News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:New Warship’s Big Guns Have No Bullets by sandworm101 on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @01:00AM (#12898031)
> One of the reasons why it is meant to be stealthy is so that it can go close to the shore.

That is one of the ironic features that sounds great but is totally impractical. The moment this thing starts launching shells all that stealth doesn't matter anymore. Be as radar stealthy as you want, the giant balls of fire and shockwaves will give you away in seconds ... less than seconds if the enemy radar tracks the shells. Counter-fire from land units could be inbound before your first shells land. So I doubt the ship will every fire whilst relying upon stealth. That confluence of conflicting features (stealth+artillery barrage) makes it difficult to wrap my head around exactly what this ship is meant to do.

These guns would have always needed cheap non-guided shells. Artillery isn't always about hitting targets or even destroying much of anything. Sometimes it is about area denial. A ship may shell the area behind a beach during landing to ensure the enemy cannot mobilize a defense. That's not killing the enemy but denying him the ability to move. In such cases volume and rate of fire matters far more than accuracy.

Re:New Warship’s Big Guns Have No Bullets by lostlogin on Tuesday November 08, 2016 @03:55AM (#12898674)
But area denial with shells that cost that much is just hilarious. You could watch the US national debt grow if a fleet of these ships started a barrage.