DDG-1000s

[Loxachi]

So I was messing around with my own modern naval battle scenarios when I noticed CMANO only has the DDG-1000 and not the 1001 nor the 1002. Why is this the case (I want my darn railguns and lasers! :) )?
Also I notice the AGS on the DDG-1000 only has a anti-ship range of 12nm or so yet it has a Ship to surface range of 83nm?

[Billy Idle]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3416430

Maybe you can locate information there. Hope it helps

[Dimitris]

Hi,

Originally posted by AWGArchangel(Архангл):

So I was messing around with my own modern naval battle scenarios when I noticed CMANO only has the DDG-1000 and not the 1002 nor the 1003. Why is this the case (I want my darn railguns and lasers! :) )?

Is there solid information anywhere ATM about the outfit of follow-on variants?

(Also, railguns are still on our to-do stack).

Also I notice the AGS on the DDG-1000 only has a anti-ship range of 12nm or so yet it has a Ship to surface range of 83nm?

That is correct. Most shipboard guns have different anti-surface and land-bombardment ranges because in the former case the limit is the ship's fire control against moving targets, whereas in the latter case the ship is just firing at land coordinates. In the case of the AGS the difference is just that much more profound.

Thanks!

[Loxachi]

Originally posted by Dimitris:

Hi,

Originally posted by AWGArchangel(Архангл):

So I was messing around with my own modern naval battle scenarios when I noticed CMANO only has the DDG-1000 and not the 1002 nor the 1003. Why is this the case (I want my darn railguns and lasers! :) )?

Is there solid information anywhere ATM about the outfit of follow-on variants?

(Also, railguns are still on our to-do stack).

Also I notice the AGS on the DDG-1000 only has a anti-ship range of 12nm or so yet it has a Ship to surface range of 83nm?

That is correct. Most shipboard guns have different anti-surface and land-bombardment ranges because in the former case the limit is the ship's fire control against moving targets, whereas in the latter case the ship is just firing at land coordinates. In the case of the AGS the difference is just that much more profound.

Thanks!

Good to hear about the railguns!

I've seen bits an peices about the load out for 1001 and 1002, most interesting is that 1002 is supposed to get both lasers and railguns with the possiblity of 1001 getting the RGs retofitted at a later date. Then again it could have just been a journalist misreporting on something he knows nothing about.

Interesting, thank you I learned something new! Though IIRC the range for the Iowa main guns was the same as the zumwalts AGS. Do the ships have the same targeting limitations for anti-ship warfare even though the Iowa's FCS is much less sophisticated? I Thought that one of the main selling points of AGS and the follow on railgun was that if would allow engagment of surface fleets at effective ranges.

Also that was a really quick response from a dev no less! Please keep up the awesome work!

[76561198153041542]

It's a horizon thingie. Hard to fire at a moving target at such distances.

Quiz: What's the longest ship-to-ship gun shot ever attempted in a shooting war? :)

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by RagnarWS:

It's a horizon thingie. Hard to fire at a moving target at such distances.

Quiz: What's the longest ship-to-ship gun shot ever attempted in a shooting war? :)

Dunno. The longest hits, AFAIK, are from about 16 miles.

[Loxachi]

off the top of my head it was german pocket battleship that hit the HMS Glorious at about 15 miles

[Dysta]

The demand thickens:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/future-navys-electromagnetic-railgun-could-150517763.html

US might cancel this 'wasteful effort' to focus on electric weapon, and diverting budget to develop conventional gun that deliver the similar speed instead.

We cannot rush into it if we cannot certain what Zumwalt's ultimate future weapon is before the actual service.

[Loxachi]

Originally posted by Dysta:

The demand thickens:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/future-navys-electromagnetic-railgun-could-150517763.html

US might cancel this 'wasteful effort' to focus on electric weapon, and diverting budget to develop conventional gun that deliver the similar speed instead.

We cannot rush into it if we cannot certain what Zumwalt's ultimate future weapon is before the actual service.

Just for clarification "half the speed" is not similar at all. Though you are right that the current fit for DDG-1002 is still up in the air. We only have a few quotes from admirals saying they want it on the ship but no firm contracts as of yet.

Also to cancel the program for problems that its already made good headway with would be beyond foolish IMO at this point. I will say that having done R&D on something of similar physical principles I'm quite impressed with what they have at the moment.

[Dysta]

Like I said, no certainty out there. Even the new gun is not above Mach 5, doesn't mean it can't do something else besides standoff artillery exchange.

It is understandable that the leap for rail gun is still too tall to hurdle, and I'm surely bet other corporations/states is still attempt to improve the relative subsystems to make it 'revolutionary powerful'. But forcing to arm new ships with immaturely advance technology will only cause more troubles than benefits if war breaks out. They needs consistent weaponries to make sure every shots can be fired, with expected results and stability. Rather than hoping it not to break with a fragile new toy.

[Loxachi]

Originally posted by Dysta:

Like I said, no certainty out there. Even the new gun is not above Mach 5, doesn't mean it can't do something else besides standoff artillery exchange.

It is understandable that the leap for rail gun is still too tall to hurdle, and I'm surely bet other corporations/states is still attempt to improve the relative subsystems to make it 'revolutionary powerful'. But forcing to arm new ships with immaturely advance technology will only cause more troubles than benefits if war breaks out. They needs consistent weaponries to make sure every shots can be fired, with expected results and stability. Rather than hoping it not to break with a fragile new toy.

Its not so much that its unreliable its that it has accelerated wear and tear on the barrell compared to conventional systems. It may require that you replace the barrel every 150 shots but they already plan to make it fields swappable so all it comes down to is the trade off of better operational effectiveness VS easier maintinance.

In this particular case I do not think its a wise Idea to try and shoe horn this weapon in say an Arleigh Burke as you would have to either reduce its power to a level that you might as well stick with the cannon already on the them or have to completly overhaul the way you generate and distribute power shipwide. This is one of the driving reasons why I think we are sorely in need of more zumwalts beyond the ordered three.

[justDerrick]

Originally posted by RagnarWS:

It's a horizon thingie. Hard to fire at a moving target at such distances.

Quiz: What's the longest ship-to-ship gun shot ever attempted in a shooting war? :)

22 miles comes to mind.... but I dont remember the specifics

[Maki Nishikino]

Originally posted by AWGArchangel(Архангл):

off the top of my head it was german pocket battleship that hit the HMS Glorious at about 15 miles

Yep