Ticonderoga vs Arleigh Burke Flight II

shift-E · 06-22-06, 10:03 PM

Having 2 MK45 5" LWG Mounts on a CG (vs. 1 on a DDG) provides better SUW/NSFS capability both in a tactical (twice the ordnance on target) and logistically (more parts carried onboard).

Also, the CG has 4 MK99 directors (vs. 3 on a DDG), ostensibly providing superior AW capability. Of course, by the time you're illuminating even 3 air targets, you're in a world of hurt anyway... I can't see how being able to track a 4th helps much.

CGs' torpedo mags and launchers within the skin (versus having launchers on the DDG's aft missile deck) greatly reduce reload time -- esp in rough seas or in a CBR environment.

But speaking of CBR, DDGs' CPS (pressurized interior) beats the CG in that environment.

DDGs' design also lends them a significantly reduced radar cross section in comparison to the CG.

I'd still rather be stationed on a cruiser, though.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-22-06, 10:03 PM	#1
shift-E Swabbie Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 14 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Having 2 MK45 5" LWG Mounts on a CG (vs. 1 on a DDG) provides better SUW/NSFS capability both in a tactical (twice the ordnance on target) and logistically (more parts carried onboard). Also, the CG has 4 MK99 directors (vs. 3 on a DDG), ostensibly providing superior AW capability. Of course, by the time you're illuminating even 3 air targets, you're in a world of hurt anyway... I can't see how being able to track a 4th helps much. CGs' torpedo mags and launchers within the skin (versus having launchers on the DDG's aft missile deck) greatly reduce reload time -- esp in rough seas or in a CBR environment. But speaking of CBR, DDGs' CPS (pressurized interior) beats the CG in that environment. DDGs' design also lends them a significantly reduced radar cross section in comparison to the CG. I'd still rather be stationed on a cruiser, though.