3 ms·

This is a super stupid question, but in the rendering it looks like the turret only has a ~180 degree turning range. It can't point behind the ship because ther

This is a super stupid question, but in the rendering it looks like the turret only has a ~180 degree turning range. It can't point behind the ship because there's a giant wall behind it. So as the enemy...can't I just shoot the back of the ship? Obviously the solution here is to put another turret behind the ship, but is that actually the plan or am I missing something? Do missiles always come from the front of the ship for some reason?

ChuckMcM 7y ago
Not a stupid question at all. Weapon systems all have various areas where they are optimum and where they are at their weakest. In ship to ship battles, maneuvering is slow so its difficult to line up behind a ship like it is with a plane. Even so, if this test system works I expect there would be a matching version on the stern. Frank Dunnigan's "How to Make War", which is putatively about how to develop war games, goes into some depth of comparing offensive versus defensive impact of various weapon systems. It makes for an interesting read.
- REDDitMen 7y ago
  James Dunnigan
  - ChuckMcM 7y ago
    Dang, and thanks. Too late to edit the post.
vonmoltke 7y ago
Each Burke as a fore and aft mounting point for a point defense system. Flight I and Flight II ships have a 20mm Phalanx system mounted there. Flight IIA ships (which the Dewey is one of) were originally built without point defense guns because they were fitted with the Evolved Sea Sparrow point defense missile system (carried in the vertical launch cells), but the Navy later decided to retrofit a Phalanx turret onto the aft mounting point of the Flight IIA ships. I have no idea why they only felt the need to have the gun on the stern arc. Presumably if a point defense laser reaches operational status it would be fitted to both PD mounting points.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  They are constrained by ship design and efficiently tradeoffs. It's a big space/weight/manning requirement for each system. No one is really worried about missile attacks except from on the beam and above, so mounted high and aft is a decent compromise. Personally I rather carry more ESSM reloads in the magazine than cwis rounds.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
autokad 7y ago
many destroyers (including world war 2) have only forward main guns (usually 1 or 2). I can only speak from my experience playing naval ship games. Destroyers are very small but nimble ships. if you need to fire from aft guns, you already lost. Space is precious, better to have something like a helipad back there than another gun you'll never need, in my limited opinion on naval ships.

ChuckMcM 7y ago

Not a stupid question at all. Weapon systems all have various areas where they are optimum and where they are at their weakest. In ship to ship battles, maneuvering is slow so its difficult to line up behind a ship like it is with a plane. Even so, if this test system works I expect there would be a matching version on the stern. Frank Dunnigan's "How to Make War", which is putatively about how to develop war games, goes into some depth of comparing offensive versus defensive impact of various weapon systems. It makes for an interesting read.

REDDitMen 7y ago
James Dunnigan
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  Dang, and thanks. Too late to edit the post.

vonmoltke 7y ago

Each Burke as a fore and aft mounting point for a point defense system. Flight I and Flight II ships have a 20mm Phalanx system mounted there. Flight IIA ships (which the Dewey is one of) were originally built without point defense guns because they were fitted with the Evolved Sea Sparrow point defense missile system (carried in the vertical launch cells), but the Navy later decided to retrofit a Phalanx turret onto the aft mounting point of the Flight IIA ships. I have no idea why they only felt the need to have the gun on the stern arc. Presumably if a point defense laser reaches operational status it would be fitted to both PD mounting points.

angry_octet 7y ago
They are constrained by ship design and efficiently tradeoffs. It's a big space/weight/manning requirement for each system. No one is really worried about missile attacks except from on the beam and above, so mounted high and aft is a decent compromise. Personally I rather carry more ESSM reloads in the magazine than cwis rounds.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

autokad 7y ago

many destroyers (including world war 2) have only forward main guns (usually 1 or 2). I can only speak from my experience playing naval ship games. Destroyers are very small but nimble ships. if you need to fire from aft guns, you already lost. Space is precious, better to have something like a helipad back there than another gun you'll never need, in my limited opinion on naval ships.