Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

National Security & Defense

dutch777

(3,797 posts)

2. Makes sense on the main structural components-- frame and hull, but not after that. Those are most expensive to change.

Reply to sl8 (Original post)

Fri Jun 14, 2024, 07:29 AM

Jun 2024

Nav, weaponry, radar, comms all evolve so fast. Give them a weight and space allowance but don't require 100% details. To degree possible ships need to become more modular like aircraft and tanks where you can keep the base structure but plug and play with new weapons, radars engine systems and so on over time.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

eppur_se_muova

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Analysts warn House's 100% ship design policy goes a step too far [View all] sl8 Jun 2024 OP

Seems Breaking Defense is right on this. Ships launched with already obsolete technology is not a good thing. brush Jun 2024 #1

Makes sense on the main structural components-- frame and hull, but not after that. Those are most expensive to change. dutch777 Jun 2024 #2