from the pure energy from a Mach 3-7 piece of metal striking a surface and coming to a dead stop. Surely the impact would be intense and large. But possibly they are looking to include some kind of explosive warhead safely contained within the metal body, but not sure if they could do that as the safety would be key because any issue could cause complete destruction of the weapon system.

But yes, that is the reason they are taking awhile to develop. Energy requirements are brutal, I realize that. The main effort right now to figuring out a way to efficiently provide the necessary energy.

 

[manowar821]

Heh, because we need more weapons, amirite?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Heh, because we need more weapons, amirite?

.... uh, yes.

Because everything we make doesn't last forever, and with the technology advancements, weapon system can be made more efficient, and on smaller craft.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: destrekor
Energy requirements are brutal, I realize that. The main effort right now to figuring out a way to efficiently provide the necessary energy.

Mr Fusion.

 

[zinfamous]

What the hell? can't they think of a name that isn't so freaking lame?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
What the hell? can't they think of a name that isn't so freaking lame?

only 10 years out of office, still alive, and a twat

http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/bush/christening.html

 

[raanemaan]

I was at the ships commissiong four weeks ago. I believe my neices husband is the Chief Petty Officer on the ship.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
destrektor:

railguns have limited use because they require insane amounts of energy and can only take out very specific areas (direct damage vs. area of effect)

it's great for when you're fighting another ship, but terrible if you want infantry support.


to date, no ship is able to replicate the offshore firepower of the iowa class battleships.

too bad battleships were obsolete before they were ever really used in war.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
destrektor:

railguns have limited use because they require insane amounts of energy and can only take out very specific areas (direct damage vs. area of effect)

it's great for when you're fighting another ship, but terrible if you want infantry support.


to date, no ship is able to replicate the offshore firepower of the iowa class battleships.

too bad battleships were obsolete before they were ever really used in war.

?? Battleship bombardment was very useful in the pacific theater.

 

[Number1]

This ship was in the Halifax harbor this week. I did not get a chance to see it unfortunately.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
destrektor:

railguns have limited use because they require insane amounts of energy and can only take out very specific areas (direct damage vs. area of effect)

it's great for when you're fighting another ship, but terrible if you want infantry support.


to date, no ship is able to replicate the offshore firepower of the iowa class battleships.

too bad battleships were obsolete before they were ever really used in war.

?? Battleship bombardment was very useful in the pacific theater.

Not in comparison to their costs.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
destrektor:

railguns have limited use because they require insane amounts of energy and can only take out very specific areas (direct damage vs. area of effect)

it's great for when you're fighting another ship, but terrible if you want infantry support.


to date, no ship is able to replicate the offshore firepower of the iowa class battleships.

well, remember, we are no longer servicing battleships.
It is an era the world seems to desire to move away from. Naval warfare isn't something the nations of the world seem to want to commit, likely because smaller ships can easily decimate battleships, which yes, were more for either battling other battleships, or for providing infantry support by firing onto land.

Current ships no longer seem to have any focus to fire onto land. Naval bombardment is awesome but doesn't seem to be something that is going to be used anymore.

Tomahawks and airplanes do pretty well, and the current 5" guns have surprising range (13 miles with conventional and 60 with the ergm) and a pretty high rate of fire (16+/minute).

But railguns do have the ability to fire onto land, as the sheer energy from impact would definitely take out key buildings, bunkers, or even severely effect troops in the immediate impact region. So while it is a direct damage weapon system, an interview with some researchers on it described it as having potential area of effect capabilities. I cannot say how - it might just be from the pure energy from a Mach 3-7 piece of metal striking a surface and coming to a dead stop. Surely the impact would be intense and large. But possibly they are looking to include some kind of explosive warhead safely contained within the metal body, but not sure if they could do that as the safety would be key because any issue could cause complete destruction of the weapon system.

But yes, that is the reason they are taking awhile to develop. Energy requirements are brutal, I realize that. The main effort right now to figuring out a way to efficiently provide the necessary energy.

The big problem is that a rail gun will be restricted to line of sight fire, so it's effective range will be very short in many cases. Not what you want from such a big expensive weapon. I'd worry about the rate of fire as well.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
destrektor:

railguns have limited use because they require insane amounts of energy and can only take out very specific areas (direct damage vs. area of effect)

it's great for when you're fighting another ship, but terrible if you want infantry support.


to date, no ship is able to replicate the offshore firepower of the iowa class battleships.

too bad battleships were obsolete before they were ever really used in war.

?? Battleship bombardment was very useful in the pacific theater.

destroyers and cruisers work just as well to support landing operations. the italian campaign didn't have a single battleship in it, iirc. and there were many many landings conducted there. i don't think there were modern battleships supporting the africa campaign or normandy invasion either

 

[sonambulo]

So...did anyone get out and take the tour today? Something came up and I missed my chance to go.

 

[Kreon]

Originally posted by: sonambulo
So...did anyone get out and take the tour today? Something came up and I missed my chance to go.

Me too