Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "US Navy just presented its future destroyer. Here's a detailed look at it." video.

  1. Why they did evolve the Zummwalt design instead ??
    6
  2. How about no All CGs and DDGs in the USN have the Mk-41 VLS or MK-57 whereas the PLAN only has it in Type-052D and Type-055 All CGs and DDGs except for the DDG-1000s can use the SM-2s/3s/6s , TLAM, ASROC, ESSM , Sea Sparrow and JSM whereas PLAN ? The PLAN is very much behind the USN The USN DDGs and CG have commonality with weapons, sensors ,and even engines are common whereas PLAN ships are a miss mash various tech The only ships outside are DDG-1000s, Even the planned Constellation-class frigate have weapons, sensor and engine commonality with the DDGs and CGs
    4
  3.  @tiagogomes3807  Problems with commonality? Commonality gives the USN massive tactically over China and Russia Here are actual facts With a LM-2500 series, the U.S. Navy has support worldwide whether onshore or at sea, and interoperability benefits with other U.S. and allied naval ships Most importantly, the newest model, LM2500+G4 is designed with advanced power generation as well Integrated electric propulsion support Since it so widely, used, it can be repaired at both US and non-US base with ease whereas Chinese ships ? The SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and newer SM-2 Active have lock on after launch capability as their seekers have active radar homing They can be fired without the launch ship designating the target More the point, as part of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) , they can be handled off to other assets The Chinese HQ-9 is semi-active radar homing (SARH) and can't function unless the launch ship designating is the target Additional the ESSM can be quad-packed 4 missiles in 1 VLS which gives the CGs and DDG substantially more missiles than PLAN ship Please name the Chinese ship borne missiles with LOAL , ARH or Quad pack capability Fun fact, since the USN made their own missile instead of copying like the Chinese did with HQ-9 and S-300, the USN has greater flexibility The SM-2 Active reuses SM-6 tech while the SM-6 block II use the SM-3 propulsion giving it a potential range over 500 miles and speed higher than Mach 8 Why that's possible , Commonality as the SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 all share the same design but slight differences No the SM-2 will not be upgraded further as far as the USN goes . Last time I checked, the Russian navy lost its 11,000 ton Slava-class cruiser to two cheap knock off subsonic missiles Additional, the present of US Harpoon has caused the Russian' navy remaining frigates to retreat to out of range Strange how the Harpoon still strikes fear into the Russian navy despite being subsonic If the USN needs a ASM, they dont have to look far. The TLAM MST, SM-6, LRASM and JSM are available options that they can field on short notice The PLAN having supersonic missiles does not matter Cooperative Engagement Capability counters supersonic missiles The PLAN is no where near the level of the USN The Type-055 is still very much out gunned by the US Ticos in raw power
    4
  4.  Dord Dord  Which literally means nothing The Constellation class was labeled FFG(X) numbers were assigned LHX was the America class , SSN(X) is the successor to the Virginia lcass CG(X) was the proposed Ticonderoga-class replacment The Zumwalt-class destroyer carried the DD(X) name before it was renamed The ship class and X is what the USN uses before the ship is assigned a name and number
    2
  5. The US is not copying the Type-055 The DDGX image that you are jumping on is conceptual not the final design
    2
  6.  @DRKILLIE  Why are they liking the Zumwalt design go to west
    1
  7. The image that everyone is jumping on its a conceptual not a finalized design
    1
  8.  @nggames1246  The Type-055 is a lot of things but superior to USN CGs and DDGs is not one them With the exception of the DDG-1000s, All USN CGs and DDGs use the LM-2500s whereas Type 055 uses the QC-280 which is only common to the Type-055 and Type-052 The commonality of engines makes supply, logistics and maintenance very simplified for the USN, the PLAN not so much With the exception of the DDG-1000s, All USN CGs and DDGs, SPY-1 and AEGIS whereas again with the PLAN, systems and sensors greatly vary between ships The commonality of systems makes supply, logistics and maintenance very simplified for the USN, the PLAN not so much With the exception of the DDG-1000s, All USN CGs and DDGs carry the MK-41s which can use SM-2/3/6 ESSM, TLAM, ASROC, Sea Sparrow, JSM. and LRASM Again weapons vary greatly with the PLAN ships The commonality of weapons makes supply, logistics and maintenance very simplified for the USN, the PLAN not so much The PLAN building a few ships does not make them superior to the US It does make them superior Russian as their Lider class is very much vaporware The miss mash of capabilites is why the PLAN is no match for the US as too much equipment varies between ships Now they trying to get commonality with Type-055 and Type-052D but have a very very long way to go
    1
  9.  @pooyasafaei2538  1 you are full of crap, 2 also full of 3 crap, 4, again full of crap and 5 infinitely full of crap (currently 6 type 052C, ~30 type 52D, 8 type 055)-False 6-18-and 5 again simple math The US however doesnt share same close spectrum of similar- Again false The RIM-162, SM-2 Active and SM-6 are designed to work with the USN Cooperative Engagement Capability which allows them to be control by other ship or aircraft Second the missiles are capable of the lock on after launch as they all have active radar homing which allows them to function without the launch ship designating the target The vastly inferior HQ-9 is semi-active radar homing which means it can't function without the ship designating the target The USN only needs the TLAM which vastly superior to any thing on the Type-55 both range and capabilites US cannot summon its all 60 arleigh burkes at once they dont need to ,the fact that the USN has stationed so few ships tells how much they think of China
    1
  10.  Dord Dord  Which literally means nothing The Constellation class was labeled FFG(X) numbers were assigned LHX was the America class , SSN(X) is the successor to the Virginia lcass CG(X) was the proposed Ticonderoga-class replacment The Zumwalt-class destroyer carried the DD(X) name before it was renamed The ship class and X is what the USN uses before the ship is assigned a name and number
    1
  11. Actually the USN needs more ships The Flight I and II plus the Ticos need to be replaced which the DDG-X will do As for purpose built thats a no go Russia's Slava cruiser and Oscar were purpose built ships and look how well that worked for them The Kursk blew up and the Moskava got KOed
    1
  12.  @just_jay7078  The USN prefers flexibility
    1
  13.  Dord Dord  Which literally means nothing The Constellation class was labeled FFG(X) numbers were assigned LHX was the America class , SSN(X) is the successor to the Virginia lcass CG(X) was the proposed Ticonderoga-class replacment The Zumwalt-class destroyer carried the DD(X) name before it was renamed The ship class and X is what the USN uses before the ship is assigned a name and number
    1
  14.  Dord Dord  There is nothing to get, you are just making shit up, the USN called its next gen destroyer DDGX is them literally doing the same they have done for decades
    1
  15.  Dord Dord  What part of concept do you not understand
    1
  16.  @井蛙坐井观天  Here are actual facts U.S. Navy has support worldwide whether onshore or at sea, and interoperability benefits with other U.S. and allied naval ships One example of this is the LM-2500 series which 80 percent of USN ships and also in use with several allies The use of a common engine greatly reduces operational cost. Very few USN ships dont use LM-2500s and upgrading the rest is only a matter of time The Chinese navy is miss mash of tech, only the Type-52D and 055 have a degree of commonality The SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and newer SM-2 Active have lock on after launch capability as their seekers have active radar homing They can be fired without the launch ship designating the target The Chinese HQ-9 is semi-active radar homing (SARH) and can't function unless the launch ship designating is the target Additional the ESSM can be quad-packed 4 missiles in 1 VLS which gives the CGs and DDG substantially more missiles than PLAN ship PLAN lack both quad pack missile and lock on after launch Additional as part of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) , the SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and newer SM-2 Activce an be handled off to other assets Again, capability that PLAN does not have The PLAN has built ships but their capabilites are no where near the USN level
    1
  17. Guess no one told them that DDG(X) design right now is just notional right now
    1
  18.  @minus21334  They didnt just use the Burke they took elements from the Ticonderoga as well
    1
  19. Space and balance
    1
  20.  Dord Dord  Which literally means nothing The Constellation class was labeled FFG(X) numbers were assigned LHX was the America class , SSN(X) is the successor to the Virginia lcass CG(X) was the proposed Ticonderoga-class replacment The Zumwalt-class destroyer carried the DD(X) name before it was renamed The ship class and X is what the USN uses before the ship is assigned a name and number
    1
  21.  Dord Dord  Which literally means nothing The Constellation class was labeled FFG(X) numbers were assigned LHX was the America class , SSN(X) is the successor to the Virginia lcass CG(X) was the proposed Ticonderoga-class replacment The Zumwalt-class destroyer carried the DD(X) name before it was renamed The ship class and X is what the USN uses before the ship is assigned a name and number
    1
  22.  @baodongji5138  They are welcome to try
    1
  23.  @baodongji5138  Competing with China is literally moot
    1
  24.  @baodongji5138  Again moot it called quality over quantity are all those yards the same nope can they all build ships at the same speed again no having a lot of yards literally means nothing There are no exact figures the Chinese however the USN builds destroyers considerable faster than the Chinese but most important, the USN builds nuclear subs faster than China builds its non nuclear subs
    1